@Amber
Thanks for giving me attention. I feed on emotions and I do require a daily those of attention, even if a negative one.
Kamala is not a US Citizen
Posts
Total:
151
-->
@FLRW
Oh no, we aren't intelligent enough to be racists, LOL.
I guess we are the laughingstock of the trailer park.
-->
@Sidewalker
Yeah, ya are, and you just proved it.
@ Amber "Yeah, ya are, and you just proved it. "
Shucks, I really wanted Aryan's to respect me.
-->
@Amber
Observing a legal argument =/= racism.
a legal argument, sure. But this is a legal argument in the same way that saying the sun is god smiling down on us is a scientific argument. There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris. There is no question about whether this is a valid way of gaining citizenship. It happens all the time. So making the argument that is so obviously false and is the same argument people used to try to discredit the last black presidential candidate makes it pretty obvious what the authors are doing. They have few, if any, legitimate criticisms of Harris so they just go to the racist argument they made last time. IE they aren't white, therefore they must not be from here.
You have to PROVE it is "stupid stuff," claiming it doesn't cut it.
What are you even talking about? There are millions of american citizens with citizenship who got it that way. Kamala harris was issued a birth certificate and american citizenship at birth. She's had it her whole life. The idea that she doesn't have it is just dumb.
I invite you to read my reply here to another user of the group:
I read it, it confirms you are wrong. It says the courts have never said that you have to be the child of a permanent resident in order to qualify for citizenship. If a court were ever to say that, it would be the 1st time in american history. And even if they did rule that, it wouldn't remove citizenship from anyone who already got it that way. It would prevent any new children from gaining citizenship that way. Thus, it has nothing to do with Kamala Harris.
I'm not sure why you directed me to this. What about this was supposed to support your argument?
At least I take the personal responsibility to do some personal research on the subject before sticking my foot in my mouth like you and IWRA.
Lol, you did research that proved that you are wrong and basically just repeated what me and IWRA said to you. The children of tourists and people on visas get citizenship. That's is what is happening today, and what was happening when Harris was born. You linked cases where the courts upheld similar things and confirmed they have never ruled that children of people on student visas shouldn't get citizenship. Then gave a quote of people saying the courts shouldn't have ruled that way. But I don't care what those people think, because what they think isn't law.
Also, is that quote about John C. Eastman, the lawyer who has been indicted and recommended for being disbarred due to his actions in committing election fraud? If so, using him as a source is hilarious.
-->
@WyIted
Hey check this out. They used AI to fake his voice in a call to kamala
This is interesting that no one refuted this, though it's not part of the thread topic.
This is the first thing I thought when I heard he called in. Why not an actual footage of it? It can easily be manipulated if it's just a voice over a "phone".
-->
@HistoryBuff
-->@<<<Amber>>>Observing a legal argument =/= racism.a legal argument, sure. But this is a legal argument in the same way that saying the sun is god smiling down on us is a scientific argument.
Ignorant false comparison analogy.
There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris.
And they'd all be equally invalidated/fraudulent.
There is no question about whether this is a valid way of gaining citizenship.
Yes, there is as the legislative history has shown.
It happens all the time.
Yeah, that's because it is the bastardized broken version of the status quo the left/DemoKKKrats wanted to increase their voting pool.
So making the argument that is so obviously false...
But it is not as I have so clearly shown in post #80
and is the same argument people used to try to discredit the last black presidential candidate makes it pretty obvious what the authors are doing.
Yet it is not the same argument. I or the anonymous person from FB from which I took the premise draws no connection to the Obama birther issue. You're just making straws and coming up short.
They have few, if any, legitimate criticisms of Harris so they just go to the racist argument they made last time. IE they aren't white, therefore they must not be from here.
See, another straw pulled and it's the shortest one of them all.
You have to PROVE it is "stupid stuff," claiming it doesn't cut it.What are you even talking about?
You being obtuse on purpose, or are you truly that dense!?!
There are millions of american citizens with citizenship who got it that way.
And they'd all be equally as illegitimate as hers.
Kamala harris was issued a birth certificate and american citizenship at birth. She's had it her whole life. The idea that she doesn't have it is just dumb.
No one has claimed she wasn't issued a birth certificate, and your claim that "the idea that she doesn't have it" is as you said, "just dumb" on your part.
Being issued a birth certificate doesn't mean it's legitimate.
I invite you to read my reply here to another user of the group:I read it,
No, you didn't and the following drivel of yours prove it...
it confirms you are wrong.
No, it does not.
It says the courts have never said that you have to be the child of a permanent resident in order to qualify for citizenship.
Proof you didn't read what I posted. I cited and bolded the parts that prove otherwise.
If a court were ever to say that, it would be the 1st time in american history.
And yet SCOTUS did.
This was the legal (federal) question before SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
- Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
And subsequent courts and legal scholars have noted the SAME conditions as noted and bolded in post #80 which, again, you clearly didn't read from start to finish.
And even if they did rule that, it wouldn't remove citizenship from anyone who already got it that way.
Yes, it would because it violated the US Constitution, BOR, 14th Amendment, Citizenship Clause.
It would prevent any new children from gaining citizenship that way. Thus, it has nothing to do with Kamala Harris.
Wrong. Ignoring a law doesn't mean the punishment and corrective action cannot be taken retroactively. There is no statute of limitations on violating the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. At least none that I am aware of or came across in my thorough research on point. Again, you're grasping for straws and coming up short, as usual.
I'm not sure why you directed me to this. What about this was supposed to support your argument?
Because it is [the] support for my argument. Support that discredits your ignorant rebuttals the same as it does for everyone else. Even Casey too who has been remarkably silent thus far since that posting.
At least I take the personal responsibility to do some personal research on the subject before sticking my foot in my mouth like you and IWRA.Lol, you did research that proved that you are wrong
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
Everything I posted proved my initial assertion correct thus far.
None of you have proven otherwise. Claiming you have without actually doing it isn't proof that you or that I am incorrect. It just demonstrates what ignorant fools you are.
and basically just repeated what me and IWRA said to you.
It does nothing of the sort. Your delusions of grandeur knows no bounds.
The children of tourists and people on visas get citizenship.
According to the legislative history of the 14th premised on the preceding Civil Rights Act passed before it, no they are not supposed to be bestowed citizenship.
That's is (sic) what is happening today,
Yeah, because the left and DemoKKKrats ignore the law. DUH!
and what was happening when Harris was born.
Again, because the left and DemoKKKrats ignored the law. DUH!
You linked cases where the courts upheld similar things and confirmed they have never ruled that children of people on student visas shouldn't get citizenship.
You're misreading the rulings (i.e. - lack of reading comprehension). I mean really, I bolded and italicized the relevant parts, so they'd stand out for non-readers such as you and IWRA.
Non-permanent residents who have kids do not get citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that, and has been cited/repeated quite clearly noting the reality/fact of "permanent legal residents/residency" grants their children citizenship.
Then gave a quote of people saying the courts shouldn't have ruled that way. But I don't care what those people think, because what they think isn't law.
Not just "people," but [a] legal scholar. Singular. Not plural.
Also, is that quote about John C. Eastman, the lawyer who has been indicted and recommended for being disbarred due to his actions in committing election fraud? If so, using him as a source is hilarious.
Fallacy of irrelevance on your part. The fact you even try to discredit his valid point on the subject matter merely because of later (long after he provided that scholarly research on point) shows your desperation to be right when you are so clearly wrong.
If at first you do not succeed, try try again.
Though, given your responses to date that lack obvious critical thinking and research skills of your own, you'll just fail yet again.
-->
@DavidAZZ
@WyItedHey check this out. They used AI to fake his voice in a call to kamalaThis is interesting that no one refuted this, though it's not part of the thread topic.
It's not a part of this thread topic, so don't derail it any further with this nonsense.
Please.
-->
@Amber
There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris.And they'd all be equally invalidated/fraudulent.
that's not how the law works. You can't unilaterally revoke millions of americans' citizenship.
Yes, there is as the legislative history has shown.
what legislative history? You have not shown any legislation that says that people born in the US shouldn't get citizenship.
Non-permanent residents who have kids do not get citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that
no, you did not understand the case. Here is a summation of the ruling. The ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that if you are born in the US and the parents were not in the US acting in an official capacity of the nation they represent, then the child is a citizen. United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirms that you are wrong.
Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens.
Not just "people," but [a] legal scholar. Singular. Not plural.
ok. There are tons of rightwing assholes that want to misuse the constitution to do bad things. Their opinions mean nothing without actual laws or court rulings to back them up.
Fallacy of irrelevance on your part. The fact you even try to discredit his valid point on the subject matter merely because of later (long after he provided that scholarly research on point) shows your desperation to be right when you are so clearly wrong.
lol, the man is literally a traitor. He tried to overthrow democracy. That is a very valid thing to keep in mind when reading his opinion on the law. He thought it was perfectly ok to try to steal an election and is likely to be disbarred for it. So his opinions on the law mean very little given that he is so willing to break the law for personal gain.
-->
@HistoryBuff
@<<<Amber>>>There are probably millions of american citizens who got their citizenship the same way as Kamala harris.And they'd all be equally invalidated/fraudulent.that's not how the law works. You can't unilaterally revoke millions of americans' citizenship.
You a lawyer? Have a degree in a legal profession like paralegal? You do not know how the law works. I mean really, you do not even understand the term "legislative history." LOL!
Who says it cannot be done? Who!
Yes, there is as the legislative history has shown.what legislative history? You have not shown any legislation that says that people born in the US shouldn't get citizenship.
For your edification:
Legislative History: Legislative history Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal
Non-permanent residents who have kids do not get citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed thatno, you did not understand the case. Here is a summation of the ruling. The ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark affirmed that if you are born in the US and the parents were not in the US acting in an official capacity of the nation they represent, then the child is a citizen. United States v. Wong Kim Ark confirms that you are wrong.Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens.
You're cherry-picking shit you think defends your position.
First paragraph from the syllabus of that decision.
"A child born in the United States, of parents 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution."
More:
"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."
More:
"The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; "
"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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,"
"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,"
Repeated FIVE TIMES with each relevant statement of the FACTS of this case. Since his parents were permanent legal residents with a permanent domicil in the United States, the 14th citizenship clause kicks in because his parents were here LEGALLY! Kamala's parents were NOT here legally as permanent legal residents until 4 years after her birth.
Not just "people," but [a] legal scholar. Singular. Not plural.ok. There are tons of rightwing assholes that want to misuse the constitution to do bad things. Their opinions mean nothing without actual laws or court rulings to back them up.
Nothing he said was factually inaccurate where the US Constitution is concerned. No more than what the anonymous person who wrote the snippet I posted in the OP.
Fallacy of irrelevance on your part. The fact you even try to discredit his valid point on the subject matter merely because of later (long after he provided that scholarly research on point) shows your desperation to be right when you are so clearly wrong.lol, the man is literally a traitor. He tried to overthrow democracy.
Was he charged and convicted of being a traitor? Nope.
Democracy cannot be overthrown you knucklehead.
That is a very valid thing to keep in mind when reading his opinion on the law.
No, not really. Just to you and your ilk ignorant of the law and paranoid after drinking the left's KoolAid.
He thought it was perfectly ok to try to steal an election and is likely to be disbarred for it.
No one person, no 10 persons are equipped to steal an entire federal election. You people parroting this idiotic nonsense just makes you all look loonier than the looney tunes.
So his opinions on the law mean very little given that he is so willing to break the law for personal gain.
What law did he break?
What law was he charged with?
What law was he convicted of?
NONE!
-->
@Amber
Who says it cannot be done? Who!
the law as it currently stands is that they get citizenship. If that changes, it would affect new children born. It would not change the citizenship status of people who already have it.
For your edification:Legislative History:
yes, I know what legislative history means. I said what legislative history because you have shown no history of legislation that supports your position.
Repeated FIVE TIMES with each relevant statement of the FACTS of this case.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents. But you are misunderstanding. If I said the facts of a hypothetical case are "the defendant is 6 ft tall, red hair, and committed murder." That would be the facts of the case. But him having red hair isn't necesarily a requirement for him to be guilty of murder. The judges were listing things that were true, they were not listing the requirements of their decision.
Seriously, have you looked up any legal summaries of this case at all? Here is the one from wikipedia. I put a different summary for you last time. The ruling on this case was that you just had to be subject to laws of the US and not acting as a representative of a foreign government. This has been the law for over a century. You keep trying to make it about the legal status of the parents, but you are wrong and not understanding the ruling in this case.
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2]
Was he charged and convicted of being a traitor? Nope.
no, he was charged with trying to steal an election. His trial hasn't happened yet but the evidence is pretty clear. And if you try to overthrow an election, you're a traitor.
Democracy cannot be overthrown you knucklehead.
what? History has lots of examples of democracy being overthrown. Hitler and musilini being obvious examples.
No one person, no 10 persons are equipped to steal an entire federal election. You people parroting this idiotic nonsense just makes you all look loonier than the looney tunes.
I didn't say he did it alone. In fact, he is charged in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with a 17 other people. One of whom is trump.
What law did he break?
you can read about it here. His law license has also been suspended as he has been recommended for disbarment for his crimes.
What law was he convicted of?
none yet. The trial hasn't happened. But he has had his license to practice suspended before his disbarment.
@<<<Amber>>>Who says it cannot be done? Who!the law
Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.
For your edification:Legislative History:yes, I know what legislative history means. I said what legislative history because you have shown no history of legislation that supports your position.
No, you don't and doubling down on what you said proves it.
I have, you just ignored it, all of it. That's called denial.
Repeated FIVE TIMES with each relevant statement of the FACTS of this case.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents.
Thank you for finally admitting that fact. Applying the same facts to Kamala's parents, they were not legal residents, they were under the political allegiance of their respective countries, and Kamala is not a legitimate US Citizen.
Was he charged and convicted of being a traitor? Nope.no,
Yeah, that's what I thought.
he was charged with trying to steal an election.
Yeah, what statute would that be again?
His trial hasn't happened yet but the evidence is pretty clear.
Is it now...I don't think so, and recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a huge damper on a lot of that.
And if you try to overthrow an election, you're a traitor.
And yet he didn't and so he is not.
Democracy cannot be overthrown you knucklehead.what? History has lots of examples of democracy being overthrown. Hitler and musilini being obvious examples.
Democracy: "The common people, considered as the primary source of political power."
No one person, no 10 persons are equipped to steal an entire federal election. You people parroting this idiotic nonsense just makes you all look loonier than the looney tunes.I didn't say he did it alone. In fact, he is charged in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with a 17 other people. One of whom is trump.
And the recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a damper on all of it. You're still reading for straws and coming up short, as usual.
What law did he break?you can read about it here.
No law was cited. Try again.
His law license has also been suspended as he has been recommended for disbarment for his crimes.
That suspension is on appeal, and I foresee him getting it back.
What law was he convicted of?none yet.
That's what I thought. None.
The trial hasn't happened. But he has had his license to practice suspended before his disbarment.
And he is appealing that suspension and again, I wager he will get it back.
-->
@Amber
Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.
no it can't. They were lawfully issued citizenship. If the courts change their mind and decide to interpret the law another way, that doesn't invalidate their citizenship. It's like if you pass a law today and try to charge someone for committing it a year ago.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents.
their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.
