Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Westside Steve

Caravan of illegals

Recommended Posts

On 10/26/2018 at 10:53 AM, calfoxwc said:

say, how weird is it that these groups have been very...very....very...very silent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)

Background

The term Reconquista means "reconquest", and is an analogy to the Spanish Reconquista of Moorish Iberia, as the areas of greatest Mexican immigration and cultural diffusion are conterminous with the territories the United States gained from Mexico in the 19th century.[2]

1280px-Hispanic_population_in_the_United

User:Yerevanci

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

You are aware that there were already high percentages of Mexican-Americans in those very areas right? You know, US citizens born here just like you. Surely if you spent time in San Antonio 50 years ago, then you had to be aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't make any difference - the illegals are not coloring the rest of the U.S. to catch up are they?

NO.

doesn't say how many are ILLEGAL, does it?

NO.

and your corrupt obaMao regime shipped illegals all over America, especially to red states, which tells you something?

SI ?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-dictator-obama-flooding-rural-towns-with-illegals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, you can keep your perverts/rapists/serial killers/child molesters for their votes.

Deportation-Illegal-Immigrants-768x533.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP-Voters-768x528.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a new thread that should really be part of this (maybe even two threads), so I'm going to put this here.

 

image.png.f4c31b82fab5321e55d52007d08d81fc.png

image.thumb.png.e1469c4ce886307e54be613838e449ce.png

 

New Supreme Court Balance.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JAFBF said:

There's a new thread that should really be part of this (maybe even two threads), so I'm going to put this here.

 

image.thumb.png.e1469c4ce886307e54be613838e449ce.png

 

New Supreme Court Balance.

 

I hate to disappoint the lazy people, but if you read the entire debate, that author is cherry picking a quote. You will see clearing from reading the debate, that the 14th Admendment means exactly what the first sentence states. "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. " Sen Cowan goes on a rant about worrying that mongol races would overrun some states if the Amendment passes.  He was answered with an example of Chinese parent's child would indeed be a citizen and welcomed. 

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

Pages 2890-2891

Unfortunately what is true is not really important to 30% of the voting public right now. But anyone who reads the debate will come to the same conclusion.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ignorance is liberal bliss. "yawn".

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time, the general rule – not a hard rule since could be suspended when required by the King – every person born within the Kings allegiance and within any of the King’s realms or dominions was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King whom may have been born in any of his realms or dominions. This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812).

In early America the common law rule of “natural allegiance” was discarded as well as the rule of automatic citizenship to children born to aliens regardless of their condition. Other differences that differed from the common law were the general rule children born to transient aliens or temporary sojourners remained alien. Early states also required of aliens who desired to become domiciled within their limits to first renounce any allegiances to other governments and pledge their allegiance solely to the State. Therefore, a child born to domiciled alien parents was “born within the allegiance” of the State even if the parents had not yet been naturalized would be considered a citizen of the state and a United States citizen.

Moreover, when an issue of aliens and citizenship went before the courts it meant some State had neglected to enact laws on the subject, thereby forcing the courts to adjudicate citizenship under common law rules of place of birth. This is exactly what happened with the State of New York in 1844, forcing the State to later withhold automatic citizenship of children born to “transient aliens” by statute. *

Conceivably, Congress could had from the beginning attempted to include a defined local birthright rule – whether due to place of birth or parentage – but would have found, just as the Thirty-Ninth Congress had discovered, to be no simple matter as individual States had differing opinions over who should, or should not, be their citizens.

As a rule, the nation considered only those patriotic immigrants who came here for the exclusive purpose to settling amongst us, bringing with them wealth, like habits and customs as those worthy to become part of our society. And more importantly, those willing to renounce all prior allegiances to their country of origin and swear exclusive fidelity to this one.

Paupers, vagabonds and imperialist were universally despised.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, the leftwing distorted interpretation of the 14th Amendment is just fake news.

they try to do the same thing with the 2nd Amendment, too.

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

so, the leftwing distorted interpretation of the 14th Amendment is just fake news.

they try to do the same thing with the 2nd Amendment, too.

Nope.

I post a link to actual debate of the 14th Amendment from Library of Congress and you post a link to a right wing news site. But it the left "distorting" the 14th Amendment. 😄

Your next alt-right talking point " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is also refuted on the same two pages. Sorry we kept such good records in Congress. Again an unbiased reader of the debate clearly understand what the first sentence means. Maybe you can copy/paste other multi-page right wing interpretation of what the authors really meant. I'll stick with the actual archives that explains it clearly to anyone who care about what it true. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cccjwh said:

I hate to disappoint the lazy people, but if you read the entire debate, that author is cherry picking a quote. You will see clearing from reading the debate, that the 14th Admendment means exactly what the first sentence states. "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. " Sen Cowan goes on a rant about worrying that mongol races would overrun some states if the Amendment passes.  He was answered with an example of Chinese parent's child would indeed be a citizen and welcomed. 

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

Pages 2890-2891

Unfortunately what is true is not really important to 30% of the voting public right now. But anyone who reads the debate will come to the same conclusion.

 

 

 

Won't deny the good points, but this is the state of things :

 

image.thumb.png.7547408b99a9df733717310ddebde91f.png

https://www.axios.com/mike-pence-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ff6a26df-169a-4df2-8a67-0df3e47f6061.html

 

image.png.2972cf154e2616153d04df131f894053.png

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/30/lindsey-graham-to-introduce-bill-ending-birthright-citizenship-magnet-for-illegal-immigration/

 

From the other side of the aisle.

