The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

[unknown]

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies
that that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an
irrationally determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898).

The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration mob
like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which the
Supreme Court before the Wong case /DID/ understand, contains this sentence:

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.

Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters
like Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_
jurisdiction, meaning not owing allegiance to any other country. That
is clearly established by the Senate debate over ratification of the
amendment in 1866. That was also clearly understood by the Supreme
Court in a couple of important cases it heard between ratification of
the amendment in 1868, and the delivery of its incoherent decision in
Wong in 1898. Read up on Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)), and
especially Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94 (1884)).

The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting the
meaning of the amendment.

[Wilson Woods]

Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

Of course there is. Hammond knows there is, too.

To begin with, there is the clear interpretation of the phrase "subject
to the jurisdiction" given by the senators who debated the amendment
prior to voting on it. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, the chairman of the
judiciary committee, said this:

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.


Then there is the passage from Elk v. Wilkins. Regarding the
citizenship clause found in section 1 of the 14th Amendment, Justice
Gray wrote:

The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment
was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of
opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the
citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to
put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether
formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and
owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the
United States and of the state in which they reside.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources
only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens
are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these
last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the
jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their
political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate
allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one
case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons
not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time
of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized,
either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts;
or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign
territory is acquired.

The court clearly understood that "subject to the jurisdiction" means
something much *more* than merely having to follow the laws of the
country while residing in or transiting through the country. The court
also clearly understood that an infant owes allegiance wherever his
parents owe theirs.

The real reason Hammond says "there is none" regarding the case against
birthright citizenship is that he /wants/ a regime in which people who
don't share American values can come here without restriction and
fundamentally alter our national character for the worse.

[Phxbrd]

Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off the
first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

[Wilson Woods]

Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off the
first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that it
is correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing against
it - you have already conceded defeat.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that it is
correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing against it -
you have already conceded defeat.

That childish retort may work in your sunday school class, but we're all
grown-ups here. You might try some other silly bullshit, though. You don't
seem smart enough to know when you're wrong.

[Wilson Woods]

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that it is
correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing against it -
you have already conceded defeat.

That childish retort

The childish retorts have all come from you.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that it
is correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing against
it - you have already conceded defeat.

That childish retort

The childish retorts from dumbfucker Woods will continue to spew.

Don't we all know it...

He's thick as a plank.

[Wilson Woods]

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that it
is correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing against
it - you have already conceded defeat.

That childish retort

The childish retorts have all come from you.

Don't we all know it...

Yes, we sure do.

What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean, leslie? Why is it in the
citizenship clause? Are you familiar, leslie, with the legal doctrine
that no part of a legal document, including a constitution, is to be
construed as containing redundant language, unless /not/ viewing the
language as redundant leads to an absurd interpretation? That means
"subject to the jurisdiction" is in there for an explicit reason, leslie.

Now stop fucking the pig and tell us: what does "subject to the
jurisdiction" mean in the citizenship clause, and why is it in there?

You blow, leslie - you absolutely blow. You're whipped, and you know
it, but you're too much a chickenshit to admit it. You're the one who
told me to shut the fuck up, leslie, so why don't you come on over to
L.A. and /make/ me shut up?

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left
off the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that
it is correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing
against it - you have already conceded defeat.

That childish retort

The childish retorts have all come from you.

Don't we all know it...

Yes, we sure do.
What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean, leslie? Why is it in the
citizenship clause? Are you familiar, leslie, with the legal doctrine
that no part of a legal document, including a constitution, is to be
construed as containing redundant language, unless /not/ viewing the
language as redundant leads to an absurd interpretation? That means
"subject to the jurisdiction" is in there for an explicit reason, leslie.
Now stop fucking the pig and tell us: what does "subject to the
jurisdiction" mean in the citizenship clause, and why is it in there?
You blow, leslie - you absolutely blow. You're whipped, and you know it,
but you're too much a chickenshit to admit it. You're the one who told me
to shut the fuck up, leslie, so why don't you come on over to L.A. and
/make/ me shut up?

Birth in USA = Native

Native = Citizen

HTH

[kT]

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that it is
correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing against it -
you have already conceded defeat.

That childish retort may work

It just did!

[Phxbrd]

Post by kT

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

There is, of course, and you know what it is, and have conceded that it
is correct and compelling. That's why you don't bother arguing against
it - you have already conceded defeat.

That childish retort may work

It just

Just what?

