Search results

There are more than adequate legal grounds for lawmakers to restrict illegal immigration and to adjust rules around benefits and handouts which may encourage anchor babies, if that's what's required, without disingenuously attempting to justify it with extreme mashing of a couple of words in the...

Going by how you'd turn on its head the unequivocal statement of the Constitution that states "all people..." to mean not all people, it has to be assumed that by "Good stuff" you must mean utter crap.

I agree. The Court could rule against illegals trying to benefit by producing anchor babies or whatever else. But not against new borns on American soil. That would simply be grossly un constitutional.

So when the Constitution says "all people" it doesn't mean "all people". Got it.

If you want to stop an alien parent giving birth on American soil, then restrict their entry. If you want to stop people crossing the border illegally for whatever reason, then tighten the borders. Trying to twist the Constitution into saying things it doesn't to remedy both those issues, is...

V Good points piezo and well put. But the 14th clearly says "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...'' The 14th does not say... "All persons born to parents residing...

It's the parents who are the illegals. The child is not illegal for being born on US soil and is under the "jurisdiction thereof". They are born in US territory within which, US legal power can be exercised upon them, just like every other new born. Furthermore, all children at birth are not...

How come the subject of something from nothing makes you so angry:p

I said, more than once now, it's a starting point for you. It will help explain something from nothing. Unless you don't want it to, which apparently is the case.

If you think a logical question cannot be a pointless question, then you've already put yourself at an illogical disadvantage for understanding logic. Nah you didn't. It's clear, you just want to reject everything being said to you unless it fits with your pre-conclusions.

You keep making inappropriate metaphors. Last time it was paper clips which had little if anything to do with things. Now it's brain surgery! If you like metaphors so much, a more appropriate one might be to ask yourself how an egg can create a chicken when you need a chicken to create an egg...

Jem - the - befuddled... "you were not caught saying things you did not really understand." I think he has that right :D

Yeah I know and why I pointed it out to you! It's why you were wrong mixing up paper clips with fundamental forces. You pulled up a Wiki page that shows how particles mediate (transmit) fundamental forces, although you clearly misunderstood what was being said in it. I already responded. It is...

That's not what mediating means! Look at the table again. See gluons under Strong Fundamental. It means gluons transmit the strong nuclear force. Likewise W and Z bosons impart the (electro) weak nuclear force. It's not known (yet) if gravity is due to the same kind of particle exchange. It...

Your problem is, it's not 'all speculation'. You need to understand how scientific hypothesis built on math physics and the laws of nature, in context, is not the same as speculation based on nothing but the superstition, fear and make-believe represented by the word God, Tuner or Creator...

Since when does one thing have to overpower another to have an effect on it? Tiny alterations on tiny things by a weak force, sounds exactly like "fine-tuning". It's not true to say gravity does not have an effect at the atomic or subatomic level. For example, the movement of a neutron...

Coming from you, that just means your next statement is going to be inaccurate. A state of nothing allows for borrowed energy. And sure let's be clear. There's too much science that corresponds with the laws of physics and nature to call it 'all speculation'.

...yet strong enough to form galaxies:rolleyes: Which in turn begs the question (whilst remembering gravity does actually exist) If God even could be a "fine tuner", then who or what causes God to BE a "fine tuner"? etc etc So you're trying to say a force can't create anything:D and you...

You'll literally take everything out of context to make a pathetic idiotic conclusion, won't you. It's no wonder you can hardly understand a damn thing. Those sentences clearly corresponded Gravity (which is real... you know that much don't you?) as a capital c Creator, to your God (which...

Oh come on, seriously. The context is cringingly obvious. Just ask yourself, which has to come first, spontaneous creation or a universe? A universe (or universes/multiverse) must necessarily come AFTER their spontaneous creation. Right? The context is, this universe (or multiverse) is subject...