Daylight63
Verified User
It was not established 155 year ago, Sybil.
It was not established 155 year ago, Sybil.
You're so full of crap.No, the United States created areas in which people could live without the jurisdiction of the United States. Free zones, so to speak.
It would be a waste when dealing with a retard like you.What would REALLY help is if you were smarter.
Indian reservations are within the jurisdiction of the United States, Pretender. They are NOT 'free zones' by any stretch of the imagination.No, the United States created areas in which people could live without the jurisdiction of the United States. Free zones, so to speak.
This is your generic Argument of the Stone fallacy now, eh Sybil?
This is your generic Argument of the Stone fallacy now, eh Sybil?
I already know you discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You don't have to keep proving it.
This thread is about deporting illegals, not the Church of Global Warming.
It would be a waste when dealing with a retard like you.
The retards speaks ^^^^^^Well at least you have your excuse for not being smarter. Ironically, as usual, it's SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT.
It always is with you guys.
The retards speaks ^^^^^^
Your mommy says, "Now lick my other ball soy boy".As your mommy says: "Sweetie, now, get on the short bus and go to school, honey..."
The 14th amendment makes them American citizens.So why are children born to illegals automatically American citizens?
But not under the jurisdiction of the USA if both parents are not US citizens.The 14th amendment makes them American citizens.
1. They are a person.
2. They are born
3. They are in the US.
The UN is not a party to the treaty. The 193 countries that signed the treaty are party to it. The US signed the treaty and agreed to abide by it. The UN is just theDoes not exempt such from law enforcement, Poorboy. The UN is not the United States or any other nation.
Where exactly does it say the parents must be under the jurisdiction of the USA in the 14th amendment?But not under the jurisdiction of the USA if both parents are not US citizens.
If they were subject to it's jurisdiction they would be in jail. Local govts will be protecting illegals from federal jurisdiction when they decide they will not cooperating with ICE.Where exactly does it say the parents must be under the jurisdiction of the USA in the 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.
It only says the person born must be subject to the jurisdiction. It says nothing about parents. At this point you are simply making shit up that is not in the Constitution and pretending that your shit is true.
The only people subject to US jurisdiction are people in jail? Are you claiming that there are no Federal judges since they have no jurisdiction?If they were subject to it's jurisdiction they would be in jail. Local govts will be protecting illegals from federal jurisdiction when they decide they will not cooperating with ICE.
Not at all what I said. I'd ask you to try again but why? There's no point in it.The only people subject to US jurisdiction are people in jail? Are you claiming that there are no Federal judges since they have no jurisdiction?
You said thisNot at all what I said. I'd ask younger try again but why? There's no point in it.
If they were subject to it's jurisdiction they would be in jail. Local govts will be protecting illegals from federal jurisdiction when they decide they will not cooperating with ICE.
I guess you reason you shouldn't try is because it will only make you look even stupider.Not at all what I said. I'd ask you to try again but why? There's no point in it.
They are here illegally skippy. Asshole governors and mayors across the country have said they will protect illegals from ICE therefore they are not under the justification of the United States but the asshole governors and mayors.You said this
The only way they can protect them from federal jurisdiction is if they are subject to that jurisdiction. Your own argument disproves your claim. They are subject to jurisdiction or there would be no way someone could be "protecting" them from that jurisdiction.