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

However:


The following countries have "Jus soli" or birthright citizenship.

American Samoa[2][3] (birth in American Samoa renders American Samoan and
U.S. nationalities, but no birthright to U.S. citizenship)
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Azerbaijan[4]
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile[5] (children of transient foreigners and of foreign diplomats on
assignment in Chile only upon request)
Colombia
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji[6]
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Lesotho[7]
Mauritius[8]
Mexico
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic[9]
Saint Christopher and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Tuvalu[10]
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

[Wilson Woods]

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods
Reposted; a couple of important newsgroups were inadvertently left off
the first time.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.

The following countries have "Jus soli" or birthright citizenship.

Mostly third-world zeroes, apart from Canada, Argentina and Brazil. And
Canada, Argentina and Brazil have it as a matter of a democratically
taken decision in their legislatures, /*NOT*/ dictated to them by a
rogue court decision.


Meanwhile, here are some developed FIRST WORLD countries that used to
have it, and no longer do, because they recognize it is BAD citizenship
policy:

United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Netherland
Italy


And here are some developed FIRST WORLD countries that never had it:

Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Iceland
Japan



So, whom should we emulate, leslie - the developed nations of Europe and
Asia, or fucking shithole El Salvador???

Post by Phxbrd
American Samoa[2][3] (birth in American Samoa renders American Samoan and
U.S. nationalities, but no birthright to U.S. citizenship)
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Azerbaijan[4]
Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile[5] (children of transient foreigners and of foreign diplomats on
assignment in Chile only upon request)
Colombia
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji[6]
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Lesotho[7]
Mauritius[8]
Mexico
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic[9]
Saint Christopher and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Tuvalu[10]
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

[Wilson Woods]

[bullshit]

Whatever became of Leslie Seth Hammond? What a shitbag!

[Wayne]

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies that
that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an irrationally
determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
(1898).

True. I just don't get as ticked off about the citizenship as I do about
anchoring the parents.

[Phxbrd]

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies that
that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an irrationally
determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
(1898).
The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration mob
like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which the Supreme
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.
Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That
does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters like
Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_ jurisdiction,
meaning not owing allegiance to any other country. That is clearly
established by the Senate debate over ratification of the amendment in
1866. That was also clearly understood by the Supreme Court in a couple
of important cases it heard between ratification of the amendment in 1868,
and the delivery of its incoherent decision in Wong in 1898. Read up on
Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)), and especially Elk v. Wilkins
(112 U.S. 94 (1884)).
The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting the
meaning of the amendment.

Birth in the USA = Native

Native = Citizen

HTH.

[Wilson Woods]

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies that
that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an irrationally
determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649
(1898).
The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration mob
like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which the Supreme
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.
Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That
does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters like
Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_ jurisdiction,
meaning not owing allegiance to any other country. That is clearly
established by the Senate debate over ratification of the amendment in
1866. That was also clearly understood by the Supreme Court in a couple
of important cases it heard between ratification of the amendment in 1868,
and the delivery of its incoherent decision in Wong in 1898. Read up on
Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)), and especially Elk v. Wilkins
(112 U.S. 94 (1884)).
The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting the
meaning of the amendment.

[snip Hammond's regurgitation of false definitions]

Automatic birthright citizenship is not the law of the land.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by unknown

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies
that that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an
irrationally determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898).
The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration mob
like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which the
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.
Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That
does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters like
Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_ jurisdiction,
meaning not owing allegiance to any other country. That is clearly
established by the Senate debate over ratification of the amendment in
1866. That was also clearly understood by the Supreme Court in a couple
of important cases it heard between ratification of the amendment in
1868, and the delivery of its incoherent decision in Wong in 1898. Read
up on Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)), and especially Elk v.
Wilkins (112 U.S. 94 (1884)).
The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting the
meaning of the amendment.

[snip Hammond's regurgitation of false definitions]

Automatic birthright citizenship is not the law of the land.

Then why all the ugly racist whining?

[Wilson Woods]

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by unknown

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies
that that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an
irrationally determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898).
The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration mob
like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which the
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.
Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That
does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters like
Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_ jurisdiction,
meaning not owing allegiance to any other country. That is clearly
established by the Senate debate over ratification of the amendment in
1866. That was also clearly understood by the Supreme Court in a couple
of important cases it heard between ratification of the amendment in
1868, and the delivery of its incoherent decision in Wong in 1898. Read
up on Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)), and especially Elk v.
Wilkins (112 U.S. 94 (1884)).
The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting the
meaning of the amendment.

[snip Hammond's regurgitation of false definitions]

Automatic birthright citizenship is not the law of the land.

Then why all the ugly racist

That pony is dead, leslie - stop flogging it.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by unknown

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies
that that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an
irrationally determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898).
The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration
mob like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which the
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.
Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters
like Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_
jurisdiction, meaning not owing allegiance to any other country. That
is clearly established by the Senate debate over ratification of the
amendment in 1866. That was also clearly understood by the Supreme
Court in a couple of important cases it heard between ratification of
the amendment in 1868, and the delivery of its incoherent decision in
Wong in 1898. Read up on Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)),
and especially Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94 (1884)).
The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting the
meaning of the amendment.

[snip Hammond's regurgitation of false definitions]

Automatic birthright citizenship is not the law of the land.

Then why all the ugly racist

That pony is dead, leslie - stop flogging it.

You mean that your ugly and stupid racist whining about birthright
citizenship is dead. We're all sick of it. Grow up.

[Wilson Woods]

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by unknown

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies
that that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an
irrationally determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649 (1898).
The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration
mob like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which the
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.
Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters
like Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_
jurisdiction, meaning not owing allegiance to any other country. That
is clearly established by the Senate debate over ratification of the
amendment in 1866. That was also clearly understood by the Supreme
Court in a couple of important cases it heard between ratification of
the amendment in 1868, and the delivery of its incoherent decision in
Wong in 1898. Read up on Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)),
and especially Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S. 94 (1884)).
The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting the
meaning of the amendment.

[snip Hammond's regurgitation of false definitions]

Automatic birthright citizenship is not the law of the land.

Then why all the ugly racist

That pony is dead, leslie - stop flogging it.

You mean that

What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean, leslie? Why is it in the
citizenship clause? Are you familiar, leslie, with the legal doctrine
that no part of a legal document, including a constitution, is to be
construed as containing redundant language, unless /not/ viewing the
language as redundant leads to an absurd interpretation? That means
"subject to the jurisdiction" is in there for an explicit reason, leslie.

Now stop fucking the pig and tell us: what does "subject to the
jurisdiction" mean in the citizenship clause, and why is it in there?

You blow, leslie - you absolutely blow. You're whipped, and you know
it, but you're too much a chickenshit to admit it. You're the one who
told me to shut the fuck up, leslie, so why don't you come on over to
L.A. and /make/ me shut up?

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by Phxbrd

Post by Wilson Woods

Post by unknown

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

Sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn't. There is no law in the United States that specifies
that that is our citizenship rule. Instead, it's based on an
irrationally determined court decision, United States v. Wong Kim
Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
The 14th Amendment, which the America-hating pro-illegal immigration
mob like Leslie Seth Hammond (phxbrd) do not understand, and which
the Supreme Court before the Wong case /DID/ understand, contains
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.
Note that crucial clause: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That does *NOT* mean what the pro-illegal immigration America haters
like Hammond say it does. It means subject to the _complete_
jurisdiction, meaning not owing allegiance to any other country.
That is clearly established by the Senate debate over ratification
of the amendment in 1866. That was also clearly understood by the
Supreme Court in a couple of important cases it heard between
ratification of the amendment in 1868, and the delivery of its
incoherent decision in Wong in 1898. Read up on Slaughterhouse
Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)), and especially Elk v. Wilkins (112 U.S.
94 (1884)).
The America-hating liars like Hammond are deliberately distorting
the meaning of the amendment.

[snip Hammond's regurgitation of false definitions]

Automatic birthright citizenship is not the law of the land.

Then why all the ugly racist

That pony is dead, leslie - stop flogging it.

You mean that

What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean, leslie? Why is it in the
citizenship clause? Are you familiar, leslie, with the legal doctrine
that no part of a legal document, including a constitution, is to be
construed as containing redundant language, unless /not/ viewing the
language as redundant leads to an absurd interpretation? That means
"subject to the jurisdiction" is in there for an explicit reason, leslie.
Now stop fucking the pig and tell us: what does "subject to the
jurisdiction" mean in the citizenship clause, and why is it in there?
You blow, leslie - you absolutely blow. You're whipped, and you know it,
but you're too much a chickenshit to admit it. You're the one who told me
to shut the fuck up, leslie, so why don't you come on over to L.A. and
/make/ me shut up?

