Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth certificates
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
certificates
Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in the
country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their
parents' legal status.
But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are
used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
An estimated four million children became US citizens after being
born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil in 2008.
Senator Pearce, who sponsored that law, said the fact babies born to
illegal immigrant parents become US citizens was "the most irrational
and self-defeating provision you could have."
He said those who had written the 14th Amendment in 1868 had never
anticipated the "deluge" that would come.
"It's illegal to enter the United States and yet we are going to
create the greatest inducement to breaking our law, and entering
illegally, and that's making your baby a citizen."
Opponents of the proposed bill say it is contrary to the Constitution
and the American spirit.
The right of Arizona to attempt to deny US citizenship could
ultimately end up in the US Supreme Court.
The 14th Amendment was drafted in order to secure the citizenship and
Constitutional rights of freed slaves and their children.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
automatically a citizen. People should read the 14th amendment.
Mick Mahan
> Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
> certificates
Where WILL _you_ go, now that your parents are known donkey fuckers that
your father filmed yer mother having at it with them in Mexico?
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
meddelelse
news:51b0d3a4-632b-4162...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
> automatically a citizen. People should read the 14th amendment.
It does say
"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."
Are you claiming that illegal aliens and/or their children in US territory
are somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA ?
Kent Wills
<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/Children-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth-certificates.html
>
>
>Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
>certificates
>Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
>
>Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in the
>country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their
>parents' legal status.
That is the current interpretation.
>
>But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
>later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are
>used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
Having an anchor baby does make deportation harder, since the
child would most probably need to go as well, but it's not impossible.
[...]
>
>The 14th Amendment was drafted in order to secure the citizenship and
>Constitutional rights of freed slaves and their children.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>automatically a citizen. People should read the 14th amendment.
Please see Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States
v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). After those, read Plyler v.
Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Then admit your error, if you can.
--
Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you
realize that it was your money to start with.
johnny@.
> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/Children-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth-certificates.html
>>
>>
>> Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
>> certificates
>> Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
>>
>> Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in the
>> country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their
>> parents' legal status.
>
> That is the current interpretation.
>
>>
>> But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
>> later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are
>> used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
>
> Having an anchor baby does make deportation harder, since the
> child would most probably need to go as well, but it's not impossible.
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> The 14th Amendment was drafted in order to secure the citizenship and
>> Constitutional rights of freed slaves and their children.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>> automatically a citizen. People should read the 14th amendment.
>
> Please see Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States
> v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). After those, read Plyler v.
> Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
> Then admit your error, if you can.
>
The Supreme Court may have to finally make a decision on birthright
citizenship, and now would be a good time for it.
The correct ruling was made in Elk v. Wilkins. Citizenship denied.
The Chinese parents were here legally.
This was the brilliant decision in Plyler v.
Doe: Well they are going to be here anyway, and if we don't educate
them, we will create an underclass of people in this country.
He made no error, you did.
RD Sandman
news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/Chil
>>dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth-certif
>>icates.html
>>
>>
>>Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
>>certificates
>>Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
>>
>>Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in the
>>country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their
>>parents' legal status.
>
> That is the current interpretation.
When it states, "All person born or naturalized..." it doesn't leave much
room for an error in interpretation.
>>But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
>>later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are
>>used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
>
> Having an anchor baby does make deportation harder, since the
> child would most probably need to go as well, but it's not impossible.
>
> [...]
Anchor babies are not a new thing. They have been around for decades.
>>The 14th Amendment was drafted in order to secure the citizenship and
>>Constitutional rights of freed slaves and their children.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>>automatically a citizen. People should read the 14th amendment.
>
> Please see Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States
> v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). After those, read Plyler v.
> Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
> Then admit your error, if you can.
;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.
RD Sandman
news:hv8hp9$2ve$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
They did rather well in Wong where they applied the 14th Amendment's rule
of citizenship on the child despite high feelings against orientals and
even though an 1882 act would not allow the parents to be naturalized.
> The correct ruling was made in Elk v. Wilkins. Citizenship denied.
That ruling was later reversed by Congress.
> The Chinese parents were here legally.
>
> This was the brilliant decision in Plyler v.
> Doe: Well they are going to be here anyway, and if we don't educate
> them, we will create an underclass of people in this country.
>
>
> He made no error, you did.
>
>
>
--
f. barnes
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <beta...@earthlink.net> skrev i en
> meddelelsenews:51b0d3a4-632b-4162...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It's time for fair and commonsense comprehensive reform of the
antiquated 14th amendment.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS
> "
>
> "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.
>
> are somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA ?
Of course. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home
country. That's why we deport them, you idiot.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS
.
>
> This was the brilliant decision in Plyler v.
> Doe: Well they are going to be here anyway, and if we don't educate
> them, we will create an underclass of people in this country.
>
HAHAHA. You call that a legal argument?? You are an ignoramus!!!
Show us where the constitution says americans must pay for the
education of illegals.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are DEADLY PSYCHOPATHS
>
>
> It's time for fair and commonsense comprehensive reform of the
>
Congress should make clear that the phrase "subject to the
jurisdiction thereof" was meant for freed slaves, not illegal
parasites.
Strabo
> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>
>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/Chil
>>> dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth-certif
>>> icates.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
>>> certificates
>>> Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
>>>
>>> Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in the
>>> country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their
>>> parents' legal status.
>> That is the current interpretation.
>
> When it states, "All person born or naturalized..." it doesn't leave much
> room for an error in interpretation.
>
Section 1. 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.
1. The children of foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction of
the father's country of origin.
2. This clause was written specifically for antebellum ex-slaves and
was to have been repealed after 1868.
>
>>> But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
>>> later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are
>>> used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
>> Having an anchor baby does make deportation harder, since the
>> child would most probably need to go as well, but it's not impossible.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Anchor babies are not a new thing. They have been around for decades.
>
The anchor baby concept flies in the face of law of common sense.
Naughtius
<beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/Ch...
Yes, it Does Say EXACTLY THAT, You WORTHLESS FUCK...
>People should read the 14th amendment.
Indeed, they should...
YOU Above ALL Others...
Naughtius "WORTHLESS Is As WORTHLESS Does" Maximus
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
skrev i en meddelelse
news:f5cf4dec-6fd0-4481...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Well - actually you don't deport those children because the US Supreeme
Court has rules against deporting persons born on US territory.
