₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
1. You literally can't even help yourself see how terrible and utterly devoid of meaning your ramblings come off. How then can you expect to be able to help me with anything?

2.

Philosophical reasoning is often accused of being devoid of meaning when in reality it challenges that which we believe is real and to the "restricted" mind it all sounds like jobbly gook.

morpheus24:
➜Philosophical reasoning is often accused of being devoid of meaning
➜ when in reality it challenges that which we believe is real and to the "restricted" mind it all sounds like jobbly gook.

Actual philosophical reasoning is never accused of being devoid of meaning. Brain farts are not philosophical.

2. You challenged nothing! Rather, it revealed what you continue to lack!

Kobojunkie:
As expected, you didn't answer the question.

I did. I answered it with a rhetorical question.

Kobojunkie:
Again, it will not end with the closing of loopholes allowing criminal/illegal elements to cut to the front of the line before others? And you base tIt

it is currently not illegal or criminal to hop on a plane from China while pregnant and come give birth in the United States. When your republican friends manage to get congress to amend the constitution then we can have a proper arguement about illegality or criminality., no?

Kobojunkie:
Actual philosophical reasoning is never accused of being devoid of meaning. Brain farts are not philosophical.

2. You challenged nothing! Rather, it revealed what you continue to lack!

I challenged everything my boy. If you wish to keep going we can. If you surrender in defeat then just say so.

morpheus24:
➜I challenged everything my boy. If you wish to keep going we can. If you surrender in defeat then just say so.

To challenge, say an existing notion, you put forward facts and evidence, not delusions.

Kobojunkie:
On Monday, the Supreme Court clarified that the US is not allowed to offer citizenship to individuals who arrive at the border. Again, it will not end with the closing of loopholes allowing criminal/illegal elements to cut to the front of the line before others? And you base this on what?

Has the US ever offered citizenship to individuals who arrive at any border, if so can you point us to one case?

Kobojunkie:
To challenge, say an existing notion, you put forward facts and evidence, not delusions.

Premise- Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right.

Evidence- Humans have moved and continue to move for millenia around the globe restricted and unrestricted.

morpheus24:
➜I did. I answered it with a rhetorical question.
➜ it is currently not illegal or criminal to hop on a plane from China while pregnant and come give birth in the United States. When your republican friends manage to get congress to amend the constitution then we can have a proper arguement about illegality or criminality., no?

1. So you didn't answer the question!

2. China? Anyway, the U.S., like every other one of the over 160 countries out there without a birthright citizenship(plop out a baby on foreign soil and automagically skip to the front of the line to become a citizen) agreement, has a right to change its laws to better protect itself.

The vast majority of nations across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania do not grant citizenship based solely on being born on their territory. Instead, citizenship typically requires at least one parent to be a citizen.
Europe & Eurasia: Nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy have strictly limited, conditional paths to citizenship, while Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Norway, and Russia do not offer birthright citizenship at all.
Asia & Oceania: Countries including China, India, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand base citizenship on the nationality of the parents.
Middle East & Africa: Most countries in this region—such as Egypt, Iran, and many African nations—require a citizen parent to pass on nationality.

Even Nigeria does not offer birthright citizenship.

I don't see why the US should continue to maintain that which it has already identified as a problem. Another issue is the dual citizenship confusion.

morpheus24:
Premise- Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right. Evidence- Humans have moved and continue to move for millenia around the globe restricted and unrestricted.

Conclusion...bullsheet!

DeepSight:
I remember telling you a couple of years ago that the word "Judge" is not the same as the name "George" and you insulted me. Years later you are still making the same mistake.

i sincerely apologize for the insult, it's not in my character. As for the spellings, boat of them are correct. One is British English, while the other one is American English. I chose to use the American English which is my mother tongue. English is always changing everyday, because English is dienamyic.

Kobojunkie:
Of course not! 🥱

So is that not hypocrisy?,and yet everyone want blame the US while her enemies plot n pray for their downfall,personao I don't blame the US at all because they really need to protect their interest n homeland.

Kobojunkie:
Conclusion...bullsheet!

Explain why its bullsheet!

Reason it out.

Kobojunkie:
1. So you didn't answer the question!

2. China? Anyway, the U.S., like every other one of the over 160 countries out there without a birthright citizenship(plop out a baby on foreign soil and automagically skip to the front of the line to become a citizen) agreement, has a right to change its laws to better protect itself.

No one is contesting that the US has every "right" to do this if the people elected to represent the people i.e. congress approve and ratify the amendment of the constitution to redefine or clarify the 14 amendment.

Currently this interpretation has been upheld by the judiciary since the Dredd Scott case and the people have so far agreed with their judiciary .

