permits! This has always been dangerous; it's dangerous to give residency then allow extended family with baby vetting! Ted Kennedy's devastating 1965 IMMIGRATION ACT; The Great Society broke blacks
Teddy said this: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.””
Speaking of flooding cities it will be interesting to see if Milton does to Florida what Jose did to Bermuda in 2017 when it basically did a giant loop and hit Bermuda twice. Cat 4 is powerful and the Dems must be rubbing their hands with glee. Enough destruction and voting may be the last thing on people's minds. Then once installed Hurricane Kamala can continue the work of Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy did devastation to America and helped hobble USA...that 1965 Immigration Act...these leftists had a partner in crime Lyndon Johnson as POTUS...he destroyed blacks with The Great Society...they were actually outpacing whites 1865 to 1965...all plunged downwards....100 years of accomplishments and progress post abolishment of slavery evaporated. Created dependency and broke the nuclear family. Ostracized the male. Black, all colors. Incentivized mediocrity and dependency. In 1964/65 1 in 4 black families headed by a single mother, woman etc., from 1966 onwards after The Great Society, and pronounced in 2000 to present, 3.2 of 4 black homes now headed by a single person and often NO person. Father often on the streets banging and slanging or in jail and the mother is a crack whore doing tricks for 2$, both hooked on dope. So for the young black thug/male, the street is home, the gang is family, the judge is father, and jailer is mother.
A child born on American soil doesn’t get US citizenship. There is NO legal basis for that and there never has been.
You are a natural born citizen if you were born to a U.S. citizen parent ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. It’s been this way since the beginning. The Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett was based on that fundamental fact demonstrated in the chief justice’s opinion.
The 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War so that recently-freed slaves could become citizens.
How something is “understood now” doesn’t mean shit. Remember that phrase about “ignorance of the law” not being grounds for ignoring it? The goddamned fucking socialists have ALWAYS been blurring and deliberating misinterpreting law in order to undermine it for their own purposes.
The Minor v Happersett decision, which took place within the living memory of many of the Civil War amendments, had to determine the nature of citizenship and the conditions governing it in order to answer the question of who gets to vote.
The decision demonstrated that the basis for citizenship lay, and always had lain, in one of three conditions:
1. You were a citizen of one of the colonies when it became part of the United States,
2. You were born to US citizen parents,
3. You became a US citizen by naturalization.
One of the ways that naturalization took place was by an act of law.
Indian nations were granted citizenship as treaties were signed with the United States. Before then, no Indian born within the US was a citizen by having been born in the US. Those treaties were for specific Indian tribes and could not be generalized.
Another such act of naturalization was the 14th Amendment. It conferred US citizenship or, rather, recognized US citizenship of the newly freed slaves. It applied specifically to them. They officially became citizens by that Constitutional Amendment, not by birth nor by place of birth. No one else can be shoehorned into US citizenship via the 14th Amendment.
And because Minor v Happersett recognized explicitly that there were people born in US territory who were NOT US citizens, that is, children of aliens and foreigners, that, together with 1-3 above demonstrates that the notion that the 14th Amendment was a general conferral of US citizenship to anyone dropping out of the birth canal on US soil was untenable.
The Chief Justice specifically addressed the notion that the act of birth on US soil conferred US citizenship. He said, yeah, there are some who’d like that to be, but it just isn’t so. And that’s someone who understood the 14th Amendment better than most alive now.
The purpose of law is to make sure people’s changing notions do NOT alter the conditions set into effect by the law.
The reason that legal contracts are so complicated is to make sure that no one will be able to substitute their own self-interested interpretations for the fixed meaning of the terms of the contract.
NO one can say, “Well, to me the meaning of a variable mortgage is ____.” Their ad hoc definition or beliefs to the contrary don’t mean shit.
And it’s exactly the same with the matter of citizenship.
And the Chief Justice addressed that also. He said that lots of things could or maybe should be another way, but changing the law by altering interpretation of it was not the way.
Here’s the reason why a birth certificate can demonstrate US citizenship: it lists the citizenship of the parents. If one of your parents was a US citizen at the TIME of your birth then YOU are a US citizen.
Why do you think that the left was so insistent about whether John McCain was born on US territory or not? One reason was to prevent him from running for President. The other reason was to hype what they’d been saying all the way back to before Minor v Happersett. In McCain’s situation, they were wrong in both instances and it was known they were wrong since before they ever attempted that.
And as far as Obama is concerned, he was a US citizen because he was born to a US citizen mother, whether in Hawaii or Kenya.