And if somebody isn't subject to US jurisdiction, then how can ANY US law
apply to them ?
Did your ancestors have unnatural relations with vegetables or something ?
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen
news:7g4Sn.62461$h57....@newsfe22.iad...
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>>> <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/Chil
>>>> dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth-certif
>>>> icates.html
>>>>
>>>> Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
>>>> certificates
>>>> Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
>>>>
>>>> Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in the
>>>> country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their
>>>> parents' legal status.
>>> That is the current interpretation.
>>
>> When it states, "All person born or naturalized..." it doesn't leave much
>> room for an error in interpretation.
>
>
> Section 1. 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.
>
> 1. The children of foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction of
> the father's country of origin.
The hell they aren't - ANY person is subject to the jurisdiction of whatever
country they are in unless a specific agreement says otherwise (diplomats,
US troops stationed abroad etc.).
If I come to your territory I will comply with your laws and if you come to
my territory you comply with mine - or else......
> 2. This clause was written specifically for antebellum ex-slaves and
> was to have been repealed after 1868.
Well - for some reason it hasn't - why don't you repell it ?
I wouldn't want such a law in my country - why don't you get rid of it in
yours rather than just pretend it doesn't exist ?
>> Anchor babies are not a new thing. They have been around for decades.
>>
>
> The anchor baby concept flies in the face of law of common sense.
Since when are laws required to make any kind of sense ?
And sense common to whom ?
RD Sandman
news:7g4Sn.62461$h57....@newsfe22.iad:
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>> MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/C
>>>> hil
>>>> dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth-cer
>>>> tif icates.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American
>>>> birth certificates
>>>> Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
>>>>
>>>> Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in
>>>> the country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of
>>>> their parents' legal status.
>>> That is the current interpretation.
>>
>> When it states, "All person born or naturalized..." it doesn't leave
>> much room for an error in interpretation.
>>
>
>
> Section 1. 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.
>
> 1. The children of foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdiction
> of
> the father's country of origin.
You seem to think that illegals are not subject to jurisdiction of US
laws. Where did you get that idea? Do you think that they can commit
murder, for example, with impunity?
> 2. This clause was written specifically for antebellum ex-slaves and
> was to have been repealed after 1868.
The first part I agree with. Now, since the 14th was not ratified until
July of 1868, how would you repeal it in 1868? There is no limitation
placed in the amendment itself, so it would take another
amendment....much like the 18th and 21st.
>>>> But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
>>>> later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says
>>>> are used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
>>> Having an anchor baby does make deportation harder, since the
>>> child would most probably need to go as well, but it's not
>>> impossible.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Anchor babies are not a new thing. They have been around for
>> decades.
>>
>
> The anchor baby concept flies in the face of law of common sense.
In your mind, perhaps. Other folks feel differently and the 14th
amendment does not say any differently. Even court cases are against
you...in particular, US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
>>>> The 14th Amendment was drafted in order to secure the citizenship
>>>> and Constitutional rights of freed slaves and their children.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>>>> automatically a citizen. People should read the 14th amendment.
>>> Please see Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States
>>> v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). After those, read Plyler v.
>>> Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
>>> Then admit your error, if you can.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>>
>>
>
--
RD Sandman
<josego...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f5cf4dec-6fd0-4481...@23g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
Do you think that they are immune to arrest and prosecution for murder in
this country? Even you aren't that stupid.
RD Sandman
7c3383...@v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
However, until they do......or amend the Constitution, anchor babies will
be here to haunt you day and night.
RD Sandman
f5bfd9...@34g2000prs.googlegroups.com:
Actually, no, it doesn't. At least according to the courts. Children of
diplomats, for example, are not considered to be US citizens even if
concieved in the Sheraton and delivered at Mount Sinai.
johnny@.
> Naughtius<naug...@netscape.net> wrote in news:a9cb232d-0538-4730-a06a-
> f5bfd9...@34g2000prs.googlegroups.com:
>
It looks like the courts can add many more exceptions without amending
The Constitution.
Why not one that applies to the children of people that enter this
country illegally?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Here is is
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
If the mother is here illegally then she is NOT subject to the
jurisdiction of america. That's why we deport illegals. She and the
kid are under jurisdiction of their home county.
Kent Wills
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
[...]
>>> Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>>> automatically a citizen.
>>
>> Yes, it Does Say EXACTLY THAT, You WORTHLESS FUCK...
>
>Actually, no, it doesn't. At least according to the courts. Children of
>diplomats, for example, are not considered to be US citizens even if
>concieved in the Sheraton and delivered at Mount Sinai.
Sandman is correct.
Many diplomats have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to
the jurisdiction of the U.S.
--
It's hard to relate to this high-tech world when your kid says her
Lego Toys need more memory.
Kent Wills
<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
>> > Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>> > automatically a citizen.
>>
>> Yes, it Does Say EXACTLY THAT, You WORTHLESS FUCK...
>>
>> >People should read the 14th amendment.
>>
>> Indeed, they should...
>>
>> YOU Above ALL Others...
>
>
>Here is is
>
>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
>
>If the mother is here illegally then she is NOT subject to the
>jurisdiction of america.
What if she commits a crime like bank robbery? Are you claiming
there's nothing law enforcement can do to her?
"We caught her. Oh wait, she's an illegal alien so we can't
arrest her."
Are you really as stupid as you are presenting?
>That's why we deport illegals. She and the
>kid are under jurisdiction of their home county.
Both are under the jurisdiction of the U.S., if they are in the
U.S.
If she has diplomatic immunity, then it would be different, but
then she wouldn't likely be here illegally.
--
Sanza speme vivemo in disio.
RD Sandman
news:hvb13t$svt$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Why not? Go for it if that is what you want.
RD Sandman
in
news:6978eae8-ca73-4e5a...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
Until you can explain how that mother could be immune from all
prosecution for murder or other serious crimes, we will have to
understand that you don't understand "under the jurisdiction of".
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>> Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>>>> automatically a citizen.
>>>
>>> Yes, it Does Say EXACTLY THAT, You WORTHLESS FUCK...
