Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

If you are referring to the individual mandate — because it was classified as a tax. Since repealed

 

We could afford a lot of things if the scumbags in Washington DC weren't busy buying votes and sending trillions of dollars overseas in 'foreign aid' and 'promoting democracy AKA US-backed Coups'. All these things are designed for the politicians to receive kickbacks, not for the people they represent to have better lives.

 

Uh, I'll take POS John McCain for $100 Alex.

 

no, four justices held that the commerce clause was not sufficient to justify it. The four lefties claimed that it was. Roberts rejected the commerce clause argument but held that (completely contradicting the Obama attorney)that the Obama care was a TAX and under the TAXING authority, Obama care could survive. the General welfare bullshit was never endorsed. if @cd8ed was correct, the GWC would have supported Obama care

 

I was just responding to your post. Some of the items in HR1 very clearly makes it easier for illegal immigrants to vote. The Democrats in the House would never use the term "illegal immigrants" as you say. They may be dumb but they ain't stupid!

 

It passed the senate by one vote from a guy who was recently appointed to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. And even though it was an unconstitutional bill (a revenue bill that did not originate in the House), there were barely enough House votes to pass it even though no one in the House had read it. (That was the infamous Pelosi statement that you have to pass the bill before you can read it.) So there was a lot of skullduggery and machinations and outright congressional power plays involved. But once it passed it was a done deal -- a big f***in' deal in the infamous words of VP Biden into a hot mike..

 

Nobody should use that term. And, it is not an acceptable term throughout our government.

A human being can't be illegal. They may do something that is illegal or may not have the papers required to be where they are (thus breaking the law), but persons aren't illegal.

If someone robs a bank, they aren't illegal - they are criminals, because they committed a crime.

The proper term is undocumented alien. I know - for many that just doesn't carry enough hate.

 

Very true ind insightful. The Obama administration fought tooth and nail that it was a fee based bill because if it was tax based it would have to have originated in the House. Roberts literally rewrote the bill from the bench, said it was tax based, and threw the House origination thing under the rug.

 

You make a decent point. Maybe we should return to Cesar Chavez and his avid push in CA for his anti-wetback bill.

 

That was one specific provision.
Not the entire bill

One of three attempts Republicans have used to try to end the ACA.

 

You would never survive as an Indian fighter, too easy to sneak up on.

 

As a heart attack

 

Well, as you allude to, our history of civil rights and human decency isn't what one would hope for, given that this is supposed to be America.

And, then we had the Bracero program.

In 2013, the US Chamber of Commerce, solidly Republican, demanded that the immigration reform bill would allow for corporations to use and discard foreign workers.

 

The slaughter and subjugation of native peoples was a solid humanitarian atrocity.

And from there, native peoples have been treated in unimaginably ugly ways through today.

It's shocking that you would bring that up in the context of your sick joke.

 

the ACA is a violation of the tenth amendment-but then again, so was most of the New Deal

 

Roberts wants to be seen as another "King Solomon" by legal commentators-most of whom are lefties. He likes being seen as "clever".

 

Illegal aliens are criminals. Calling them "undocumented" and such is just as dumb as calling men with fake boobs women.

I do not bow to the word police, sorry not sorry.

 

It survived the Supreme Court as you said....Roberts with his activism. It survived repeal because of John McCain's vote, may he rot in hell. So in essence, 2 d-bags gave us this scam.

 

I see we're playing that game now. You refuse to read anything I've posted, deflect for a few days, and now pretend I didn't post anything previously.
How droll.

Second, the framers of the 14th Amendment debated the question presented by President Trump’s proposal. During the ratification debates, Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the birthright‐citizenship proposal: “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked. “Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”

Judges have affirmed Conness’s view consistently. In 1898 the Supreme Court adopted it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. The justices held that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”

https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate

Emphasis mine.
Since the words bother you: You can substitute "illegal alien" every time they cite an ethnic group.

 

Lies nothing but lies

Elk v Wilkins

“An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.
A petition alleging that the plaintiff is an Indian, and was born within the United States, and has severed his tribal relation to the Indian tribes, and fully and completely surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, and still so continues subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is a bona fide resident of the Nebraska and City of Omaha, does not show that he is a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.”


Senator Howard explained, the Citizenship Clause excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

The leading treatise writer of the day, Thomas Cooley, confirmed this was the understanding of the 14th Amendment. As he wrote in his treatise, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.

 

Supreme Court in Slaughterhouse, 83 U.S. 36:

"To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

 

By your rules the proper term is criminal

 

LOL - absolutely false.

Being in the USA without papers is a civil misdemeanor.

Do you know why?

 

You SO desperately want to be taken seriously. OK here is what the actual quote was:“Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?” Sen. John Conness of California answered that the children of Chinese and Gypsy aliens “shall be citizens” and he was “entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment.”

Everything else is simply opinion. Which you've copied from that Cato article. So tell me, JUST from the quote, the context where you get that this is referring to Birthright citizenship?

 

So they will vote Democrat