The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever. I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted I know. I see two issues with it today. 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.Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US. |
|
|
|
Nope. Look up the Immigration Act for legal definitions.
You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process. Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant. You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw.
I'm very familiar with the immigration process as well as the dictionary. Immigrant is a person who moves to another country. A driver is a driver even if they're drunk and operate a vehicle illegally. BTW there was no "legal" or "illegal" immigration at the time when the 14th amendment was passed so this is particularly meaningless in the context. Also "alien" doesn't mean "people who visit the country" like you were trying to imply, there is such a thing as a resident alien. You can use any cockamamie definitions you want, just cut this liberal snowflake pussy hat bullshit when someone uses the non-PC words you don't like  (I'm kinda enjoying this, I might be a closet Republican). You are confused. You are conflating the taxation system with the immigration system. There is only legal immigration. If you move and live in the country illegally, you are an outlaw. Nothing to do with immigration. Calling people who break the law immigrants you are insulting the real immigrants. You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant. Get this through your thick skull. O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes? |
|
|
|
I have this thing called empathy, so I tend to put myself in someone else's shoes...
If I was living in some shit-hole country, where US economic policy and/or bombs have devastated my home land... I would think, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em", and walk my ass to the US with the rest of the caravan
What I don't understand is people who think they are entitled to live in a country, but others are not
Nobody says that. Anyone can apply for the immigration visa and immigrate to the US legally. This is not immigration, this is refugee and asylum claims, totally different process and laws... there is nothing illegal about walking to the border and requesting asylum/refugee status... every claim will be checked by seasoned professionals who do this all the time Are you sure about that? There might some refugees fearing prosecution in Mexico in that crowd, I agree, but saying they are all refugees is disingenuous. They would have to prove that not only they fear prosecution in their home countries but in Mexico as well since they are coming from Mexico. If they were true refugees, they would have claimed their status in Mexico, unless they fear prosecution in Mexico as well. We all know why they want to go to the US. To better their lives!!! Unfortunately for them, the refugee route is not the way to go. Legal immigration is what they should be pursuing. I cannot see how any judge with half a brain can grant them that status in the US. BTW, Mexico is a signatory to the UN refugee convention. |
|
|
|
I'm aware of the current interpretation and I agree, Trump thinking he can pencil whip a change to the constitution is a slap in the face of over a hundred years of precedent. My question was if the republicans could remove birthright citizenship what would they do about the baby in this situation. The hypothetical is relevant because a very powerful Republican man had 3 kids with a women who wasn't an American citizen. One parent is enough. Once citizenship is granted, it does not matter if your parents die or renounce their citizenship, you still have yours and can pass on to your children. In most countries, children of citizens (one or both parents) can claim their citizenship, regardless if they were born in the country or not. The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships. |
|
|
|
You're not entitled to live anywhere besides where you have citizenship. I just don't understand how some people can defend illegals who are completetly trying to bypass the immigration system. That's a complete and utter slap in the face to people who have came to countries legally.
He wants to stop the Caravan because that's the law of the land, it's crazy thinking that a President can't do this sort of thing. I don't get it.
Why am I the only one who has heard of the Geneva Convention or The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees? There is nothing illegal about what they are doing... this is all within the law that has been followed for 70 years Tell me, who is persecuting them? +1 And why they did not claim their refugee status in Mexico? Were they not refugees in Mexico? Or they magically became refugees when they crossed the US border? Mexico is a signatory to the UN refugee convention. If I were a refugee from Honduras or El Salvador, I would claim my refugee status in Mexico. Same language, similar culture. |
|
|
|
So a few thousand I assume Christian, hopeful, grateful and wanting to work people want to reach US, a country with a population over 300 milion and a bad system of social aid.
Trump claims many among them are "very bad people", gang members, members of drug cartels etc etc. But gang members, members of drug cartels and criminals usually have better lives than average person in a 3rd world country, so why would they walk so far to a country where they wouldn't be able to conduct their business further?
So what are the real reasons Trump wants to stop the Caravan? Does he think US has a bad refugee/immivration situation compared to the rest of the world? What bad things will happen to the US? I suppose these people will be looking for "low" ranking jobs that most Americans won't do...
So what is the real problem here?
