A child born to a single US citizen parent is automatically a US citizen, even if that child is born abroad.
trumps social media lead and new campaign chairman... ignoring fact that the ad pushes falsehoods, including the person at the center of the ad came in under GWB...
And this going to make it even worse at the border with these Militi groups going to the border. https://www.yahoo.com/news/armed-militia-groups-head-border-124852355.html
I had to interpolate your post to figure it out, but I see what you are saying. Now, that's not saying I agree. It depends on whether you focus on the first part of the 2nd amendment ("militia") or the second part ("right to bear arms shall not be infringed"). It's hard to get past the bluntness of that second part of the 2nd amendment.
I suppose we could get into a debate about what a "militia" is, or why it would be necessary to have one. I'll concede that I'm not a constitutional-historian-attorney. But one could make the case that the 2nd amendment was about self defense, with a view toward what was the concern at that time (the British). Armed militias were at that time the best way of defending against the British (and possibly others). Then, if you accepted that (as it seems to me one must), why would US citizens have any less right to self defense if the original concern went away? Wouldn't or shouldn't US citizens have the right of self protection against future and unforeseen dangers? And before you say that "militias" (however defined) are no longer needed, I would say: a) you are abandoning your right to self defense to the government, which may or may not have your best interest in mind; and b) it's entirely possible that militias may, in some future scenario, be needed again. (see: any number of post-natural disaster scenarios). And at this point, we are potentially derailing this thread. Or perhaps not. It's entirely possible that militias may be needed, whether for defense against a "caravan" of illegal immigrants, or Antifa hoodlums, etc.
Well that's due to how the English language works. An operative clause is more important than a prefatory clause. A prefatory clause is an introduction and can suggest reasons for the operative clause, but the more important part is always the operative clause. The actual right is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Anyway, I just wanted to help out those who were struggling to understand but this thread is actually about illegal immigration, not the 2nd amendment so let's get back on topic. There are plenty of 2nd amendment threads if you continue to have questions about it.
but you seem eager to ignore the 1st part, why should the 2nd part carry more weight? yet the Supreme Court has already interpreted it to mean that the right to bear arms can be infringed. so it seems that you are the one who is struggling.
No, you're still struggling, they've suggested that certain regulations are not infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That said, like I pointed out, there are MANY threads for you to explore the 2nd amendment, this thread is about "solving illegal immigration".
LOL, no, try reading what I said again. Here I'll re-post the relevant portion and even put it in bold for you. "they've suggested that certain regulations are not infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms." We good here?
Note the republicans will have a witness from cis.org which the SPLC categorizes as a hate group and at best has very extreme/controversial stances on immigration.
What were these agents thinking? https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...ust-stopped-for-lunch-nmmBeZk61Ua0-p4LVgTZpg/
