The SOB truly doesn’t know the difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

I’ve avoided posting here since the election because a conservative who detest Trumpism wasn’t exactly met with open arms, but that prick is truly an evil human with zero compassion for the human race. F Trump and all his minions. Evil is evil no matter what “politics” it hides under

 

[bailey777]

I’ve avoided posting here since the election because a conservative who detest Trumpism wasn’t exactly met with open arms, but that prick is truly an evil human with zero compassion for the human race. F Trump and all his minions. Evil is evil no matter what “politics” it hides under

You sound like alot of fun. Enjoy the next 4 years. Trump is just getting warmed up today.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

You sound like alot of fun. Enjoy the next 4 years. Trump is just getting warmed up today.

Well aware. Nobody likes executive orders until their guy issues executive orders. I’m not even sure the dumbass knows he’s trying to change the constitution with his birth citizenship promise…. You know, the same constitution he so dearly loves that he includes it in the $1000 signed Trump Bible.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I’ve avoided posting here since the election because a conservative who detest Trumpism wasn’t exactly met with open arms, but that prick is truly an evil human with zero compassion for the human race. F Trump and all his minions. Evil is evil no matter what “politics” it hides under

For his purposes, there is no difference. His base hates both of them equally.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Well aware. Nobody likes executive orders until their guy issues executive orders. I’m not even sure the dumbass knows he’s trying to change the constitution with his birth citizenship promise…. You know, the same constitution he so dearly loves that he includes it in the $1000 signed Trump Bible.

I seriously doubt he’s going to succeed with this. And I’m not saying he should.

However…

I once read the Congressional record from when this section of the 14A was being debated in Congress. And, based on that, there’s at least an argument to be made that the intent of the framers was not how it’s being applied here.

I’m not going to go hunt it down right now. Too busy watching Notre Dame get their asses kicked in the NC again.

But I’ll see if I can find it tomorrow. It’s actually very interesting.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

I seriously doubt he’s going to succeed with this. And I’m not saying he should.

However…

I once read the Congressional record from when this section of the 14A was being debated in Congress. And, based on that, there’s at least an argument to be made that the intent of the framers was not how it’s being applied here.

I’m not going to go hunt it down right now. Too busy watching Notre Dame get their asses kicked in the NC again.

But I’ll see if I can find it tomorrow. It’s actually very interesting.

I'll be interested if you can find this, because everything I've read suggests that both supporters and opponents of the amendment understood it to apply very liberally to virtually all children of aliens.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'll be interested if you can find this, because everything I've read suggests that both supporters and opponents of the amendment understood it to apply very liberally to virtually all children of aliens.

One thing I do remember from the discourse was a question asked of the author about whether it would apply to Native Americans born on reservations. He answered that it would not.

That really caught my attention. Because I don’t even think that would cross our minds today.

But bear in mind the chronological context.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

One thing I do remember from the discourse was a question asked of the author about whether it would apply to Native Americans born on reservations. He answered that it would not.

That really caught my attention. Because I don’t even think that would cross our minds today.

But bear in mind the chronological context.

Oh, yeah, no one at the time thought NA's would be citizens under the 14th. The tribes were lesser nations, to be sure, but they were still nations in their own right, and the members were subject to their jurisdiction, not the USA's.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I’ve avoided posting here since the election because a conservative who detest Trumpism wasn’t exactly met with open arms, but that prick is truly an evil human with zero compassion for the human race. F Trump and all his minions. Evil is evil no matter what “politics” it hides under

Puhleese! Ever since the Biden brain trust treated “asylum seekers” like economic refugees, there has been little difference between the two.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Puhleese! Ever since the Biden brain trust treated “asylum seekers” like economic refugees, there has been little difference between the two.

You must be joking. Quit talking out of your ass. Refugee resettlement is a completely different animal than illegal immigration. Stop with the ignorant xenophobic BS. Asylum seekers ain’t refugee resettlement. Just stop

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I once read the Congressional record from when this section of the 14A was being debated in Congress. And, based on that, there’s at least an argument to be made that the intent of the framers was not how it’s being applied here.

Yes. Birthright citizenship is based upon a judicial opinion. The 14th was about offsprings of slaves.

Trump is teeing up the issue for the Supreme court.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Just stop

Okay.

 

[outside shooter]

Okay.

You agree to stop talking out of your ass? Some here may miss your posts.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You agree to stop talking out of your ass? Some here may miss your posts.

Meh. Many miss my posts whether or not they read them.

 

[BadWakeboarder]

For his purposes, there is no difference. His base hates both of them equally.

That’s not true. But what is true is that your side allows anybody and everybody (mostly military aged males) to “identify” as a refugee.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

I'll be interested if you can find this, because everything I've read suggests that both supporters and opponents of the amendment understood it to apply very liberally to virtually all children of aliens.

No one cares. Way back in the day, they would have starved to death or been enslaved.

