info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Now watch her try to claim "anchor baby" status
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Byker
Aug 22, 2021, 1:19:19 PM8/22/21
to
BeamMeUpScotty
Aug 23, 2021, 6:59:55 AM8/23/21
to
On 8/22/21 1:19 PM, Byker wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
>
An airplane is TRANSPORTATION and property but NOT a border and to be
born in America as a NATURAL BORN citizen would require they be within
actual U.S. sovereignty. The air base in Afghanistan was abandoned and
was never our sovereign territory/Jurisdiction within U.S. borders and
operates under international laws. We don't claim it as part of the
United States. It was/is Afghani property and the plane is flying in
international air space until it's within the U.S. Sovereignty when it
reaches the U.S. border and until then the plane was operating under
international treaty laws. Meaning that the Federal U.S. treaty laws
can't be superior to the Constitution as per the Constitutions own words
that tell us that a NATURAL BORN citizen has to be born within sovereign
U.S. borders. NOT a vehicle operating inside international borders under
a treaty law.
I don't think a Judge can legally allow the kid to claim citizenship any
more than the mother can who was also not born under actual U.S.
jurisdiction. Because they were NOT actually operating under the
Constitution but under international laws invoked by treaty and NOT by
U.S. constitutional sovereignty. The plane is not subject to U.S.
jurisdiction since it's actually operating under international
jurisdiction only the pre-existing U.S. citizens would be under U.S.
jurisdiction otherwise all peoples rights on the flight would have
become equal to U.S. citizens for the entire flight. And yet they are
NOT equal to persons who are legally living in the United states and are
issued temporary passport access to America.
--
That's Karma
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is we talk about it*
We hate censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you.
Make them prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you
didn't find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you
then you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber Doctrine* is the
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is*
169 - Liberals can't be embarrassed, they can only be humiliated....
and the best way to do that is to show how stupid and ignorant they
truly are. It's NOT a difficult task.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
>
An airplane is TRANSPORTATION and property but NOT a border and to be
born in America as a NATURAL BORN citizen would require they be within
actual U.S. sovereignty. The air base in Afghanistan was abandoned and
was never our sovereign territory/Jurisdiction within U.S. borders and
operates under international laws. We don't claim it as part of the
United States. It was/is Afghani property and the plane is flying in
international air space until it's within the U.S. Sovereignty when it
reaches the U.S. border and until then the plane was operating under
international treaty laws. Meaning that the Federal U.S. treaty laws
can't be superior to the Constitution as per the Constitutions own words
that tell us that a NATURAL BORN citizen has to be born within sovereign
U.S. borders. NOT a vehicle operating inside international borders under
a treaty law.
I don't think a Judge can legally allow the kid to claim citizenship any
more than the mother can who was also not born under actual U.S.
jurisdiction. Because they were NOT actually operating under the
Constitution but under international laws invoked by treaty and NOT by
U.S. constitutional sovereignty. The plane is not subject to U.S.
jurisdiction since it's actually operating under international
jurisdiction only the pre-existing U.S. citizens would be under U.S.
jurisdiction otherwise all peoples rights on the flight would have
become equal to U.S. citizens for the entire flight. And yet they are
NOT equal to persons who are legally living in the United states and are
issued temporary passport access to America.
--
That's Karma
*The first rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is we talk about it*
We hate censorship. Never trust what Democrats or Marxists tell you.
Make them prove it with actual verifiable facts and science. And if you
didn't find the duplicitous lies in what the Marxist-Democrats told you
then you didn't dig deep enough. The *Gruber Doctrine* is the
Marxist-Democrat plan that says it's "to the Democrats advantage to have
a lack of transparency and then lie about everything".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
*The next rule of SURVIVAL CLUB is*
169 - Liberals can't be embarrassed, they can only be humiliated....
and the best way to do that is to show how stupid and ignorant they
truly are. It's NOT a difficult task.
SixOverFive
Aug 24, 2021, 12:41:57 AM8/24/21
to
On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
Interesting question. A US Military plane IS sort of
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....
Kind of like being born in a US embassy.
So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.
But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
countries.
Biden Stupid
Aug 24, 2021, 3:25:02 AM8/24/21
to
On 23 Aug 2021, Rudy Canoza <j...@phendrie.con> posted some
>> Â a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....