First of all, I would ask these people for documentation, ask them for tourist or immigration visas etc. If they don't have visas or documents and claim a refugee status, the judge should be asking: "when did you become a refugee?", "why did you not claim a refugee status in Mexico?" or "so, in Mexico, you were not a refugee?" etc., the refugee cases can be denied based on the responses to these questions. All of these people can apply for US immigration visas, go through the process, provide the background checks from their home countries etc. The US has been too lenient to these people and if the US government does not firmly respond to this "caravan", they will have other "caravans" of 10,000+ people arriving every month as the word will spread that the US border is open for "business". Germany 2015 redux. |
|
|
|
Huh?
Immigrants are legal residents. People who visit the country legally or illegally are aliens.
Residency implies a legal status.
I am not even sure why these anchor babies are given the citizenships, the 14th amendment does not apply to them, they do not reside in the US. I guess American lawyers cannot read.
"Immigrant" does not mean legal or illegal. It's a person who moves to another country.
Nope. Look up the Immigration Act for legal definitions. You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process. Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant. You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw. |
|
|
|
I guess it comes to the definition of "reside". Do Russian tourists and their US-born babies reside in the US?
If "reside" means a legal residency status, then you have your answer.
When you visit a country for a medical treatment, do you reside in that country?
When you crossed a border illegally, you work without a permit, and you physically live in the country without a residency status, do you "reside" in that country or you are simply an outlaw who remains at large?
The amendment doesn't say anything about "legal residency status" so... no? BTW immigrants are not all either illegals or citizens. There is a substantial part of the population that are perfectly legal, not citizens, and would get fucked tremendously bigly if this gets to pass. Hopefully this is just a dog whistle (sorry dogtana) for immigration hardliners and it's unlikely to survive any serious legal challenge. Trump will probably forget about it after the election. Huh? Immigrants are legal residents. People who visit the country legally or illegally are aliens. Residency implies a legal status. I am not even sure why these anchor babies are given the citizenships, the 14th amendment does not apply to them, they do not reside in the US. I guess American lawyers cannot read. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO." Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 14th amendment: 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. Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now. FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL. I guess it comes to the definition of "reside". Do Russian tourists and their US-born babies reside in the US? If "reside" means a legal residency status, then you have your answer. When you visit a country for a medical treatment, do you reside in that country? When you crossed a border illegally, you work without a permit, and you physically live in the country without a residency status, do you " reside" in that country or you are simply an outlaw who remains at large? |
|
|
|
7 Dead, Several Others Shot At Pittsburgh Synagogue
/[/url]
When I saw the topic, People died you POS. And you come out here with your "Muslims are called terrorists because of media reporting" BS. Islamist ideology is a breeding ground for terrorists. You can deny all you want, but that is the truth. As for this mass murderer, he misdirected his anger and shot innocent people who had nothing to do with the Caravan of people in Mexico. Even if they did, so what? Not Media reporting- Cheer Leading- when it comes to such a terrible incident. It's sad that this kind of attack happens, on the other hand, I was relieved that it was not carried by a Muslim person. we all know how that road ends. at least after this event, another soul will not get hurt because of their skin color and religion. Believe me bro I will not deny this even in my wildest dream. but I know we both don't know each other's story so that's fine and you are entitled to say what you want. wrong or right? that's another discussion but will respect your opinion And truth changes according to demographics. The clash always occurs between our truth vs someone else truth. and result? Innocent suffer always. we call this collateral damage. Well, we are seeing lots of misdirected individuals. remember the Kansas shooting? The issue is tribalism. It does not matter if you are Muslim, Jew, Christian or White Supremacist, your ideology is supremacist because it assumes you are automatically better than anyone else who does not belong to your group. Tribal ideologies, group victimization is at play here. When the subject is mentally unstable due to his religious or political delusion this type of thinking can very quickly lead to violence. Instead, he should have lobbied to tax the religious institutions. This lost tax revenue would easily pay to secure the border. |
|
|
|
The Standard Model cannot be simulated. Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.
I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago: Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Timehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaAPhysics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)
It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture He is not saying that it can be done. He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc. You are just too excited about this idea. Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad? C'mon, don't abandon your reason. Good night, sleep tight. LOL. I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties Sure chief. You sound like notbatman. Read my previous post tiger. ...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated. Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.
This is what we know today.
Is it possible that we are in a simulation? Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.
Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero" Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be... We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit" You have to invent new Physics or invalidate the existing models for the simulation to be possible. As I said, that is very, very unlikely. But not impossible. Same odds as the existence of supernatural forces. I pointed out where our current Physics models are at odds with the simulation argument. I hope you understand that much. We have no evidence, our current models are at odds with this argument, so what conclusion can you draw? I'm afraid this simulation argument is in the same realm as the existence of some pantheistic God. If you want to disagree with me, provide a rebuttal of my points against the simulation. Not just disagree with me, because your imagination tells you so. BTW, the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation. You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that. Now you sound like BADLogic... the video is all about proving this is possible using the standard model... there is no need to "invent new physics or invalidate the existing models"... he talked about how it is possible to compute every single atom in the universe (aka, the standard model) Did you even watch the video? He makes it abundantly clear that he is talking about simulating every single atom in the universe using a computer smaller than the universe... the only thing he mentions not being able to compute is black holes... which you don't even mention... which makes me think you didn't actually watch the video, yet you still call it bullshit... when you didn't watch it the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation. You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that.
I watched the video twice, and I don't recall him ever saying that... don't make up bullshit trying to make me look like the liar here... I already quoted his position this... it was like the 3rd sentence out of his mouth: " Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation. I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it. And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference." I interpret this as him saying, "I believe there is a solid chance that the universe is a simulation, but I'm not going claim that it is a simulation because I can't prove it" How exactly do you interpret that as him saying "I do not think we are in a simulation"?!? In fact, I'm done responding to you because you lack intellectual honesty like BADLogic Sorry, not sorry Look at the bolded line posted by you. Right at the beginning of the video you posted. Here is his other, more detailed video on the simulation argument:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58The conclusion is at 12:10 in the above video. BTW, I am not "making up bullshit", people with too much imagination are. PS. I am really not sure what you are disagreeing with me. We are not living in a simulation. What is the issue? I don't get it. |
|
|
|
When I saw the topic, I immediately knew that perpetrator is not Muslim. Because of the keywords like "Terror and Terrorist" were missing. Another mass shooting carried by so-called Nutjob or Individual. I am not surprised if after some days news floating around that perpetrator is mentally disturbed. If you need more guns just to feel safe, then you are not living in a safe place. People died you POS. And you come out here with your "Muslims are called terrorists because of media reporting" BS. Islamist ideology is a breeding ground for terrorists. You can deny all you want, but that is the truth. As for this mass murderer, he misdirected his anger and shot innocent people who had nothing to do with the Caravan of people in Mexico. Even if they did, so what? He should be angry at the US government for not closing the Mexico-US border and stopping accepting all new refugee applications. Mexico should be handling these refugees if they want to. If they are refugees, they are refugees on the Mexican as well as on the US side of the border. It is not like they magically became refugees then they crossed the US border. They might be refugees when they left their home countries. Most of them are just economic, illegal migrants. Last time I checked Mexico signed the UN refugee convention: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ShowMTDSGDetails.aspx?src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=2&mtdsg_no=V-5&chapter=5&lang=en#ParticipantsThe US should temporarily stop accepting any new refugee applications until they figure out how to secure their borders, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Biblical prophecies about the end abound, the books of Isaiah, Revelation and most importantly the book of Matthew chapter 24 speaks of the signs of the end time. These signs include wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, lawlessness etc. All the nations of the earth are experiencing these signs written in the bible. There's no doubt the end is near.
Are you sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events |
|
|
|
A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever
There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms
What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation? Does this count? Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explainedhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2cEvidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed. . There is no "spooky action at the distance", the problem is that we are familiar with properties at our classical level and we try to apply the same classical rules to the quantum level. This guy explains very well the weirdness of Quantum Physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6IYes I agree that is what all empirical evidence seems to show. I also agree with your video linked above where the presenter posits that information is probably the fundamental unit of quantum mechanics. Have you considered the possible implications of this? They really are quite profound. At a minimum they should make one seriously consider some very interesting possibilities. Here is a video that explores some of these possibilities. It is somewhat speculative but the data is strong enough that the possibilities outlined should not be casually dismissed as impossible. The Emergent Universehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iFEBOGLjuq4I always wondered what happens below the Planck"s length or time. I don't know is my answer. |
|
|
|
A computer only needs to compute things that are being observed... this has been known in video games since, forever
There is no reason for a video game to computer individual atoms, nor is there a reason for a simulation to compute individual atoms
What physical evidence do you have that we are in a simulation? Does this count? Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Explainedhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jRcrjKmsw2cEvidence at least that results are not computed/determined until they are observed. Properties of objects at the quantum level are non-local, think quantum non-locality. There is no "spooky action at the distance", the problem is that we are familiar with properties at our classical level and we try to apply the same classical rules to the quantum level. This guy explains very well the weirdness of Quantum Physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7v5NtV8v6Iand why the world might not be discrete (as many postulate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg |
|
|
|
The Standard Model cannot be simulated. Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.