>>
>> Actually, no, it doesn't. At least according to the courts. Children of
>> diplomats, for example, are not considered to be US citizens even if
>> concieved in the Sheraton and delivered at Mount Sinai.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Or the children born to an invading army.
>
>It looks like the courts can add many more exceptions without amending
>The Constitution.
>
>Why not one that applies to the children of people that enter this
>country illegally?
Lobby to get this done. You may not be successful, but the only
*guarantied* way to fail is to do nothing.
--
I did an unbelievable amount of work in the yard. It's amazing what I
can do when my wife puts my mind to it. :)
Ramon F Herrera
> subject to the jurisdiction of America.
Wrooooong...
If the mother were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, we could
not apprehend her.
The US authorities can only detain, arrest, fine, etc. people under
the US jurisdiction. Foreign diplomats caused a ruckus in NYC for
failing to pay parking meters. I was often in the car with the Consul
of Venezuela in Boston and she refused to pay the meter. Eventually
the city of Boston reserved two special free spots, for consular
people only, since the building -Boylston Street- was also home to the
Consulate of Spain.
Diplomats also have special driving licenses issues by the Dept. of
State. We were buying a computer in CompUSA and their cash register
required to input the driver license's state. It was quite an ordeal.
Diplomats don't pay sales tax, either and I was embarrassed when they
invited me and made a big fuss at the restaurants.
That is why countries sign extradition treaties.
Normally, being under the jurisdiction simply means being within the
country's territory, but the are a few exceptions.
The illegal mother (or legal tourist) has to pay parking meters, sales
tax, is subjected to arrest, etc. because she is SUBJECT to the
JURISDICTION of the USA.
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
Ramon F Herrera
"In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),
the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United
States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th
amendment of the Constitution, if that person is:
* Born in the United States
* Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any
diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
* Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the
United States
* Has parents that are in the United States for business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Citizenship
-RFH
Ramon F Herrera
There are only two cases in which the 14th. does not apply to the
baby, because the parent is not subject to the jurisdiction:
- Had Germany and Japan invaded us, little Otto or baby Yoko would
not be US citizens.
- The children of diplomats.
That's it! End of list.
I have a nephew-Godson who was born in Madrid and is Venezuelan by
birth. My brother -his dad- was a Venezuelan diplomat in Spain.
-Ramon
Naughtius
Yes... sorry... YES...
as... sorry...AS I Said...
Your point??
>
> If the mother is here illegally then she is NOT subject to the
> jurisdiction of america. That's why we deport illegals. She and the
> kid are under jurisdiction of their home county
uh... hahahaHaHaHaHAHAAAHAAAAA... Oh Dear GHOD!!! It CAN'T be...
HAHAHAHOHOHOHEEHEEHEEeeeheeeee... JEZUS H Kay-RIST, it IS...
NOW I See Your MADNESS...
"If the mother is here illegally then she is NOT subject to the
jurisdiction of america." THAT IS: IF the mother is here *illegally*
i.e., NOT *BORN* or *NATURALIZED* **in** The United States [As FEW
*illegals* Are], ERGO, she [the mother] is NOT Subject To The
Jurisdiction... of America... EXCEPT that part of The Jurisdiction of
The United States which Purports To Hold Authority to DEPORT Illegal
Aliens... no... wait... IF Illegal Mom is NOT Subject To US
Jurisdiction, then The US has NO AUTHORITY To Deport... Can't have it
Both Ways... Either The US has Jurisdiction/Authority Under Law To
Deport OR... Waaaait For Iiiiit... The US DOESN'T...
unnnlesssss... heeheeeheeeeeHAHAHAHAAAAAaaaa.... Illegal Mom
Schlepped WITH Her, across The Border, The HEAVY BURDEN of, Ohhh, I
don't know, Say... The Jurisdiction of Mexico... Which, Of Course,
carries The STRICT MANDATE that All Nations, BUT PARTICULARLY The US,
Deport all Illegals, Mother-To-Be or not, In Faithful Accord to
Mexican Law... ... ... AND Mexican Custom... hahahahaaaaaaa...
Ohhhhh GHOD!!! The CURATIVE POWERS of LAUGHTER...
YOU are hereby Designated The Official misc.legal MASTER HOWLER-
Maker...
You Wear It WELL...
richard... YOU are Now #2... It is now Incumbent on you to TRY
HARDER...
SO... To RESTATE: "UNless one is *Born* or *Naturalized* in The US,
they are not Subject To The Jurisdiction of The US, but are Subject
[ONLY] To The Jurisdiction Of their Home Country... [Which INVARIABLY
Requires Deportation from whatever Nation they Illegally are in]"
Got it... HAWHAWHAWHAAAAWWWWW...
ummmm... Dee-uh-DRAT... with Your Fabulous English Skills...
UNusual for a math... sorry... MATH Major... Could You More Better
Diagram/Parse my RESTATEMENT of Speedy Jose's HOWLER?
Pretty Please?
Naughtius "This Oughtta Be Good" Maximus
walt tonne
Walter
Naughtius
> Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>
> Walter
Well, Tell Ya What there Bubba...
*I* Give a Damn...
AND... NEVER EVER INclude *ME* In Your "We"...
And KNOW THIS: *MY* "We" Gives VERY LITTLE FUCK about What Your
"We" Wants WRT "worthless mestizoes"... PARTICULARLY when The
Comparison is to WORTHLESS Fascist Ignorami AND The Harm they cause to
The Social Fabric of This Land...
So, You WORTHLESS, IGNORANT MuthaFuckers can Start Lining Up WITH
Your Tickets to Saudi Arabia IN HAND; With All DUE HASTE... The
sooner you and your WEs are gone, the sooner *amerika* can Make Its
Way Back to Being *America*...
Naughtius "Sorry... *VespucciLand" Maximus
The PHANTOM
>
> - Show quoted text -
40 years too late !!
D. Stussy
news:a91c8af7-1513-4e1b...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
------------------
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark does not govern. The primary issue was whether the
Chinese Exclusion Act was legal. Regardless, both his parents were here
legally and had permanent resident status. The decision doesn't cover
illegals.
"Subject to the jurisdiction" as used in the 14th means citizenship.
Jurisdiction with regard to law enforcement actions means both territory
and authority. Same word but different meanings.
D. Stussy
There are only two cases in which the 14th. does not apply to the
baby, because the parent is not subject to the jurisdiction:
- Had Germany and Japan invaded us, little Otto or baby Yoko would
not be US citizens.
- The children of diplomats.
That's it! End of list.
I have a nephew-Godson who was born in Madrid and is Venezuelan by
birth. My brother -his dad- was a Venezuelan diplomat in Spain.
-Ramon
-------------------------
No argument there.
Illegals are unlawful invaders, and thus their children are NOT citizens of
the country they occupy. Their children are citizens of their
country(-ies) of origin.
That clearly means that children born of illegals on U.S. soil are NOT U.S.
citizens, nor are they even U.S. nationals. They are foreigners just like
their parents.
Criminal Drivers Murder 40,000 Americans a Year
>
> Until you can explain how that mother could be immune from all
> prosecution for murder or other serious crimes, we will have to
> understand that you don't understand "under the jurisdiction of".
>
No one says she's immune from prosecution. You're the one who doesn't
understand what "under the jurisdiction of" means. Why do you think
we deport illegals, you ignoramus.?
Strabo
Diplomatic immunity.
But to respond to your question - yes criminal law does apply though
"jurisdiction" refers to all manner of legal and administrative
obligations which illegal aliens are not party.
>
>> 2. This clause was written specifically for antebellum ex-slaves and
>> was to have been repealed after 1868.
>
> The first part I agree with. Now, since the 14th was not ratified until
> July of 1868, how would you repeal it in 1868? There is no limitation
> placed in the amendment itself, so it would take another
> amendment....much like the 18th and 21st.
>
It was a legal thing and the only way the military government could
operate.
The clause had to be amended to 1) make the ex-slaves wards of the
federal government thus giving it authority to 2) effect the
jurisdictional laws of the states to automatically include these
resident ex-slaves as citizens.
Once done it had no further purpose.
>
>>>>> But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
>>>>> later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says
>>>>> are used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
>>>> Having an anchor baby does make deportation harder, since the
>>>> child would most probably need to go as well, but it's not
>>>> impossible.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>> Anchor babies are not a new thing. They have been around for
>>> decades.
>>>
>> The anchor baby concept flies in the face of law of common sense.
>
> In your mind, perhaps. Other folks feel differently and the 14th
> amendment does not say any differently. Even court cases are against
> you...in particular, US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
>
So why isn't the son of the French ambassador born in Bethesda Naval
Hospital automatically a US citizen?
Court results are often wrong.
You've been had. You're conditioned to disthink.
Dual citizenship and anchor babyism is contrary to the intent
and purpose of the nation and the Constitution.
RD Sandman
news:2ohSn.6825$hw5....@newsfe04.iad:
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>> news:7g4Sn.62461$h57....@newsfe22.iad:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>>>> MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706
>>>>>> /C hil
>>>>>> dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth-c
>>>>>> er tif icates.html
And just where does it say this? Oh, it doesn't. Oh, damn, then I guess
jurisprudence will have to suffice. Please read US v Wong Kim Ark, 169
US 649 (1898). Do you need a link?
>>>>>> But Republican State Senator Russell Pearce will introduce a bill
>>>>>> later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he
>>>>>> says are used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
>>>>> Having an anchor baby does make deportation harder, since the
>>>>> child would most probably need to go as well, but it's not
>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Anchor babies are not a new thing. They have been around for
>>>> decades.
>>>>
>>> The anchor baby concept flies in the face of law of common sense.
>>
>> In your mind, perhaps. Other folks feel differently and the 14th
>> amendment does not say any differently. Even court cases are against
>> you...in particular, US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
>>
>
> So why isn't the son of the French ambassador born in Bethesda Naval
> Hospital automatically a US citizen?
Ambassadors are considered diplomats and thus have immunity from US laws.
Josie Valenzuela isn't and doesn't.
> Court results are often wrong.
Yep.....see Dred Scott. Or Brown v Board of Education.
> You've been had. You're conditioned to disthink.
Nope. You simply forgot how to think.
> Dual citizenship and anchor babyism is contrary to the intent
> and purpose of the nation and the Constitution.
Then you should have no problem producing cites to that effect. Take
all the screens you need.
If you can't do that, perhaps, you can lead a charter to amend the
Constitution or legislate clearer laws in that regard. Go for it.
johnny@.
> Strabo<str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
> news:2ohSn.6825$hw5....@newsfe04.iad:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Strabo<str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>>> news:7g4Sn.62461$h57....@newsfe22.iad:
>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
If the oath of citizenship means nothing, why does it still exist?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>
*We* do not.
Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
--
There is a chasm
of carbon and silicon
the software can't bridge.
RD Sandman
wrote in news:f1558e7b-c083-49a3-8a03-
64558f...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 16, 11:54 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Until you can explain how that mother could be immune from all
>> prosecution for murder or other serious crimes, we will have to
>> understand that you don't understand "under the jurisdiction of".
>>
>
> No one says she's immune from prosecution.
Then, stop and think. How does one prosecute someone for laws that they
are not under the jurisdiction of. Think diplomats.
You're the one who doesn't
> understand what "under the jurisdiction of" means. Why do you think
> we deport illegals, you ignoramus.?
>
Partially, because folks like you are afraid of them. ;)
RD Sandman
@snarked.org:
> "Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
> news:a91c8af7-1513-4e1b-9f8d-
f58666...@q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
How does it do that when it is one of the legs used to determine
citizenship?
> Jurisdiction with regard to law enforcement actions means both
territory and authority. Same word but different meanings.
>
>
>
--
RD Sandman
news:hvdlms$2eo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On 6/17/2010 12:14 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Strabo<str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>> news:2ohSn.6825$hw5....@newsfe04.iad:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Strabo<str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>>>> news:7g4Sn.62461$h57....@newsfe22.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> Kent Wills<comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers are
>>>>>>> MURDERERS"<bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/78277
>>>>>>>> 06 /C hil
>>>>>>>> dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth
>>>>>>>> -c er tif icates.html
Don't know who made that claim, but I have never had to make it. Of
course, I was born here....so that took care of that issue.
RD Sandman
> At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>
>
> *We* do not.
> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>
I have, but all that proves is that people are really the same
everywhere. You have good ones and bad ones, smart ones and stupid ones,
etc.. no matter what race or ethnicity you look at.
Buster Norris
wrote:
>At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>
>
> *We* do not.
> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
Dumbass........................
HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kent Wills
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:i0nk161fg3a9d0jp8...@4ax.com:
>
>> At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>>
>>
>> *We* do not.
>> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>>
>
>I have, but all that proves is that people are really the same
>everywhere. You have good ones and bad ones, smart ones and stupid ones,
>etc.. no matter what race or ethnicity you look at.
Any demographic one wishes to pick will have them. That I've
been lucky enough not to meet and worthless mestizoes only means I've
been lucky enough not to meet any.
--
Don't marry the person you want to live with, marry the one you cannot
live without.
Kent Wills
>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:32:05 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>>
>>
>> *We* do not.
>> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>
>How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
>
I'm in Iowa. This is not a secret, though you may not have had
the time and/or desire to learn this.
>Dumbass........................
I suspect you are, but it's OK. Not everyone is able to
understand that the location of a NNTP server isn't always going to
match the location of the person using it.
>
>HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you laugh at your public displays of ignorance a lot, or is
this a special case?
--
2,000 mockingbirds: two kilomockingbirds
Buster Norris
wrote:
>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:32:05 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *We* do not.
>>> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>>
>>How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
>>
>
> I'm in Iowa. This is not a secret, though you may not have had
>the time and/or desire to learn this.
Prove it.....................
>
>>Dumbass........................
>
> I suspect you are, but it's OK. Not everyone is able to
>understand that the location of a NNTP server isn't always going to
>match the location of the person using it.
>
>>
>>HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Do you laugh at your public displays of ignorance a lot, or is
>this a special case?
I laugh at foreign pussies pretending to be American and showing how
ENVIOUS they really are!!!!!!!!!!!
HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kent Wills
>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:23:11 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:32:05 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *We* do not.
>>>> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>>>
>>>How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
>>>
>>
>> I'm in Iowa. This is not a secret, though you may not have had
>>the time and/or desire to learn this.
>
>Prove it.....................
>
There is no way for me to prove you lacked the time and/or desire
to learn that I live in Iowa.
Your demand implies that you had the time and desire. As such,
you must have already known.
>
>>
>>>Dumbass........................
>>
>> I suspect you are, but it's OK. Not everyone is able to
>>understand that the location of a NNTP server isn't always going to
>>match the location of the person using it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Do you laugh at your public displays of ignorance a lot, or is
>>this a special case?
>
>I laugh at foreign pussies pretending to be American and showing how
>ENVIOUS they really are!!!!!!!!!!!
>
So envious I emigrated to the U.S. from Poland in 1984.
For someone who wants it believed that you didn't know where I
am, you sure do make a heck of an effort to show that you did.
>HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Still laughing at your ignorance. That can't be a good sign.
--
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
deadrat
> On 6/16/2010 12:09 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Naughtius<naug...@netscape.net> wrote in news:a9cb232d-0538-4730-a06a-
>> f5bfd9...@34g2000prs.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 10:04 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
>>> <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7827706/Ch...
>>>>
>>>> Children born to non-US citizens could be barred from American birth
>>>> certificates
>>>> Published: 12:01AM BST 15 Jun 2010
>>>>
>>>> Under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution any child born in the
>>>> country has an automatic right to citizenship regardless of their
>>>> parents' legal status.
>>>>
>>>> later this year to target so-called "anchor babies," which he says are
>>>> used by illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
>>>>
>>>> born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> Senator Pearce, who sponsored that law, said the fact babies born to
>>>> illegal immigrant parents become US citizens was "the most irrational
>>>> and self-defeating provision you could have."
>>>>
>>>> He said those who had written the 14th Amendment in 1868 had never
>>>> anticipated the "deluge" that would come.
>>>>
>>>> "It's illegal to enter the United States and yet we are going to
>>>> create the greatest inducement to breaking our law, and entering
>>>> illegally, and that's making your baby a citizen."
>>>>
>>>> Opponents of the proposed bill say it is contrary to the Constitution
>>>> and the American spirit.
>>>>
>>>> The right of Arizona to attempt to deny US citizenship could
>>>> ultimately end up in the US Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>> The 14th Amendment was drafted in order to secure the citizenship and
>>>> Constitutional rights of freed slaves and their children.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Actually the constitution does NOT say anyone born in america is
>>>> automatically a citizen.
>>>
>>> Yes, it Does Say EXACTLY THAT, You WORTHLESS FUCK...
>>
>> diplomats, for example, are not considered to be US citizens even if
>> concieved in the Sheraton and delivered at Mount Sinai.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Or the children born to an invading army.
>
> It looks like the courts can add many more exceptions without amending
> The Constitution.
It does? Where do you get that?
>
> Why not one that applies to the children of people that enter this
> country illegally?
The exceptions must be for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.
What are you afraid of?
deadrat
> On Jun 16, 8:16 am, Naughtius <naught...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, they should...
>>
>> YOU Above ALL Others...
>
>
> Here is is
>
> 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
>
> jurisdiction of america. That's why we deport illegals.
Can you be any thicker? How can we deport her if she's not subject to the
laws of the US?
> She and the kid are under jurisdiction of their home county.
So you think the Mexican police can come into this country and arrest her?
deadrat
> "Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
>>
No, it wasn't. The primary issue was whether the Chinese Exclusion Act
applied to Wong Kim Ark.
> Regardless, both his parents were here
> legally and had permanent resident status. The decision doesn't cover
> illegals.
His parents status was incidental. The only question was whether they were
here in a diplomatic capacity. Which, of course, they weren't.
>
> "Subject to the jurisdiction" as used in the 14th means citizenship.
Please supply a cite for this. If that's what it means, then the 14th
Amendment is circular: you're a citizen if you're a citizen.
> Jurisdiction with regard to law enforcement actions means both territory
> and authority. Same word but different meanings.
