Trump protesters get violent in CA

[Flutterguy]

Well not everyone finds the law just

I wasn't aware that disagreeing with a law gave you the right to disobey it without consequence.

[Dug]

You must not be very familiar with southern California. Los Angeles is a sanctuary city. Most major cities in California are sanctuary cities. We don't deport people here. ICE has little power here. Our governor recently signed into law allowing illegal aliens the ability to acquire drivers licenses. They also have access to local fees for state colleges(instead of having to pay extra for being a foreigner).

I've actually never heard of such a thing here in southern Texas they just give em the boot

- - - Updated - - -

I wasn't aware that disagreeing with a law gave you the right to disobey it without consequence.

No but you have the right to protest

[Pangean]

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705. "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Suggest you also read Plyler v. Doe.

"'Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States'", 7 FAM 1111(d). "All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth. ... Pursuant to [Wong Kim Ark]: (a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that (b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child's parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States."

[Flutterguy]

I've actually never heard of such a thing here in southern Texas they just give em the boot

- - - Updated - - -



No but you have the right to protest

California has a complicated relationship with illegal immigration and it doesn't help that the state is the most liberal in the US.

They do have a right to protest, but not a right to commit violence and deprive others of their rights through that protest. When you block people from accessing a political rally you are actively stripping them of their 1st Amendment rights. You're not merely a protestor. You're one step below a fascist.

[Dug]

They do have a right to protest, but not a right to commit violence and deprive others of their rights through that protest. When you block people from accessing a political rally you are actively stripping them of their 1st Amendment rights. You're not merely a protestor. You're one step below a fascist.

A bit loaded but yes, I'm in agreement with you. Protesting with violence is not the solution

[Pangean]

What narrative? I just said I think you should only fly american flags while living in the US.

You are quite hostile.

Why the narrative of them flying only Mexican flags. And me hostile? You can tell that over the Internet can you? Because I pointed out that in this country we are allowed to wave whatever flag we want? Amusing.

[alexw]

@

Bsloney. the 14th amendment actually empowers congress to deny birthright citizenship to those who are born to foreign nationals.

While many erroneously claim that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on American soil, the reality is that is not the law and has never been the law. Current immigration law–found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)–specifies that a baby born on American soil to (1) a foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

read the rest for yourself. http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-citizenship/

Oh boy.... it says "subject to the jurisdiction of". Ambassadors, and heads of state have diplomatic immunity and their families do too. Meaning they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The same is true of military prisoners. They may be held by the US but are not subject to it if captured during war.

None of that applies to illegals who have children here. They fall under US laws and are subject to them.

You really need to understand what you are talking about.

[Annoying]

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/

No, because you are ignoring the further clarification. The 14th amendment actually gives congress the right to deny birthright citizens to children born of foreign nationals.

Don't be lazy. Read the rest of the article.

No, reading the rest of the opinion piece doesn't suddenly counteract Plyler v. Doe's majority opinion.

The article's author says this:

But if the view promoted by the Left that citizenship is automatic (and parroted by many in the middle and even on the Right who have not seriously studied the issue) is correct, then those three exceptions would be unconstitutional. The debate over birthright citizenship turns on what the Citizenship Clause means by the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

And Plyler v. Doe directly states:

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction."
[...]
In concluding that "all persons within the territory of the United States," including aliens unlawfully present, may invoke the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to challenge actions of the Federal Government, we reasoned from the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to afford its protection to all within the boundaries of a State.

That case literally answers 'what the Citizenship Clause means by the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”'

He even talks about it and admits that Plyler v. Doe directly grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens.

The only Supreme Court support for birthright citizenship is Plyler v. Doe, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision written by ultra-liberal Justice William Brennan, which claimed that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

In that case, the Supreme Court held that states were required to pay for the public school education of children of illegal aliens. Conservative and moderate justices dissented from Plyler. It was wrongly decided and poorly reasoned and should be overruled.

Saying "it should be overruled" doesn't mean it can be ignored. Congress can't overrule it. Only the SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment can, and until one of those two actually do overrule it, it's the official interpretation of the 14th amendment.

[Pangean]

Every Hispanic I know who is here legally, wants them gone as well, and are voting for Trump.

Of course they are.

[Cthulhu 2020]

earlier in the thread a made this post



and I was mocked, laughed at and ridiculed for doing so

then we have this today




now who needs to be mocked, laughed at and ridiculed again?

Does this have anything to do with anything again? Someone made their kid hold a sign for lulz and of course the conservatives shit their pants about it.

And once again, a wall doesn't do much of anything about border hoppers. Short segments of heavily guarded walls work. The great wall of china was designed to keep entire armies out, or at least make it very hard to get an entire army across. Walls can work with varying degrees of success against different things.