 

[Noodle]

Mr. Dumbass In Chief:

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'll be interested if you can find this, because everything I've read suggests that both supporters and opponents of the amendment understood it to apply very liberally to virtually all children of aliens.

OK, game’s depressing. So I found it. It starts at the middle of page 43 of 401 of the document. It’s page 41 by the numbers printed at the bottom of the page.

A lot of discussion about the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” specifically as it applies to Indians (which all debaters seem to agree would be excluded from the amendment’s definition of a citizen).

One Senator (Edgar Cowan) asks rhetorically early on: “Is the child of a Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?”

Food for thought.

Congressional debate on 14th Amendment

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

OK, game’s depressing. So I found it. It starts at the middle of page 43 of 401 of the document. It’s page 41 by the numbers printed at the bottom of the page.

A lot of discussion about the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” specifically as it applies to Indians (which all debaters seem to agree would be excluded from the amendment’s definition of a citizen).

One Senator (Edgar Cowan) asks rhetorically early on: “Is the child of a Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?”

Food for thought.

Congressional debate on 14th Amendment

Yes, a citizen of Chyna...
Bye Felicia-san..

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

You must be joking. Quit talking out of your ass. Refugee resettlement is a completely different animal than illegal immigration. Stop with the ignorant xenophobic BS. Asylum seekers ain’t refugee resettlement. Just stop

Distinction without a difference.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Distinction without a difference.

Pure and utter ignorance

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

OK, game’s depressing. So I found it. It starts at the middle of page 43 of 401 of the document. It’s page 41 by the numbers printed at the bottom of the page.

A lot of discussion about the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” specifically as it applies to Indians (which all debaters seem to agree would be excluded from the amendment’s definition of a citizen).

One Senator (Edgar Cowan) asks rhetorically early on: “Is the child of a Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?”

Food for thought.

Congressional debate on 14th Amendment

Yes, my reading is that they spent a lot of time worried about the details with Indians, but seemed to pretty much all agree the Chinese would be citizens. Did I miss something?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Pure and utter ignorance

Wrong chief.
Libshits revel in their ability to assign terms to fit their desires.

Anyone coming into this country without adhering to established immigration law is illegal..regardless what corrupt government lackeys and idiots such as you call them.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Wrong chief.
Libshits revel in their ability to assign terms to fit their desires.

Anyone coming into this country without adhering to established immigration law is illegal..regardless what corrupt government lackeys and idiots such as you call them.

Quit being daft. I’m talking anout LEGITIMATE refugees INVITED to this country under legal status who have been living in refugee camps for as long as 15-20 years. Your f—-ing hero has also cut out their access. Maybe he prayed about it before he defied one of the basic tenets of his beloved Trump Bible. You know, the one that stayed to love and harbor the foreigner, the downtrodden, the oppressed. You MAGA’s are so far up Trump’s ass you truly don’t care what he says or does. You eat it all up

 

[td75]

I'll be 50 on Valentines Day and Trump is the best president in my lifetime. I would say in my lifetime it's Trump, Reagan, and Bill.

 

[twenty02]

Mr. Dumbass In Chief:

View embedded media

Thank God we don't have an incoherent and confused geriatric back in the WH anymore!

 

[UncleMark]

I'll be 50 on Valentines Day and Trump is the best president in my lifetime. I would say in my lifetime it's Trump, Reagan, and Bill.

Reagan would be revolted by Trump.

 

[td75]

Reagan would be revolted by Trump.

As my dad used to always say about Bill Clinton, I didn't vote for a preacher. That seems fitting right here.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Quit being daft. I’m talking anout LEGITIMATE refugees INVITED to this country under legal status who have been living in refugee camps for as long as 15-20 years. Your f—-ing hero has also cut out their access. Maybe he prayed about it before he defied one of the basic tenets of his beloved Trump Bible. You know, the one that stayed to love and harbor the foreigner, the downtrodden, the oppressed. You MAGA’s are so far up Trump’s ass you truly don’t care what he says or does. You eat it all up

We can love them right where they are, loser...nowhere in Christian orthodoxy are we called to debase and destroy ourselves to suit the whims of anti-American operatives who have turned immigration 'policy' into an unintelligible fog of faked terminology and definitions.
Stop making shit up..

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Reagan would be revolted by Trump.

In keeping with policy matters alone...

In some aspects, he would. In others, he wouldn't.

I think Reagan would be entirely supportive of this DOGE effort -- or at least it's stated aims. Reagan would've been approving of Trump's first term judicial nominees. Even the most stalwart anti-Trump conservatives have praised them. Reagan was also very wary of burdensome and counterproductive regulations. And I actually thought Trump was quietly terrific in his first term on that. And I'm sure Reagan would've supported the TCJA, of course.

I'd say he'd mostly be critical of Trump's foreign policy approach. Reagan was very global in his view of America's place in the world. And he'd have been incensed by Trump's softness on Ukraine -- nothing animated Reagan more than pushing back against Russian aggression. I do think that Reagan would be supportive of Trump's stances regarding Israel and the Middle East.

