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

[Xavier_Onassis]

The 14th Amendment says absolutely NOTHING about the nationality of the parents: it says, if you are born here, you are American. The legality of the parents is irrelevant.

Just watch and see, Trump will not be elected, the Supreme Court will not take up this case again, because it has already been decided, and there will be no amendment, either. And no one will deport eleven million people, especially they will not deport those born here.

Trump's plan sucks, Trump sucks, and  he is meaningless, irrelevant and only sort of a cartoon clown to the main feature that is this election. And there are several extra clowns as well. It is time to break out the popcorn.

[Plane]

This country does, in fact NEED immigrants. That is how we have managed to make so many advances in computers and engineering, by luring people from India and China and Europe and of course the other countries in this hemisphere who want to be Americans and want their children to also be Americans.

This is totally true , we are siphoning off the best and brightest all the time. From Nazi rocket scientists to an hundred thousand Indian PHDs. In England they used to call this the "brain drain". Most of the well educated and highly skilled are legal immigrants.

The Constitution says nothing at al, about marriage, but you yutzes ranyed on and on about hos the dictionary is the ultimate authority about how all marriages must be between a man and a woman.

If the constitution is blank on the subject , where did the supreme court get the jurisdiction to rule on it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Court had to rule on the validity of gay marriage, because federal taxes, pension benefits, Social Security and such are based on spousal deductions. How can a person be married legally in Massachusetts, and then not be married if the couple moved to Alabama? The are many federal laws that deal with married couples, survivor benefits, testimony in courts that must be uniform across the country.

[sirs]

The case is  US vs. Wong Kim Ark.

Wong Kim Ark's parents were not in the country illegally...which is a completely different dynamic.

EXACTLY

This can be done by Congress or the Supreme Court....

BINGO

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case since the Kim Wong Ark case, and will not rehear it.

Trump does not and cannot force Congress to pas a Constitutional Amendment. There are several Amendments that have been proposed: if they were even minimally proper, they would have been passed.

But they aren't, and they weren't, and it is very doubtful they ever will be passed.

So sirs and CU4 are what is known as "shit outta luck".

Wait and see.  No decisions, no amendment.

[sirs]

The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case since the Kim Wong Ark case, and will not rehear it.

Again, amazing this ability you have to predict.....in this case, what the Supreme will hear or not hear.  Not to mention this would not be a rehearing of an old case

Trump does not and cannot force Congress to pas a Constitutional Amendment. There are several Amendments that have been proposed: if they were even minimally proper, they would have been passed.

ALL of which is completely moot, since this doesn't require any kind of an amendment.  Not sure how many times that has to repeated.......then again, we must consider the source

[Xavier_Onassis]

Ah, but it DOES.

It is very unmoot. The Supremes have already decided this , as I said, in 1898.
If this were not the case, then there would not be at least two Amendments to do away with  birthright citizenship pending.

I bet there are members of Congress and the Courts that know far more than you do, sirs.

[sirs]

They did NOT decide this as it relates to immigration.  THAT's the kicker, since the case you cite, is referencing a LEGAL immigrant, in 1898

Any subsequent hearing would be on what's currently relevant....that being the disposition of ILLEGAL immigrants, as such there would be no rehearing of an old case, nor require any initiation of a Constitutional Amendment process.  Congress merely needs to provide clarifying legislation, or a case must be brought in front of the Supreme Court for a final interpretation of the Federal statute

[Xavier_Onassis]

In the Wong Kim Ark case, a Mr Wong was born in the US.
He was acknowledged to be an American citizen.
I assume he had a passport or some identification that showed that (a) he was born in the US and (b) he was a citizen.
Someone told him that he was NOT a citizen when he returned from a trip.
There were lots of someones in San Francisco that did not want Chinese to be citizens, born here or not.

Mr Wong sued, and eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that he was a citizen. That was in 1898.
It DOES NOT MATTER that his paernts were born in the US or not: they ruled that he was a citizen because he was BORN HERE.

You are flailing about, grasping at straws, and yet you have not touched a single straw.
The Supreme Court has ruled that anyone born here (other than diplomat's children) are CITIZENS. The status of Mr Wong's parents or anyone else's parents is immaterial and has nothing to do with the case.

To make them non-citizens, therefore will require an amendment. That is why there are a couple of amendments waiting to be passed. Rather unsuccessfully so far.

Even if they did pass an amendment, it would not require American born children of illegals presently in the country to be deported as Trump wants to do.
He wants to do this because he is ignorant of the fact that ex post facto laws are not permitted.

His immigration policy will never be carried out, and he would not have the power to enact it if he were president. Presidents cannot change laws by edicts as he apparently thinks they can. We have no Fuhrer in the US, no Czar, no Duce.

[sirs]

And one more time....ANY SUBSEQUENT CASE/HEARING WOULD NOT REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.   Now, you can keep spouting and spewing how Trump wouldn't have such a power, but that's just fantasizing, since its moot.....there is no such need to interpret the current Federal statute

[Plane]

The Court had to rule on the validity of gay marriage, because federal taxes, pension benefits, Social Security and such are based on spousal deductions. How can a person be married legally in Massachusetts, and then not be married if the couple moved to Alabama? The are many federal laws that deal with married couples, survivor benefits, testimony in courts that must be uniform across the country.

It used to be uniform across the country.

Not that long ago.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Current federal statute is settled law.

If you are BORN HERE, you are a CITIZEN.

That fucking simple.

[sirs]

Any, let me repeat, ANY Federal statute can be modified, or even struck down by the Supreme Court.  Not to mention could also be modified or altered by any subsequent legislation passed and signed into law.  Did you never take even 1 Civics' class??

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are the one who does not know a rat's ass about this country. You do not know its history, you do not understand how laws are made and you think that your wish fulfillment can change settled law. In addition to being stupid, sirs, you are an ignoramus and an arrogant one at that.

I know that laws that run counter to the Supreme Court's decisions and the Constitution are frequently  dispensed with. The various "Defense" of Marriage Acts, for example, were ruled unconstitutional and are now not enforced. All the anti-interracial marriage laws were overturned by Loving vs Virginia.
And if Congress passes any law declaring that anyone born here is NOT a citizen will be immediately contested and thrown out, since this is settled law.

You can repeat your silly horseshit forever, sirs, but it will be to no avail.  You do not know diddly. 

[Christians4LessGvt]

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"?