New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

How can leftists say voter fraud doesn’t exist?

RepubBub said:
midhudsonnews.com

Stony Point GOP committeeman arrested in primary ballot fraud investigation

NEW CITY – A member of the Stony Point Republican County Committee has been arrested following an investigation into allegations of ballot fraud in the June 2
midhudsonnews.com midhudsonnews.com


Lock’em up!
Click to expand...
I believe that our elections are not secured. That they are subject to corruption and fraud and determining or significantly influencing the final results.

With 10's of millions of illegals in the country. With SCOTUS falsifying citizenship status and Democrats at the center of it all, like they are at the center of all the fraud in Minneapolis and other parts of the country. I don't trust Democrats. As bad as Republicans may be Democrats are basically communists with communists ethos running amuck on our land with their foreign accomplices.
 
Halo said:
I believe that our elections are not secured. That they are subject to corruption and fraud and determining or significantly influencing the final results.

With 10's of millions of illegals in the country. With SCOTUS falsifying citizenship status and Democrats at the center of it all, like they are at the center of all the fraud in Minneapolis and other parts of the country. I don't trust Democrats. As bad as Republicans may be Democrats are basically communists with communists ethos running amuck on our land with their foreign accomplices.
Click to expand...
By “falsifying citizenship status” you mean refusing to countenance a radical rewriting of the constitution to take citizenship away from millions of people born citizens, correct? “Fraud” refers to following the Constitution as the SCOTUS has interpreted it consistently for over 100 years?
 
EatTheRich said:
By “falsifying citizenship status” you mean refusing to countenance a radical rewriting of the constitution to take citizenship away from millions of people born citizens, correct? “Fraud” refers to following the Constitution as the SCOTUS has interpreted it consistently for over 100 years?
Click to expand...
The debate in the Senate in 1866 makes the original intent of the text explicitly clear. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, the author who introduced the Citizenship Clause to the Senate floor, stated definitively that the phrase:


“...is a virtue of natural law and national law. It means a person born in the United States, and not at the time of his birth subject to any foreign power... It is not intended to include an alien who belongs to the laws of some other government.”
Click to expand...
Furthermore, during these fundamental debates, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania explicitly raised the alarm regarding potential over-expansion and abuse of the clause. He asked if the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of temporary or non-assimilated populations, noting that it was dangerous to force a state to inherit citizens who owe their ultimate fidelity elsewhere. In response, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who co-authored the Civil Rights Act of 1866, clarified the exact meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" by stating:


“What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not a partial or a limited jurisdiction... It means full and complete jurisdiction. What do we mean by that? We mean the child born to parents who are not the subjects of any foreign power.”
Click to expand...
This historical record establishes that "jurisdiction" was designed as a measure of exclusive political allegiance, not simple amenability to local police power.
 
Halo said:
The debate in the Senate in 1866 makes the original intent of the text explicitly clear. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, the author who introduced the Citizenship Clause to the Senate floor, stated definitively that the phrase:



Furthermore, during these fundamental debates, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania explicitly raised the alarm regarding potential over-expansion and abuse of the clause. He asked if the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of temporary or non-assimilated populations, noting that it was dangerous to force a state to inherit citizens who owe their ultimate fidelity elsewhere. In response, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who co-authored the Civil Rights Act of 1866, clarified the exact meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" by stating:



This historical record establishes that "jurisdiction" was designed as a measure of exclusive political allegiance, not simple amenability to local police power.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously claiming that Barron Trump is not a citizen of the U.S. since he and his mother are Slovenian citizens?
 
EatTheRich said:
Are you seriously claiming that Barron Trump is not a citizen of the U.S. since he and his mother are Slovenian citizens?
Click to expand...
Clearly you don't know citizenship laws. Congress says that if a U.S. citizen has a child abroad (one parent) then that child is a U.S. citizen if registered with the embassy in a timely fashion. So certainly a child born in the U.S. with an American parent is born a U.S. citizen. You can think about all those Vietnam children born to U.S. service men being citizens.

If parents are here legally (like on a green card) then their children are U.S. citizens (dual national until turning 18).

As you can see citizenship is largely determined by legislative action.

If "under the jurisdiction of" is again rule of law. Legislators can fix things.
 
Last edited:
Halo said:
Clearly you don't know citizenship laws. Congress says that if a U.S. citizen has a child abroad (one parent) then that child is a U.S. citizen if registered with the embassy in a timely fashion. So certainly a child born in the U.S. with an American parent is born a U.S. citizen. You can think about all those Vietnam children born to U.S. service men being citizens.

If parents are here legally (like on a green card) then their children are U.S. citizens (dual national until turning 18).

As you can see citizenship is largely determined by legislative action.

If "under the jurisdiction of" is again rule of law. Legislators can fix things.
Click to expand...
You seem like an expert. Instead of sitting at home waiting for GTA6, you should run for congress.
 
Halo said:
Clearly you don't know citizenship laws. Congress says that if a U.S. citizen has a child abroad (one parent) then that child is a U.S. citizen if registered with the embassy in a timely fashion. So certainly a child born in the U.S. with an American parent is born a U.S. citizen. You can think about all those Vietnam children born to U.S. service men being citizens.

If parents are here legally (like on a green card) then their children are U.S. citizens (dual national until turning 18).

As you can see citizenship is largely determined by legislative action.

If "under the jurisdiction of" is again rule of law. Legislators can fix things.
Click to expand...
If parents are here without documents (legally, as asylum seekers pending review of their cases, or illegally, for those in technical violation of the kafkaesque border laws), the children are U.S. citizens as well. That has been the consistent position of the Supreme Court for over 100 years, based on among other things much more thorough research of the historical context of the 14th Amendment than those who fed you your talking points.
 
Halo said:
I believe that our elections are not secured. That they are subject to corruption and fraud and determining or significantly influencing the final results.

With 10's of millions of illegals in the country. With SCOTUS falsifying citizenship status and Democrats at the center of it all, like they are at the center of all the fraud in Minneapolis and other parts of the country. I don't trust Democrats. As bad as Republicans may be Democrats are basically communists with communists ethos running amuck on our land with their foreign accomplices.
Click to expand...
so " 10's of millions" of illegals in the country - where are they - you are claiming how many out of 390 million people are here, if it ten's of millions then 20-30-40 million ? Now think for a minute, if you are capable, how did they get here? A thousand crossing the border in the yearly immigrant caravan make major news, so wouldn't 100,000 at a time be major red alert news on Fox ? dRINK MORE maga KOOL-AID and tell me how at least 20 million got there during the Biden term, because we all know the claims made on here and Biden. For 20 million to come in over 4 years, that is 5 million a year or 100,000 a week - how did 100,000 people evade law enforcement and most importantly Fox/ Newsmax ?

Please tell us how they did it, were they already here under Trump's reign ?
 
Halo said:
The debate in the Senate in 1866 makes the original intent of the text explicitly clear. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, the author who introduced the Citizenship Clause to the Senate floor, stated definitively that the phrase:



Furthermore, during these fundamental debates, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania explicitly raised the alarm regarding potential over-expansion and abuse of the clause. He asked if the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of temporary or non-assimilated populations, noting that it was dangerous to force a state to inherit citizens who owe their ultimate fidelity elsewhere. In response, Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who co-authored the Civil Rights Act of 1866, clarified the exact meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" by stating:



This historical record establishes that "jurisdiction" was designed as a measure of exclusive political allegiance, not simple amenability to local police power.
Click to expand...
At the time of birth...the laws of what country apply? Let's take the example of a parent wanted for a crime in their own country. Can that country send their own law enforcement to take them into custody? No. Because that person is subject to our laws, not theirs.

What is the measure of political allegiance? If they are employees of a foreign nation...embassy staff, military personnel here for training...their children are not subject to birthright citizenship.
 
EatTheRich said:
If parents are here without documents (legally, as asylum seekers pending review of their cases, or illegally, for those in technical violation of the kafkaesque border laws), the children are U.S. citizens as well. That has been the consistent position of the Supreme Court for over 100 years, based on among other things much more thorough research of the historical context of the 14th Amendment than those who fed you your talking points.
Click to expand...
I don't give a [Unwelcome language removed] about your open borders global communist shit. That is traitor shit period.

Refugees and asylum seekers principles are being abused by illegal economic migrants.

Stop trying to tear this country down.
 
middleview said:
At the time of birth...the laws of what country apply? Let's take the example of a parent wanted for a crime in their own country. Can that country send their own law enforcement to take them into custody? No. Because that person is subject to our laws, not theirs.

What is the measure of political allegiance? If they are employees of a foreign nation...embassy staff, military personnel here for training...their children are not subject to birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...
I quoted [Unwelcome language removed] authors to the clause but you know better. ha ha ha ha ha ha

You're unlawful. You're a pretender, rule of man kind of guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top