I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago: Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Timehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaAPhysics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)
It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture He is not saying that it can be done. He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc. You are just too excited about this idea. Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad? C'mon, don't abandon your reason. Good night, sleep tight. LOL. I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties Sure chief. You sound like notbatman. Read my previous post tiger. ...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated. Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.
This is what we know today.
Is it possible that we are in a simulation? Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.
Please enlighten us on how you calculate the odds being "pretty much close to zero" Again, I only pointed out that you are WRONG about it being impossible to simulate "The Standard Model"... I'm not claiming that the universe is a simulation, only that it could be... We already know it is possible to simulate the entire universe with a relatively small black-hole... in 1000 years people will have figured out how to do it even easier and better using a smaller computer and data compression... in 1,000,000 years, it is likely to happen... it 1,000,000,000 years, it's practically guaranteed to happen unless something catastrophically wipes out all human life before then Sorry you don't like people who disagree with you, but you really need to come up with an argument beyond 1st grade logic, "You're wrong, and I'm going to call you names since I have no facts or evidence to back up my bullshit" You have to invent new Physics or invalidate the existing models for the simulation to be possible. As I said, that is very, very unlikely. But not impossible. Same odds as the existence of supernatural forces. I pointed out where our current Physics models are at odds with the simulation argument. I hope you understand that much. We have no evidence, our current models are at odds with this argument, so what conclusion can you draw? I'm afraid this simulation argument is in the same realm as the existence of some pantheistic God. If you want to disagree with me, provide a rebuttal of my points against the simulation. Not just disagree with me, because your imagination tells you so. BTW, the guy in your video does not think we are in the simulation. You have to bend Physics to make this work, and he knows that. |
|
|
|
The Standard Model cannot be simulated. Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.
I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago: Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Timehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaAPhysics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)
It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture He is not saying that it can be done. He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc. You are just too excited about this idea. Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad? C'mon, don't abandon your reason. Good night, sleep tight. LOL. I was simply pointing out that the current science disagrees with your claim that it is impossible , calm your titties Sure chief. You sound like notbatman. Read my previous post tiger. ...
The Standard Model cannot be simulated. Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.
This is what we know today.
Is it possible that we are in a simulation? Yes, but the chances of it being so are pretty much close to zero.
|
|
|
|
The Standard Model cannot be simulated. Look up the Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem.
I'm guessing you don't watch PBS Space Time, or you would have seen this video from 2 weeks ago: Computing a Universe Simulation | Space Timehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GLgZvTCbaAPhysics seems to be telling us that it's possible to simulate the entire universe on a computer smaller than a universe
If we go along with this crazy notion, how powerful would that computer need to be?
And how long would it take?
Believe it or not, we could figure it out.
Look, I'm not saying the universe is a simulation
I mean, it might be, I'm just not saying it.
And, perhaps, it doesn't make any difference.
(...)
(watch the video)
It's literally the first sentence out of his mouth, and he goes on for 15 minutes using math to prove the minimum size, etc... and it's a lot more exciting than some random mathematical conjecture He is not saying that it can be done. He is saying IF it can be done, then how big the computer would have to be, how much memory and processing speed you would need; issues with reading from the event horizon etc. You are just too excited about this idea. Do you want the reincarnation to work this bad? C'mon, don't abandon your reason. Good night, sleep tight. LOL. |
|
|
|
don't agree with you. Science and religion answer different questions: science is about describing the world around, religion is about answering the question of what's after death. if you define them correctly, you'll see there's nothing to argue about...
Except there is no life after death. Nobody in the history of life on Earth came back from death. Not a shred of evidence. Religion comes up with answers to non-existing problems, without providing any supporting evidence. But God exists... fact. The faith part is believing Him when He tells us about the coming resurrection.  Nobody cares about your faith. It does not change a thing. You are quite wrong about this. The example right here is that my faith causes me to post some of the things that I post in this forum. And some of the things I post modify the thinking of others. So, we all have and use faith. And all of us base our faith on things that we do religiously, day after day... even scientific things that we do. At least you are honest about why you do it. Your faith (or faith of other people) does not impact the reality one tiny bit. It does not matter if you have 2 billion delusional people, they still are delusional. Believing something does not make it true.I care about the truth. If I don't know something, I say I don't know, you instead adopted some ancient cult to fill your (large) gaps in knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
