OlDawg

Had to make very small to meet file size limit. Hopefully, it's still readable.

Angleton has historically had a pretty good softball team. This year, they're better than usual. Should be a good series.

SCOTUS could also rule that birthright citizenship isn't guaranteed in the Constitution, agree with the original interpretation of the 14th, and end both questions with one ruling. Then, they'd have to specify that even illegal immigrants are granted certain rights of habeas corpus, and issue some type of ruling on minimal standards as it relates to current immigration law. No Amendments necessary, and no major changes to current law. While unpopular with the Left, it would be the cleanest way out for the Court and the country. I'm gonna' sit back with my popcorn and watch the show.

Not only that, but undocumented/illegal immigrants are not eligible for service in the U.S. military as they are not ‘under the jurisdiction’ of the U.S. So, how can their children be…? In case of war, draft the kids against the parent’s country? Riddle me that Batman liberals. 😁 (On a side note, I’d be curious how many illegal immigrants actually sign up for Selective Service as the law requires. If they don’t, they aren’t eligible to stay in country. It’s grounds for immediate removal. However, why they have to sign up when they can’t serve is a mystery to me. Another tracking mechanism I presume.)

Upon reading the amicus briefs for the case ‘Trump vs. CASA’, and knowing that 5 of the Justices have expressed concerns about the overreach of national injunctions from District Court judges, I now believe the Administration will win on the merits of removing the injunctions. How it will be worded for equal treatment will be interesting. I also believe the second issue—automatic birthright citizenship (so to speak)—is in serious jeopardy based on SCOTUS own precedent, historical references, and numerous case laws. The issue would then be up to the Legislature to craft a law that dealt with children who have already been given citizenship prior to a ruling. For any other geeks interested in this sort of stuff, the entire briefs SCOTUS is reviewing before Thursday are in the below link. Really fascinating if you’re interested in the real history and some civics of our government. The link will also be the one that provides live feeds during the hearing. SCOTUS doesn’t allow televised hearings. So, you’ll see written feeds of questions/answers/descriptions of emotions/etc. You won’t have to rely on biased news coverage either way. [Hidden Content]

Only partially true. You conveniently left out the key part like many. He is a citizen because HE was born here, and his PARENTS were legally subject here, resided permanently here, and were presumed loyal to the U.S. HE was underage. So, his status was carried from his parent/parents.

How they craft the—probably—very narrow ruling either way is going to be fascinating. Agree that tradition is an easy way out. But, it only continues a problem they know has torn this country apart numerous times. I don’t know how/if that will figure into their thinking. They’ve surprised me with some rulings lately.

So the Bill of Rights isn’t important, and can change anytime because the Founders are dead? Pretty lame argument. The Constitution doesn’t change, and has never changed. Only the interpretations & additions. But, since you say it changes with the times, then you’d have no objections to changing back to original intent of the Amendment authors.

Pretty good summary in general. There are other scenarios that involve military service as well. My family would be a great quiz for citizenship questions. My DIL—as mentioned—is naturalized, and one of my grandchildren was born in Japan. Can my DIL and/or grandchild have dual citizenship? (I obviously know the answer. But, it’s an interesting situation for folks to think about that haven’t ever pondered.) The answer is ‘yes.’ My DIL can have dual citizenship because Costa Rica allows & the U.S. doesn’t make you renounce. My grandson can’t be Japanese and American. Partly because he was born in the Naval hospital in Japan (technically U.S. soil), and also because Japan provides citizenship via parental ancestry instead of location. The U.S. is one of only 35 countries in the world (out of 195) that still grants almost universal birthright citizenship based on geographical location. And, as some believe with a pretty strong argument IMHO, that is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. If—as some believe, and has been practiced since a very liberal interpretation decades ago—everyone born in the U.S. geographically was automatically a citizen, there would never have been a need for a separate, later Act to include Native Americans as citizens. This is a very strong argument for original intent. I’m not sure the case coming before SCOTUS this week is as cut & dried as some would believe. It will be very interesting to watch, and could have a profound impact on how well we can enforce our borders. I would think SCOTUS will have this in the back of their mind. Of course, POTUS hasn’t enamored himself with the Judicial Branch lately with his mouth and some of his actions, and people are people, so you never know.