Please supply evidence for your claim.
deadrat
> "Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
> There are only two cases in which the 14th. does not apply to the
> baby, because the parent is not subject to the jurisdiction:
>
> - Had Germany and Japan invaded us, little Otto or baby Yoko would
> not be US citizens.
>
> - The children of diplomats.
>
> That's it! End of list.
>
> I have a nephew-Godson who was born in Madrid and is Venezuelan by
> birth. My brother -his dad- was a Venezuelan diplomat in Spain.
>
> -Ramon
> -------------------------
> No argument there.
>
> Illegals are unlawful invaders, and thus their children are NOT citizens of
> the country they occupy.
They are not armed, do not dispute the authority constituted in the territory
they enter, and do no displace residents from that territory. They're not
invaders. Except in your fever dreams.
> Their children are citizens of their country(-ies) of origin.
Possibly. It would depend on the laws of the countries of origin.
>
> That clearly means that children born of illegals on U.S. soil are NOT U.S.
> citizens, nor are they even U.S. nationals. They are foreigners just like
> their parents.
Sorry, not according to US law.
Why do you hate our Constitution?
deadrat
> On Jun 16, 11:54�am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Until you can explain how that mother could be immune from all
>> prosecution for murder or other serious crimes, we will have to
>> understand that you don't understand "under the jurisdiction of".
>>
>
> No one says she's immune from prosecution.
Then she's subject to the jurisdiction of US law.
> You're the one who doesn't
> understand what "under the jurisdiction of" means. Why do you think
> we deport illegals, you ignoramus.?
We deport them because they're here illegally. We don't deport citizens. Even
those you don't like.
Buster Norris
wrote:
>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:23:11 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:32:05 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *We* do not.
>>>>> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>>>>
>>>>How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm in Iowa. This is not a secret, though you may not have had
>>>the time and/or desire to learn this.
>>
>>Prove it.....................
>>
>
> There is
Prove it..................
>>>
>>>>Dumbass........................
>>>
>>> I suspect you are, but it's OK. Not everyone is able to
>>>understand that the location of a NNTP server isn't always going to
>>>match the location of the person using it.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Do you laugh at your public displays of ignorance a lot, or is
>>>this a special case?
>>
>>I laugh at foreign pussies pretending to be American and showing how
>>ENVIOUS they really are!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
> So envious I emigrated to the U.S. from Poland in 1984.
Prove it..................
> For someone who
Shut the fuck up and do what I told you to do...........
Hurry up, I don't like waiting............
Kent Wills
>On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 03:28:42 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 04:23:11 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:32:05 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *We* do not.
>>>>>> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>>>>>
>>>>>How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm in Iowa. This is not a secret, though you may not have had
>>>>the time and/or desire to learn this.
>>>
>>>Prove it.....................
>>>
>>
>> There is no way for me to prove you lacked the time and/or desire
>>to learn that I live in Iowa.
>
>
>Prove it..................
>
You want me to prove that I can't prove it?
Are you on any medication that would explain your odd behavior?
>>>>
>>>>>Dumbass........................
>>>>
>>>> I suspect you are, but it's OK. Not everyone is able to
>>>>understand that the location of a NNTP server isn't always going to
>>>>match the location of the person using it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Do you laugh at your public displays of ignorance a lot, or is
>>>>this a special case?
>>>
>>>I laugh at foreign pussies pretending to be American and showing how
>>>ENVIOUS they really are!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>
>> So envious I emigrated to the U.S. from Poland in 1984.
>
>Prove it..................
>
Already done a number of times.
>
>> For someone who
>
>Shut the fuck up and do what I told you to do...........
If only you had the power and authority your delusions compel you
to believe you have.
>
>Hurry up, I don't like waiting............
Sucks to be you then.
--
Always follow your dream!
Unless it's the one where you're at work in your underwear during a
fire drill.
Tom Sr.
Jr.] <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
> Blah blah!!!
Junior, don't you ever tire of fist-fucking your sockpuppet "Buster"?
You seemingly spend many hours of every day with your hand up "his"
sock-hole.
Ha ha.
-Tom Sr.
Strabo
The Un-Constitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
By P.A. Madison, MA
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Permission is granted to use, copy and publish this article.
We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of
children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction
of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what
does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving
American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore
the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth
Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such
citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits
of the United States of America.
We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they
reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean anyone born in
the United States is automatically an American citizen? Fortunately, we
have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question,
the co-author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to
tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it
to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole,
resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born
in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I
do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question
of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any
further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered
is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,
that every person born within the limits of the United States, and
subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national
law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include
persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong
to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the
Government of the United States, but will include every other class of
persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all
doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and
legislation of this country.
It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of
freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because
they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have
wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are
fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman
Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth
Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'
What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance
to anybody else. That is what it means."
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in
any sense subject to the complete
jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with
them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they
were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who
come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws,
that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the
proposition that such persons should be citizens."
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois
[Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed,
ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on
the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the
executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same
jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the
United States now.
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be
considered citizens of the United States since only an American citizen
could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction that an American
citizen enjoys now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers
his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the
constitution:
"Now, all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all
persons born in the United States and not
subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the
committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as
citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but
a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States
there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has
created the character of citizen as between himself and the United
States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth,
and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of
birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at
the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as
further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the
United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every
sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in
the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other
crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and
so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may
be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in
that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the
jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process,
within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here,
'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and
completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
What does it all mean?
In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does
not grant citizenship at birth to just
anyone who happens to have been born within American jurisdiction. It is
the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at
the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not
geographical location. If the United States does not have complete
jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty-then
the United States does not have the total, complete jurisdiction
demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of
the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?
The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what
persons are or are not citizens of the United States. To argue otherwise
would be like attempting to convince the masses there really is a Santa
Claus that lives at the North Pole. Whether our government or courts
will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which
they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.
Mitchell Holman
news:YdaUn.108224$_84....@newsfe18.iad:
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>> news:2ohSn.6825$hw5....@newsfe04.iad:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>>>> news:7g4Sn.62461$h57....@newsfe22.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>>>>>> MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/78277
>>>>>>>> 06 /C hil
>>>>>>>> dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth
>>>>>>>> -c er tif icates.html
Yes, it does.