But when she took him with her to Indonesia, renounced her US citizenship, and naturalized as an Indonesian citizen, he became an Indonesian citizen. The citizenship of a child follows that of the custodial parent and that’s been the case since the founding until now--as seen in two ways:
1. When parents become naturalized US citizens the children in their custody do as well.
2. When diplomats have children while in the US, those children are not US citizens, but citizens of their parents’ country. And Minor v Happersett described this in detail, too.
Bottom line: the nature of law is NOT determined by what people imagine it to say. And the notion the left has been pushing as birthright citizenship is bullshit for that reason.
There IS such a thing as birthright citizenship and that is citizenship derived by being born to a citizen.
The claim that a child born on American soil does not receive U.S. citizenship is inconsistent with both constitutional text and long-standing legal precedent. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly addresses this issue. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is the clearest constitutional basis for birthright citizenship, and it has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in multiple rulings, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Gregorio is making a decent argument and mine is simple, even if you are born on US soil, this must change, that text, if you happen to be here illegally and have a child, the child must not get citizenship.
You’re wrong on both the 14th Amendment for the reasons I listed above and Wong Kim Ark, which was a particular ruling that applied to a specific individual.
I know you might be right and I am no legal expert in constitutional law, but today, if you were born on US soil, if an illegal tonight has a baby on US soil as she crosses the fake metal slat holes all over wall, that baby is a US citizen.
The pipe dreams of demoCRAPs/LIEberals have been calculated to make a way for destructive policies that will wreck nations by an agenda from hell. Proof of this is the current state of most western nations. Look at the screwed up leaders worldwide who have in process changed the demographics drastically...Sweden, Canuckistan, USA, Greece, Britain, etc. Were they well meaning? No, but even if they were their NWO masters were and are not.
The policies adopted were/are inclined unto love of money with no other regard to anything regardless of the destruction to men, women and children, and these NWO operatives were and are in process opposed to Christianity. Note the attacks on religion to weaken and damn it which has resulted since 1969 in the embrace of apostasy making 90% of existing religions apostate if not an abomination to God. The process is still in motion as I note some Baptists now are questioning their beliefs about homosexuality.
The NWO has a serious problem. We are all mortal. They have tried to destroy Christianity since time immemorial because they find it unpleasant to live luxurious lives with the reality of death and judgment and eternal damnation hanging over them.
This is their portion, and justly so. It is written that "God hates the workers of iniquity." He is in my opinion referring to the NWO. It is not pleasant looking at His opposite polarity Wrath but it is the Truth about Him to be seen in living color. He has given us the choice of life or spiritual "death" with the penalty of refusal an existence of eternity in hell. My life has been a potpourri of learning and having been on both sides, I know who and what is good and true.
He is real, He is Truth, and He will finish out what He started. I have seen and witnessed too much in life to deny what Truth is. Yet He offers to all life or death. He is the Epitome of Freedom giving us free moral choice, offering salvation alone by His Son Jesus Christ who He offered up for our transgressions
and as it is written, there are none righteous no not one. There is no other Way to salvation than by Jesus Christ, all others are fakes and I will die for that Truth not on or in my own strength but by the power of the Holy One of God.
In my mind, I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end times based on the sign that evil is waxing worse and worse. It is because of the NWO and their minions like trudope who think men in long robes waving smoking cantors, mumbling Latin and sprinkling holy water can save us, which has caused the current state of affairs.
Do not be fooled, do not listen to liars, look for proof where I got mine, in the Holy Bible. There are billions of people who believe that murdering anyone not of their religion is acceptable. So how and why could such a thing be embraced?
The events now occurring with worse to come cannot be denied. The temporal is joined to the spiritual. I have referred to that in my time here with good people. Proof is just a Bible away.
I am not a minister, but one rough shod man and in spite of that I still have a message that proved itself over my whole life which causes me to embrace it as the ONLY thing true in a world damned in its refusal to accept the Word of God. That might well be among other things I say, what I will die for.
Is the Way of the cross for sissies? All but one of His disciples died as martyrs in the strength they never had but which was given them as one of the functions of the Holy Spirit. Jesus died the most painful way ever concocted in the minds of cruel men.
Look to the Mercy of God, but past that to the Wrath that is a part of Him. We can have either by our own choice.
Where did all these words come from? It does not matter where or why or how because they are true. And as it is written, "He who is ashamed of Me, I will also be ashamed of them.(when He cometh in His glory) Eye hath not seen, nor ear hath not heard.
Donald trump cannot change the Constitution. It takes an amendment to do that and it is a long process. All Trump has to do is enforce the REAL meaning of the 14th Amendment as intended by our founders. Kamala Harris is NOT a natural born citizen be even the 14th Amendment standards but no one has the baLLs to stand up an end her campaign. She is not eligible to be President or VP.