Trump's wall would have a laughably negligible affect at stopping border hoppers, considering most already come here legally and overstay their visas.

[Breccia]

Every Hispanic I know who is here legally, wants them gone as well, and are voting for Trump.

They are in the minority. 77% of Hispanics have an unfavorable view of Trump. That's pretty harsh.

[Cricket22]

They are in the minority. 77% of Hispanics have an unfavorable view of Trump. That's pretty harsh.

Not so sure about that. Those protesters represent a minuscule percentage of the Hispanic population, and again, most Hispanics I know would never admit they're supporting Trump, but fully intend to vote for him.

[Deleted]

but this whole notion that Donald can single handedly ruin the world is just people giving into hysteria and foolishness.

Honestly, it's mental. We make fun of people that think Obama is (has) ruining the world and that he's the anti-Christ. For some reason, some on the left have decided to ape this same behaviour in their dealing with Donald Trump - if not act out even more extremely and irrationally.

Realistically, Trump isn't going to do half the shit he makes noise about (is it even physically possible to have completed the wall over 2 terms?). Then there are also other things he's said that wouldn't be out of place for a Democrat to say, certainly more moderate than his Republican competition; supportive of transgender people, supportive of a form of universal healthcare, anti stance on frivolous wars/American interventionism.

These people really have got to get a grip.

[Endus]

that want to make America Mexico again

If they're American citizens by birth (and being born in the USA means that they are), then their views are precisely as American as anyone else's. You don't like that, which is why you're trying to pursue a silly "real American" talking point, but they're as American as anyone else is. Even if they want to "make American Mexico again".

[mvaliz]

Not so sure about that. Those protesters represent a minuscule percentage of the Hispanic population, and again, most Hispanics I know would never admit they're supporting Trump, but fully intend to vote for him.

Well i can play that too - the magical pixie elves that live under my house told me that isn't the case. Not many people know they exist, but in reality they do and they devined from their secret pixie magic that what you said was wrong. Well, they didn't tell me - but they secretly know it is true!

...ok, i admit it, i lied. I don't have a home, just a condo. >.>

[Annoying]

Trump's wall would have a laughably negligible affect at stopping border hoppers, considering most already come here legally and overstay their visas.

This is a thing that gets ignored a lot. Some huge chunk of the people here illegally right now weren't illegally here when they first came. They get work visas, and when those visas expire, they simply don't leave.

[Vyxn]

Does this have anything to do with anything again? Someone made their kid hold a sign for lulz and of course the conservatives shit their pants about it.

And once again, a wall doesn't do much of anything about border hoppers. Short segments of heavily guarded walls work. The great wall of china was designed to keep entire armies out, or at least make it very hard to get an entire army across. Walls can work with varying degrees of success against different things.

Trump's wall would have a laughably negligible affect at stopping border hoppers, considering most already come here legally and overstay their visas.

like how one knuckle head brought a confederate flag to a Tea Party rally and liberals and talking heads in the liberal media heads exploded and used that to this day as some kind proof that all of the Tea Party is racist

so just stop with your double standard partisan bull crap no one buys it anymore

[Endus]

This is a thing that gets ignored a lot. Some huge chunk of the people here illegally right now weren't illegally here when they first came. They get work visas, and when those visas expire, they simply don't leave.

Last number I saw said that was at least 40% of all illegal immigrants.

Plus, they can go around walls, or under them. Particularly since there's an ocean on either end of it. A wall in Mexico will do nothing at all to prevent Cubans from sneaking into Florida.

There's also that illegal immigration numbers have been dropping since about 2007. This isn't a problem that's been getting worse.

[Vyxn]

If they're American citizens by birth (and being born in the USA means that they are), then their views are precisely as American as anyone else's. You don't like that, which is why you're trying to pursue a silly "real American" talking point, but they're as American as anyone else is. Even if they want to "make American Mexico again".

how American can you be when you want it made back into another country?

[Endus]

like how one knuckle head brought a confederate flag to a Tea Party rally and liberals and talking heads in the liberal media heads exploded and used that to this day as some kind proof that all of the Tea Party is racist

so just stop with your double standard partisan bull crap no one buys it anymore

Someone's got a partisan viewpoint, and it ain't the Batman. He didn't refer to any partisan points whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

how American can you be when you want it made back into another country?

As American as anyone else. This has absolutely nothing to do with their American-ness. You're just maligning people for having a different political outlook than you do.

It's particularly silly when your country was founded by people who wanted to make their country something other than what it was. That's as American a viewpoint as you can get.