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
The most common documents that establish U.S. citizenship are: a
Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
But let us explore your position.
1) If an "anchor baby" is not a US citizen then what country
IS he a citizen of? Where his mother came from? Where his
father came from?
2) What if you try to deport him to a parents' country which
won't accept him?
3) What if the country is one the US has no ties to, like Cuba
or North Korea?
4) If an anchor baby is not a citizen then her children are
not citizens either. Or grand children or great grandchildren.
Should we deport people whose ancestors snuck into the US six
or seven generations ago?
To list just a few of the problems in trying to "fix" birthright
citizenship.........
Strabo
A birth certificate is not 'proof' of citizenship. BCs are
routine. Children of diplomats who are born in the US are
registered with a BC even though they are not American citizens.
>
> "What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
> The most common documents that establish U.S. citizenship are: a
> Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
> born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
> (if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
> registered the child�s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
> Embassy or consulate);
> http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
>
>
>
> But let us explore your position.
>
>
> 1) If an "anchor baby" is not a US citizen then what country
> IS he a citizen of? Where his mother came from? Where his
> father came from?
>
In the case of both a foreign mother and father, the father's
nationality takes precedence.
>
> 2) What if you try to deport him to a parents' country which
> won't accept him?
>
>
> 3) What if the country is one the US has no ties to, like Cuba
> or North Korea?
>
Your what-ifs are academic and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
>
> 4) If an anchor baby is not a citizen then her children are
> not citizens either. Or grand children or great grandchildren.
>
That is so. All concerned must apply for citizenship.
>
> Should we deport people whose ancestors snuck into the US six
> or seven generations ago?
>
Funny.
>
>
>
> To list just a few of the problems in trying to "fix" birthright
> citizenship.........
>
It's done every day.
RD Sandman
news:YdaUn.108224$_84....@newsfe18.iad:
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>> news:2ohSn.6825$hw5....@newsfe04.iad:
>>
>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in
>>>> news:7g4Sn.62461$h57....@newsfe22.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:3tff1694f89naageo...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At one time, not so long ago, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>>>>>>> MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/78277
>>>>>>>> 06 /C hil
>>>>>>>> dren-born-to-non-US-citizens-could-be-barred-from-American-birth
>>>>>>>> -c er tif icates.html
This is simply an opinion piece for all the good it does you.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Those with the biggest mouths about taking guns away, must also have the
smallest balls since they always have to have someone else do it for
them.
r_c_...@hushmail.com
> At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>At one time, not so long ago, Buster Norris <Bus...@Buster.Com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>At one time, not so long ago, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>Who gives a damn. We want these worthless mestizoes out of America.
>
> >>>>>> *We* do not.
> >>>>>> Well, maybe the worthless ones, but I've yet to meet one.
>
> >>>>>How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
>
> >>>> I'm in Iowa. This is not a secret, though you may not have had
> >>>>the time and/or desire to learn this.
>
> >>>Prove it.....................
>
> >> There is no way for me to prove you lacked the time and/or desire
> >>to learn that I live in Iowa.
>
> >Prove it..................
>
> You want me to prove that I can't prove it?
> Are you on any medication that would explain your odd behavior?
>
>
Apparently, you are unaware that Iowa is one of the sixteen
Bundesländer in Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
Silly you. ;-)
Kent Wills
<r_c_...@hushmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >>>>>How are you suppossed to meet one posting from GERMANY??????
>>
>> >>>> I'm in Iowa. This is not a secret, though you may not have had
>> >>>>the time and/or desire to learn this.
>>
>> >>>Prove it.....................
>>
>> >> There is no way for me to prove you lacked the time and/or desire
>> >>to learn that I live in Iowa.
>>
>> >Prove it..................
>>
>> You want me to prove that I can't prove it?
>> Are you on any medication that would explain your odd behavior?
>>
>>
>
>Apparently, you are unaware that Iowa is one of the sixteen
>Bundesländer in Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
>
>Silly you. ;-)
My bad! :)
Strabo
> "Criminal Drivers Murder 40,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in news:f1558e7b-c083-49a3-8a03-
> 64558f...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jun 16, 11:54 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>> Until you can explain how that mother could be immune from all
>>> prosecution for murder or other serious crimes, we will have to
>>> understand that you don't understand "under the jurisdiction of".
>>>
>> No one says she's immune from prosecution.
>
> Then, stop and think. How does one prosecute someone for laws that they
> are not under the jurisdiction of. Think diplomats.
>
The baseline is simple - foreign nationals are subject to the laws of
their respective countries.
Exceptions may be made by agreement amongst countries as in diplomatic
agreements.
Exceptions may also be made by granting visas and work permits by a host
country.
These exceptions are accepted with degrees of host jurisdiction.
In the case of illegal aliens, deportation is not the imposition of
jurisdiction. It is the ejection of those not under jurisdiction.
Once an initial deportment is recorded, a second offense automatically
triggers host criminal jurisdiction. Criminal jurisdiction also occurs
when an illegal is suspected of a capital crime.
>
> You're the one who doesn't
>> understand what "under the jurisdiction of" means. Why do you think
>> we deport illegals, you ignoramus.?
>>
>
> Partially, because folks like you are afraid of them. ;)
>
No, you're not an ignoramus, just a cheap manipulator. You stoop to
accusatory language and insults to inflict the whip of political
correctness.
Afraid? Or concerns over imbalancing local economies. Or concerns of
public health and increased crime. Or pissed over the sheer arrogance of
illegal aliens and the guilt-ridden fools who aid and abet them.
Dumping millions of illiterate, unassimilatible foreigners on the
American public is one of the most despicable, reckless, irresponsible,
stupid and dangerous acts that I've experienced in my lifetime.
Now you can resort to type and call me a homophobic, xenophobic,
jingoistic racist.
RD Sandman
news:vCgVn.304$f_3...@newsfe17.iad:
> RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Criminal Drivers Murder 40,000 Americans a Year"
>> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:f1558e7b-c083-49a3-8a03-
>> 64558f...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Jun 16, 11:54 am, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Until you can explain how that mother could be immune from all
>>>> prosecution for murder or other serious crimes, we will have to
>>>> understand that you don't understand "under the jurisdiction of".
