General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Curt Gevert
Democracy Now!
comments

Comments by "Curt Gevert" (@curtgevert5664) on ""Shock and Awe": ICE Raids Begin as Judge Halts Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order" video.

@GaianGoddess legal immigrants, following the law, the same as millions of other people
28
@l23918 so taking advantage of their labor is ok by u?
23
@gerrybailey447 why not say Barron's mom is legal immigrant?
19
Exploitation
19
@FrydClips conflating two differing things are a hallmark of regular watchers of dn.
18
@l23918 so how is what you're saying any different than what the southern plantation owners said?
15
@friendtofrogs I know plenty of Americans that work stores. Plenty that work restaurants, plenty that work child care
15
@tammiwest1988 and if he is overruled?
7
@tammytate579 didn't Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood believe that?
7
@tommcfadden5232 You left out the part of her immigrating to th US in 1996 and that she was sponsored. You also left out the fact that she married Donald Trump in 2005.
7
@markthompson2079 so how is what your saying any different than what the southern plantation owners said?
7
@newmoonjlp there is a difference between lying and being mistaken
6
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
6
@davidthompson7817 He seems pretty smart to me, he won.
5
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
5
@wurstsalatohnegurke if they had the proper H1B visa, they could have worked without any problems
5
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in the SCOTUS case did you bother to read the case itself? Wong Kim Ark was the child of two permanent residents of the US, as such he was a US citizen. Reading skills are important.
5
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
4
@ what you are saying is backed up by the legislative history of the 14th Amendment.
4
@rickgamboa4972 because the premise of your argument is false
4
How is it unconstitutional? Which orders are you referring to?
4
@ Very easy, reading the Senators statements and speeches at the time, you can see that they never intended to convey citizenship to everyone born. The record shows how they felt. If you want a more comprehensive reading I can't do that here, but the record is online.
4
@ Go ahead and read the congressional record yourself.
4
@JalonBerrios how about you stop paying taxes, that'll get em
4
@transformationtimenow3321 I seem to read in a history book, that the southern plantation owners in the 1860s cried the same tune.
4
@lakimo80 He was released not long after he was Identified. They're trying to insinuate that he was held for hours or days, that wasn't the case, he was only detained for a short time until he could be id'ed
4
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
3
What is?
3
@emilytaylor4272 and when biden was the mumbler in chief you said nothing.
3
@Summalogicae of course, Jeff Bezos paid $973 million in taxes, according to the IRS. Elon Musk paid $11 Billion in taxes, again according to the IRS. It certainly looks like they are paying taxes to me.
3
@adams3560 if they made a mistake it will be corrected. I'm sure there is more to the story. Dn is notorious about leaving info out
3
How did he violate the constitution?
3
@chiclesirico2580 wasn't all that fixed, you living in the past
3
@markthompson2079 the exact argument slaveowners made in 1860s
3
Like what?
2
@ Not according to ICE.
2
@falconeaterf15 I agree Joe Biden we had a hard time figuring out what he was saying, but these clowns voted for him anyways
2
@dangavel1283 billionaires are already taxed
2
@ Show me the SCOTUS ruling that makes it so.
2
@cheryladams1173 I thought as much. Dn loves leaving these details out
2
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
2
@TracyLindop-u6m it is possible he could be
2
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
2
@ Where is the conviction?
2
No it doesn't
2
What about them? Melania is a legal citizen of the US, she completed the process.
2
So you regard migrants as a cheap source of labor to exploit, how is that any different than the southern plantation owners?
2
Slavery is slavery, whether they are black or hispanic.
2
no it doesn't
2
So you regard migrants as a cheap source of labor to exploit? How is that any different than the southern plantation owners?
1
@chicofrijoles so exploitation of migrants is your thing?
1
@CancelMeta not in the constitution
1
@ The argument they are making is the US v. Wong Kim Ark 1898 that it conveys birthright citizenship. It does not, Wong Kim Ark was born to permanent residents of the US, thus US citizen. Illegals are not citizens of the US, so based on the legislative history and reading of the 14th Amendment, as it was understood at the time it was written, there is no birthright citizenship. However, the SCOTUS could find otherwise, we'll have to wait for them to determine it.
1
It depends, the SCOTUS can interpret it differently than it was in the past.
1
 @stevedallas4942 no there are two methods of amending the constitution. Both require ratification by 2/3rds of the state legislatures
1
@danbuman8422 there is also an Article 5 convention to amend the constitution. The drawback to that is that it can't be called for a specific reason, it can be called and countless other amendments can be proposed
1
for what?
1
@ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in the SCOTUS case did you bother to read the case itself? Wong Kim Ark was the child of two permanent residents of the US, as such he was a US citizen. Reading skills are important.
1
@ Birthright citizenship hasn't been addressed by the courts, it will be very soon. The congressional record will show the intent of the amendment.
1
@BrettBunsen No based on the legislative history of the 14th amendment birthright citizenship was not intended. He was improperly denied entry to the US. The status of his parents was very much at the heart of the case. Anchor babies would have no claim to citizenship because their parents are not legally here, unlike Wong Kim Ark.
1
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
1
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
1
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
1
@ Who says they ignored it? That was not in the holdings of the court
1
No it hasn't been clarified by the courts. This does need to go to SCOTUS for a determination. A district Court Judge is not the end.
1
@IanWedemeier than it will go back to SCOTUS
1
@IanWedemeier then it will go back to court
1
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in the SCOTUS case did you bother to read the case itself? Wong Kim Ark was the child of two permanent residents of the US, as such he was a US citizen. Reading skills are important.
1
@l23918 so exploitation of migrants labor is your thing?
1
@Summalogicae It's sounded like you expected it overnight, I didn't why do you?
1
@ The cry of the southern plantation owner. 'The customer will pay more.'
1
@adinahirschmann3112 who will pick my cotton? 1860s
1
They don't care, it says what they want it to say. You are correct, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship, the authors made sure to state that it did not.
1
@bcase5328 Then go to court and argue that.
1
@ How do you know they didn't have warrants? did DN tell you?
1
@ How do you know they didn't have warrants?
1
@ who said? dn?
1
@ That would fall under the Federal District Courts that the cities are in. Being that most of those picked up have multiple violent convictions, for example the Haitian in Boston that had 17 convictions and was gang affiliated, Its a pretty easy sell to a judge to sign a deportation order.
1
@DaDansinBear why?
1
No abortion is still legal, it's just a 10th Amendment issue.
1
why? they're legal
1
Actually, according to the congressional record for the 14th Amendment, it was never intended to grant birthright citizenship.
1
@tammiwest1988 and you'll bad mouth SCOTUSif they rule otherwise
1
@TracyLindop-u6m that's why it goes to SCOTUS, eventually
1
@ Which constitution? the one that actually exists, or the one that this crowd fantasizes? Because SCOTUS will look at the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, the actual circumstances of Wong Kim Ark, because I'm seeing a different story than the one being presented.
1
@IanWedemeier what he did doesn't violate the constitution and the remedy is the SCOTUS tossing out the eo, if they determine it is unconstitutional.
1
@ Read the legislative history of the 14th Amendment.
1
@ Why do you believe that?
1
@ Also, Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. The first ten Amendments are called the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments do not address the citizenship issue, so I'm not sure what your point is in relation to birthright citizenship.
1
@ WTF are you talking about?
1
What are you referring to?
1
@reverendbStaard always use extreme examples to justify a position. Trumps relatives were legal migrants
1
@TracyLindop-u6m in the 1860s, slaveowners decried the freeing of the people they had and used the cheap labor economic argument these people are making.
1
I saw dn once declare that a 7 to 2 ruling in SCOTUS was a narrow ruling. Funniest thing I ever saw.
1