The U.S. already has a limited birthright citizenship scenario—even though many claim it’s much more open than the original authors & Congressional approval intended. The question up for debate—which has never actually been adjudicated—is whether a child born to someone in the U.S. temporarily & illegally should automatically become a citizen. No one is attempting to end birthright citizenship altogether.

How do you know now? Profile much? You must live in a very small world. My daughter-in-law is a naturalized citizen from Costa Rica. She’s as much a citizen as you or me. She even served in the U.S. Navy. Probably has given more of herself to this country than you. She happens to be very proud to be an American. If you read any of the articles I linked to, you’d have a lot better idea of what’s going on. But hey…carry on…

[Hidden Content]

Lake Creek 2 La Porte 0 Lake Creek wins series 2-1

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows: [T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. *Copied from the second link in OP thread above. SCOTUS got this wrong according to the author of the Amendment. IMHO, a fix would be to clarify ‘anyone born here to parent/parents with legal standing to be in the United States or its provinces or territories’. This would follow the author of the Amendment’s original intent that was voted on, and would be a compromise that works in the best interest of the public. While it wouldn’t stop rich people from having ‘birthing vacations’ in the U.S., it would stop anchor babies & many issues with immigration & family separation. Those who are wealthy becoming citizens aren’t a drain on the public till, and the number is very small. They could also claim dual citizenship if desired. Those who are already considered citizens would remain as such. Personally, I think SCOTUS may uphold the injunctions temporarily, but request the issue be developed deeper for a more thorough review before a final ruling. This issue needs to be addressed. @tvc184

La Porte vs Lake Creek LC won Game 1: 5-2. La Porte won Game 2: 1-0. Game 3 tomorrow at 1:00 pm at CE King.

Interesting reads. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] Thoughts?

Here is a link for all. It’s actually a Snopes investigation link. Matches the numerous other NBC exclusive interview stories I’ve read previously. This story was originally an NBC exclusive. Others have picked it up from there as was said they wanted to do to raise awareness. As it’s been picked up, it’s morphed somewhat. Especially on social media. [Hidden Content]

You need to provide a link. The original story from February—of which there were many links—didn’t have this added. As the parents, congressional members & their legal counsel have stated, they would do whatever it took to raise awareness to try to get her back for treatment. This appears to be part of that exercise. By the way, are you talking about the same child even? The girl with cancer from Texas was 10 I believe. You may be getting your stories mixed up.

Sad part is—besides the child having cancer—is if they hadn’t illegally entered the country, been ordered to immediately leave years ago for some reason, and just applied for a travel visa for their daughter’s medical treatment, they probably would have received it with little issue.

The parents didn’t want that & had no one set up to care for her. I wouldn’t want to leave her in CPS custody either. This is another anchor baby situation. Really, she shouldn’t have been born here in the first place. Sounds harsh. But, that was the start of the problem.

Again, this is an incorrect summary. You’ve done this repeatedly now. The Authorities didn’t ‘remove’ the girl and her siblings. The parents didn’t want to be separated & had no power of attorney or legal paperwork for anyone they knew to keep their children while they seek a humanitarian waiver. (Which I would think they’ll get. But, I don’t know if it those are only for the treatment time, or what.) I would think there should be a way to have some flexibility in certain circumstances. But, this is another issue where the parents were both illegally here & ignored an immediate removal order from long past. They had their hearing before their daughter was even diagnosed, were ordered to leave, and chose not to follow those directions.

I don’t remember hearing this type of outcry when the Obama Administration created Operation Janus and stripped people of their naturalization status and deported them.

The anchor baby situation has been an issue for a very long time. It really needs to be addressed. Issue is, it would take an Amendment the way things are currently.

Huge win for Trump as world's second biggest carmaker relocates manufacturing to US [Hidden Content]

Low form of wit.