So true! Yes we must end the anchor babies. Wealthy take advantage of it also. We know the poor who come here pregnant get free medical care, free formula, food stamps, etc. This takes away from citizens and causes higher medical bills for all.
My son just today paid $35 for a month supply of Humalog Insulin. Luckily got a discount from manufacturer.
Yet refugees and many illegals/ migrants get insulin and expensive insulin pumps for free. My son who is working but no health ins yet can't afford insulin pumps. Can't get medicaid since he works. How is this fair to Americans who watch billions being spent on non citizens?
I started a gofundme for my son to help pay for his Diabetic supplies but if you can't spend money or gave thousands of friends it doesn't work.
You mean THE DRUNK TED KENNEDY THAT LEFT THE WOMAN IN THE CAR TO SAVE HIS OWN SELFISH, EGOTISTICAL LIFE? That TED KENNEDY, LOST every bit of respect for the womanizing, drunk family with that one! I did respect Robert Kennedy, he seemed good. Even JFK DID GOOD, HE JUST NEEDED TO KEEP IT IN HIS PANTS.
Married, 40-year old Teddy survived that drunken crash and could have immediately sought help for the drowning Mary Jo. He didn't act in an effort to save his 'reputation.' He didn't care about Mary Jo. But the Democrat party continued to cling to the Kennedy myth.
[For more insight into President Kennedy's predatory womanizing (of a teenaged virgin), you might be interested in Mimi Alford's memoir "Once Upon a Secret: My Hidden Affair with JFK."]
it is time we took back our nation...
45 said he would so let us do it...let us work with him
he made serious mistakes term one, but term two I am confident he will prevail...we have no choice
Teddy said this: "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.””
not one word of that has been true. not one. quite the opposite
Why would he have told the truth? He was a Democrat.
kaboom
Speaking of flooding cities it will be interesting to see if Milton does to Florida what Jose did to Bermuda in 2017 when it basically did a giant loop and hit Bermuda twice. Cat 4 is powerful and the Dems must be rubbing their hands with glee. Enough destruction and voting may be the last thing on people's minds. Then once installed Hurricane Kamala can continue the work of Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy did devastation to America and helped hobble USA...that 1965 Immigration Act...these leftists had a partner in crime Lyndon Johnson as POTUS...he destroyed blacks with The Great Society...they were actually outpacing whites 1865 to 1965...all plunged downwards....100 years of accomplishments and progress post abolishment of slavery evaporated. Created dependency and broke the nuclear family. Ostracized the male. Black, all colors. Incentivized mediocrity and dependency. In 1964/65 1 in 4 black families headed by a single mother, woman etc., from 1966 onwards after The Great Society, and pronounced in 2000 to present, 3.2 of 4 black homes now headed by a single person and often NO person. Father often on the streets banging and slanging or in jail and the mother is a crack whore doing tricks for 2$, both hooked on dope. So for the young black thug/male, the street is home, the gang is family, the judge is father, and jailer is mother.
And yet little brother Teddy ("Why am I running for President?") was wrong on every count. Of course he knew that.
Which is why he tried to get out in front of the expected criticism and deny the inevitable results.
A child born on American soil doesn’t get US citizenship. There is NO legal basis for that and there never has been.
You are a natural born citizen if you were born to a U.S. citizen parent ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. It’s been this way since the beginning. The Supreme Court decision in Minor v Happersett was based on that fundamental fact demonstrated in the chief justice’s opinion.
The 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War so that recently-freed slaves could become citizens.
That is categorically not true and Minor v Happersett demonstrated why not.
That idea is something used by the progressive socialists as they have also bastardized the 14th Amendment in many other ways.
kaboom, 100% correct, thank you for such important sharings
you may be true but this is how it is written and understood. this is used to grant citizenship to anyone born on US soil.
How something is “understood now” doesn’t mean shit. Remember that phrase about “ignorance of the law” not being grounds for ignoring it? The goddamned fucking socialists have ALWAYS been blurring and deliberating misinterpreting law in order to undermine it for their own purposes.
The Minor v Happersett decision, which took place within the living memory of many of the Civil War amendments, had to determine the nature of citizenship and the conditions governing it in order to answer the question of who gets to vote.
The decision demonstrated that the basis for citizenship lay, and always had lain, in one of three conditions:
1. You were a citizen of one of the colonies when it became part of the United States,
2. You were born to US citizen parents,
3. You became a US citizen by naturalization.
One of the ways that naturalization took place was by an act of law.
Indian nations were granted citizenship as treaties were signed with the United States. Before then, no Indian born within the US was a citizen by having been born in the US. Those treaties were for specific Indian tribes and could not be generalized.
Another such act of naturalization was the 14th Amendment. It conferred US citizenship or, rather, recognized US citizenship of the newly freed slaves. It applied specifically to them. They officially became citizens by that Constitutional Amendment, not by birth nor by place of birth. No one else can be shoehorned into US citizenship via the 14th Amendment.
And because Minor v Happersett recognized explicitly that there were people born in US territory who were NOT US citizens, that is, children of aliens and foreigners, that, together with 1-3 above demonstrates that the notion that the 14th Amendment was a general conferral of US citizenship to anyone dropping out of the birth canal on US soil was untenable.
The Chief Justice specifically addressed the notion that the act of birth on US soil conferred US citizenship. He said, yeah, there are some who’d like that to be, but it just isn’t so. And that’s someone who understood the 14th Amendment better than most alive now.
The purpose of law is to make sure people’s changing notions do NOT alter the conditions set into effect by the law.
The reason that legal contracts are so complicated is to make sure that no one will be able to substitute their own self-interested interpretations for the fixed meaning of the terms of the contract.
NO one can say, “Well, to me the meaning of a variable mortgage is ____.” Their ad hoc definition or beliefs to the contrary don’t mean shit.
And it’s exactly the same with the matter of citizenship.
And the Chief Justice addressed that also. He said that lots of things could or maybe should be another way, but changing the law by altering interpretation of it was not the way.
Here’s the reason why a birth certificate can demonstrate US citizenship: it lists the citizenship of the parents. If one of your parents was a US citizen at the TIME of your birth then YOU are a US citizen.
Why do you think that the left was so insistent about whether John McCain was born on US territory or not? One reason was to prevent him from running for President. The other reason was to hype what they’d been saying all the way back to before Minor v Happersett. In McCain’s situation, they were wrong in both instances and it was known they were wrong since before they ever attempted that.
And as far as Obama is concerned, he was a US citizen because he was born to a US citizen mother, whether in Hawaii or Kenya.
But when she took him with her to Indonesia, renounced her US citizenship, and naturalized as an Indonesian citizen, he became an Indonesian citizen. The citizenship of a child follows that of the custodial parent and that’s been the case since the founding until now--as seen in two ways:
1. When parents become naturalized US citizens the children in their custody do as well.
2. When diplomats have children while in the US, those children are not US citizens, but citizens of their parents’ country. And Minor v Happersett described this in detail, too.
Bottom line: the nature of law is NOT determined by what people imagine it to say. And the notion the left has been pushing as birthright citizenship is bullshit for that reason.
There IS such a thing as birthright citizenship and that is citizenship derived by being born to a citizen.
the issue what you are saying is true but it is not what we live and are imposed upon with...we are being fucked
goddamned fucking socialists, I agree with you on them, the fucking socialists undercutting and destroying us.
The claim that a child born on American soil does not receive U.S. citizenship is inconsistent with both constitutional text and long-standing legal precedent. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly addresses this issue. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” This is the clearest constitutional basis for birthright citizenship, and it has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in multiple rulings, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Gregorio is making a decent argument and mine is simple, even if you are born on US soil, this must change, that text, if you happen to be here illegally and have a child, the child must not get citizenship.
You’re wrong on both the 14th Amendment for the reasons I listed above and Wong Kim Ark, which was a particular ruling that applied to a specific individual.
I know you might be right and I am no legal expert in constitutional law, but today, if you were born on US soil, if an illegal tonight has a baby on US soil as she crosses the fake metal slat holes all over wall, that baby is a US citizen.
The pipe dreams of demoCRAPs/LIEberals have been calculated to make a way for destructive policies that will wreck nations by an agenda from hell. Proof of this is the current state of most western nations. Look at the screwed up leaders worldwide who have in process changed the demographics drastically...Sweden, Canuckistan, USA, Greece, Britain, etc. Were they well meaning? No, but even if they were their NWO masters were and are not.
The policies adopted were/are inclined unto love of money with no other regard to anything regardless of the destruction to men, women and children, and these NWO operatives were and are in process opposed to Christianity. Note the attacks on religion to weaken and damn it which has resulted since 1969 in the embrace of apostasy making 90% of existing religions apostate if not an abomination to God. The process is still in motion as I note some Baptists now are questioning their beliefs about homosexuality.
The NWO has a serious problem. We are all mortal. They have tried to destroy Christianity since time immemorial because they find it unpleasant to live luxurious lives with the reality of death and judgment and eternal damnation hanging over them.