Birth in USA = Native

Native = Citizen

HTH

[Larry in AZ]

Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen

Constitution = Change

[Wilson Woods]

chickenshit's headers vandalism repaired

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:37:39 -0700, mrmcafee

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with them or

not.

I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the
sole purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and
returning to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will be
forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal Mexican
citizens in The United States has Mexican citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you agree

with

them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the same
thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, as if

to

say there's no disagreement on the meaning of "subject to the
jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of course, including
disagreement between Supreme Court decisions. Elk got it
right, Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding
informal "POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete
misreading of what the status of Native Americans was.

See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (in habeas
proceeding brought by deportable aliens, Court noted that
respondent had given birth to a child, "who, born in the United
States, was a citizen of this country")

Dicta, not holding.

Let's face it, the entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to
convey citizenship to folks whose parents were not considered even
"people", but livestock instead. How could the son of a slave be
considered to be "under the jurisdiction" of the US if his parent
was property using your interpretation? The facts are the illegal
immigrants are under the jurisdiction of our laws, do face court
when they violate them, and so are their offspring who are born
here. Slaves were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the US than
horses. If one was caught stealing, he was returned to his owner for
punishment, not to the tender mercies of the court.

Jurisdiction, the term as so used, is not restricted to the meaning of
only citizenship. The ability, legally, to enter into contracts, civil
procedings, acquire access to government programs via participation
are parts of the jurisdiction, or the full rights given to persons
with citizenship, be it by birth or legal declaration. It does not
mean only subject to criminal laws.

It doesn't mean subject to the law at all, despite the defensive
insistence by the pro-illegal-immigration crowd that it does.

Of course it does, otherwise they would have used different language to
say what they meant. The amendment does not mention "allegiance" because
they didn't mean allegiance.

It *does* mean that, because that's what all the senators who voted on
it understood it to mean:


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.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 1866


[the citizenship clause 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 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.

Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause

The Supreme Court has always upheld that
view

THIS view, you mean:

This section [citizenship clause of 14th amendment] contemplates two
sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and
naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is,
not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of
the United States, but completely subject to their political
jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/112/94.html

Yes: in its *ONLY* explicit pronouncement on the meaning of "subject to
the jurisdiction", the Supreme Court upheld the view that it means owing
direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.

You really should take that competent American history class you
obviously never did.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods
chickenshit's headers vandalism repaired

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:37:39 -0700, mrmcafee

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with them or

not.

I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the sole
purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and returning
to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will be
forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal Mexican
citizens in The United States has Mexican citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you agree

with

them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the same
thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, as if

to

say there's no disagreement on the meaning of "subject to the
jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of course, including
disagreement between Supreme Court decisions. Elk got it right,
Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding
informal "POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete misreading
of what the status of Native Americans was.

See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (in habeas
proceeding brought by deportable aliens, Court noted that respondent
had given birth to a child, "who, born in the United States, was a
citizen of this country")

Dicta, not holding.

Let's face it, the entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to convey
citizenship to folks whose parents were not considered even "people",
but livestock instead. How could the son of a slave be considered to
be "under the jurisdiction" of the US if his parent was property using
your interpretation? The facts are the illegal immigrants are under
the jurisdiction of our laws, do face court when they violate them,
and so are their offspring who are born here. Slaves were no more
subject to the jurisdiction of the US than horses. If one was caught
stealing, he was returned to his owner for punishment, not to the
tender mercies of the court.

Jurisdiction, the term as so used, is not restricted to the meaning of
only citizenship. The ability, legally, to enter into contracts, civil
procedings, acquire access to government programs via participation
are parts of the jurisdiction, or the full rights given to persons
with citizenship, be it by birth or legal declaration. It does not
mean only subject to criminal laws.

It doesn't mean subject to the law at all, despite the defensive
insistence by the pro-illegal-immigration crowd that it does.

Of course it does, otherwise they would have used different language to
say what they meant. The amendment does not mention "allegiance" because
they didn't mean allegiance.

It *does* mean that, because that's what all the senators who voted on it
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.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 1866
[the citizenship clause 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 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.
Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause

The Supreme Court has always upheld that view

This section [citizenship clause of 14th amendment] contemplates two
sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and
naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is,
not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of
the United States, but completely subject to their political
jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/112/94.html
Yes: in its *ONLY* explicit pronouncement on the meaning of "subject to
the jurisdiction", the Supreme Court upheld the view that it means owing
direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.
You really should take that competent American history class you obviously
never did.

Birth in USA = Native

Native = Citizen

HTH

[Wilson Woods]

chickenshit's headers vandalism repaired

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with them
or not.
I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the sole
purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and returning
to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will be
forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal Mexican
citizens in The United States has Mexican citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you
agree with them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the same
thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, as if to say there's no disagreement on the meaning
of "subject to the jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of
course, including disagreement between Supreme Court decisions.
Elk got it right, Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding
informal "POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete
misreading of what the status of Native Americans was.

I think I got it right.

You got it completely wrong. That juvenile wisecrack about "POW"
status gave the game away completely.

I've got it right.

You have it wrong, as your snarky "POW" remark proves beyond doubt.
You'll never get it right, because you're determined to get it wrong.

I've got it right

You have it wrong, of course. You drank the Marxist Kool-Aid - or was
that KOOK-Aid that you drank?

You're incompetent. Your Marxian professors lied to you, and you were
too stupid to figure it out.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods
chickenshit's headers vandalism repaired

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with them or
not.
I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the sole
purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and returning
to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will be
forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal Mexican
citizens in The United States has Mexican citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you agree
with them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the same
thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, as if to say there's no disagreement on the meaning of
"subject to the jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of
course, including disagreement between Supreme Court decisions.
Elk got it right, Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding informal
"POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete misreading
of what the status of Native Americans was.

I think I got it right.

You got it completely wrong. That juvenile wisecrack about "POW"
status gave the game away completely.

I've got it right.

You have it wrong, as your snarky "POW" remark proves beyond doubt.
You'll never get it right, because you're determined to get it wrong.

I've got it right

You have it wrong, of course. You drank the Marxist Kool-Aid - or was
that KOOK-Aid that you drank?
You're incompetent. Your Marxian professors lied to you, and you were too
stupid to figure it out.

Birth in USA = Native

Native = Citizen

HTH

[Wilson Woods]

chickenshit's headers vandalism repaired

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:37:39 -0700, mrmcafee

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with them or

not.

I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the sole
purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and returning
to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will be
forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal Mexican
citizens in The United States has Mexican citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you agree

with

them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the same
thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, as if

to

say there's no disagreement on the meaning of "subject to the
jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of course, including
disagreement between Supreme Court decisions. Elk got it right,
Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding
informal "POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete
misreading of what the status of Native Americans was.

See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (in habeas
proceeding brought by deportable aliens, Court noted that
respondent had given birth to a child, "who, born in the United
States, was a citizen of this country")

Dicta, not holding.

Let's face it, the entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to convey
citizenship to folks whose parents were not considered even "people",
but livestock instead. How could the son of a slave be considered to
be "under the jurisdiction" of the US if his parent was property
using your interpretation? The facts are the illegal immigrants are
under the jurisdiction of our laws, do face court when they violate
them, and so are their offspring who are born here. Slaves were no
more subject to the jurisdiction of the US than horses. If one was
caught stealing, he was returned to his owner for punishment, not to
the tender mercies of the court.

Jurisdiction, the term as so used, is not restricted to the meaning of
only citizenship. The ability, legally, to enter into contracts, civil
procedings, acquire access to government programs via participation
are parts of the jurisdiction, or the full rights given to persons
with citizenship, be it by birth or legal declaration. It does not
mean only subject to criminal laws.

Nor does it mean to be all or nothing. If you are subject to American
justice, you are under the jurisdiction of America.

Which is not, of course, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in
the citizenship clause, as we have clearly seen, and as the
Marxist-brainwashed mcafee will now get to see again:

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.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 1866


[the citizenship clause 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 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.

Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause


This section [citizenship clause of 14th amendment] contemplates two
sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and
naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is,
not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of
the United States, but completely subject to their political
jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/112/94.html

Yes: in its *ONLY* explicit pronouncement on the meaning of "subject to
the jurisdiction", the Supreme Court upheld the view that it means owing
direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.

You really should take that competent American history class you
obviously never did.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods
chickenshit's headers vandalism repaired

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:37:39 -0700, mrmcafee

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with them or

not.

I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the sole
purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and returning
to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will be
forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal Mexican
citizens in The United States has Mexican citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you agree

with

them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the same
thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, as if

to

say there's no disagreement on the meaning of "subject to the
jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of course, including
disagreement between Supreme Court decisions. Elk got it right,
Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding informal
"POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete misreading
of what the status of Native Americans was.

See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (in habeas
proceeding brought by deportable aliens, Court noted that respondent
had given birth to a child, "who, born in the United States, was a
citizen of this country")

Dicta, not holding.