The word "tariff" would be like fingernails on a chalkboard to Reagan. Trump touts them proudly -- as if higher prices on imported goods (or even domestic goods with foreign inputs) is going to benefit ordinary Americans.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Quit being daft. I’m talking anout LEGITIMATE refugees INVITED to this country under legal status who have been living in refugee camps for as long as 15-20 years. Your f—-ing hero has also cut out their access. Maybe he prayed about it before he defied one of the basic tenets of his beloved Trump Bible. You know, the one that stayed to love and harbor the foreigner, the downtrodden, the oppressed. You MAGA’s are so far up Trump’s ass you truly don’t care what he says or does. You eat it all up

Easy Peasy...
Invite a 'legit' refugee group(I'll suggest a few MS-13 family) to live with you . Feed them, clothe them , educate them, put them on your health insurance policy...
Your wife and daughters, not to mention your neighbors will appreciate the enrichment of their lives...
Honor your belief system.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Reagan would be revolted by Trump.

You should be revolted by Reagan and have a far stronger affinity to trump. On a policy continuum you are far closer to trump than Reagan. Reagan is polar to you

 

[mattndallas]

 

[td75]

In keeping with policy matters alone...

In some aspects, he would. In others, he wouldn't.

I think Reagan would be entirely supportive of this DOGE effort -- or at least it's stated aims. Reagan would've been approving of Trump's first term judicial nominees. Even the most stalwart anti-Trump conservatives have praised them. Reagan was also very wary of burdensome and counterproductive regulations. And I actually thought Trump was quietly terrific in his first term on that. And I'm sure Reagan would've supported the TCJA, of course.

I'd say he'd mostly be critical of Trump's foreign policy approach. Reagan was very global in his view of America's place in the world. And he'd have been incensed by Trump's softness on Ukraine -- nothing animated Reagan more than pushing back against Russian aggression. I do think that Reagan would be supportive of Trump's stances regarding Israel and the Middle East.

The word "tariff" would be like fingernails on a chalkboard to Reagan. Trump touts them proudly -- as if higher prices on imported goods (or even domestic goods with foreign inputs) is going to benefit ordinary Americans.

Reagan would be turned off by Trump's affair. I think OTOH, he would be impressed with his presidential skills.

 

[UncleMark]

You should be revolted by Reagan and have a far stronger affinity to trump. On a policy continuum you are far closer to trump than Reagan. Reagan is polar to you

Character matters.

 

[WhyisIUBBcursed]

Easy Peasy...
Invite a 'legit' refugee group(I'll suggest a few MS-13 family) to live with you . Feed them, clothe them , educate them, put them on your health insurance policy...
Your wife and daughters, not to mention your neighbors will appreciate the enrichment of their lives...
Honor your belief system.

My belief system aligns pretty closely with the teachings of Jesus. For this I won’t apologize

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

My belief system aligns pretty closely with the teachings of Jesus. For this I won’t apologize

Post your addy....
I'll send you one of those quick-learn Spanglish kits.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Reagan would be turned off by Trump's affair. I think OTOH, he would be impressed with his presidential skills.

You left the "s" off "affairs." None of that is important to many today.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Character matters.

While I agree that it does, I'm not sure how much it does to most people. And I have no choice but to include myself in that. I voted for Donald Trump before, knowing full well what kind of person he is.

At the end of the day -- at least at that time -- I guess the balance of the Supreme Court mattered more to me than the fact that Donald Trump is a lecherous, narcissistic, vulgarian con artist. As I've said here before, I'd be lying if I said that I regretted that vote...because I think the courts are putting out the kinds of decisions that I've wanted to see for most of my adult life. And I think it has (unfortunately) become the single most important public institution in our country.

And it's also not lost on me that many Trump critics (not saying you're one of them) who cite his character had no problem supporting Bill Clinton through all his....foibles.

Beyond making them hypocrites, I think this demonstrates that character probably doesn't matter to people all that much....it just depends on whose character you're assessing.

 

[mcmurtry66]

While I agree that it does, I'm not sure how much it does to most people. And I have no choice but to include myself in that. I voted for Donald Trump before, knowing full well what kind of person he is.

At the end of the day -- at least at that time -- I guess the balance of the Supreme Court mattered more to me than the fact that Donald Trump is a lecherous, narcissistic, vulgarian con artist. As I've said here before, I'd be lying if I said that I regretted that vote...because I think the courts are putting out the kinds of decisions that I've wanted to see for most of my adult life. And I think it has (unfortunately) become the single most important public institution in our country.

And it's also not lost on me that many Trump critics (not saying you're one of them) who cite his character had no problem supporting Bill Clinton through all his....foibles.

Beyond making them hypocrites, I think this demonstrates that character probably doesn't matter to people all that much....it just depends on whose character you're assessing.

Boom