Liberal Forum

Huey » 02 Apr 2026, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 8:06 am

I haven't lied about it.  I posted the primary reason.  YOU ?  Nada but yapping.

You lied about what I do, cowardly ****.

 I posted the primary reason.  YOU ?  Nada but yapping.

Your use of "primary" undercuts the OP..

Far from "nada", I have used your stupid against both you and phil.

 

Blackvegetable » 31 Mar 2026, 5:23 pm » wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2026, 5:23 pm

It wasn't limited to slaves.

Shut up, Phil...you're too stupid to contribute

This strikes me as a very clear stand.



 

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 8:12 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 8:12 am

You lied about what I do, cowardly ****.

Your use of "primary" undercuts the OP..

Far from "nada", I have used your stupid against both you and phil.

^^^^^^^
And here is another example of what your do.  Still no stand

Huey » 02 Apr 2026, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 8:25 am

^^^^^^^
And here is another example of what your do.  Still no stand

Post my initial response to the OP...

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 8:32 am

Post my initial response to the OP...

 

You are more than capable. 

Huey » 02 Apr 2026, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 8:37 am

You are more than capable.

I accept your abject capitulation.


Stop begging for the Hurt Dance...


 

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 8:39 am

I accept your abject capitulation.


Stop begging for the Hurt Dance...


 

 

Refusing to do your bidding?  LMAO!  If you have a point on birthright citizenship make.  No, it was not limited to slaves and the OP starter DID NOT say it was.

I agree that the law that allows those  taking "vacations" simply to get the baby citizenship should be repealed. 

Huey » 02 Apr 2026, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 8:43 am

Refusing to do your bidding?  LMAO!  If you have a point on birthright citizenship make.  

No...

Acknowledging the unambiguous evidence that makes a liar of you.

  If you have a point on birthright citizenship make.  

I did....it anticipated the waffling from which you now run.

I agree that the law that allows those taking "vacations" simply to get the baby citizenship should be repealed. 

It's not a "law", it's a Constitutional Amendment....just like the 2nd.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

We'll be hearing a lot about this phrase.

Many point to this case where "illegal immigrants" are not mentioned.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents (who are not diplomats) is a citizen.

The parents were already legal citizens.

Huey » 02 Apr 2026, 7:54 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 7:54 am

So yes, primarily does not mean solely.  Post your position.

Duh, idiot

That IS my position.

Obviously. 
 

Fuelman » 02 Apr 2026, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 9:08 am

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

We'll be hearing a lot about this phrase.

Many point to this case where "illegal immigrants" are not mentioned.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to foreign parents (who are not diplomats) is a citizen.

The parents were already legal citizens.

Stop relying on **** sources.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/birt ... f-barbara/


Consider, for example, the facts of a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1957, United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy. In July 1951, Elizabeth Hintopoulos, an alien seaman and expectant mother in her second trimester, legally entered the U.S under rules that obliged her to leave within a month of her arrival. After seeking medical advice, she decided to stay ashore, unlawfully, beyond this interval. About a month after Elizabeth’s arrival, her husband Anastasios (presumably the father of her unborn child) reached the United States. He too was an alien seaman and he too unlawfully stayed in America beyond his legal visa period. In November, Elizabeth gave birth on American soil, proverbially under an American flag, to a son. Though the court did not tell us his name, let’s call him Adam. In January 1952, the married couple voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to U.S. immigration officials and asked that they not be deported, invoking Section 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which allowed officials to suspend deportation in situations involving “serious economic detriment to a citizen . . . who is . . . the minor child of [a] deportable alien.”


.....


What does today’s solicitor general say about Hintopoulos? He doesn’t. Hintopoulos goes entirely unmentioned in two merits briefs that together span more than 70 pages, despite the fact that a brilliant amicus brief by three of America’s most accomplished immigration scholars highlighted Hintopoulos above all other modern cases. The case was also prominently mentioned – including its key words “of course” – by another notable Princeton alum, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in last term’s closely related Trump v CASA case. The nearest that Solicitor General D. John Sauer comes to engagement is a quick reference to modern cases in which, according to Sauer, the “Court assumed that children of illegal aliens born here are U.S. citizens.” 

Contra Sauer, Hintopoulous did not “assume” this point. Hintopoulos asserted this point. Obviously. Unanimously. Adam’s obvious citizenship was the entire pivot point of the case, the statutory prerequisite to the entire legal dispute. Adam’s rock-solid bulletproof citizenship was the express statutory reason that officials were allowed (but not obliged) to suspend deportation of his illegal-alien parents. (In the end, immigration officials decided not to suspend deportation and the court majority said that was OK. The dissenters would have reversed the immigration officials and required suspension of deportation.)
 

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 2:25 pm

Duh, idiot

That IS my position.

Obviously. 
 

 

Then we agree and their is no need to argue.  That ispretty easy  when you clarify without a questions.  Been telling you that for years.

I guess we are done here. 

Huey » 02 Apr 2026, 2:48 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 2:48 pm

Then we agree and their is no need to argue.  

You only just figured that out...


The difference is that when asked about the other considerations implied by "primarily", you dropped to your knees and pleaded for that Dance.

 

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 2:53 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 2:53 pm

You only just figured that out...


The difference is that when asked about the other considerations implied by "primarily", you dropped to your knees and pleaded for that Dance.

 

 

You can't be this stupid.  We agree.  Stop stirring up ****.  You will be jerking yourself off again.  

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 2:32 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 2:32 pm

Stop relying on **** sources.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/birt ... f-barbara/

Consider, for example, the facts of a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1957, United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy. In July 1951, Elizabeth Hintopoulos, an alien seaman and expectant mother in her second trimester, legally entered the U.S under rules that obliged her to leave within a month of her arrival. After seeking medical advice, she decided to stay ashore, unlawfully, beyond this interval. About a month after Elizabeth’s arrival, her husband Anastasios (presumably the father of her unborn child) reached the United States. He too was an alien seaman and he too unlawfully stayed in America beyond his legal visa period. In November, Elizabeth gave birth on American soil, proverbially under an American flag, to a son. Though the court did not tell us his name, let’s call him Adam. In January 1952, the married couple voluntarily disclosed their illegal presence to U.S. immigration officials and asked that they not be deported, invoking Section 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which allowed officials to suspend deportation in situations involving “serious economic detriment to a citizen . . . who is . . . the minor child of [a] deportable alien.”

.....

What does today’s solicitor general say about Hintopoulos? He doesn’t. Hintopoulos goes entirely unmentioned in two merits briefs that together span more than 70 pages, despite the fact that a brilliant amicus brief by three of America’s most accomplished immigration scholars highlighted Hintopoulos above all other modern cases. The case was also prominently mentioned – including its key words “of course” – by another notable Princeton alum, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in last term’s closely related Trump v CASA case. The nearest that Solicitor General D. John Sauer comes to engagement is a quick reference to modern cases in which, according to Sauer, the “Court assumed that children of illegal aliens born here are U.S. citizens.” 

Contra Sauer, Hintopoulous did not “assume” this point. Hintopoulos asserted this point. Obviously. Unanimously. Adam’s obvious citizenship was the entire pivot point of the case, the statutory prerequisite to the entire legal dispute. Adam’s rock-solid bulletproof citizenship was the express statutory reason that officials were allowed (but not obliged) to suspend deportation of his illegal-alien parents. (In the end, immigration officials decided not to suspend deportation and the court majority said that was OK. The dissenters would have reversed the immigration officials and required suspension of deportation.)

I'm sure you are aware the 14th Amendment was ratified under duress, the Southern States had no choice or elect to not have a seat at the table.

In today's world, I don't think it would pass the starting line.
 

Fuelman » 02 Apr 2026, 4:05 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 4:05 pm

I'm sure you are aware the 14th Amendment was ratified under duress, the Southern States had no choice or elect to not have a seat at the table.

In today's world, I don't think it would pass the starting line.

No..

But I don't give a ****.

**** 'em

 

Blackvegetable » 01 Apr 2026, 7:16 am » wrote: ↑

01 Apr 2026, 7:16 am

Yell at yourself, Phil.

STFU you lying *** *** mark.

Huey » 02 Apr 2026, 3:00 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 3:00 pm

You can't be this stupid.  We agree.  Stop stirring up ****.  You will be jerking yourself off again.

you were entirely unaware that your post confirmed me.

Stop being an idiot.
 

Blackvegetable » 02 Apr 2026, 4:46 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2026, 4:46 pm

you were entirely unaware that your post confirmed me.

Stop being an idiot.

can’t confirm what you feared to post lil man.

Wrong until dim-0-craps discovered a new voter base!!!
https://twitter.com/i/status/2039744563615519191

https://twitter.com/i/status/2039825212418785592