Is there a politician with the balls to lobby for a rewrite of the 14th / the anchor baby statute?

[surada]

You're a damn liar and you know it. That's how sick you are.

Ask a lawyer.. You're a moron.

 

[BS Filter]

They too were born on US soil under US jurisdiction. Ask a lawyer..You have myopia. Its a sure sign you have a poor education.

You're mentally ill.

 

[otto105]

You're a damn liar and you know it. That's how sick you are.

The intent is clearly stated in the Amendment. The need for the Amendment was reconstruction south racial issues, but they didn't just state African-Americans in the amendment.

Did they.

 

[BackAgain]

US law has jurisdiction in the US unless you're a diplomat. You obviously don't know how to read the law. If you are in the US on a student visa or as a tourist or on business or illegally you are under US jurisdiction.

You are focusing (as you so often do) on just a sentence fragment. Try reading that provision in full. Take particular note (assuming you can accomplish this easy mission) of the word “and.” I tell ya, it’s true. Words do have meaning.

 

[BS Filter]

The intent is clearly stated in the Amendment. The need for the Amendment was reconstruction south racial issues, but they didn't just state African-Americans in the amendment.

Did they.

You better go read it again. You're a liar.

 

[otto105]

You better go read it again. You're a liar.

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.

It's very clear.

 

[Ringtone]

They already have.

Actually, SCOTUS has never directly addressed the question of whether or not a person born of illegal aliens within the territorial boundaries of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction thereof for the constitutional purposes of U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark's parents were foreign nationals, howbeit, legally residing in the United States at the time of his birth.

 

[otto105]

Actually, SCOTUS has never directly addressed the question of whether or not a person born of illegal aliens within the territorial boundaries of the United States is subject to the jurisdiction thereof for the constitutional purposes of U.S. citizenship.

That's because anyone in our country legally or not is subject to our laws.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

It's very clear.

I don’t agree that it’s clear. 1. Person born or naturalized here AND 2. subject to our laws and our jurisdiction.

An alien Pregnant Mom sneaks into our nation. Mom pops out a baby “on our soil.” The child is most definitely “born” here. Part 1 is satisfied. What about Part 2?

Some people claim that every person who happens to be here (not including diplomats and their families) is subject to our laws and our jurisdiction. It’s an interesting contention. It seems to me to be partially correct.

For example, an alien can be compelled to abide by our criminal laws and brought to our courts to answer for alleged crimes they commit.

But is a newborn baby in the same class? I don’t believe the law is settled on that one. For, the mom maybe still owes allegiance to her native country. Mom isn’t a citizen of our land. So, it seems likely that her child is still a citizen of mom’s native land. One can argue that the child is actually under the jurisdiction of mom’s native land.

 

[otto105]

I don’t agree that it’s clear. 1. Person born or naturalized here AND 2. subject to our laws and our jurisdiction.

An alien Pregnant Mom sneaks into our nation. Mom pops out a baby “on our soil.” The child is most definitely “born” here. Part 1 is satisfied. What about Part 2?

Some people claim that every person who happens to be here (not including diplomats and their families) is subject to our laws and our jurisdiction. It’s an interesting contention. It seems to me to be partially correct.

For example, an alien can be compelled to abide by our criminal laws and brought to our courts to answer for alleged crimes they commit.

But is a newborn baby in the same class? I don’t believe the law is settled on that one. For, the mom maybe still owes allegiance to her native country. Mom isn’t a citizen of our land. So, it seems likely that her child is still a citizen of mom’s native land. One can argue that the child is actually under the jurisdiction of mom’s native land.

Case dismissed with prejudice and attorney who brought it referred for disbarment.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

It's very clear.

You're still lying. Post the full Amendment. Sick fuck.

 

[BackAgain]

Case dismissed with prejudice and attorney who brought it referred for disbarment.

So. You disagree. You know what? That’s ok. But it doesn’t mean your disagreement is how the case would be or should be decided.

By resort to your special brand of illogic, since I disagree with your presumptuous conclusion, I can say your opposing papers are frivolous and therefore you need to be sanctioned and disbarred.

That kind of stupid juridical “philosophy” would make litigation all but impossible.

besides which: you’re also wrong. The very argument i posited is percolating in the field.

 

[otto105]

You're still lying. Post the full Amendment. Sick fuck.

Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


It's very clear that you're simply wrong and being a baby about it.

 

[otto105]

So. You disagree. You know what? That’s ok. But it doesn’t mean your disagreement is how the case would be or should be decided.

By resort to your special brand of illogic, since I disagree with your presumptuous conclusion, I can say your opposing papers are frivolous and therefore you need to be sanctioned and disbarred.

That kind of stupid juridical “philosophy” would make litigation all but impossible.

besides which: you’re also wrong. The very argument i posited is percolating in the field.

What field? Far right authoritarian fuck nuttery?

 

[BS Filter]

Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


It's very clear that you're simply wrong and being a baby about it.

Do you see the word "slave" there in section 4. You lied about the Amendment not mentioning African Americans. You're the fucking baby. Lying shithead.

 

[surada]

You are focusing (as you so often do) on just a sentence fragment. Try reading that provision in full. Take particular note (assuming you can accomplish this easy mission) of the word “and.” I tell ya, it’s true. Words do have meaning.

The only law that has jurisdiction in the US is US law.. not Spanish law or Mexican law etc .. Do you understand the basis of the citizenship law? If you're born here you are NOT a citizen of some other country. Ask a lawyer.

 

[BackAgain]

What field? Far right authoritarian fuck nuttery?

You wouldn’t recognize it anyway. You’re simply a non-functioning left-wing extremist “brain” in a skin-suit of crap.

 

[BackAgain]

The only law that has jurisdiction in the US is US law.. not Spanish law or Mexican law etc .. Do you understand the basis of the citizenship law? If you're born here you are NOT a citizen of some other country. Ask a lawyer.

Partly true. That doesn’t mean that Mexico cannot claim to have jurisdiction over a Mexican citizen. I don’t know if you have any familiarity with the legal notions of “owing allegiance to” the other (foreign) nation. But it would help you if you’d commence some study.

And, of course, you apparently don’t realize that people born here can very well also be citizens of other nations.

 

[surada]

I don’t agree that it’s clear. 1. Person born or naturalized here AND 2. subject to our laws and our jurisdiction.

An alien Pregnant Mom sneaks into our nation. Mom pops out a baby “on our soil.” The child is most definitely “born” here. Part 1 is satisfied. What about Part 2?

Some people claim that every person who happens to be here (not including diplomats and their families) is subject to our laws and our jurisdiction. It’s an interesting contention. It seems to me to be partially correct.

For example, an alien can be compelled to abide by our criminal laws and brought to our courts to answer for alleged crimes they commit.

But is a newborn baby in the same class? I don’t believe the law is settled on that one. For, the mom maybe still owes allegiance to her native country. Mom isn’t a citizen of our land. So, it seems likely that her child is still a citizen of mom’s native land. One can argue that the child is actually under the jurisdiction of mom’s native land.

The baby born on US soil is a US citizen.. Otherwise your faulty understanding of the law would mean the baby had NO COUNTRY.

If the mother is in the US, the US has jurisdiction over her too. The US has jurisdiction over everyone on US soil unless they are a foreign diplomat attached to a diplomatic mission. The birth doesn't make the mother a US citizen. You would have a hell of a time in Law 101.

 

[surada]

You wouldn’t recognize it anyway. You’re simply a non-functioning left-wing extremist “brain” in a skin-suit of crap.

While this Mexican citizen is in the US Mexico doesn't have jurisdiction.. That's why we have extradition agreements. NO FOREIGN country's laws have jurisdiction in the US.

You are stubborn and stupid.. You should be able to understand this instead of arguing about it.