>>
>> Â Kind of like being born in a US embassy.
>>
>> Â So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.
>>
>> Â But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
>> Â a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
>> Â countries.
>
> American citizen, under present understanding.
You're so fucking ignorant, Rudy.
"The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
reason of the place of birth."
>
> On 8/23/2021 9:41 PM, SixOverFive wrote:
>> On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-
evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
>>
>>
>> Â Interesting question. A US Military plane IS sort of
> On 8/23/2021 9:41 PM, SixOverFive wrote:
>> On 08/22/2021 01:19 PM, Byker wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nBtLJt6Vp8
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/21/asia/baby-born-afghanistan-
evacuation-flight-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
>>
>>
>> Â a mobile US Military BASE - ie "US Territory" ....
>>
>> Â Kind of like being born in a US embassy.
>>
>> Â So yea, she MAY have a valid claim.
>>
>> Â But it depends on where she ends up. Claiming
>> Â a US Citizen baby could get her KILLED in some
>> Â countries.
>
> American citizen, under present understanding.
You're so fucking ignorant, Rudy.
"The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
reason of the place of birth."
A. Filip
Aug 24, 2021, 3:46:21 AM8/24/21
to
be treated differently. I give the claim (very) low chances but it may
be worth to test in courts at some time even as PR exercise mainly.
--
A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
| Farmers in the Iowa State survey rated machinery breakdowns more
| stressful than divorce. (Wall Street Journal)
BeamMeUpScotty
Aug 24, 2021, 9:13:32 AM8/24/21
to
And jurisdiction in places like Antarctica and international airspace is
NOT national.
--
That's karma
Censorship is a systemic form of violence, using force to silence those
you hate.
Censorship is HATE personified... Hate groups use censorship to help
force those they hate to be gagged and silenced and canceled.
Censorship becomes a systemic hate crime and a form of SLAVERY when it's
illegally forced on American citizens. TWITTER'S censorship is enslaving
Blacks.
Censorship of this document in whole or part, is an admission of your
belonging to a VIOLENT HATE GROUP.
A. Filip
Aug 24, 2021, 10:31:15 AM8/24/21
to
BeamMeUpScotty <NOT-...@idiocracy.gov> wrote:
> On 8/24/21 3:45 AM, A. Filip wrote:
>> Biden Stupid <stu...@biden.me> wrote:
[…]
> On 8/24/21 3:45 AM, A. Filip wrote:
>> Biden Stupid <stu...@biden.me> wrote:
>>> You're so fucking ignorant, Rudy.
>>>
>>> "The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
>>> that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
>>> considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
>>> aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
>>> reason of the place of birth."
>>
>> I am sure it covers *civilian* aircraft. US armed forces aircraft *may*
>> be treated differently. I give the claim (very) low chances but it may
>> be worth to test in courts at some time even as PR exercise mainly.
>>
> The Military are not ambassadors and a plane is not an embassy.
>
> And jurisdiction in places like Antarctica and international airspace is
> NOT national.
Sorry but I have not forgotten all arguments used in the case below to
>>>
>>> "The U.S. State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) states
>>> that, "A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not
>>> considered to be part of U.S. territory. A child born on such an
>>> aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by
>>> reason of the place of birth."
>>
>> I am sure it covers *civilian* aircraft. US armed forces aircraft *may*
>> be treated differently. I give the claim (very) low chances but it may
>> be worth to test in courts at some time even as PR exercise mainly.
>>
> The Military are not ambassadors and a plane is not an embassy.
>
> And jurisdiction in places like Antarctica and international airspace is
> NOT national.
justify outrage. Shame on me :-)
https://news.yahoo.com/belaruss-forced-landing-lithuania-bound-134129560.html
> Belarus forces airliner to land and arrests opponent, sparking
> U.S. and European outrage ; May 23, 2021, 3:41 PM
--
A. Filip : Big Tech Brother is watching you.
| the combination is locked up in the safe. (Peter DeVries)
NoBody
Aug 25, 2021, 6:55:03 AM8/25/21
to
man as President. The libs around here seem perfectly fine with it.
NoBody
Aug 25, 2021, 6:56:00 AM8/25/21
to
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021 09:21:29 +0200, Biden Stupid <stu...@biden.me>
wrote:
You could have stopped at the first sentence :)
wrote:
0 new messages