Trump voting commission had no evidence of widespread voter fraud: And yet I'm willing to bet that there is nary a conservative who doesn't think that Mezkins are pouring over to...

PeterS

And yet I'm willing to bet that there is nary a conservative who doesn't think that Mezkins are pouring over to border just so they can vote in our elections.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/03/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission-evidence-documents/

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

PeterS wrote:

And yet I'm willing to bet that there is nary a conservative who doesn't think that Mezkins are pouring over to border just so they can vote in our elections.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/03/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission-evidence-documents/

Loki Loc: Georgia

PeterS wrote:

And yet I'm willing to bet that there is nary a conservative who doesn't think that Mezkins are pouring over to border just so they can vote in our elections.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/03/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission-evidence-documents/

No, mostly they are pouring over the border to work which is acceptable, or to either sneak in or overstay their visas, and procure false ID to obtain benefits from Uncle Sugar, which is not. Of course, there is always the option of sneaking in or overstaying their visas in the hope that their girlfriends or rent-a-putas will give birth to an anchor baby.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Loki wrote:

No, mostly they are pouring over the border to work which is acceptable, or to either sneak in or overstay their visas, and procure false ID to obtain benefits from Uncle Sugar, which is not. Of course, there is always the option of sneaking in or overstaying their visas in the hope that their girlfriends or rent-a-putas will give birth to an anchor baby.

It has been proven so many times, there is no such a thing as an anchor baby. Just because the child is born on American soil dosent make the child an American citizen. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this. But the Socialist Democrats continue to ignore this FACT.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

old marine wrote:

It has been proven so many times, there is no such a thing as an anchor baby. Just because the child is born on American soil dosent make the child an American citizen. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this. But the Socialist Democrats continue to ignore this FACT.

Your AG is a Crat???

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Key phrase there widespread voter fraud but no fraud, you an outright fool if you don't believe these no fraud.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

bmac32 wrote:

Key phrase there widespread voter fraud but no fraud, you an outright fool if you don't believe these no fraud.

How many convictions?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

My good God your stupid!

Bad Bob wrote:

How many convictions?

Loki Loc: Georgia

old marine wrote:

It has been proven so many times, there is no such a thing as an anchor baby. Just because the child is born on American soil dosent make the child an American citizen. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this. But the Socialist Democrats continue to ignore this FACT.

In point of fact, children born on US soil ARE considered citizens. This is in direct contradiction to the intent of the 39th Congress that wrote the Amendment. Below is a link in which their actual statements are given. The 14th Amendment was to insure full citizenship rights for former slaves and their children. It was considered an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The people who wrote the Amendment specifically stated it was not meant to apply to foreigners, yet this was sort of ignored in US v Wong Kim Ark 1898. They ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen because his parents were permanent legal residents. or the 19th century equivalent. They sort of equivocated around the FACT that the authors of the 14th specifically excluded children born to foreigners here illegally, or legally on a temporary basis. Elk v Wilkins 1884 stated that John Elk was not a birth citizen of the US in part because neither of his parents were citizens.
Granting birth citizenship to the children of wetbacks is a practice that the self-serving liars in Congress could stop at any time, since this does not require a Constitutional Amendment. The problem is that Democrats see future voters, and the RINO's are in the pocket of the US Chamber of Commerce which never saw an amnesty of which it did not approve.

Here is an excerpt from the link I used, and the entire link.

The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.
Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

bmac32 wrote:

My good God your stupid!

Time to put up or shut up.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Loki wrote:

In point of fact, children born on US soil ARE considered citizens. This is in direct contradiction to the intent of the 39th Congress that wrote the Amendment. Below is a link in which their actual statements are given. The 14th Amendment was to insure full citizenship rights for former slaves and their children. It was considered an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The people who wrote the Amendment specifically stated it was not meant to apply to foreigners, yet this was sort of ignored in US v Wong Kim Ark 1898. They ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen because his parents were permanent legal residents. or the 19th century equivalent. They sort of equivocated around the FACT that the authors of the 14th specifically excluded children born to foreigners here illegally, or legally on a temporary basis. Elk v Wilkins 1884 stated that John Elk was not a birth citizen of the US in part because neither of his parents were citizens.
Granting birth citizenship to the children of wetbacks is a practice that the self-serving liars in Congress could stop at any time, since this does not require a Constitutional Amendment. The problem is that Democrats see future voters, and the RINO's are in the pocket of the US Chamber of Commerce which never saw an amnesty of which it did not approve.

Here is an excerpt from the link I used, and the entire link.

The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.
Granted, the language of the Citizenship Clause deviates slightly from that of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but there is no compelling evidence that the 39th Congress intended a different meaning. In fact, the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI), stated that its language “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” explaining that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

In point of fact, children born on US soil ARE con... (show quote)

Funny how the Socialist Democrats attorneys can not understand the laws or SCOTUS decisions.

It's there in black and white:
FOREIGNERS
ALIENS (ILLEGAL OR OTHERWISE)
AMBASADORS OR
FOREIGN MINISTERS

end of debate.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

old marine wrote:

Funny how the Socialist Democrats attorneys can not understand the laws or SCOTUS decisions.

It's there in black and white:
FOREIGNERS
ALIENS (ILLEGAL OR OTHERWISE)
AMBASADORS OR
FOREIGN MINISTERS

end of debate.

All they gotta do is ask the old marine for his legal expertise.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Bad Bob wrote:

All they gotta do is ask the old marine for his legal expertise.

It's not rocket science. It's so simple that even you could understand it with just a little bit of tutoring.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

Loki wrote:

It's not rocket science. It's so simple that even you could understand it with just a little bit of tutoring.

Not from an old sick wacko.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Bad Bob wrote:

Not from an old sick wacko.

Old sick wackos don't understand things any better than you do. If there is no evidence of voter fraud, then how the hell did the Russians influence the election? by pointing out wrongdoing and dirty tricks by the DNC?