LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?

---

They were not legal or illegal as the concept didn't exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

What you (Trump) is suggesting is we change the long standing belief that being born here makes you a citizen.


Does that mean Baron has to go?

---

I'm suggesting nothing. I'm bringing up the irony of liberals wanting a strict interpretation of the writing of the 14th and conservatives wanting a looser interpretation. Those are opposing positions to what would normally be the case. "No I am not suggesting but 'bringing up' is somehow different is irony

Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist. I also don't like the "anchor baby" way of granting citizenship to kids of illegals. In this situation, I don't think I get it both ways. Who is 'suggesting' that citizenship be automatically granted to these undocumented parents. A humane approach is needed for these children instead tearing up families and extended families through deportation

---

I can hardly believe my eyes that this was printed in the NYT:

"High levels of immigration do have downsides, including the pressure on social services and increased competition for jobs....wage growth for Americans who did not attend college will be lower" pic.twitter.com/zxTKbU4NhD

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) December 11, 2024

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?

---

They were not legal or illegal as the concept didn't exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

What you (Trump) is suggesting is we change the long standing belief that being born here makes you a citizen.


Does that mean Baron has to go?

---

I'm suggesting nothing. I'm bringing up the irony of liberals wanting a strict interpretation of the writing of the 14th and conservatives wanting a looser interpretation. Those are opposing positions to what would normally be the case. "No I am not suggesting but 'bringing up' is somehow different is irony

Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist. I also don't like the "anchor baby" way of granting citizenship to kids of illegals. In this situation, I don't think I get it both ways. Who is 'suggesting' that citizenship be automatically granted to these undocumented parents. A humane approach is needed for these children instead tearing up families and extended families through deportation

---

---

Reading comprehension

I'm discussing anchor babies, not the parents.

ps…TcU thanks you for not stating where you graduated

---

Babies and parents go together. Yo cannot ignore one side 9f the equation

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?

---

They were not legal or illegal as the concept didn't exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

What you (Trump) is suggesting is we change the long standing belief that being born here makes you a citizen.


Does that mean Baron has to go?

---

I'm suggesting nothing. I'm bringing up the irony of liberals wanting a strict interpretation of the writing of the 14th and conservatives wanting a looser interpretation. Those are opposing positions to what would normally be the case. "No I am not suggesting but 'bringing up' is somehow different is irony

Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist. I also don't like the "anchor baby" way of granting citizenship to kids of illegals. In this situation, I don't think I get it both ways. Who is 'suggesting' that citizenship be automatically granted to these undocumented parents. A humane approach is needed for these children instead tearing up families and extended families through deportation

---

---

Reading comprehension

I'm discussing anchor babies, not the parents.

ps…TcU thanks you for not stating where you graduated

---

Babies and parents go together. Yo cannot ignore one side 9f the equation

---

That's a great point you're making for deporting the kids of ILLEGAL aliens.

(Reading comprehension isn't the only issue)

---

I am making a case for the consequences of 'mass deportation'. It will ruin the economy.
Deportation is not simple. Residents are all guaranteed due process. You have to find the 11,000,000, give them due process, pay for the transportation back to their country of origin, and diplomatically negotiate with those countries. These countries could simply deny entrance into their countries.
It is not simple - financially, economically, diplomatically, and legally