 

image.png.750f40a1fce296c5d43ee354d351dd98.png

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/30/harry-reid-insane-reward-illegal-immigrants-giving-children-birthright-citizenship/

But now it's suddenly the way to do things ?

 

image.png.25adeaf1f93dc3af6d50aed613eaef6d.png

 

This is with the current Supreme Court makeup.

If this drags past February, RBG is going to be gone and the SC is going to be even more conservative.

Drag it out another year and at least two SC Justices will be replaced with conservative Justices.

 

Probably going to sail straight on through if it even has to go that far (record number of Judges have been appointed by POTUS).

 

Personally, I'm thinking this is a diversion (for now), something else is going on elsewhere, but it's a bit enough diversion that it's going to demand MSM attention.

 

They fall for it every time.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you just believe anything you see on Twitter, huh? At least anything you see that you agree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

So you just believe anything you see on Twitter, huh? At least anything you see that you agree with. 

Do you ever actually take a stand or do you just talk in circles?

Do you even have a set of balls?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Do you ever actually take a stand or do you just talk in circles?

Do you even have a set of balls?

The woodpecker argues nonsense, then attacks character and sources because he can never make any sense. And, sadly, woodpeckers don't have penises - so woodypeckerhead is very antagonistic and resentful of most guys on the forum.

Alas, the three birdbrains must have a gay time together, centipede threesome. 

https://pygmylorisreid.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/how-do-birds-have-sex/

Penisless birds and the cloaca

The first thing to note is that the males of most bird species do not have penises (although many waterfowl species do,  and they are STRANGE – we’ll come onto that later). Both male and female birds have an opening called a “cloaca” – which I thought was a rather lovely word, especially as bird sex is often described using the phrase “cloacal kiss”. Then I learned that the word “cloaca” comes from the latin word for sewer. Why would their sex hole derive from a word for sewer, you ask? Because birds don’t just use this hole for reproduction. They pee and poo out of it, too. Gross but effective, especially if you have to be light enough to fly.

During the breeding season, the ovaries of the female expand dramatically, as do the male’s internal testes (that’s right, birds keep them inside so that’s why you haven’t seen a blackbird with balls. Presumably makes flying much easier).

***********************************************************************************

   With woodpeckers - certain species are well known for not being attracted to the females. Gay birdness is common with these types. It is believed that their constant chirping and aggressive postures are genetically instilled into their dna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hammertime said:

Do you ever actually take a stand or do you just talk in circles?

Do you even have a set of balls?

I do, yes. Plenty of times. I also see one poster with dozens of pages of random Twitter posts. I realize it's exciting when it fits your agenda... but come on.

 

But by posting that you're about to have a lot of little fanboys lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

So you just believe anything you see on Twitter, huh? At least anything you see that you agree with. 

Woody, I use Twitter clips because they're easy reading and get the point across quicker.

More times than not I usually have the linked articles supporting the snippet.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I do, yes. Plenty of times. I also see one poster with dozens of pages of random Twitter posts. I realize it's exciting when it fits your agenda... but come on.

 

But by posting that you're about to have a lot of little fanboys lol

Its not just the Trump era that you refuse to take a stand on.

how as a decent human being can you not take a stand on reckless accusations that were made on Kavanaugh?   instead you just spin words to say that the republicans do the same thing?

 

Your not the only one.  Instead of taking the side working for America, there a group heres that's just interested in proving Cal etc wrong.....

Instead of excepting that there is fake news people just point fingers and say ammoland etc is bad.  at the same time refusing to accept that the media is wacked....

 

and I apologize about the balls comment,  that doesn't help the situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JAFBF said:

Won't deny the good points, but this is the state of things :

 

image.thumb.png.7547408b99a9df733717310ddebde91f.png

https://www.axios.com/mike-pence-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-ff6a26df-169a-4df2-8a67-0df3e47f6061.html

 

image.png.2972cf154e2616153d04df131f894053.png

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/30/lindsey-graham-to-introduce-bill-ending-birthright-citizenship-magnet-for-illegal-immigration/

 

From the other side of the aisle.

 

image.png.750f40a1fce296c5d43ee354d351dd98.png

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/30/harry-reid-insane-reward-illegal-immigrants-giving-children-birthright-citizenship/

But now it's suddenly the way to do things ?

 

image.png.25adeaf1f93dc3af6d50aed613eaef6d.png

 

This is with the current Supreme Court makeup.

If this drags past February, RBG is going to be gone and the SC is going to be even more conservative.

Drag it out another year and at least two SC Justices will be replaced with conservative Justices.

 

Probably going to sail straight on through if it even has to go that far (record number of Judges have been appointed by POTUS).

 

Personally, I'm thinking this is a diversion (for now), something else is going on elsewhere, but it's a bit enough diversion that it's going to demand MSM attention.

 

They fall for it every time.

 

Spamming random tweets doesn't support your argument, it just shows you aren't bright enough to think for yourself. 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAFBF said:

Woody, I use Twitter clips because they're easy reading and get the point across quicker.

More times than not I usually have the linked articles supporting the snippet.

 

 

The infatuation with yelling "fake news!" and "MSM!" has led you (and others) to believe Twitter posts and blatantly biased "news" sights are now reputable sources...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MLD Woody said:

The infatuation with yelling "fake news!" and "MSM!" has led you (and others) to believe Twitter posts and blatantly biased "news" sights are now reputable sources...

So now you're saying CNN is a credible news source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

So now you're saying CNN is a credible news source?

They seem biased. I wouldn't only get news from  there. Of course, if they outright lie they have more consequences to face than Freedom Joe on Twitter or MuricaGunFreedomNews.com

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×