This is their portion, and justly so. It is written that "God hates the workers of iniquity." He is in my opinion referring to the NWO. It is not pleasant looking at His opposite polarity Wrath but it is the Truth about Him to be seen in living color. He has given us the choice of life or spiritual "death" with the penalty of refusal an existence of eternity in hell. My life has been a potpourri of learning and having been on both sides, I know who and what is good and true.
He is real, He is Truth, and He will finish out what He started. I have seen and witnessed too much in life to deny what Truth is. Yet He offers to all life or death. He is the Epitome of Freedom giving us free moral choice, offering salvation alone by His Son Jesus Christ who He offered up for our transgressions
and as it is written, there are none righteous no not one. There is no other Way to salvation than by Jesus Christ, all others are fakes and I will die for that Truth not on or in my own strength but by the power of the Holy One of God.
In my mind, I believe we are seeing the beginning of the end times based on the sign that evil is waxing worse and worse. It is because of the NWO and their minions like trudope who think men in long robes waving smoking cantors, mumbling Latin and sprinkling holy water can save us, which has caused the current state of affairs.
Do not be fooled, do not listen to liars, look for proof where I got mine, in the Holy Bible. There are billions of people who believe that murdering anyone not of their religion is acceptable. So how and why could such a thing be embraced?
The events now occurring with worse to come cannot be denied. The temporal is joined to the spiritual. I have referred to that in my time here with good people. Proof is just a Bible away.
I am not a minister, but one rough shod man and in spite of that I still have a message that proved itself over my whole life which causes me to embrace it as the ONLY thing true in a world damned in its refusal to accept the Word of God. That might well be among other things I say, what I will die for.
Is the Way of the cross for sissies? All but one of His disciples died as martyrs in the strength they never had but which was given them as one of the functions of the Holy Spirit. Jesus died the most painful way ever concocted in the minds of cruel men.
Look to the Mercy of God, but past that to the Wrath that is a part of Him. We can have either by our own choice.
Where did all these words come from? It does not matter where or why or how because they are true. And as it is written, "He who is ashamed of Me, I will also be ashamed of them.(when He cometh in His glory) Eye hath not seen, nor ear hath not heard.
Always Edward
excellent sharing
Donald trump cannot change the Constitution. It takes an amendment to do that and it is a long process. All Trump has to do is enforce the REAL meaning of the 14th Amendment as intended by our founders. Kamala Harris is NOT a natural born citizen be even the 14th Amendment standards but no one has the baLLs to stand up an end her campaign. She is not eligible to be President or VP.
So true! Yes we must end the anchor babies. Wealthy take advantage of it also. We know the poor who come here pregnant get free medical care, free formula, food stamps, etc. This takes away from citizens and causes higher medical bills for all.
My son just today paid $35 for a month supply of Humalog Insulin. Luckily got a discount from manufacturer.
Yet refugees and many illegals/ migrants get insulin and expensive insulin pumps for free. My son who is working but no health ins yet can't afford insulin pumps. Can't get medicaid since he works. How is this fair to Americans who watch billions being spent on non citizens?
I started a gofundme for my son to help pay for his Diabetic supplies but if you can't spend money or gave thousands of friends it doesn't work.
Hey Paul, I replied to your DM and emailed you twice. Not sure my emails are getting through. You can try jhmd@pm.me. Thank you.
You mean THE DRUNK TED KENNEDY THAT LEFT THE WOMAN IN THE CAR TO SAVE HIS OWN SELFISH, EGOTISTICAL LIFE? That TED KENNEDY, LOST every bit of respect for the womanizing, drunk family with that one! I did respect Robert Kennedy, he seemed good. Even JFK DID GOOD, HE JUST NEEDED TO KEEP IT IN HIS PANTS.
Married, 40-year old Teddy survived that drunken crash and could have immediately sought help for the drowning Mary Jo. He didn't act in an effort to save his 'reputation.' He didn't care about Mary Jo. But the Democrat party continued to cling to the Kennedy myth.
[For more insight into President Kennedy's predatory womanizing (of a teenaged virgin), you might be interested in Mimi Alford's memoir "Once Upon a Secret: My Hidden Affair with JFK."]
he never cared for her, he was a dog
Former Republican representative Joe Scarborough seems sleazier to me.
Can't argue with that..
Kennedys have a talent for not "seeming" sleazy. They hide it well.
very important sharing, your white spaces in this one says loads...thank you
yes that Ted Kennedy who left the lady to die and went on to have a successful career in the senate...thats 1965 bill damaged America forever.