5 Responses to “POLL: Most Voters Want to Build A Wall, Deport Felon Illegals… Developing…”

1. EyeballNews
   August 19th, 2015 @ 7:33 am

   Like we needed a poll to tell us that

2. EARTHPLANET
   August 19th, 2015 @ 12:49 pm

   FOR CHRISTMAS I WANT A BIG BIG WALL.

   I WANT IT TO HAVE LIGHTS AND DONORS FOR EACH BRICK..

   EVEN ISIL AND THE COMMIES AND DEMS AND BARRY SOETORAH LITES AND EVEN THE BILLARY FOUNDATION CAN DONATE A BRICK.

   SI SE PUEDE…نعم نستطيع (I HOPE THAT IS CORRECT TRANSLATION)

3. Rod Riddle
   August 19th, 2015 @ 5:37 pm

   The big surge for The Donald is no doubt due to his promise to bring back Dwight D Eisenhowers brilliant & successful “Operation Wetback” from the early 50’s. Obviously a much bigger under taking with a vastly greater number involved this time, Trump is determined to make it happen. One of the ideas to keep them from attempting to cross back over the border has been discussed. The illegals will be tagged with a country of origin then loaded on ships and dumped off at a port closest to their country of origin. We have the personnel to get the job done. We just need to get the operation underway ASAP.

4. Veritas
   August 19th, 2015 @ 8:27 pm

   Donald taking lots of heat for his 14th amendment contention that Birthright citizenship is not for babies of ILLEGALS.

   One part of that law says that the children have citizenship who are born here of parents who are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the USA.

   For example, children born to those here with TPS (Temporary Protective Status) would seem to qualify, while Illegals and tourists who birth offspring here would not.

   Perhaps Donald is right…the law may be clear to all except those who care to say that “jurisdiction” is “geography” when it is really a state of allegiance and responsibility to the USA.

   This latter point brought up today by Mark Levin on Hannity.

   Of course, O’Reilly said the whole matter, right or wrong, was already taken care of in an earlier Supreme Court Decision.

   But did Bill read the decision carefully?

   Perhaps the problem is how it is currently being EMPLOYED, not how it is WRITTEN which would be par for the course for a loose interpretation.

   Something seems to stand out in the following decision below. ILLEGALS do not and cannot have a PERMANENT Domicile in the USA and cannot LEGALLY be “carrying out business.”

   If this is the decision to which O’Reilly is referring, Donald and others are right: babies of foreigners who do not fit THESE requisites bear solely the nationality of that of one or both of the parents, NOT the USA.
   —

   United States v. Wong Kim Ark

   In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

   is born in the United States
   of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power

   * whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States

   * whose parents are there carrying on business and

   are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

   becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

5. Rod Riddle
   August 20th, 2015 @ 8:45 pm

   Veritas, the liberal hacks have been promoting a fallacy concerning the intention of the 14th Amendment for so long now that the majority of people actually believe it to be true. Those who came here after going thru the proper procedures will not be affected yet the border jumpers and their families will be shipped out like they should be. How anyone would ever think that if a couple is on vacation in another country and the mother goes into labor a month early and has a child, that the baby becomes a citizen of that foreign country has zero understanding of what the framers meant by having a sole allegiance to America under the 14th Amendment.

Leave a Reply