Topic: Hillary's Buddy Involved in Prostitution Ring

well this is a misleading statement

he was involved in the ring

as he has not been charged with the management of it

but he has used said ring the ring

one word really can make a big difference in the meaning

if a child is born of someone illegally in the country

then the 14th ammendment should not apply

they should have to be here and in legal standing

but that is only my opinion

based on the following

there is a law that says

one may not profit from committing a crime

kinda like being a serial killer then writing a book about it

said serial killer is blocked form receiving profits

from said book

from page 1

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

I guess there home had 2 bathrooms....

but...geeze..its clear to me she had mental illness

Wasn't addressing you at all. Was addressing the whole personal attack scenerio that played out. Sorry you took it that way

Here this speaks for itself;

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Yea, She costed a 1000$ dollars an hour she better been a dime piece

People who resort to personal attacks about a person are not well equiped intellectually to debate and issue. All get tempted to lower themselves to the level of the person unable to provide information without the personal digs but we should all refrain from doing it.

I left just 3 years ago, things havent changed that much...I lived in California, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico (just to name a few places...yes I got around )

And speaking from my own experiences I noticed that the lower the population the greater the resources available to people. And as for what undocumented aliens could receive in benefits, I know that non-resident/citizen women who had children that were born in the US received minimal assistance for their children only. Food stamps have been replaced in most states with a "debit-type" card in order to eliminate the trading of stamps for cash.

Undocumented males get nothing..there are non-profit and religious organizations that provide assistance to the needy regardless of immigration status out of humanitarian principals.

I am curious if anyone can list out exactly what "benefits" undocumented aliens receive...aside from what I just mentioned I am unaware of anything else that the Feds provide...individual states may have their own policies, but that varies from state to state.

I have yet to see one intelligent defense of Bush and his destruction of this country. So bash me if it makes you feel better, bash liberals if it brings you joy, whatever makes your day brighter. Cause with Bush running this country everyone needs whatever bits of joy they can find.

Then why do I not see just as many pro-government "cut/past" threads??? Why not put the effort into publicly supporting your side instead of showing up on these threads and insulting or criticizing someone one for expressing their beliefs?
People who post anti-Bush threads believe in what they are doing/ saying...show your conviction and post the pro-Bush stuff..
That is..if you can find it...(sorry..just had to put that last "jab" in... )

By saying he's had "up's and down's..."
...does anyone else see an SNL skit coming from that awful pun?



also, it was discussed on The View this morning (before his live resignation cut it short..) how much fault belongs to his wife.....

whats a Libertarian??

oh...so he's funny, but Im naughty??? Leah....your bipartisanship is showing..

no it's dog tails...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDamkYmZfi0

Im all choked up,,

Give me a minute
I think Im going to cry!!!



















There!!!

well Im not a big fan of using stats to support a point since everyone can agree that you can twist numbers around to fit any agenda. But certainly the more people you have in one place the more of a burden they are going to be and the less resources available overall for everyone else, which is why you can get more services in Wyoming than you can in California. However if you are an undocumented alien you cant get jack $hit anywhere.