Thank you for finally admitting that fact. Applying the same facts to Kamala's parents, they were not legal residents, they were under the political allegiance of their respective countries, and Kamala is not a legitimate US Citizen.
you aren't getting it. Using my previous example again, it's like saying that a murderer had red hair, some other person who has black hair can't be a murder. It doesn't make any sense. The parents in that case being legal residents was not critical to their ruling. They did not make their ruling based on the residency status of the parents.
he was charged with trying to steal an election.Yeah, what statute would that be again?
I linked you to a page on his crimes already. If you don't want to read it, whatever. But don't pretend like I haven't already given you this.
Is it now...I don't think so, and recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a huge damper on a lot of that.
nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.
No law was cited. Try again.
do you even read at all? let me quote for you "to advance "fake electors" in Arizona led to his indictment on conspiracy, fraud and forgery charges there in April 2024."
Last time I checked conspiracy, fraud and forgery were all crimes.
That suspension is on appeal, and I foresee him getting it back.
you can foresee whatever you want. He's going to prison unless trump pardons him.
-->
@HistoryBuff
@<<<Amber>>>Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.no it can't.
Didn't think so.
yes, they listed the facts of this case and the facts showed that in this scenario the parents were legal residents.their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.
Yes, it was critical to the outcome, which is precisely why it was stated so many times throughout the ruling.
Thank you for finally admitting that fact. Applying the same facts to Kamala's parents, they were not legal residents, they were under the political allegiance of their respective countries, and Kamala is not a legitimate US Citizen.you aren't getting it.
No, YOU are the one not getting it.
he was charged with trying to steal an election.Yeah, what statute would that be again?I linked you to a page on his crimes already. If you don't want to read it, whatever. But don't pretend like I haven't already given you this.
And that Wikipedia page didn't list any law/statute he was charged with. Try again.
Is it now...I don't think so, and recent ruling by SCOTUS has put a huge damper on a lot of that.nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.
No, Eastman is not.
Until then, you got no leg to stand on.
No law was cited. Try again.do you even read at all? let me quote for you "to advance "fake electors" in Arizona led to his indictment on conspiracy, fraud and forgery charges there in April 2024."Last time I checked conspiracy, fraud and forgery were all crimes.
Sure, they're crimes but you did not cite the law (i.e., statute). Allegations in title only doesn't prove shit.
Cite the law.
That suspension is on appeal, and I foresee him getting it back.you can foresee whatever you want. He's going to prison unless trump pardons him.
No, he is not going to prison.
Keep dreaming this wishful thinking all you want.
Until it comes to pass, you got NUFFIN, Muffin (err...cupcake)!
-->
@HistoryBuff
@HistoryBuff@<<<Amber>>>Okay, then cite the law that states if it is discovered that a person was issued a birth certificate in the US in contradiction to the originalist meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause that that certificate cannot be retroactively taken away.no it can't.Didn't think so.
I want to clarify something here.
I initially read this as "No, I can't" which is why I said didn't think so.
Regardless, you couldn't cite a law as requested.
So, you got nuffin muffin.
-->
@Amber
their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.Yes, it was critical to the outcome, which is precisely why it was stated so many times throughout the ruling.
please, just read an actual summary of the decision. The majority opinion was that anyone born in america whose parents were not an agent of a foreign government gets citizenship. The minority opinion was what you seem to be espousing. I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself. The ruling in the case is the exact opposite of what your opinion is.
And that Wikipedia page didn't list any law/statute he was charged with. Try again.
jesus christ. It listed the crimes he was charged with. you want the exact laws and statutes that made those crimes? I'm not playing this game. You're a big girl. You're capable of basic reading. I gave you a link to the crimes he was charged with. I'm not going to hold your hand the whole way through it.
nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.No, Eastman is not.
he's been indicted in both arizona and georgia. He's almost certainly going to prison. And since the georgia case is a state case, it can't be pardoned even if trump does win.
Sure, they're crimes but you did not cite the law (i.e., statute). Allegations in title only doesn't prove shit.Cite the law.
I'm not your baby sitter. I showed you a link to some of the charges he is facing. If you want to know what laws made fraud a crime, you can look it up yourself. I know you're just trying to waste my time.
Regardless, you couldn't cite a law as requested.
you're either lazy or just trying to waste my time. I showed what he was charged with. If you want to know what law made fraud and conspiracy illegal, you can look it up yourself.
@<<<Amber>>>their ruling was not related to them being legal residents. It was a fact of the case, but not critical to the outcome.Yes, it was critical to the outcome, which is precisely why it was stated so many times throughout the ruling.please, just read an actual summary of the decision.
I have, and the reality of the FACT [is] that his parents were legal permanent residents with a permanent domicile is very fucking germane to the entire case you ignoramus!!!!
The majority opinion was that anyone born in america
No, it was not. The Court made it pretty fucking clear, not once, not twice but more than 5 fucking times that the parents were legal permanent residents with a permanent domicile, thus granting legal American (US) citizenship to their son.
Kamala's parents were NOT legal permanent residents with a permanent domicile when she was born. Nope.
The ruling in the case is the exact opposite of what your opinion is.
NO, it is not, dumbass.
And that Wikipedia page didn't list any law/statute he was charged with. Try again.jesus christ. It listed the crimes he was charged with.
No, it does not. It has a citation to a completely different source. Try again
you want the exact laws and statutes that made those crimes? I'm not playing this game.
And yet you're the one claiming laws were broken without actually citing what laws you claim were broken.
You're a big girl. You're capable of basic reading. I gave you a link to the crimes he was charged with. I'm not going to hold your hand the whole way through it.
Yeah, and I have done a lot of fucking reading whereas you have not. Clearly.
You made the claim, burden of proof is on you. I am not reading link after link after cited within link to another link just to do YOUR fucking job, dude.
You made the claim, you cite the laws verbatim statute by statute. Don't give me some retarded link to Wikipedia.
nope. They ruled that trump might not be able to be charged. They said nothing about his co-conspirators. Their ruling was only about a sitting president. Eastman is still going to trial and probably prison.No, Eastman is not.he's been indicted in both arizona and georgia.
Doesn't mean shit.
He's almost certainly going to prison. And since the georgia case is a state case, it can't be pardoned even if trump does win.
Your guessing game isn't evidence of anything other than you're a leftist idiot.
Sure, they're crimes but you did not cite the law (i.e., statute). Allegations in title only doesn't prove shit.Cite the law.I'm not your baby sitter. I showed you a link to some of the charges he is facing. If you want to know what laws made fraud a crime, you can look it up yourself. I know you're just trying to waste my time.
Wikipedia isn't a legit source, especially when it doesn't do your job for you.
No statutory laws were cited.
Meet your buden of proof and cite the laws you claim were broken.
Otherwise fuck off. I have better things to do and kids to care for instead of going back and forth with your dumbass.
Regardless, you couldn't cite a law as requested.you're either lazy or just trying to waste my time. I showed what he was charged with. If you want to know what law made fraud and conspiracy illegal, you can look it up yourself.
No, you're the lazy one here dude.
You didn't show shit.
You made the claim, it's your burden of proof.
And you're still drawing the short straw here, and making a complete and utter fool of yourself.
-->
@Casey_Risk
I see you've fell deathly silent herein.
Guess you got nothing intelligent to say or rebut with.
I'll take your silence as a concession that you were wrong, and I am right.
Thank you, honey.
Amber
Random post on FB ≠ factually inaccurate information
lol, what can you say about morons who get their information from Facebook?
Way to go, toots
-->
@HistoryBuff
You're a big girl.
Likely a very big girl
-->
@HistoryBuff
The parents in that case being legal residents was not critical to their ruling. They did not make their ruling based on the residency status of the parents.
Courts don't mention irrelevant details in final rulings, at least not in honest interpretations of rulings.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The parents in that case being legal residents was not critical to their ruling. They did not make their ruling based on the residency status of the parents.Courts don't mention irrelevant details in final rulings, at least not in honest interpretations of rulings.
So did the courts explicitly say this, or is it more of the same leftist fanfiction?
-->
@Greyparrot
The parents in that case being legal residents was not critical to their ruling. They did not make their ruling based on the residency status of the parents.Courts don't mention irrelevant details in final rulings, at least not in honest interpretations of rulings.So did the courts explicitly say this, or is it more of the same leftist fanfiction?
The quote is real, but it is within the context of a preamble and not a conclusion:
As for whether it's "natural born" for your parents to conspire to illegally enter in order to get an unborn child citizenship has to my knowledge never been addressed by the supreme court. I had not heard the accusation that Kamala's parents had illegally entered until this thread.
It would seem rational that the child of non-citizens would not be a citizen and that if somebody wanted their child to be a US citizen it would behoove them to earn US citizenship themselves first. That standard does appear to contradict the 14th amendment so it would require a modification of the constitution to be kosher.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Courts don't mention irrelevant details in final rulings, at least not in honest interpretations of rulings.
it was a detail of the case. Courts absolutely do mention details in their rulings. Amber's point is nonsense and it proves she hasn't actually read the ruling. She is going off of 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of it. Looking at the ruling it is obvious what they mean. For example, this is an excerpt written by the chief justice in the ruling. They are quite clear that the 14th amendment applies to all children born in the US whose parents don't fall into specific categories. Ex invading soldiers, children of diplomats etc. So as long as Kamala's parents weren't foreign agents, then there is no question she is a legitimate citizen. Pretending she is not is willful ignorance.
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases – children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State – both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In the end, if it has been proven that the SCOTUS has the authority to carve out exceptions to the 14th amendment regarding children of diplomats.....you can see where this is going....
-->
@Greyparrot
It's been proven they can just make stuff up when they want to. Homosexual marriage and a right to abortion for example.
I don't trust authority, I never have, but specifically the supreme court has betrayed its mandate many times before and they might very well do it again.
That is a separate issue from whether or not the constitution/law objectively says something. The 14th amendment citizenship clause is fairly clear language and trying to corrupt the definition of 'jurisdiction' is classic subversion.
A third issue is whether or not the constitution/law is rational, practical, and moral.
People breaking laws to smuggle their wombs into the country is a perfectly predictable result of a coveted citizenship and the practically no exceptions birthright citizenship. It was a mistake to write it that way given the intention was clearly to tell the ex-slavers to "shut up and sit down" because ex-slaves were citizens. They didn't want a roman style subclass of non-citizen "subjects", this was long before work visas and greencards and they would have been highly suspicious of such things if they were over 0.5% of the population at any given time.
It's been proven they can just make stuff up when they want to. Homosexual marriage and a right to abortion for example.
Right, and all that nonsense of equal protection for blacks. As if they should be voting when they have black skin, right chucklehead?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The 14th amendment citizenship clause is fairly clear language and trying to corrupt the definition of 'jurisdiction' is classic subversion.
No, it is not clear, except to uneducated people like you.
The definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof' is perfectly clear based on the legislative history that was debated and put forth when approving and passing the 14th Amendment.
You're just in denial.
IWantRoseveltAgain
It's been proven they can just make stuff up when they want to. Homosexual marriage and a right to abortion for example.Right, and all that nonsense of equal protection for blacks. As if they should be voting when they have black skin, right chucklehead?
Apples to Oranges argument.
Gay marriage was bad case law as the justices legislated from the bench.
Abortion rights was voted upon the WRONG reasons. There is no "privacy" in the Constitution, but there is "personal liberty."