TOP DEM PROF SAYS "I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY POLITICIAN WITH BETTER IMMIGRATION PLAN!"

[sirs]

D'oh

[Plane]

Current federal statute is settled law.

If that were true...why has the Left often tried to change the meaning of the Second Amendment which is "settled law"?

Oh yea!

[Xavier_Onassis]

They want to repeal the amendment.

But they have done very little to do this.

[sirs]

NO ONE WANTS TO REPEAL IT.......THAT's what would require a Constitutional Amendment

Couldn't help but notice how you got slapped sideways with the rhetoric of "settled law", while folks like yourself contort the very English language to try and disprove the clear wording and intent of the 2nd amendment....one of SETTLED LAW

[Xavier_Onassis]

Wait and see how the judgement of the Court in the Wong Kim Ark case is upheld. People who are born here are citizens, period, no matter what the status of their parents might be. The odds are the Supreme Court or a lower court will simply refuse to hear any case that makes claims to the contrary, which means that the decision will be unchanged. In the unlikely case that the Supremes will hear it, they will reaffirm the previous decision.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with all the gun nut crap you spew. It is an entirely separate issue. Go spew about that elsewhere, it does not belong here.

Why don't you write Scalia or Roberts or any other judge and ask him?  I have no control over any decision. I am merely stating how the legal system of this country works, which you seem incapable of comprehending.

Trump's ignorant immigration statement is the best the Republicans can do, and parts of it are clearly impossible. Trump claims that US-born children of illegals can be expelled from the country by simply passing a law. This cannot happen, as they are now considered citizenship. It is therefore not possible to pass a law stripping them of their citizenship for no reason other than who their parents are. That is what is called an ex post facto (after the fact) law, and all such laws are and always have been, invalid. You cannot punish anyone because of who their parents are. These citizens had no way to choose their parents, so they cannot be blamed or charged for it.

This is all an exercise in futility, as Trump will never be nominated, let alone elected, and even if he were, he would need to have the ability to get Congress to do something which neither a Republican nor a Democrat president has managed to do. Trump has demonstrated that he is no good at negotiation or compromise with others as equals, his experience consists in convincing dupes to invest in his projects and firing people he dislikes. He cannot fire Congress.

[sirs]

No on is going to be rehearing the Ark case, so its not going to be "upheld".  Yes, LEGAL immigrants to this country who give birth will continue to see their children automatically become citizens.  At some point though, either the Legislative Branch, or the Judicial branch is going to properly interpret the statute to exclude anyone coming here illegally.  No Constitutional amendment, just a finalized interpretation of the Federal statute

But notice again how you got slapped bitched sideways into Sunday with the rhetoric of "settled law", while folks like yourself contort the English language to try and disprove the clear wording and intent of the 2nd amendment....one of SETTLED LAW.  Priceless.  So, you can try to hide in that's a "separate issue", when the argument you're using is identical

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is in no way identical.

As I have said a zillion times, the time to eliminate the overpopulation of firearms is over: there are so damned many of the hateful things that all we can do is just hope we don't get shot by some gun nut and lie low.

It is clear that society has changed sine the Constitution so much that the country would be entirely unrecognizable to Jefferson, Madison and Adams. The Supremes blew it when they ruled that everyday people that belonged to no militia or any other group to protect the society were some sort of "militia" and allowed to have weapons dozens of times as dangerous as one shot muskets.

The baboons and hyenas have taken over the zoo, the vampires have taken over the blood bank so far as sane gun regulations in this country, all we can do is dodge the bullets and form office pools on when and how the next gun nut massacre will take place.

With regard to citizenship, I believe that after 117 years have passed Wong Kim Ark is clearly what judges call "sett;ed law", You don't like it, go suck an egg.

When there is an actual ruling that a child of an illegal is not a citizen based on the Constitution and Wong Kim Ark, then you can crow about it. But that is not gonna happen, I am certain of that.

And no one, not Trump or anyone is going to deport 11 million illegals along with their American-born children, which is what Trump has said he'd do.

[sirs]

It is in no way identical.

It's 100% identical.  14th amendment..."Settled Law".  2nd Amendment...."country has changed...unrecognizable...only referred to muskets...was simply provided to hunt down slaves...yada, blah, anything but "settled law"

With regard to citizenship, I believe that after 117 years have passed Wong Kim Ark is clearly what judges call "sett;ed law", You don't like it, go suck an egg.

Good thing no one is trying to reargue the Ark case now, isn't it   

[Xavier_Onassis]

I have had far more intelligent with my cat than with you, sirs. Get lost.

[sirs]

You can always tell when the left's rhetorical quiver is empty..... or in this case, xo's penchant for arguing a point no one is making

[Xavier_Onassis]

Indeed. when you claim once more that "no one is making a point", that is when I know I have won the dispute.

[sirs]

LOL....and when's the last time I ever claimed that??  Not making a point is not the same as arguing a point no one is making.  You, a language professor, do grasp the difference, correct??  One would hope so.  For instance, the only one arguing some requirement to rehear the Ark case, as it relates..... to anything.....is you.  No one else is making that as some requirement to......anything

[Xavier_Onassis]

If Congress passes some law claiming that the American-born children of undocumented foreigners are not American citizens, this will immediately be subject to charges that the decision in the Wong case holds that ALL American-born people are citizens, and that will result in a decision by a lower court, which will either be appealed to the Supreme Court, or rejected by the Supreme Court. If rejected, the rejection will nullify the law passed by Congress.

That is how the system works.   

[sirs]

If Congress passes some law claiming that the American-born children of undocumented illegal foreigners are not American citizens,.....

....would likely be proclaimed unconstitutional, from the likes of your side, at which point, it would be fast tracked up the judicial chain, passing thru whatever Federal Appeals Court that had jurisdiction, at which time the Supreme Court would then make a ruling of its Constitutionality based on the clear wording of the 14th amendment. 

It will have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Ark case, since that case involved LEGAL FOREIGNERS.  I'm sure your side will keep harping that case, in which my side will continue to remind your side & the Justices (although they wouldn't need reminded), that case involved LEGAL FOREIGNERS that are completely SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of THIS COUNTRY

THAT's how this country works.  You might have caught on to that, had you not completely skipped Civics.....or U.S. History for that matter

[Xavier_Onassis]

People born foreigners, either legal or illegal, are still born here, and are legally citizens.
The 14th Amendment does not state that the status of parents is in any way involved in the fact that anyone born here is a citizen.
The Court could very easily simply refuse to hear any case involving anyone born here not being a citizen, which would mean that thew Wong case would be the precedent.