Hey but anything can change.

Kobojunkie:
Even Nigeria does not offer birthright citizenship.

I don't see why the US should continue to maintain that which it has already identified as a problem. Another issue is the dual citizenship confusion.

Just Sanguinus vs Jus Soli. Nigeria's history as an entity is relatively new and thus it will naturally follow cultural trends that align with its history.

The history of the United states and other European states have a different cultural narrative inheriting the concepts of blood rights and soil right from Roman law.

There is no confusion in dual citizenship since the concept of allegiance is not a natural law.

enemyofprogress:
i sincerely apologize for the insult, it's not in my character. As for the spellings, boat of them are correct. One is British English, while the other one is American English. I chose to use the American English which is my mother tongue. English is always changing everyday, because English is dienamyic.

That is not the spelling even in American English.

DeepSight:
That is not the spelling even in American English.

says who? You're not current with the use of English language jo. Do you know sintax?

Forumobserver12:
That's not entirely correct, we still have some morally and ethically decent Nigerians... Our electoral system enthrone morally bankrupt individuals as a result of state capture..

One day Nigeria will breakaway from the current system and mind you, a morally decent leader can inspire the citizens to always do the right thing..

When a leader leads by example, the citizens will follow naturally...

Every society has bad and good citizens. The problem of Nigeria is that the bad ones make up close to 95 percent even while living in other nations where things work.

Let's assume that your implied insult at Tinubu is true; what happened to Nigeria for the past 55 years before Tinubu became President? Why don't we see States in other parts of the country that are doing wonderfully well? Are they all run by Tinubu?

The biggest problem anyone can have in life is the fear of accepting that they have a problem.
It's people like you that are making the country worse by denying the obvious fact.

The average Nigerian will cry, complaining about bad government while that person is actively doing their own dirty part of taking bribes, stealing, and many other acts that contribute to national decay. I know people who are taking bribes, spending way more than they are making, but their problem is the Governor. To them, their own fraud is minor.
Everyone can see problems with others but not their own part.
Keep living in a false reality.

Maeve7:
No, not every country.

Colombia and Mexico: Both nations are predominantly Mestizo (mixed European and Indigenous ancestry). Unlike the US, their modern population growth has been overwhelmingly internal rather than driven by incoming foreign migration waves.

And if birthright citizenship is not a thing, Trump has no business being in the US. His grandparents came from Germany. Their son, Trump’s father, became a citizen by birthright and not by descent. His mother was from Scotland. So without birthright citizenship neither Trump nor his kids are American.

grand dad became naturalized in 1892, fred was born 1905. Stop the lies

Onegai:
Nne, please build a time machine and ask the Founding Fathers why they made that choice

uk had it but stopped it in 1983 or so

Onegai:
✓ Nne, please build a time machine and ask the Founding Fathers why they made that choice

Amendment 14 was not the Founding Fathers. As a matter of fact, it is said to have been pushed in illegally by Congress since it did not follow the principles outlined in the Constitution in doing so. 🥱

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLxgJv8xD4U?si=WAjyX2bkt5e9L6i1

Therefore, changing the Fourteenth Amendment does no damage to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

ednut1:
grand dad became naturalized in 1892, fred was born 1905. Stop the lies

Which one was the lie?

Kobojunkie:
If your parents are Americans and you are born, in Nigeria for example, you are an American because your parents are themselves Americans. You are not necessarily a Nigerian even though you were born on Nigerian soil. 🥱

Trump's parents were naturalized Americans before they had him making him American no matter were on earth he may have been born. Let's at least get this much straight at this point in the debate. 🥱

What is currently being contested is the fact that an illegal alien, or a temporary visitor to the United States could simply claim citizenship by plopping down a baby on American soil. That is what is contested and to be removed in other that all immigrants to the United States are forced to go through the same process to become naturalized. 🥱

All this unnecessary epistle. My husband and children are Americans. How did these white people become naturalized? Did an Apache naturalize them?

Maeve7:
Which one was the lie?

trumps father didn’t get birthright citizenship. His grandfather was already naturalized before he was born

Maeve7:
➜All this unnecessary epistle. My husband and children are Americans.
➜ How did these white people become naturalized? Did an Apache naturalize them?

Why should it matter to this topic or any other whether your husband and children are Americans or not?

2. You mean you never paid attention to the Constitution, even with your children involved? Did you know that the framers firmly believed that a self-governing republic could only survive if its citizens were educated and deeply engaged? They saw an informed public as the ultimate safeguard of liberty.

