Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11820 on: December 10, 2024, 01:35:32 PM »
I'm waiting for you to explain what case law shows it means something different.  I'm sure I'll be waiting forever.
Listen, stop being a trolling asshole for one fucking time in your pathetic existence and support your claim the 14th amendment denies dual citizenship.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11821 on: December 10, 2024, 02:18:57 PM »
No other country on the flat earth would even consider something like "birthright citizenship." If you tried to pull this shit in Norway, or even Canada, and were caught, you will definitely get fucking deported.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7991
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11822 on: December 10, 2024, 02:43:26 PM »
No other country on the flat earth would even consider something like "birthright citizenship." If you tried to pull this shit in Norway, or even Canada, and were caught, you will definitely get fucking deported.

Define Birthright citizenship, then.  Because the general consensus is that its citizenship of a nation as a right by birth.  My oldest son, for example, has birthright citizenship to the US and Norway.  However, US law states that by age 18 he must choose one or the other.  Norway has no such restrictions and allows dual citizenship.


-apparently I'm wrong.  The US does allow dual citizenship.  So that's weird that I was told otherwise when looking into getting a Norwegian citizenship.

-Ah! Found out why.  Dual citizenship from Norway was enabled in 2020. 



Which then means the jurisdiction is... Self explanatory.
You must be born in the US and under it's jurisdiction and not under the jurisdiction of another nation.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2024, 03:55:23 PM by Lord Dave »
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11823 on: December 10, 2024, 06:17:41 PM »
Why would anyone lament the elimination of "anchor babies?"
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7991
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11824 on: December 10, 2024, 07:27:41 PM »
Why would anyone lament the elimination of "anchor babies?"
Anchor babies are part of the constitution.  Tho you seem to not understand how it takes 20 years and a job for an anchor baby plot to come to fruition.  But again...constitution.  Learn it.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 8095
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11825 on: December 10, 2024, 09:40:55 PM »
No other country on the flat earth would even consider something like "birthright citizenship." If you tried to pull this shit in Norway, or even Canada, and were caught, you will definitely get fucking deported.
Perhaps not on the flat earth, but on the round earth there are a number of countries, including Canada, with birthright citizenship.
Every Country with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship (jus soli):

The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Child, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11826 on: December 11, 2024, 06:11:22 AM »
No other country on the flat earth would even consider something like "birthright citizenship." If you tried to pull this shit in Norway, or even Canada, and were caught, you will definitely get fucking deported.
Perhaps not on the flat earth, but on the round earth there are a number of countries, including Canada, with birthright citizenship.
Every Country with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship (jus soli):

The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Child, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Your source is clearly wrong, in that it totally ignores the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction of."

Leave it to the globesters to practice their bullshit (such as fake space travel and birthright citizenship) in every facet of their lives. Flat earthers have no need for this sort of ignorance in their lives and will endeavor to fight this ignorance with every ounce of strength we can muster for as long we live.

Again, illegal immigrants are not subjects to the jurisdiction of the United States. Legal immigrants are.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2024, 01:20:15 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7991
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11827 on: December 11, 2024, 07:36:04 AM »
No other country on the flat earth would even consider something like "birthright citizenship." If you tried to pull this shit in Norway, or even Canada, and were caught, you will definitely get fucking deported.
Perhaps not on the flat earth, but on the round earth there are a number of countries, including Canada, with birthright citizenship.
Every Country with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship (jus soli):

The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chad, Child, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Your source is clearly wrong, in that it totally ignores the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction of."

Again, illegal immigrants are not subjects to the jurisdiction of the United States. Legal immigrants are.
But the baby is.  Illegals too, actually.  Or are you saying the US has no authority to deal with illegals?
31 C.F.R. §515.329 would indicate it includes anyone whose physically within the US borders.

Tho looking at the history, it was more for the Indian nations than immigrants.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11828 on: December 11, 2024, 11:20:26 AM »
If it was clear cut the baby was subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then there would be no prior case history.

But, there is...and there will be more to come.

Trump can and should write an Executive Order dealing with this issue. Then the courts can firmly establish what is and isn't allowed.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10848
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11829 on: December 11, 2024, 01:39:42 PM »
The US doesn't have full jurisdiction over the citizens of other countries who come here. That is why when they commit felonies we can't keep them imprisoned here and have to send them back to their country and hope that their country accepts the evidence and punishes them according to their laws.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2024, 01:41:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #11830 on: December 11, 2024, 02:01:28 PM »
That is why when they commit felonies we can't keep them imprisoned here and have to send them back to their country and hope that their country accepts the evidence and punishes them according to their laws.

lol this is hilariously false
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11831 on: December 11, 2024, 02:25:12 PM »
The US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, but if you, as an illegal immigrant, commit a serious felony in the US, I would believe you are going to spend quite a bit of time in a US prison.

The only thing I could find to support my belief is some post on Quora, so gary if you got the goods, pony them up.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2024, 02:27:33 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 8095
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11832 on: December 11, 2024, 04:15:43 PM »
The US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, but if you, as an illegal immigrant, commit a serious felony in the US, I would believe you are going to spend quite a bit of time in a US prison.
How can you put someone in prison if you don’t have jurisdiction over them? ???
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7991
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11833 on: December 11, 2024, 05:05:23 PM »
The US doesn't have full jurisdiction over the citizens of other countries who come here. That is why when they commit felonies we can't keep them imprisoned here and have to send them back to their country and hope that their country accepts the evidence and punishes them according to their laws.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndia/pr/illegal-immigrant-sentenced-ten-years-federal-prison-illegal-reentry-and-violation


Just one example.


Oh and here we go.
https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/federally-sentenced-non-us-citizens

Quote
88.4% were illegal aliens, 8.8% were legal aliens, 1.1% were extradited aliens, and 1.7% were unknown status.

That's alot of illegal aliens who can't be held in prison, being held in prison.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3169
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11834 on: December 11, 2024, 08:10:30 PM »
The US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, but if you, as an illegal immigrant, commit a serious felony in the US, I would believe you are going to spend quite a bit of time in a US prison.
How can you put someone in prison if you don’t have jurisdiction over them? ???
Ask Dave and gary.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7991
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11835 on: December 11, 2024, 09:04:29 PM »
The US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, but if you, as an illegal immigrant, commit a serious felony in the US, I would believe you are going to spend quite a bit of time in a US prison.
How can you put someone in prison if you don’t have jurisdiction over them? ???
Ask Dave and gary.
By having jurisdiction of them by virtue if them being in your country.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1260
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11836 on: December 12, 2024, 12:58:08 PM »
The US does not have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, but if you, as an illegal immigrant, commit a serious felony in the US, I would believe you are going to spend quite a bit of time in a US prison.
How can you put someone in prison if you don’t have jurisdiction over them? ???
Ask Dave and gary.
By having jurisdiction of them by virtue if them being in your country.
Anyone physically in the country is subject to the jurisdiction of the 'laws of the land' unless you're President Trump.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

9A[akDd->otsiC.PG(k6O_cY@\8dpw&!Jx2+G

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8915
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11837 on: December 12, 2024, 02:07:28 PM »
lol pass. it's way funnier watching you completely change your argument mid-discussion.

If you say so. It's almost like you realized you can't put your problem into words because it's nonsense!

china is our ally.

Ah yes, the turbofascist dictatorship with literal concentration camps for undesirable ethnicity groups and a military build-up with the intent of invading one of our actual allies is somehow our ally. Truly, you are a wizard of geopolitics.

for one thing, it absolutely does. they recommend increasing tariffs only on materials deemed critical to the economy while negotiating the others away.

Where?

for another thing, their analysis does not calculate or estimate the net effect of the tariffs. they quantify the overall cost to the us economy (e.g. it's a tax on poor people), and they assert some of the benefits (e.g. decreased trade deficit). but since they don't compare the two, i can't tell you why they recommend their proposals other than "they believe the benefits outweigh the costs."

Hmm, what proposals do they recommend? You're dancing around it now, previously you said they didn't make any. I seldom see someone change their stance mid-post!

for another another thing, none of this matters

Ah yes, the classic retreat to "well ackshully this argument doesn't matter"

what's that got to do with 25% tariffs on literally all products from canada and mexico? or raising all tariffs on all chinese goods by 10%? sorry, but that's an absolutely horrifically fucking stupid economic policy, and you should feel super silly for defending it.

idk my bff jill, I never argued Trump's plan was a good idea. My problem was your "tariffs are bad dumb because muh economy" argument that I think you've already accepted was obviously wrong.

In short, the increases in U.S. tariffs in 2018 resulted in reductions in U.S. manufacturing exports, output, and employment; accelerated producer and consumer price inflation; and diminished household welfare, especially for lower-income households.

i think that's bad. i think vastly expanding the scope of things that are bad is even more bad.

Imagine telling Ukraine that they shouldn't fight Russia because it makes their quarterly GDP outlook worse. Imagine telling Germany it should keep buying Russian gas because buying it elsewhere hurts their economy.

You still obviously haven't read the RAND report. Maybe you should, I don't know, actually read it?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2024, 03:06:42 PM by Rushy »

Re: Trump
« Reply #11838 on: December 12, 2024, 03:35:03 PM »
china is our ally.

Ah yes, the turbofascist dictatorship with literal concentration camps for undesirable ethnicity groups and a military build-up with the intent of invading one of our actual allies is somehow our ally. Truly, you are a wizard of geopolitics.

it was a joke, captain serious.

for one thing, it absolutely does. they recommend increasing tariffs only on materials deemed critical to the economy while negotiating the others away.

Where?

• The U.S. government should maintain higher tariffs on imports of goods from China
(1) of which China is the dominant supplier and that the Departments of Defense and
Commerce consider key technologies and (2) that could undermine U.S. industries con-
sidered critical to U.S. economic or national security.
• To maintain the overall competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and to benefit U.S. con-
sumers, the U.S. Trade Representative should offer to negotiate reductions of U.S. tariffs
on nonsensitive imports of consumer goods and manufacturing inputs from China in
exchange for reductions in Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods.

previously you said they didn't make any recommendations

no i didn't.

idk my bff jill, I never argued Trump's plan was a good idea.

i'm in a trump thread commenting on a proposal trump made. "there are other people recommending different things that are possibly more rational than this thing" is largely irrelevant to me.

My problem was your "tariffs are bad dumb because muh economy" argument that I think you've already accepted was obviously wrong.

not really, it's just hard to be anything more than halfhearted when i reply to posts that don't actually read the things i write and are 90% "don't you agree you're obviously wrong?" and "here's 10 things i'm not saying. can you guess what i am saying?"

Imagine telling Ukraine that they shouldn't fight Russia because it makes their quarterly GDP outlook worse. Imagine telling Germany it should keep buying Russian gas because buying it elsewhere hurts their economy. That's you. That's how dumb you sound.

i think it sounds way dumber to make an argument by analogy that relies on russia : ukraine :: china : united states. i do not agree that chinese steel exports are literally an existential threat to the united states. or anything close. and i think inflation and unemployment are worse than just "muh economy."

from my point of view, the analogy is that trump proposes simply carpet-bombing the entirety of ukraine. when i say that this is fucking stupid, you pop in to be like "okay but the dept of defense actually recommends increasing targeted strikes of russian supply bases in eastern ukraine while lowering strikes elsewhere because they themselves demonstrate that all strikes come at a significant cost. i bet you feel so dumb now." i don't, though.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6723
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11839 on: December 12, 2024, 03:42:19 PM »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"