Let's face it, the entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to convey
citizenship to folks whose parents were not considered even "people",
but livestock instead. How could the son of a slave be considered to be
"under the jurisdiction" of the US if his parent was property using
your interpretation? The facts are the illegal immigrants are under the
jurisdiction of our laws, do face court when they violate them, and so
are their offspring who are born here. Slaves were no more subject to
the jurisdiction of the US than horses. If one was caught stealing, he
was returned to his owner for punishment, not to the tender mercies of
the court.

Jurisdiction, the term as so used, is not restricted to the meaning of
only citizenship. The ability, legally, to enter into contracts, civil
procedings, acquire access to government programs via participation
are parts of the jurisdiction, or the full rights given to persons
with citizenship, be it by birth or legal declaration. It does not
mean only subject to criminal laws.

Nor does it mean to be all or nothing. If you are subject to American
justice, you are under the jurisdiction of America.

Which is not, of course, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" in
the citizenship clause, as we have clearly seen, and as the
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.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 1866
[the citizenship clause 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 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.
Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause
This section [citizenship clause of 14th amendment] contemplates two
sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and
naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is,
not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of
the United States, but completely subject to their political
jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/112/94.html
Yes: in its *ONLY* explicit pronouncement on the meaning of "subject to
the jurisdiction", the Supreme Court upheld the view that it means owing
direct and immediate allegiance to the United States.
You really should take that competent American history class you obviously
never did.

Birth in USA = Native

Native = Citizen

HTH

[Wilson Woods]

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with
them or

not.

I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the
sole purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and
returning to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will
be forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal
Mexican citizens in The United States has Mexican
citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you
agree

with

them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the
same thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the
14th Amendment, as if

to

say there's no disagreement on the meaning of "subject to the
jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of course, including
disagreement between Supreme Court decisions. Elk got it
right, Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding
informal "POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete
misreading of what the status of Native Americans was.

See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (in habeas
proceeding brought by deportable aliens, Court noted that
respondent had given birth to a child, "who, born in the United
States, was a citizen of this country")

Dicta, not holding.

Let's face it, the entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to
convey citizenship to folks whose parents were not considered even
"people", but livestock instead. How could the son of a slave be
considered to be "under the jurisdiction" of the US if his parent
was property using your interpretation?

You still have it wrong. When the 14th amendment was written,
Negroes were no longer property.

But they were being denied state citizenship.

They weren't. The 14th amendment was written to make sure it would
remain that way.

Let me recommend that you take a competent American history class.

Let me recommend that you bend double and blow yourself.

He never stopped.

[Phxbrd]

Post by Wilson Woods

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

There is none.
Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen
HTH.

There are many cases against it, whether you agree with them
or

not.

I am definitely against Korean women coming here for the
sole purpose of giving birth to an American citizen, and
returning to Korea to raise the child.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of
children born to two illegal aliens, but one day it will be
forced into the situation.
It is obvious to me that a child born to two illegal Mexican
citizens in The United States has Mexican citizenship.

What part of "Birth in the USA = Native
Native = Citizen" are you struggling with?

What part of "There are many cases against it, whether you
agree

with

them or not." , are you struggling with?

I can't wait for the retarded hospital janitor and convicted
felon, Tim Crawley, to jump into this. He always does the same
thing: repeat the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment, as if

to

say there's no disagreement on the meaning of "subject to the
jurisdiction". There *IS* disagreement, of course, including
disagreement between Supreme Court decisions. Elk got it
right, Wong got it wrong.

The "Elk" decision was based upon the entire tribe holding
informal "POW" status within the application of US law.

No. That's a complete misreading of Elk, and a complete
misreading of what the status of Native Americans was.

See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985) (in habeas
proceeding brought by deportable aliens, Court noted that
respondent had given birth to a child, "who, born in the United
States, was a citizen of this country")

Dicta, not holding.

Let's face it, the entire purpose of the 14th amendment was to
convey citizenship to folks whose parents were not considered even
"people", but livestock instead. How could the son of a slave be
considered to be "under the jurisdiction" of the US if his parent
was property using your interpretation?

You still have it wrong. When the 14th amendment was written,
Negroes were no longer property.

But they were being denied state citizenship.

They weren't. The 14th amendment was written to make sure it would
remain that way.

Let me recommend that you take a competent American history class.

Let me recommend that you bend double and blow yourself.

He never stopped.

Birth in USA = Native

Native = Citizen

HTH