Printable View
Grown men can’t be the target of violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Also, how sure are you that it is 75% grown men. UNICEF says 2300 are children.
https://www.unicef.org/press-release...protection-and
Maybe you should branch out and read something other than rightwing propaganda.
I don’t believe you think these people are spending months traveling just to be a political disruption. That is too insane of a conspiracy theory to trick someone as sharp as you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Months? More like weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Why didn’t they stop in Mexico? I have really paid a whole lot of attention to the story, but I heard they were offered asylum and jobs in Mexico and refused.
From now, but the caravan started a few weeks ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Think they'll begin to arrive around 6AM November 6th? I do.
Mexican authorities have reported that at least 1,700 caravan migrants had applied for asylum or refugee status in their country, while nearly 200 are being offered aid after choosing to voluntarily return home.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
Why do you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
My uncle has enjoyed a 20+ year career with the State Department. He has been stationed in 4 different countries on 3 continents. In his experience, those truly seeking asylum stop at the first place they can do so after leaving their home country. In his opinion, the entire caravan from Honduras should have stopped in San Salvador, Belize, Guatemala, or Mexico. The fact that they didn’t is very telling. If you are really fleeing persecution in your home country, you should seek refuge in the first place you come to outside those borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
In many African countries you can seek asylum at refugee camps. This is not an option in Central America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You are both just incorrect here. It's meaning is not as cut and dry as you are making it out. Senator Jacob Howard, who authored the clause said this at the time:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Mr. HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
Now this was debated at the time and I think the result was that it would include children born to foreigners, but it did not specifically discuss people in the united states illegally as I don't think that was much of a problem at the time.
The supreme court has been mixed on the issue:
In 1884 they decided that a Native American born under the jurisdiction of a Native American tribe could not automatically become a citizen
in 1898 they decided a child born to Chinese legal residents should be granted citizenship
The case that settles it for me was 1982 when they deemed it unlawful to deny state benefits to a child of illegal immigrants.
The supreme court has decided enough for me to say that an EO is the wrong way to challenge this in my opinion, but to say that it is cut and dry or the meaning was clear is wrong. It has never been directly challenged in the court even though the 1982 case comes very close.
And free housing too. At least temporary free housing, many months, until the person/family can settle in and find their own accommodations. Jobs and some immediate aid is included in the offer. A few hundred, out of the 7,000, have accepted Mexico's offer. Hopefully after these invaders are turned away at our border, the offer from Mexico will still be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
The lib media doesn't mention any of this, like the other offers from other nations, and the fact the UN has offered to provide aid and temporary housing if the "caravan" stops somewhere, as countries, including the US, process proper applications for asylum. But, no! most of the invaders just shout, "We want America!"
This is not, and has never been, about persecuted folks in Honduras and elsewhere. Soros' operatives stirred this up just to try to influence the Midterms, and beyond.
BTW, dozens of the invaders have died on the journey. Their blood is on the hands of Soros and all you libs.
That is not a function of the clause “born or naturalized in the United States” but was a function of whether such people were “subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]”. People that were not subject to US laws and could only be regulated through treaties with other sovereigns (Indians being the major issue at the time) were to be excluded. Others that claim sovereign immunity from US laws, e.g., diplomats, raised the same issue of “jurisdiction”.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Correct. The "subject to the jurisdiction" is the part that has been challenged and the part that is currently being discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It can be cut and dry and still be changeable. Just change it the right way.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
The territorial jurisdiction of the US over people not able to claim sovereign immunity within its territory has never been successfully challenged to my knowledge. It isn’t really debatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu