‘ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOT CITIZENS’ SAYS FEDERAL COURT

[DaBoz]

Because I am not your fucking gofer..

eat shit and die asshole.

[1965hawks]

DaBoz: Because I am not your fucking gofer[;]eat shit and die asshole.

Sorry, DaBoz. Neither your sandbagging nor ad hominem can hide the fact that you and Hayes can't cite the case, the court, or the judge alluded to in the first post of this thread. Evidently, Hayes can talk out his ass and fool you and the other Obama-haters who responded in this thread. But he didn't fool me. 

[DaBoz]

And you are a lazy uninterested fking troll. Same shit different day

[sweetwater5s9]

The Constitution of the United States

13th, 14th & 15th (Slave or Civil War) Amendments

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, were designed to ensure equality for recently emancipated slaves.

Source: Boundless. “The Civil War Amendments.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 26 May. 2016. Retrieved 25 Jul. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/civil-rights-5/slavery-and-civil-rights-39/the-civil-war-amendments-222-11225/

[1965hawks]

sweetwater5s9: The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, were designed to ensure equality for recently emancipated slaves.

Yes; that's true, sweetwater5s9. But you're conveniently ignoring the fact that those constitutional amendments applied to everybody, not just the recently emancipated slaves. You're arguing as if the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are irrelevant today. Amendment XIII prohibits involuntary servitude; Amendment XIV defines US citizenship, and Amendment XV prohibits disenfranchisement based on account of race or colour. The US Constitution still guarantees those rights and civil liberties today, over a century since the states ratified those amendments. That's the real reason why neither Hayes, DaBoz, nor you can present the case Hayes cited to begin this thread.

[takncarabizniz]

Wrong Hawks...they are for citizens and those here legally.  Illegals need not apply.

[wvit1001]

the Supreme Court says the protections of the constitution apply to all within our borders alike.

[DaBoz]

. But you're conveniently ignoring the fact that those constitutional amendments applied to everybody, not just the recently emancipated slaves

The federal court disagrees with you and if you can search the topic tile ,, get the Fuck out of the post asshole.

[wvit1001]

Undocumented immigrants DO have legal rights under the U.S. Constitution and federal statute. As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.

“The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ’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 law.’ These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” 2

All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights. Among these are the right to equal protection of the law and the right to due process.


https://maldef.org/truthinimmigration/undocumented_immigrants_do_have_legal3192008/index.html

[sine-qua-non]

Persons within its jurisdictions ....

Here is your mistake nitwit! 

They are still under the jurisdiction of the country of their illegal parents, theirfore
They receive now automatic citizenship just because they are born on US soil! Like diplomats children are for one example!
Your reading comprehension remains abysmal.

[1965hawks]

takncarabizniz: Wrong Hawks... they are for citizens and those here legally. [sic]  Illegals need not apply.

What part of the Constitution are you citing, takncarabizniz?

DaBOZ: The federal court disagrees with you and if you blah blah blah blah blah blah....

What court case are you citing, DaBoz?

[wvit1001]

That's not what the Supreme Court said sine.