Pritzker needs to boycott some buffets. What a fat slob. He’s going all in on the trannies in girls sports in an attempt to gauge a run for the opportunity to lose to JD Vance in 2028. That would be the only running he does. Beached whale.

(04-25-2025 05:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 02:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

Nowhere does it (or the 5th) mention retards or redheads either. Us it you stance that retards and redheads aren't persons as well?

Is it your stance since redheads aren't mentioned, they aren't afforded due process?

Yep illegals aren't mentioned. So what. Think about the above when you try to instruct us on the 5th and the 14th with that insight. Maybe toss out every other inane distinction about what they 'didn't mention.' Could be fun

Do you think all people mentioned in the 14th included all people in the USA?

Did you read it? It clearly does through its distinct use of citizen and person in different clauses.

“ 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is hundred plus of years of case law and Supreme Court opinion on the interpretation. It’s not our fault if you can’t read so good and are mad that the constitution doesn’t let your orange idol throw brown people in a concentration camp.

You do know that Slaves didn't have 5th Amendment Rights don't you. The Amendment that was ratified in 1791. "All people"

The Native Americans didn't have 5th and 14th Amendment Rights ever.
"All people"

But you and others want to state that illegals have these Rights when a group of people living in the USA didn't have these Rights in that time period.

(04-25-2025 05:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 02:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 11:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Then I suggest a decent dictionary that has a definition of 'person' as a starting point -- and might be a good idea as a starting point for some self-help steps.

Yeah, how *dare* *anyone* in the legal system be able to distinguish a difference between 'person', and say, 'citizen'. The sheer horror.....

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

Nowhere does it (or the 5th) mention retards or redheads either. Us it you stance that retards and redheads aren't persons as well?

Is it your stance since redheads aren't mentioned, they aren't afforded due process?

Yep illegals aren't mentioned. So what. Think about the above when you try to instruct us on the 5th and the 14th with that insight. Maybe toss out every other inane distinction about what they 'didn't mention.' Could be fun

Do you think all people mentioned in the 14th included all people in the USA?

Did you read it? It clearly does through its distinct use of citizen and person in different clauses.

“ 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is hundred plus of years of case law and Supreme Court opinion on the interpretation. It’s not our fault if you can’t read so good and are mad that the constitution doesn’t let your orange idol throw brown people in a concentration camp.

it doesn't get any fonzier than that....

(04-25-2025 10:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 05:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 02:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 12:20 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to address the citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for African Americans and former slaves following the American Civil War. It granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including those who had been emancipated, and ensured that no state could deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law.

This amendment was part of the Reconstruction era and aimed to establish civil and legal rights for Black Americans, providing a foundation for landmark Supreme Court decisions that have addressed issues such as racial discrimination, reproductive rights, and voting rights.

No where does it mention illegals.

Nowhere does it (or the 5th) mention retards or redheads either. Us it you stance that retards and redheads aren't persons as well?

Is it your stance since redheads aren't mentioned, they aren't afforded due process?

Yep illegals aren't mentioned. So what. Think about the above when you try to instruct us on the 5th and the 14th with that insight. Maybe toss out every other inane distinction about what they 'didn't mention.' Could be fun

Do you think all people mentioned in the 14th included all people in the USA?

Did you read it? It clearly does through its distinct use of citizen and person in different clauses.

“ 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is hundred plus of years of case law and Supreme Court opinion on the interpretation. It’s not our fault if you can’t read so good and are mad that the constitution doesn’t let your orange idol throw brown people in a concentration camp.

it doesn't get any fonzier than that....

https://images.app.goo.gl/jBjU7d96AXf51EmV9

Unless the 14th Amendment is modified or repealed (neither of which I see happening), I'm not sure how you can eliminate birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal parents. What I think is doable and consistent with the 14th Amendment is to remove any right conveyed to the parents to remain in the USA with their child. You're illegal, you have a baby on USA soil, the baby can stay but you can't. Your choices are to take the baby with you when you are deported or to make an arrangement with someone who is legally entitled to be in the states to take and raise your child. If you have relatives here legally, you will very likely choose the second aklternative, otherwise you choose the first.

(04-26-2025 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless the 14th Amendment is modified or repealed (neither of which I see happening), I'm not sure how you can eliminate birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal parents. What I think is doable and consistent with the 14th Amendment is to remove any right conveyed to the parents to remain in the USA with their child. You're illegal, you have a baby on USA soil, the baby can stay but you can't. Your choices are to take the baby with you when you are deported or to make an arrangement with someone who is legally entitled to be in the states to take and raise your child. If you have relatives here legally, you will very likely choose the second aklternative, otherwise you choose the first.

that's a horrible interpretation ... but I have to agree with the posit ... it ain' gonna happen, cap'n ...

(04-26-2025 08:05 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 10:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 05:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 02:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Nowhere does it (or the 5th) mention retards or redheads either. Us it you stance that retards and redheads aren't persons as well?

Is it your stance since redheads aren't mentioned, they aren't afforded due process?

Yep illegals aren't mentioned. So what. Think about the above when you try to instruct us on the 5th and the 14th with that insight. Maybe toss out every other inane distinction about what they 'didn't mention.' Could be fun

Do you think all people mentioned in the 14th included all people in the USA?

Did you read it? It clearly does through its distinct use of citizen and person in different clauses.

“ 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is hundred plus of years of case law and Supreme Court opinion on the interpretation. It’s not our fault if you can’t read so good and are mad that the constitution doesn’t let your orange idol throw brown people in a concentration camp.

it doesn't get any fonzier than that....

https://images.app.goo.gl/jBjU7d96AXf51EmV9

Yes, we know you're an idiot. You make it known with almost every single post.

(04-26-2025 10:12 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 08:05 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 10:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 05:45 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-25-2025 02:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Do you think all people mentioned in the 14th included all people in the USA?

Did you read it? It clearly does through its distinct use of citizen and person in different clauses.

“ 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is hundred plus of years of case law and Supreme Court opinion on the interpretation. It’s not our fault if you can’t read so good and are mad that the constitution doesn’t let your orange idol throw brown people in a concentration camp.

it doesn't get any fonzier than that....

https://images.app.goo.gl/jBjU7d96AXf51EmV9

Yes, we know you're an idiot. You make it known with almost every single post.

to summarize in the @shouldBeenBornAjew

boy can't write good...

dey cain' read good...

they cannot be well...


lmmfao ... @alwaysInTreysGem #conjugationalHades

(04-26-2025 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless the 14th Amendment is modified or repealed (neither of which I see happening), I'm not sure how you can eliminate birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal parents. What I think is doable and consistent with the 14th Amendment is to remove any right conveyed to the parents to remain in the USA with their child. You're illegal, you have a baby on USA soil, the baby can stay but you can't. Your choices are to take the baby with you when you are deported or to make an arrangement with someone who is legally entitled to be in the states to take and raise your child. If you have relatives here legally, you will very likely choose the second aklternative, otherwise you choose the first.

They deported a 2 year old US citizen this week by not allowing the mother communication to get them to their appointed custodian.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two-yea...%20States.

(04-26-2025 11:15 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless the 14th Amendment is modified or repealed (neither of which I see happening), I'm not sure how you can eliminate birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal parents. What I think is doable and consistent with the 14th Amendment is to remove any right conveyed to the parents to remain in the USA with their child. You're illegal, you have a baby on USA soil, the baby can stay but you can't. Your choices are to take the baby with you when you are deported or to make an arrangement with someone who is legally entitled to be in the states to take and raise your child. If you have relatives here legally, you will very likely choose the second aklternative, otherwise you choose the first.

They deported a 2 year old US citizen this week by not allowing the mother communication to get them to their appointed custodian.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two-yea...%20States.

That's a bit misleading there, Elvis. The mother, who was being deported, and has legal custody of the little girl, requested that the girl go with her to Honduras. The girl is also able to re-enter the US whenever she wants.

Quote:V.M.L. was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday with her mother, Jenny Carolina Lopez Villela, and older sister when Villela attended a routine appointment at its New Orleans office, according to a filing by Trish Mack, who said the infant's father asked her to act as the child's custodian.

According to Mack, when V.M.L.'s father briefly spoke to Villela, he could hear her and the children crying. During that time, according to a court document, he reminded her that their daughter was a U.S. citizen "and could not be deported."

However, prosecutors said Villela, who has legal custody, told ICE that she wanted to retain custody of the girl and have her go with her to Honduras. They said the man claiming to be V.M.L.'s father had not presented himself to ICE despite requests to do so.

"It is therefore in V.M.L.’s best interest that she remain in the lawful custody of her mother," Trump administration officials said in a filing on Friday. "Further, V.M.L. is not at risk of irreparable harm because she is a U.S. citizen."

V.M.L. is not prohibited from entering the U.S., prosecutors added.

(04-26-2025 12:02 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 11:15 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless the 14th Amendment is modified or repealed (neither of which I see happening), I'm not sure how you can eliminate birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal parents. What I think is doable and consistent with the 14th Amendment is to remove any right conveyed to the parents to remain in the USA with their child. You're illegal, you have a baby on USA soil, the baby can stay but you can't. Your choices are to take the baby with you when you are deported or to make an arrangement with someone who is legally entitled to be in the states to take and raise your child. If you have relatives here legally, you will very likely choose the second aklternative, otherwise you choose the first.

They deported a 2 year old US citizen this week by not allowing the mother communication to get them to their appointed custodian.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two-yea...%20States.

That's a bit misleading there, Elvis. The mother, who was being deported, and has legal custody of the little girl, requested that the girl go with her to Honduras. The girl is also able to re-enter the US whenever she wants.

Quote:V.M.L. was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday with her mother, Jenny Carolina Lopez Villela, and older sister when Villela attended a routine appointment at its New Orleans office, according to a filing by Trish Mack, who said the infant's father asked her to act as the child's custodian.

According to Mack, when V.M.L.'s father briefly spoke to Villela, he could hear her and the children crying. During that time, according to a court document, he reminded her that their daughter was a U.S. citizen "and could not be deported."

However, prosecutors said Villela, who has legal custody, told ICE that she wanted to retain custody of the girl and have her go with her to Honduras. They said the man claiming to be V.M.L.'s father had not presented himself to ICE despite requests to do so.

"It is therefore in V.M.L.’s best interest that she remain in the lawful custody of her mother," Trump administration officials said in a filing on Friday. "Further, V.M.L. is not at risk of irreparable harm because she is a U.S. citizen."

V.M.L. is not prohibited from entering the U.S., prosecutors added.

They get to try and prove it in court :

“ The Government contends that this
Case 1:25-cv-00550-TAD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/25/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 88
is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her. See ECF
No. 5-1. But the Court doesn’t know that. Seeking the path of least resistance, the
Court called counsel for the Government at 12:19 p.m. CST, so that we could speak
with VML’s mother and survey her consent and custodial rights. The Court was
independently aware at the time that the plane, tail number N570TA, was above the
Gulf of America. The Court was then called back by counsel for the Government at
1:06 p.m. CST, informing the Court that a call with VML’s mother would not be
possible, because she (and presumably VML) had just been released in Honduras. In
the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a
U.S. citizen with no meaningful process,
IT IS ORDERED that the matter be set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 16,
2025, at the Monroe Federal Courthouse, 201 Jackson St, Monroe, LA, 71201.”

(04-26-2025 12:23 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 12:02 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 11:15 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Unless the 14th Amendment is modified or repealed (neither of which I see happening), I'm not sure how you can eliminate birthright citizenship for those born here to illegal parents. What I think is doable and consistent with the 14th Amendment is to remove any right conveyed to the parents to remain in the USA with their child. You're illegal, you have a baby on USA soil, the baby can stay but you can't. Your choices are to take the baby with you when you are deported or to make an arrangement with someone who is legally entitled to be in the states to take and raise your child. If you have relatives here legally, you will very likely choose the second aklternative, otherwise you choose the first.

They deported a 2 year old US citizen this week by not allowing the mother communication to get them to their appointed custodian.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two-yea...%20States.

That's a bit misleading there, Elvis. The mother, who was being deported, and has legal custody of the little girl, requested that the girl go with her to Honduras. The girl is also able to re-enter the US whenever she wants.

Quote:V.M.L. was apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday with her mother, Jenny Carolina Lopez Villela, and older sister when Villela attended a routine appointment at its New Orleans office, according to a filing by Trish Mack, who said the infant's father asked her to act as the child's custodian.

According to Mack, when V.M.L.'s father briefly spoke to Villela, he could hear her and the children crying. During that time, according to a court document, he reminded her that their daughter was a U.S. citizen "and could not be deported."

However, prosecutors said Villela, who has legal custody, told ICE that she wanted to retain custody of the girl and have her go with her to Honduras. They said the man claiming to be V.M.L.'s father had not presented himself to ICE despite requests to do so.

"It is therefore in V.M.L.’s best interest that she remain in the lawful custody of her mother," Trump administration officials said in a filing on Friday. "Further, V.M.L. is not at risk of irreparable harm because she is a U.S. citizen."

V.M.L. is not prohibited from entering the U.S., prosecutors added.

They get to try and prove it in court :

“ The Government contends that this
Case 1:25-cv-00550-TAD-JPM Document 8 Filed 04/25/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 88
is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her. See ECF
No. 5-1. But the Court doesn’t know that. Seeking the path of least resistance, the
Court called counsel for the Government at 12:19 p.m. CST, so that we could speak
with VML’s mother and survey her consent and custodial rights. The Court was
independently aware at the time that the plane, tail number N570TA, was above the
Gulf of America. The Court was then called back by counsel for the Government at
1:06 p.m. CST, informing the Court that a call with VML’s mother would not be
possible, because she (and presumably VML) had just been released in Honduras. In
the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a
U.S. citizen with no meaningful process,
IT IS ORDERED that the matter be set for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on May 16,
2025, at the Monroe Federal Courthouse, 201 Jackson St, Monroe, LA, 71201.”

we're fully cognizant of bs lawfare lives maTTTer....

#next

So it becomes he said she said. And the court didn't ask for clarification until after the plane had departed.

Is the father saying the mom is not the legal guardian? I didn't see that anywhere. Assuming she is, she can let the girl return any time. But it would be her call, not the court's.

This thread is a classic example of how liberals, in power for the previous 4 years, have ripped apart this country.
Their mindset, on display in this thread, is the biggest threat we have in the United States.

Literally, these people are nuts.

They ruin every single thing they touch. Everything. The evidence is everywhere. And when you call them on it, they cry foul.

I hope they go find their own country to destroy and leave this one alone.

(04-26-2025 01:07 PM)450bench Wrote:  This thread is a classic example of how liberals, in power for the previous 4 years, have ripped apart this country.
Their mindset, on display in this thread, is the biggest threat we have in the United States.

Literally, these people are nuts.

They ruin every single thing they touch. Everything. The evidence is everywhere. And when you call them on it, they cry foul.

I hope they go find their own country to destroy and leave this one alone.

YES

Both sides have their share of nut cases. My concern is some of the activist judges on the left seem to have no issues with breaking the law.

Or, in many more cases, pushing the right to do things they don't push the left for.

Massive difference in left and right loons. Massive.

(04-26-2025 01:07 PM)450bench Wrote:  This thread is a classic example of how liberals, in power for the previous 4 years, have ripped apart this country.
Their mindset, on display in this thread, is the biggest threat we have in the United States.

Literally, these people are nuts.

They ruin every single thing they touch. Everything. The evidence is everywhere. And when you call them on it, they cry foul.

I hope they go find their own country to destroy and leave this one alone.

“Liberals are destroying the country by insisting we follow the constitution”

Y’all are whiney snowflakes today.

(04-26-2025 01:37 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(04-26-2025 01:07 PM)450bench Wrote:  This thread is a classic example of how liberals, in power for the previous 4 years, have ripped apart this country.
Their mindset, on display in this thread, is the biggest threat we have in the United States.

Literally, these people are nuts.

They ruin every single thing they touch. Everything. The evidence is everywhere. And when you call them on it, they cry foul.

I hope they go find their own country to destroy and leave this one alone.

“Liberals are destroying the country by insisting we follow the constitution”

Y’all are whiney snowflakes today.

Read Post 1223 and get back to me.