|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Digital History /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1544464054 Message started by T And T Garage on 12/10/18 at 09:47:34 |
|
Title: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/10/18 at 09:47:34 Never goes away. Apparently, trump (and most of his followers) don't seem to realize that. http://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-scorched-over-tweet-bashing-035734953.html @realDonaldTrump 3 Chief of Staffs in less than 3 years of being President: Part of the reason why @BarackObama can't manage to pass his agenda. 15K 2:07 PM - Jan 10, 2012 ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/10/18 at 09:50:36 Oh, as a side note, let me add this: It (his tweets) will play a part in his continuing downfall and his impeachment. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by oldNslow on 12/11/18 at 10:12:02 TandT wrote: "Digital History - never goes away" True. But don't forget that, like a knife, what or who, this cuts depends on who is wielding it. Stalin would have loved the internet and social media. His huge, expensive, unwieldy, secret police apparatus would have been unnecessary. Denunciations by other comrades. or friends and family members, driven by fear, or revenge, or jealousy, or misguided ideology, would have been superfluous. A couple of geeks with smartphones and a search engine would have done the trick. "Off to the gulag you go" with nothing more than a quick search, a couple of clicks, and a speedy show trial. "Welcome to Siberia comrade!" If Trump goes down this time around, don't gloat too much. Best keep an eye on your six and pay attention to who might be holding the knife next time around. No secrets. No immunity. Who's up and who's down never stays the same for long. This is the world we live in now. When thought or speech can be made a crime, we are all criminals. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 10:19:25 0F31303C2E32335D0 wrote:
I highlighted your quote above exactly why this is a good thing. Our president is currently profiting off the presidency while in office. Among all the other sh!t that he's doing or is involved in. Digital history shines a bright light light on all that. I'm grateful for it. I'm glad it's there. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by oldNslow on 12/11/18 at 10:33:12 Edited my post to add this: No secrets. No immunity. Who's up and who's down never stays the same for long. This is the world we live in now. When thought or speech can be made a crime, we are all criminals. [/quote] this is a good thing.[/quote] Sure. By your lights, getting Trump is a good thing. But I believe you either missed, or are ignoring, the point of the rest of my post. "When thought or speech can be made a crime, we are all criminals" Lying when under oath is a crime. Lying on Twitter, or Facebook, or on the TT, or at the local tavern, isn't. At least not yet. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/11/18 at 10:36:25 3C222D2C213C273A480 wrote:
LOLOL, Sure. When it is against someone who you are against. When it is your, Buddies, like the last POTUS, and the last wannabe POTUS. You conveniently, 'forget'. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 10:50:13 2C0F321113080F06610 wrote:
LOLOL, Sure. When it is against someone who you are against. Or when it's for someone I'm for. It's obvious you don't realize that it applies to everyone across the board. You, me, Eau, Sero, jog - everyone. When it is your, Buddies, like the last POTUS, and the last wannabe POTUS. You conveniently, 'forget'. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D [/quote] Tell me, what did I "forget"? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 10:54:24 7C42434F5D41402E0 wrote:
Sure. By your lights, getting Trump is a good thing. But I believe you either missed, or are ignoring, the point of the rest of my post. "When thought or speech can be made a crime, we are all criminals" Lying when under oath is a crime. Lying on Twitter, or Facebook, or on the TT, or at the local tavern, isn't. At least not yet. [/quote] I stick by my statement. The First Amendment will never go away. Thoughts are just that. Now, lying intentionally - that should be in question. If trump were to use his twitter feed to say something like "I'm declaring war with North Korea" with no consultation with anyone - that should be a federal crime, don't you think? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/11/18 at 10:59:04 435D52535E435845370 wrote:
The answer would be again, what you said: “Maybe if you weren’t so lazy, you could do the research yourself" "Your TO Lazy, To Look It Up Yourself' “Don’t be so obviously lazy,” "Maybe if you weren’t so lazy" “OK lazy... " “Spell it out next time - don't be so lazy." “Are you now too lazy to look back " “OK, be lazy." “you seem to be as lazy as you are sad..." |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 11:03:02 6D4E735052494E47200 wrote:
The answer would be again, what you said: “Maybe if you weren’t so lazy, you could do the research yourself" "Your TO Lazy, To Look It Up Yourself' “Don’t be so obviously lazy,” "Maybe if you weren’t so lazy" “OK lazy... " “Spell it out next time - don't be so lazy." “Are you now too lazy to look back " “OK, be lazy." “you seem to be as lazy as you are sad..." [/quote] So, you have no proof. You're a liar. Pathetic. I see. How unsurprising. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by oldNslow on 12/11/18 at 11:17:31 Quote:
No, it would just be stupid. Anyone who knows anything about our government is aware that the POTUS doesn't have that authority, and any president who said such a thing on twitter would be. quite rightly, ridiculed. Anyway, the point of my post(s) really didn't have anything to do with Trump specifically, I was really talking about the danger to everyone from the weaponization of speech, particularly speech on social media platforms. So, nevermind I guess. Everyfuc*ing thing is about Trump I suppose. Can't see the forest on account of one big tree with a bad haircut. :( |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/11/18 at 11:43:35 Everyfuc*ing thing is about Trump I suppose. Can't see the forest on account of one big tree with a bad haircut. I for one blame Obama and Hillary for this. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 11:46:21 6C52535F4D51503E0 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 11:46:49 1A3A38302D3A5F0 wrote:
LOL |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by verslagen1 on 12/11/18 at 12:35:35 0D2D2F273A2D480 wrote:
OMG, an opinion w/o a disclaimer. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/11/18 at 15:03:48 And now trump pulls this: "If we don't get what we want ... I will shut down the government,” Trump said in the Oval Office before a room full of reporters and TV cameras. “I am proud to shut down the government for border security... I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I won't blame you for it." He has no idea what a clown he is, does he? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/11/18 at 20:55:41 I've NEVER appreciated a president more. We need to control the borders. Kinda like you lying lefties protect YOUR OWN HOMES. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 06:56:10 637C7A7D60675666566E7C703B090 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/12/18 at 14:01:35 332D22232E332835470 wrote:
The majority of the rest of the people are. Despite your working to Hinder them. Tell ya what tt, tell Bot to make up a sign with your address and phone # on it. "Come to 123 any street, Chicago Ill. Room for 4 people" And have him toss it in one of the vastly populated with foot traffic arroyos in Tuscon. Kinda like you lying lefties protect YOUR OWN HOMES.[/quote] What's that supposed to mean? OH, so you don't lock the door to your house in Chicago ? And you just let, anyone, that is Anyone, in. ANYONE. For ANY Reason. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 14:13:12 60437E5D5F44434A2D0 wrote:
The majority of the rest of the people are. Despite your working to Hinder them. "Hinder"? Why capitalize it? Is "Hinder" a person? LOL. Geez, why not take a class or something, huh mn?? But to reply to your statement - no, I don't hinder them. For one - I don't believe in "open borders". Second, I think there's a lot better ways to spend $5 Billion. And third, I'm holding trump to his promise that he'd make Mexico pay for the wall. Tell ya what tt, tell Bot to make up a sign with your address and phone # on it. "Come to 123 any street, Chicago Ill. Room for 4 people" And have him toss it in one of the vastly populated with foot traffic arroyos in Tuscon. I have a better idea. Why not stop lying mn? Kinda like you lying lefties protect YOUR OWN HOMES.[/quote] What's that supposed to mean? OH, so you don't lock the door to your house in Chicago ? And you just let, anyone, that is Anyone, in. ANYONE. For ANY Reason. [/quote] I live in a decent neighborhood. There have been several times where I've forgotten to lock my doors at night. I don't live in a constant state of fear - like you seem to do. As far as who I let in my house. I'm a great judge of character. I feel comfortable who I do and who I don't let in my house. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/12/18 at 15:13:42 5D434C4D405D465B290 wrote:
OMG, You Are So racist !!!!!!!! How DARE you, Judge Someone, How Dare you ! How do you live with yourself, you are so RACIST The Fact that YOU, Judge someone. YOU Decide who comes into your home or not. YOU are SO RACIST It is clear you must be ALL the OTHER, ...Isms Also !!!!! YOU ARE SO RACIST ! |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 15:15:19 496A5774766D6A63040 wrote:
OMG, You Are So racist !!!!!!!! How DARE you, Judge Someone, How Dare you ! How do you live with yourself, you are so RACIST The Fact that YOU, Judge someone. YOU Decide who comes into your home or not. YOU are SO RACIST It is clear you must be ALL the OTHER, ...Isms Also !!!!! YOU ARE SO RACIST ! [/quote] And you're a liar. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/12/18 at 16:33:18 As far as who I let in my house. I'm a great judge of character. But all someone needs to do to gain admission to the nation, all of our house, is sneak across the border and drop a baby. Sheer lunacy. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/12/18 at 17:02:36 584741465B5C6D5D6D55474B00320 wrote:
Hey jog, tell that to ivana and melania trump, huh? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/12/18 at 20:51:57 In your twisted mind you see some kind of equivalence there. I'm supposed to treat you like you're not stupid? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 05:54:46 66797F7865625363536B79753E0C0 wrote:
I don't care how you treat me. I just find it funny that you can't handle the truth. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/13/18 at 17:51:06 Prove it |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/13/18 at 21:16:20 4B545255484F7E4E7E46545813210 wrote:
Prove what? That ivanna and melania had anchor babies? That's simple. Ivana Trump moved to New York from her native Czechoslovakia around 1976 and married Trump in April of 1977. Their eldest child, a son named Donald Jr., was born in December 1977. It’s likely the Trumps settled any lingering immigration matters during the time between their marriage and Trump Jr.’s birth in late 1977. More to the point: even if Ivana Trump had not yet been granted permanent residency in the U.S., their son would be entitled to citizenship under Trump’s plan because he was born in the United States to an American citizen father. Slovenia-born Melania Knauss Trump moved to New York City (prior to any relationship with Trump) in 1996. While her citizenship status from that point in time forward was not publicly disclosed, she maintained a career as a model and did not marry Trump until January 2005. Their son Barron was born in March 2006, more than a year after the Knauss-Trump wedding (and again, within the United States to an American citizen father). It’s true that Trump’s proposition has been widely decried as incongruent with the 14th Amendment’s granting birthright citizenship to all individuals born inside the United States. It’s also true that Trump’s proposal could easily be construed as hypocritical to a degree, given that four of his five children were born to mothers who immigrated to the United States. However, since Trump was married to all of his children’s mothers at the time of the children’s births, his wives would consequently be afforded stronger chances to attain permanent residency via spousal petition. (Both women were already of above-average means and later married a business mogul, further bolstering their ability to navigate a path to legal status.) But even if Trump wasn’t married to the mothers of his children at the time of their births (he was), and their immigration statuses appeared to be in dispute (of which we could find no indication), all four of the five Trump children born to immigrant mothers were born inside the United States to an American citizen father. As such, even Trump’s strict proposal against birthright citizenship would be unlikely to affect the statuses of his own children had they been born under it. an·chor ba·by nounOFFENSIVE used to refer to a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country which has birthright citizenship, especially when viewed as providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/14/18 at 11:23:33 726C63626F726974060 wrote:
You have GOT to be kidding. Did you even Read, your, 'fact', in post #27 ? Do you know someone, that can explain what the words: "even if", mean ? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/14/18 at 13:44:59 "Do you know someone, that can explain what the words: "even if", mean ?" It means that if Ivana Trump had not received citizenship that their son would be considered a US citizen anyway. This same definition applies for 4 out of his 5 children. That isn't what happened. So in context the "if" defines an alternate action of his wives not gaining US citizenship. The "even" structurally makes the sentence grammatically correct because of the way the sentence is used. The "even if" in this case is a method of creating a grammatically correct sentence. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/18 at 14:00:15 An American citizen was one of the parents of those children. That's a big, BIG difference between an anchor baby, which is a descriptive term lefties are butthurt over, which doesn't make it offensive. It's ACCURATE, and lefties DESPISE language that is honest. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/14/18 at 15:46:46 "DESPISE language that is honest. " Non-Citizen Mother. A baby from a Non-Citizen Mother. If a legal US Citizen male has a child with a Non-Citizen Mother what part of Non-Citizen Mother doesn't apply to the term? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/18 at 17:51:51 The point, as I understand it, is TT was trying to equate an anchor baby with the offspring of a legal, American citizen who MARRIED a foreigner who had a child. That's a citizen, not an anchor baby. Does that really not work in the minds of lefties?A.m. I really going to need to explain it further? Do you people really not understand how different it is when One of the PARENTS is an American citizen? Do you really not see how different that is from a pregnant illegal alien slipping in and dropping a baby? Ohhh, please, every lefty, DO answer those questions. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/14/18 at 20:06:03 "That's a citizen, not an anchor baby." An anchor baby is defined in this thread as a child of a Non-Citizen Mother. If we were using language that is honest we wouldn't try to alter that definition. Mother. Non-citizen Mother, not "Parents". Mother. Want to explain how if a US citizen Male marries a Non-Citizen Mother, a female biological parent, of a child born in the US is not by definition an anchor baby? What part of a married Non-Citizen Mother married to a US citizen Father does not match the anchor baby definition? "Do you really not see how different that is from a pregnant illegal alien slipping in and dropping a baby?" It is different, but since I am using honest language I am going to use the definition and not try to change it to suit my scenario. There is a difference between two illegal alien parents having a child in the US, but only the mother is needed to define anchor baby. So to me the issue isn't if Trump had an anchor baby, but if one or two biological Illegal Alien parents having a child in the US should be entitled to having that child considered a US citizen. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/18 at 20:39:33 Read the constitution. It's obvious. No. Born in America to someone who is here illegally is a no. Marriage to a citizen opens the door legally. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/14/18 at 21:14:18 I agree except for the part where you say that a baby born to a Non-Citizen Mother yet has a US citizen father is not an anchor baby. If we were to use honest language we would not deny that a US citizen father of a child from a Non-Citizen Mother is an anchor baby. What part of a situation where a US Citizen Father has a child born in the US to a Non-Citizen Mother does not fit into the described definition of "Non-Citizen Mother"? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/18 at 21:55:10 What is the reason for the name ANCHOR baby? It is what is used to allow the mother to stay. It's HER anchor. Marry a citizen and you don't NEED a baby to stay. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/14/18 at 22:03:14 I agree. However, what part of the definition "Non Citizen Mother" makes a situation where a US Citizen father marries a Non Citizen, then she has a baby prior to citizenship means that the baby does not fit the definition of anchor baby? From an honest language perspective that is. If using honest language and that language says "Non-Citizen Mother" why would one say that a Non-Citizen mother married to a US Citizen Father can not have an anchor baby? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/18 at 22:17:53 Good GOD man. Really? You can't be that Frikken STUPID. You don't NEED a baby In ORDER to be ABLE TO STAY in America IF you're Married to a CITIZEN. An illegal, who hasn't Had a baby Can be deported She can get herself an Anchor Husband Or Have a baby Which would be the ANCHOR that protects her from deportation. If it's NOT an ANCHOR, used for a shield against deportation, it's NOT, by definition An ANCHOR baby. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/14/18 at 22:31:51 I didn't say you NEED a baby. The content of the conversation is about people who have babies in the US. If that baby has a Non-Citizen Mother, that baby by definition is an anchor baby. If that same Non-Citizen Mother is married to a US Citizen father, she has also an anchor husband. Non-Citizen Mother now has both an anchor baby, and anchor husband but only if constitutionally the citizenship is guaranteed by marriage. But it isn't. What part of a Non-Citizen Mother, marrying a US Citizen father and having a baby on US soil removes that baby from the definition of "Non-Citizen Mother? Lets make it simple: does that baby have a Non-Citizen Mother? Yes or No? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/14/18 at 23:06:29 I'm not gonna screw with this anymore. You don't call something an anchor IF you don't NEED it to BE an anchor. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/15/18 at 00:08:11 "You don't call something an anchor IF you don't NEED it to BE an anchor. " I agree. I am just using honest language here. "Non-Citizen mother" is hard to define any other way. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/18 at 00:51:59 A non citizen who is married doesn't HAVE an ANCHOR baby. She's a non citizen, married to a citizen, and in no legal Need of an ANCHOR baby. So No A non citizen, married To a citizen Can't, by definition, HAVE an Anchor baby. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/15/18 at 07:31:36 So the definition is wrong. The honest language needs to be revised. An Anchor baby is a baby of a Non-Citizen mother that is not married to a US Citizen Father at the time of the child's birth. Even if marriage doesn't guarantee citizenship? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/18 at 09:57:24 FFS, dude, the next time you decide to do a mind meld, DON'T do it with TT. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/15/18 at 15:35:44 6C4C4E465B4C290 wrote:
In the, 'Proof' that tt showed, their was NO, 'Proof', that the mother/s were Not Citizens. Which IS 'proof', that tt is lying, again ! |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/18 at 16:08:53 An Anchor baby is a baby of a Non-Citizen mother that is not married to a US Citizen Father at the time of the child's birth. Which is universally true of every illegal alien who comes here pregnant and dominoes in America in order to be allowed to stay, Hence the term Anchor Baby. That such obvious TRUTH needs to be explained, over and over again, is really irritating. It's not complicated. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/15/18 at 16:48:53 You are using a different definition, or just ignoring the one posted. Non-Citizen Mother is literally the only criteria for anchor baby. "legal Need" I find this fundamentally incorrect since being married to a US male does not guarantee anything including citizenship. A Non-Citizen Mother does not "Need" to have a baby on US soil, but if she does, she has an anchor baby. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/15/18 at 21:51:46 It's not . But stay confused. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/16/18 at 00:32:21 "It's not ." Then provide your definition and stop trying to say that the provided definition is more than "Non-Citizen Mother" There is only one accurate way to interpret the definition of "Non-Citizen Mother". You keep talking about the Father, which is not in the provided definition. Have you even considered providing your definition of Anchor Baby or are you just going to keep telling me I am actually confusing a one-sentence definition: A child of a Non-Citizen Mother. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/16/18 at 06:32:31 Illegal aliens are non citizens . Not all non citizens are illegal aliens. Got it? A non citizen, married to a citizen Doesn't NEED a baby in order to not be deported. Her child is not an ANCHOR baby. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/16/18 at 09:38:20 "Doesn't NEED a baby in order to not be deported." Right. A Non-Citizen Mother does not NEED to have a baby at all, but when she does that baby is an anchor baby based off the definition provided. An anchor baby is defined here as a baby that was born on US soil from a Non-Citizen Mother. That definition says nothing about marriage, or deportation. You are saying that an Anchor baby is a baby born on US soil from a Non-Citizen Mother that is not at the time of birth married to a US Citizen Male, and will require the birth of the child as a means of avoiding deportation. You see anchor as a term applying to the mother, and I see it as a term applying to the baby. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/16/18 at 10:24:57 The baby IS the anchor that protects the mother from deportation. If the possibility of deportation doesn't exist, I.e.marriage to a CITIZEN, The baby is not an ANCHOR to protect the mother from deportation. If you don't get that, you need to sit and think until you do. Illegal aliens NEED to drop a baby, anchoring them in America. Non citizens who are married to a citizen have no legal Need for an ANCHOR. Since the baby ISN'T legally any kind of anchor, calling it one is torturing language and truth. How very lefty. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/16/18 at 10:30:52 7D5D5F574A5D380 wrote:
I see it as, the baby, is, Anchoring, the mother. Therefore, the Mother is, 'anchored'. Some like to 'tip-toe', around a subject. Let's get down to it. WHY, does a Non Citizen, 8-3/4 months pregnant, Risk sneaking, walking, swimming, into this Country ? So the MOTHER, can stay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/16/18 at 15:49:58 "Some like to 'tip-toe', around a subject. Let's get down to it. WHY, does a Non Citizen, 8-3/4 months pregnant, Risk sneaking, walking, swimming, into this Country ? So the MOTHER, can stay !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Agreed. Also the definition provided indicates that all Non-Citizen Mothers that have a baby on US soil has had an anchor baby. Nothing about the provided definition describes motive of the mother, or her marital/employment status. When affluent Chinese mothers enter the US legally to have a child on US soil, is that Non-Citizen Mother having an anchor baby? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/16/18 at 18:52:52 Depends. If she wants to stay, she can. But if she wants to take the American Citizen Baby home and raise it and teach it to hate America, she can. Then, once it's indoctrinated and hates America, it, as an American CITIZEN, can return and spy or cause havoc. You didn't know I knew about that, did you? Grab your needle and thread. Your sails are in tatters. You LIED about what I said and twisted my words. I never would have believed you would do that. You're so desperate to twist things now that I've shown how wrong you are, it's pathetic. How can anyone so intellectually capable choose to argue For something after being proven wrong? Sad, dude, and very disappointing. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/16/18 at 21:24:32 You keep moving the goalposts. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/17/18 at 04:30:21 "You LIED about what I said and twisted my words." I'd be interested in how I did that. I agree with you, I've said that more than once. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the provided definition correlating with your assessment. It appears everything is a personal attack to you here. "You didn't know I knew about that, did you?" I didn't even think about it, it's not relevant except for the part about the Chinese Mother staying in the US. I chose Affluent Chinese since it is rather common and reported on regularly, it could be any country of origin. I am saying that the provided definition is exclusively: "Non Citizen Mother" You are saying its something else, but are too busy complaining, and now travelling down the personal attacks lane, again, to type your definition down. I've posted suggested revisions, you don't agree to those, so tell me what your definition is. So in an attempt to continue the discussion like adults: "Depends. If she wants to stay, she can." So are you saying that if a Non-Citizen Chinese (or any other country of origin) Mother has a baby on US soil and stays she has had an anchor baby, but if she goes back to China (or any other location than the US and it's Territories) she has NOT had an anchor baby? Is a baby that gets US citizenship an anchor baby? Is the deciding factor actually the Domicile Status of the Non-Citizen Mother? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by WebsterMark on 12/17/18 at 06:10:23 I was trying to follow the back and forth on this but I'm lost. Just what exactly are you running in circles about? The definition of an anchor baby? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/17/18 at 07:13:19 That and how it applies to the original article posted. The posted definition is exclusively about Non-Citizen Mothers having a baby on US soil. The argument is that it applies only to Non-Citizen Mothers that are here illegally and using the baby for domicile status. That creates a conflict, along with other variables such as marriage. Citizen Father may or may not be part of the equation, domicile status may or may not be. There is a way to create a standard but its difficult here because there's a lot of nonsense in the way like taking a simple discussion and making it personal, or complaining instead of answering a question. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by WebsterMark on 12/17/18 at 07:17:18 there's a lot of nonsense in the way like taking a simple discussion and making it personal, or complaining instead of answering a question. Shocking....... never would have guessed.... Isn't the "working definition" of an anchor baby one that is born to a non citizen and then used as a basis to obtain some level of legal immigration status for the mother or father or the baby's guardian and based upon that status, legally gaining entry for additional family members? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/17/18 at 07:24:44 786761667B7C4D7D4D75676B20120 wrote:
YEP. Not only, moving it. It is, changing the size of Home Plate. Something the tt does very often ! |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by MnSpring on 12/17/18 at 08:49:36 615354454253447B57445D360 wrote:
The, ‘anchor baby’, stuff started when tt, said. (TDS'ing again) that Trumps wives had, anchor baby’s. Then posted, a description, (from no body knows where), That, PROVED, tt was Lying, Again ! So, any hard feelings, are all tt’s fault. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/17/18 at 09:03:59 "Isn't the "working definition" of an anchor baby one that is born to a non citizen and then used as a basis to obtain some level of legal immigration status for the mother or father or the baby's guardian and based upon that status, legally gaining entry for additional family members?" Sort of. They can't gain legal immigration status based off the baby alone, but they can get "domicile status", which is pretty much the same thing for the purpose of his discussion. As for additional family members I can't find anything that indicates that it's possible based off the baby alone. The whole thing needs revised but now the education decision has caused a sort of precedent for what illegal immigrants can and can't get as aid. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/17/18 at 09:48:21 It's old Tiresome Ridiculous Done Parsing words Call whatever you want an anchor baby |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by WebsterMark on 12/17/18 at 10:20:21 I disagree with the whole "born on US soil automatically makes you a citizen " thing to begin with. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by WebsterMark on 12/17/18 at 10:22:52 Set aside any preconceived notions you may have and read this. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-31.html |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/17/18 at 10:52:34 013334252233241B37243D560 wrote:
Anyone who can read and comprehend the constitution agrees with you. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by verslagen1 on 12/17/18 at 11:02:38 I believe she is correct in stating that the SC has not clarified the issue of anchor babies. If the pres puts forth a decree, then we'll know. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by LostArtist on 12/17/18 at 12:52:24 26393F3825221323132B39357E4C0 wrote:
Anyone who can read and comprehend the constitution agrees with you. [/quote] so, when is your comprehension going to start??? cause literally THOUSANDS of lawyers and others WAY WAY WAY WAY SMARTER THAN YOU have read it and believe what it says, not what you want it to. IDIOT |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by LostArtist on 12/17/18 at 12:53:49 526067767160774864776E050 wrote:
so, let's prick your blood, do a DNA test and send you back where you belong |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by WebsterMark on 12/17/18 at 14:53:16 Well Lost, why don't you type an explanation of what you read in the constitution including amendments and applicable case laws that disputes what the column cited? |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by Eegore on 12/17/18 at 15:14:08 "so, when is your comprehension going to start??? cause literally THOUSANDS of lawyers and others WAY WAY WAY WAY SMARTER THAN YOU have read it and believe what it says, not what you want it to. IDIOT " I'd be interested in seeing some documentation on this as well. Just some case numbers would suffice. I am not aware of anyone granted full citizenship based off of birth location, because of how the 14th is written. |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/17/18 at 19:22:12 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." subject to the jurisdiction thereof An illegal alien has a baby. Explain how and why we have JURISDICTION over the child. [ch716]jo[ch861]or[ch601]s[ch712]dikSH([ch601])n] NOUN the official power to make legal decisions and judgments. "federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case" · [more] The child is the offspring of a FOREIGN NATIONAL. We have as much jurisdiction over the child as a nation as any individual would who had that same woman domino in their living room. Funny watching lefties argue against border control, as if our government has No right to control the border, but demand we accept the burden of ILLEGAL immigrants and their ANCHOR baby. You people are at least consistent. Always Wrong |
|
Title: Re: Digital History Post by T And T Garage on 12/18/18 at 06:06:17 5B784566647F7871160 wrote:
YEP. Not only, moving it. It is, changing the size of Home Plate. Something the tt does very often ![/quote] LOL - home plate? So, you know nothing of sports either, do you? ;D |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |