User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 5:49:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Anyone wanna bet how they will rule when they do? If the Supreme Court is our great hope, then we're fucked. Supreme Court will rule they can stay along with the rest of their extended family |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 5:57:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Well, look who has been appointed to the SC lately and you'll have your answer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 5:59:02 PM EDT
[#3]
I got NO idea how that would pan out with the current SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:02:51 PM EDT
[#4]
I think it will go about as well as the giving of land in Rock Ridge on Blazing Saddles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:03:24 PM EDT
[#5]
It's pretty simple to me..no one should be able to profit in anyway due to a criminal act..crossing illegal into this country is a criminal act..hence you are not a legal birth......now you here on a school/work visa and give birth..yep kid has dual citizenship..but in order for family to move here they should have to go thru the whole legal method to become law abiding citizens...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:43:49 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I got NO idea how that would pan out with the current SCOTUS. You don't? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:47:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:47:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, look who has been appointed to the SC lately and you'll have your answer. The wise Latina will write the opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:49:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Swing and a miss! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:49:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's pretty simple to me..no one should be able to profit in anyway due to a criminal act..crossing illegal into this country is a criminal act..hence you are not a legal birth......now you here on a school/work visa and give birth..yep kid has dual citizenship..but in order for family to move here they should have to go thru the whole legal method to become law abiding citizens... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 6:51:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"who had at the time a permanent domicile and residence in the United States " Swing and a miss! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Swing and a miss! You think there aren't illegal aliens with long-standing "domiciles" here when they have their anchor babies? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 8:58:47 PM EDT
[#12]
fuck the supreme court. they are shit for the republic
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:07:26 PM EDT
[#13]
A wise latino woman will say "if you get popped out while on US soil you are Merican and are entitled to get checks and all sorts of benefits, and all for free.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:08:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Thanks for saving me the work. And it applied to parents who were here legally when their child was born. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:11:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark were they not here legally? ETA: beaten, but the question stands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:12:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Its about time for a constitutional crisis as long as someone in the White House wants to deport them. It stupefies me that the left doesn't realize that when bloated social programs being taken advantage of by illegals eventually drags this country down the shitter that they are going down to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2015 9:17:01 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its about time for a constitutional crisis as long as someone in the White House wants to deport them. It stupefies me that the left doesn't realize that when bloated social programs being taken advantage of by illegals eventually drags this country down the shitter that they are going down to. they want to drag it down. they want to destroy it, under the mistaken belief that they will get to choose how it is re-built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:29:42 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thanks for saving me the work. And it applied to parents who were here legally when their child was born. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Thanks for saving me the work. And it applied to parents who were here legally when their child was born. So do you think that will stop them from cooking up so legal hokus pokus to make anyone born on the north bank of the Rio Grande a U.S. Citizen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:36:13 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So do you think that will stop them from cooking up so legal hokus pokus to make anyone born on the north bank of the Rio Grande a U.S. Citizen? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Thanks for saving me the work. And it applied to parents who were here legally when their child was born. So do you think that will stop them from cooking up so legal hokus pokus to make anyone born on the north bank of the Rio Grande a U.S. Citizen? I think it should be challenged and the SCOTUS needs to be on record either way. If they "re-interpret" the 14thA, it'll be just another log on the fire, and getting it burning brightly enough for more defenders of the Constitution to be created is a good thing... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:39:32 AM EDT
[#20]
Jeb told me it's an isolated problem
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:41:43 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Parents were permanently domiciled in the US and here lawfully according to the article. The opinion (quoted in the article) says that the issue before the Court was "whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." The decision apparently does not address the offspring of those who are here other than permanently and/or other than legally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:44:22 AM EDT
[#22]
What makes anyone think the Supreme Court would for some reason take this issue up? While there are a small number of legal scholars that argue that the children of illegals are not citizens, the vast majority disagree AND those children have been treated as citizens for decades.
So some guy is 50 and his mom and dad snuck into the US and gave birth to him here. He's been treated as a citizen his whole life, has paid taxes and assumes he is entitled to social security when he retires. What rational person thinks that the Supreme Court is going to rule that he is here illegally, can't collect the social security he has paid into since he was 16 and has to be deported? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:47:55 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes anyone think the Supreme Court would for some reason take this issue up? While there are a small number of legal scholars that argue that the children of illegals are not citizens, the vast majority disagree AND those children have been treated as citizens for decades. So some guy is 50 and his mom and dad snuck into the US and gave birth to him here. He's been treated as a citizen his whole life, has paid taxes and assumes he is entitled to social security when he retires. What rational person thinks that the Supreme Court is going to rule that he is here illegally, can't collect the social security he has paid into since he was 16 and has to be deported? two separate issues. the first is the question of Birthright, the second what to do if the citizenship doesn't apply. the first is an interpretation of the law and is what the Supreme Court should do. the second is something that Congress should deal with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:50:39 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: were they not here legally? ETA: beaten, but the question stands. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark were they not here legally? ETA: beaten, but the question stands. There are Russians who are visiting here legally on vacation just to squish out their US citizen baby If the court decides against illegals having US citizen babies, they'll have to vacation here to squish out US babies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:53:26 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: two separate issues. the first is the question of Birthright, the second what to do if the citizenship doesn't apply. the first is an interpretation of the law and is what the Supreme Court should do. the second is something that Congress should deal with. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What makes anyone think the Supreme Court would for some reason take this issue up? While there are a small number of legal scholars that argue that the children of illegals are not citizens, the vast majority disagree AND those children have been treated as citizens for decades. So some guy is 50 and his mom and dad snuck into the US and gave birth to him here. He's been treated as a citizen his whole life, has paid taxes and assumes he is entitled to social security when he retires. What rational person thinks that the Supreme Court is going to rule that he is here illegally, can't collect the social security he has paid into since he was 16 and has to be deported? two separate issues. the first is the question of Birthright, the second what to do if the citizenship doesn't apply. the first is an interpretation of the law and is what the Supreme Court should do. the second is something that Congress should deal with. edit there is a good faith argument that the children of illegals are not citizens but it's a minority view and meaningless as they have been treated like citizens for decades |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:53:59 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jeb told me it's an isolated problem Yeah, it's the Asians who are having all the anchor babies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:55:00 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, it's the Asians who are having all the anchor babies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Jeb told me it's an isolated problem Yeah, it's the Asians who are having all the anchor babies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 11:58:36 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Supreme Court will either never take the case up or declare that the children of illegals are citizens if born here precisely because of the reason I stated. They are not going "unstate" hundreds of thousands of people. edit there is a good faith argument that the children of illegals are not citizens but it's a minority view and meaningless as they have been treated like citizens for decades Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What makes anyone think the Supreme Court would for some reason take this issue up? While there are a small number of legal scholars that argue that the children of illegals are not citizens, the vast majority disagree AND those children have been treated as citizens for decades. So some guy is 50 and his mom and dad snuck into the US and gave birth to him here. He's been treated as a citizen his whole life, has paid taxes and assumes he is entitled to social security when he retires. What rational person thinks that the Supreme Court is going to rule that he is here illegally, can't collect the social security he has paid into since he was 16 and has to be deported? two separate issues. the first is the question of Birthright, the second what to do if the citizenship doesn't apply. the first is an interpretation of the law and is what the Supreme Court should do. the second is something that Congress should deal with. edit there is a good faith argument that the children of illegals are not citizens but it's a minority view and meaningless as they have been treated like citizens for decades You're right. But, there are a lot of right wing pundits and politicians who think that the Supreme Court will be our salvation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 12:04:23 PM EDT
[#29]
The natural born citizen thing is pretty well rooted in law & society, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 12:09:59 PM EDT
[#30]
When I become POTUS, I will seize Barack Obama's residence through eminent domain and turn it into a prison for illegal aliens. Every time he moves, I will do the same so long as I am POTUS, or until he leaves the country, or until he is no longer alive - whichever comes first. I will do the same for every single elected official or television talking head that supports illegal immigration.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 12:14:46 PM EDT
[#31]
Save us John Roberts, you are our only hope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 12:15:38 PM EDT
[#32]
i dont agree with the anchor baby bullshit.
its like your pregnant neighbor breaks into your house at 2am... and gives birth on your couch...... now their kid is legally part of your family, and you have to support them now....its nuts. at least one of the parents must be a us citizen, or the mother must be in the country legally for the baby to be a citizen. IMHO. if they want to deny visas, and entry to pregnant women on vacation or whatever, , to help avoid this bullshit, thats fine with me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 12:23:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When I become POTUS, I will seize Barack Obama's residence through eminent domain and turn it into a prison for illegal aliens. Every time he moves, I will do the same so long as I am POTUS, or until he leaves the country, or until he is no longer alive - whichever comes first. I will do the same for every single elected official or television talking head that supports illegal immigration. Where do I send my donations? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 12:25:40 PM EDT
[#34]
If you believe in the rest of the amendments as firmly as you believe in the 2nd, it seems pretty straight-forward:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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 laws. There doesn't seem to be much wiggle room for legal vs. illegal - it's pretty black and white. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 12:29:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Press 1 for spanish
Press 2 for English Wherever they are from, it's not to become an American It's to have the perks of being an American, while creating a new colony of the old country here |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 1:56:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the chinese tourism babies actually make a stronger argument against birthright citizenship than all the bitching about hispanic illegals Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jeb told me it's an isolated problem Yeah, it's the Asians who are having all the anchor babies. I pay 10k in school tax. I'm going to make a pretty good guess that none of that goes to Chinese anchor babies in our schools, and quite a bit more goes to illegals from the south that don't pay their share |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:09:02 PM EDT
[#37]
"Anchor babies" are not the problem you think they are.
For instance, if a Chinese woman has her kid here and he is a USC, it will still take decades for him to sponsor any other family members into the US legally Taiwanese tend to be big abuser of the "anchor baby" thing not as a means to citizenship, but as a back up in case the Chinese invade then they can send their kids here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:12:25 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:13:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Parents were permanently domiciled in the US and here lawfully according to the article. The opinion (quoted in the article) says that the issue before the Court was "whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." The decision apparently does not address the offspring of those who are here other than permanently and/or other than legally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Parents were permanently domiciled in the US and here lawfully according to the article. The opinion (quoted in the article) says that the issue before the Court was "whether a child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." The decision apparently does not address the offspring of those who are here other than permanently and/or other than legally. If a Mexican couple comes here and lives here for a while - hence "domiciled" here - and are carrying on business (i.e., living their lives in some manner), and are still Mexican citizens just like the Chinese people were still Chinese ... I don't see anything to distinguish the two scenarios. Nothing in the quote that you posted mentions, or conditions the holding, on lawful entry/presence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:14:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right. But, there are a lot of right wing pundits and politicians who think that the Supreme Court will be our salvation. They're living in 1929 if they think that. Lochner Era for the win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:14:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Supreme Court will rule they can stay along with the rest of their extended family Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone wanna bet how they will rule when they do? If the Supreme Court is our great hope, then we're fucked. Supreme Court will rule they can stay along with the rest of their extended family Who need to be citizens, too, so they can have the entitlements they need to help care for and nurture these wonderful, vibrant American babies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:15:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it should be challenged and the SCOTUS needs to be on record either way. If they "re-interpret" the 14thA, it'll be just another log on the fire, and getting it burning brightly enough for more defenders of the Constitution to be created is a good thing... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark Thanks for saving me the work. And it applied to parents who were here legally when their child was born. So do you think that will stop them from cooking up so legal hokus pokus to make anyone born on the north bank of the Rio Grande a U.S. Citizen? I think it should be challenged and the SCOTUS needs to be on record either way. If they "re-interpret" the 14thA, it'll be just another log on the fire, and getting it burning brightly enough for more defenders of the Constitution to be created is a good thing... Fuck the SCOTUS. Congress has the authority to set method of naturalization. Article I is clear on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:15:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. The Court's holding doesn't distinguish between the two, nor does the plain text of the 14th Amendment. I hate anchor babies as much as anyone, but the legal landscape is pretty unfavorable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:17:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Supreme Court will either never take the case up or declare that the children of illegals are citizens if born here precisely because of the reason I stated. They are not going "unstate" hundreds of thousands of people. edit there is a good faith argument that the children of illegals are not citizens but it's a minority view and meaningless as they have been treated like citizens for decades Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What makes anyone think the Supreme Court would for some reason take this issue up? While there are a small number of legal scholars that argue that the children of illegals are not citizens, the vast majority disagree AND those children have been treated as citizens for decades. So some guy is 50 and his mom and dad snuck into the US and gave birth to him here. He's been treated as a citizen his whole life, has paid taxes and assumes he is entitled to social security when he retires. What rational person thinks that the Supreme Court is going to rule that he is here illegally, can't collect the social security he has paid into since he was 16 and has to be deported? two separate issues. the first is the question of Birthright, the second what to do if the citizenship doesn't apply. the first is an interpretation of the law and is what the Supreme Court should do. the second is something that Congress should deal with. edit there is a good faith argument that the children of illegals are not citizens but it's a minority view and meaningless as they have been treated like citizens for decades They've been treated that way on account of statutes, not the Constitution. Congress is free to expand who is eligible for birthright citizenship and decades ago chose to do so. And if SCOTUS rules based on majority views or based on an effect of the law being undesirable to them (which it does), then it is not an institution worthy of respect or obedience, as it is lacking in fidelity to the law and proper principles thereof, and is a legislature and ought to be dealt with by the other branches should the right people ever get into power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:17:43 PM EDT
[#45]
And if/when an amnesty deal is made, saying the newly minted "legals" can't have XYZ privileges, the USSC will overturn that, too. You know, like voting rights?
Be wary if this is ever a stipulation of an amnesty deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:22:13 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Court's holding doesn't distinguish between the two, nor does the plain text of the 14th Amendment. I hate anchor babies as much as anyone, but the legal landscape is pretty unfavorable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. The Court's holding doesn't distinguish between the two, nor does the plain text of the 14th Amendment. I hate anchor babies as much as anyone, but the legal landscape is pretty unfavorable. The 14th is pretty clear. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of... And the ruling you posted is concerning permanent residents. That means they were here legally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:24:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 14th is pretty clear. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of... And the ruling you posted is concerning permanent residents. That means they were here legally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. The Court's holding doesn't distinguish between the two, nor does the plain text of the 14th Amendment. I hate anchor babies as much as anyone, but the legal landscape is pretty unfavorable. The 14th is pretty clear. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of... And the ruling you posted is concerning permanent residents. That means they were here legally. Here, let me use bigger letters: THE RULING DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL RESIDENTS |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:26:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes anyone think the Supreme Court would for some reason take this issue up? While there are a small number of legal scholars that argue that the children of illegals are not citizens, the vast majority disagree AND those children have been treated as citizens for decades. So some guy is 50 and his mom and dad snuck into the US and gave birth to him here. He's been treated as a citizen his whole life, has paid taxes and assumes he is entitled to social security when he retires. What rational person thinks that the Supreme Court is going to rule that he is here illegally, can't collect the social security he has paid into since he was 16 and has to be deported? This guy should go through the system, become a citizen and then get his money back. Pssst we done spent your SS money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:29:11 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here, let me use bigger letters: THE RULING DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL RESIDENTS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry to shit on what I'd imagine would be a splendid GD thread, but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark They were LEGAL residents. Big difference. The Court's holding doesn't distinguish between the two, nor does the plain text of the 14th Amendment. I hate anchor babies as much as anyone, but the legal landscape is pretty unfavorable. The 14th is pretty clear. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of... And the ruling you posted is concerning permanent residents. That means they were here legally. Here, let me use bigger letters: THE RULING DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL RESIDENTS And I told you it did. Did you read it this time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2015 2:32:58 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, it's the Asians who are having all the anchor babies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Jeb told me it's an isolated problem Yeah, it's the Asians who are having all the anchor babies. Fuck Jeb , fuck him right in the face .....and fuck the supreme court and obama's executive orders PUT. IT. TO. A. VOTE ! |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