>>>>
>>> No one says she's immune from prosecution.
>>
>> Then, stop and think. How does one prosecute someone for laws that
>> they are not under the jurisdiction of. Think diplomats.
>>
>
> The baseline is simple - foreign nationals are subject to the laws of
> their respective countries.
When in the US, they are also subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the
US, unless they have diplomatic immunity.
> Exceptions may be made by agreement amongst countries as in diplomatic
> agreements.
>
> Exceptions may also be made by granting visas and work permits by a
> host country.
>
> These exceptions are accepted with degrees of host jurisdiction.
>
> In the case of illegal aliens, deportation is not the imposition of
> jurisdiction. It is the ejection of those not under jurisdiction.
>
> Once an initial deportment is recorded, a second offense automatically
> triggers host criminal jurisdiction. Criminal jurisdiction also occurs
> when an illegal is suspected of a capital crime.
You working to change the laws since they currently don't work like that.
Have you read Wong Kim Ark?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
>> You're the one who doesn't
>>> understand what "under the jurisdiction of" means. Why do you think
>>> we deport illegals, you ignoramus.?
>>>
>>
>> Partially, because folks like you are afraid of them. ;)
>>
>
> No, you're not an ignoramus, just a cheap manipulator. You stoop to
> accusatory language and insults to inflict the whip of political
> correctness.
That wasn't my comment. Learn to read attributes.
> Afraid? Or concerns over imbalancing local economies. Or concerns of
> public health and increased crime. Or pissed over the sheer arrogance
> of illegal aliens and the guilt-ridden fools who aid and abet them.
>
> Dumping millions of illiterate, unassimilatible foreigners on the
> American public is one of the most despicable, reckless,
> irresponsible, stupid and dangerous acts that I've experienced in my
> lifetime.
>
> Now you can resort to type and call me a homophobic, xenophobic,
> jingoistic racist.
Why should I do that? I didn't make the comment you ranted about.
Try xeto...@yahoo.com
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Experience is learning from your mistakes....
Wisdom is learning from the mistakes of others.
deadrat
<snip/>
> Dumping millions of illiterate, unassimilatible foreigners on the
> American public is one of the most despicable, reckless, irresponsible,
> stupid and dangerous acts that I've experienced in my lifetime.
>
> Now you can resort to type and call me a homophobic, xenophobic,
> jingoistic racist.
You're at least an ignoramus. It might be interesting to know whether
you're a willful ignoramus and if so, to speculate why. But it would just
be speculation.
You could be one of the ignoramuses from many eras in our history, making
the same complaints about the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese, the Japanese,
et al.
Mexico has a literacy rate of over 90%. Why do you think Mexican illegals
are illiterate? Or do you mean they don't speak English to your
satisfaction? How many illegals want to be here permanently? Of the
others, why do you assume they would fail to assimilate?
deadrat
Respondant
> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
>> Dumping millions of illiterate, unassimilatible foreigners on the
>> American public is one of the most despicable, reckless,
>> irresponsible, stupid and dangerous acts that I've experienced in my
>> lifetime.
>>
>> Now you can resort to type and call me a homophobic, xenophobic,
>> jingoistic racist.
>
> You're at least an ignoramus. It might be interesting to know whether
> you're a willful ignoramus and if so, to speculate why. But it would
> just be speculation.
And you're a socialist kook. There. Ya like calling names so much, I
thought I'd call YOU one.
> You could be one of the ignoramuses from many eras in our history,
> making the same complaints about the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese,
> the Japanese, et al.
Everybody who leans even the slightest bit right is an ignoramus, eh? Must
suck to live in a small, closed mind like yours.
> Mexico has a literacy rate of over 90%.
Cite?
> Why do you think Mexican
> illegals are illiterate? Or do you mean they don't speak English to
> your satisfaction? How many illegals want to be here permanently?
> Of the others, why do you assume they would fail to assimilate?
Yeah. Right. Man did YOU ever drink the Koolaid.
deadrat
> deadrat wrote:
>
>> Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> Dumping millions of illiterate, unassimilatible foreigners on the
>>> American public is one of the most despicable, reckless,
>>> irresponsible, stupid and dangerous acts that I've experienced in my
>>> lifetime.
>>>
>>> Now you can resort to type and call me a homophobic, xenophobic,
>>> jingoistic racist.
>>
>> You're at least an ignoramus. It might be interesting to know whether
>> you're a willful ignoramus and if so, to speculate why. But it would
>> just be speculation.
>
> And you're a socialist kook. There. Ya like calling names so much, I
> thought I'd call YOU one.
Feel better? Would it harsh your mellow if I told you your comment wouldn't
hurt my feelings, even if I had any?
All I did was call you an ignoramus. That means you're ignorant. And you are.
And you're part of a long, sorry history in this country populated by
ignoramuses on the subject. Read a little. Start with the Chinese Exclusion
Act.
>> You could be one of the ignoramuses from many eras in our history,
>> making the same complaints about the Irish, the Jews, the Chinese,
>> the Japanese, et al.
>
> Everybody who leans even the slightest bit right is an ignoramus, eh? Must
> suck to live in a small, closed mind like yours.
This really isn't about the way you lean. It's about your ignorance.
>> Mexico has a literacy rate of over 90%.
>
> Cite?
The United Nations Development Program. Go here:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf
>
>> Why do you think Mexican
>> illegals are illiterate? Or do you mean they don't speak English to
>> your satisfaction? How many illegals want to be here permanently?
>> Of the others, why do you assume they would fail to assimilate?
>
> Yeah. Right. Man did YOU ever drink the Koolaid.
Your evasion is noted. Now how about you answer the questions:
Why do you think Mexican illegals are illiterate?
Of the illegal Mexican workers, how many do you think want to be here
permanently? Do you have evidence for your number?
Of those who want to stay and end up doing so, why do you think they would fail
to assimilate? What makes them different in this respect from other populations
that came here? We already know that the majority of Mexicans here illegally
work long hour at hard jobs in bad conditions for low wages so they can support
their families. Jobs you wouldn't last twenty minutes doing? So why slander
them?
The current immigration policy (or non-policy, if you prefer, given its
enforcement) may be bad social policy. Or not. But this is a different issue.