From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: If Injuns Weren't Included How Were Hispanics Who Weren't Even a
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 16:07:34 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-02-15 15:13, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:52:42 -0800, Alan says...
>
>>
>> On 2025-02-14 17:35, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:55:47 -0800, Alan says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-02-13 20:59, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 20:03:18 -0800, Alan says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not one author was thinking about babies born to illegals.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because at the time there WERE no illegals...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/MePjbdp.mp4
>>>> Question 1: Was the person born in the US?
>>>>
>>>> Question 2: Was the person "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?
>>>>
>>>> If the answer to both is "Yes":
>>>>
>>>> US citizen.
>>>>
>>>> Period.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>> How many times have amendments been changed?
>>>
>>> The Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Nope.
>
>> It is the law of the land UNTIL it is changed.
>
> No... "it" is NOT the "law of the land", if they can convince judges that it never applied to illegal alien's babies. They won't even have to change
> the wording.
>
> "The 14th Amendment applied to ex-slaves." - USSC
>
> Bye, Mexicans.
>
> Tough titty Democrats... you don't get to use Mexicans to bolster your voter roles, no mo.
That will be hard even for the right's bought-and-paid-for justices to do...
...when there is not one word in the amendment that supports that
conclusion.