OMGOSH! Your question there saw my jaw drop, and I felt I needed to mention that. Please, if you have never read through the Constitution, I suggest you pick up and read through it today, so you don't go around asking questions like this that could give someone a heart attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZxBOzwgBQE?si=um4NjqkYRKdqb7hc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C3xhHN_LQ4?si=vwPASNblc4Rcifi0

Please do it for the sake of your children and grandchildren!

ednut1:
trumps father didn’t get birthright citizenship. His grandfather was already naturalized before he was born

So it’s ok to naturalize Germans? But it’s not ok to give citizenship to children born on American soil? Because

enemyofprogress:
says who? You're not current with the use of English language jo. Do you know sintax?

Ol boy, enjoy yasef.
No where in the world is the spelling for jurists "George" as opposed to "Judge".

And this is not a matter of syntax.

Kobojunkie:
Why should it matter to this topic or any other whether your husband and children are Americans or not?

2. You mean you never paid attention to the Constitution, even with your children involved? Did you know that the framers firmly believed that a self-governing republic could only survive if its citizens were educated and deeply engaged? They saw an informed public as the ultimate safeguard of liberty.

OMGOSH! Your question there saw my jaw drop, and I felt I needed to mention that. Please, if you have never read through the Constitution, I suggest you pick up and read through it today, so you don't go around asking questions like this that could give someone a heart attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZxBOzwgBQE?si=um4NjqkYRKdqb7hc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C3xhHN_LQ4?si=vwPASNblc4Rcifi0

It matters because you explain to me things that I’m aware of like someone explaining to a doctor what high blood pressure is. Spare me with information that I already have henceforth please.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

Maeve7:
➜It matters because you explain to me things that I’m aware of like someone explaining to a doctor what high blood pressure is. Spare me with information that I already have henceforth please.
➜The rest of your comment is irrelevant to the discussion.

How can you be aware of that which you were asking me such childish questions like the ones I left in bold? It is OK to admit you don't know it all. We all learn new things every day. The answers to your questions can be easily reasoned from after reading through the Constitution and the Amendments, the contracts that established automatic citizenship to all people domiciled in territories belonging to the established state of America as of the time the Constitution was ratified 250 years ago. That is how they were naturalized, 250 years ago.

It is quite relevant. But I see the Nigerian factor is strong with you in your assessment of its relevance.

Kobojunkie:
How can you be aware of that which you were asking me such childish questions like the ones I left in bold? It is OK to admit you don't know it all. We all learn new things every day. The answers to your questions can be easily reasoned from after reading through the Constitution and the Amendments, the contracts that established automatic citizenship to all people domiciled in territories belonging to the established state of America as of the time the Constitution was ratified 250 years ago. That is how they were naturalized, 250 years ago.

It is quite relevant. But I see the Nigerian factor is strong with you in your assessment of its relevance.

The same constitution established that birthright citizenship is not just a policy or a standard law; it is a constitutional right deeply embedded in the 14th Amendment (Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution.

Do me a favor and don’t quote me again.

Maeve7:
➜The same constitution established that birthright citizenship is not just a policy or a standard law; it is a constitutional right deeply embedded in the 14th Amendment (Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution.
➜ Do me a favor and don’t quote me again.

If you listened to the first video I had included, you would have noted that the 14th Amendment came into being around 1865-68, almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. It is called an amendment to the Constitution, literally implying it was added and can still be changed(i.e., reamendment of an amendment). The 14th Amendment can be changed by Congress even today.

2. How can I? When you keep responding with even more ridiculous claims? Just yesterday, Justice Thomas Clarence in his notes suggested that the issue of reamending the amendment be forwarded to Congress, yet here you are insisting it cannot happen. WTH!

Kobojunkie:
If you listened to the first video I had included, you would have noted that the 14th Amendment came into being around 1865-68, almost 100 years after the Constitution was ratified. It is called an amendment to the Constitution, literally implying it was added and can still be changed. The 14th Amendment can be changed by Congress even today.

2. How can I? When you keep responding with even more ridiculous claims? Just yesterday, Justice Thomas Clarence in his notes suggested that the issue of reamending the amendment be forwarded to Congress, yet here you are insisting it cannot happen. WTH!

You make up straw man arguments and end up arguing with yourself.

Maeve7:
➜You make up straw man arguments and end up arguing with yourself.

You don't know what a strawman argument is, do you? If I asked you to point out the strawman in my statements thus far, na so you go continue to dey flail all over the place naw!

Maeve7:
So it’s ok to naturalize Germans? But it’s not ok to give citizenship to children born on American soil? Because

nigeria does not have birth right citizenship. Since its good why doesn’t Nigeria have it 😂