Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 253

Thread: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

  1. #211
    Dems were saying the right thing back then but then their views "evolved".
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Dems were saying the right thing back then but then their views "evolved".
    Their talking points evolved, if they had meant it back then it would already be fixed.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #213
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009

  5. #214
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009

  6. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    If they wanted something else, then they should have written something else.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I just can't stand liars.

  7. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    If they wanted something else, then they should have written something else.
    In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

    The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

    The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/
    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.

    Ⅎ˥ƎSWIH ˥˥I⋊ ⊥,NᗡIᗡ N
    IƎ⊥SԀƎ

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  10. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    If they wanted something else, then they should have written something else.
    Write the Chinese government and inform them their Citizens are no longer under their jurisdiction.
    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.

    Ⅎ˥ƎSWIH ˥˥I⋊ ⊥,NᗡIᗡ N
    IƎ⊥SԀƎ

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  11. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Perfect.
    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.

    Ⅎ˥ƎSWIH ˥˥I⋊ ⊥,NᗡIᗡ N
    IƎ⊥SԀƎ

    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  12. #220
    Women should not be able to come to the US on a VISA and have a child and the be child deemed a citizen. My grand parents came to the US to escape Hitler. They still had to apply for asylum and be screened by the government. My mother was born in the USA but was not deemed citizenship until after her mother became a citizen although her father was a citizen. A child is considered to be the race or nationality of the mother.
    My son's father was not a citizen of the USA but because I was a citizen my child was born a citizen. In a sense the child is considered to be more related to the mother like it or not. My grandchildren were born in the USA and because their mother applied to enter the USA with a green card under the jurisdiction of the usa and was married to a USA citizen they were deemed citizens. Does that clear anything up?

  13. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

    The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/
    The Attorney General does not issue rulings.

    Also, Elk v. Wilkins is about the particulars of Indian sovereignty as independent nations:

    Under the Constitution of the United States, as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several States; and Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the States of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.
    Want to see the examples that he uses? They're going to sound awfully familiar...

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.


    This ruling says the exact opposite of what you say it does. I suppose that's why you are quoting from what the attorney said rather than quoting what the court said.
    Last edited by TheCount; 11-03-2018 at 07:32 AM.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I just can't stand liars.

  14. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Write the Chinese government and inform them their Citizens are no longer under their jurisdiction.
    I can't find the part of the 14th amendment which says anything about any other country's jurisdiction. Could you point it out to me?


    PS: The United States government doesn't get to decide what the Chinese government does or does not consider under their jurisdiction. Nor does it really matter.
    Last edited by TheCount; 11-03-2018 at 09:26 AM.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I just can't stand liars.

  15. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

    The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

    http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/
    I think most people nowadays accept a more modern definition of US jurisdiction. That is, the US has jurisdiction over everyone everywhere
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  16. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    The Attorney General does not issue rulings.
    Yes he does on immigration matters:

    Unlike the federal judiciary system, U.S. immigration courts fall under the Department of Justice and the attorney general can intervene.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/re...ortations.html
    Sessions has been issuing more rulings than usual lately.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Also, Elk v. Wilkins is about the particulars of Indian sovereignty as independent nations:



    Want to see the examples that he uses? They're going to sound awfully familiar...





    This ruling says the exact opposite of what you say it does. I suppose that's why you are quoting from what the attorney said rather than quoting what the court said.
    Sorry but it means what that illegals can't be citizens:

    The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which "no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;" and "the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.
    By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution slavery was prohibited. 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. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 102 U.S. 303, 306.
    This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared 102*102 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.

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

    This view is confirmed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "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." Slavery having been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clause fixing the apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons. But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens.
    So the further provision of the second section for a proportionate 103*103 reduction of the basis of the representation of any State in which the right to vote for presidential electors, representatives in Congress, or executive or judicial officers or members of the legislature of a State, is denied, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, to "any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States," cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to Indians not taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to representation.

    It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. § 1992.

    Such Indians, then, not being citizens by birth, can only become citizens in the second way mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment, by being "naturalized in the United States," by or under some treaty or statute.
    The action of the political departments of the government, not only after the proposal of the Amendment by Congress to the States in June, 1866, but since the proclamation in July, 1868, of its ratification by the requisite number of States, accords with this construction.
    While the Amendment was pending before the legislatures of the several States, treaties containing provisions for the naturalization of members of Indian tribes as citizens of the United States were made on July 4, 1866, with the Delawares, in 1867 with various tribes in Kansas, and with the Pottawatomies, and in April, 1868, with the Sioux. 14 Stat. 794, 796; 15 Stat. 513, 532, 533, 637.
    The treaty of 1867 with the Kansas Indians strikingly illustrates the principle that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent, and directly contradicts the supposition that a member of an Indian tribe can at will be alternately a citizen of the United States and a member of the tribe.

    That treaty not only provided for the naturalization of members 104*104 of the Ottawa, Miami, Peoria, and other tribes, and their families, upon their making declaration, before the District Court of the United States, of their intention to become citizens; 15 Stat. 517, 520, 521; but, after reciting that some of the Wyandotts, who had become citizens under the treaty of 1855, were "unfitted for the responsibilities of citizenship;" and enacting that a register of the whole people of this tribe, resident in Kansas or elsewhere, should be taken, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, showing the names of "all who declare their desire to be and remain Indians and in a tribal condition," and of incompetents and orphans as described in the treaty of 1855, and that such persons, and those only, should thereafter constitute the tribe; it provided that "no one who has heretofore consented to become a citizen, nor the wife or children of any such person, shall be allowed to become members of the tribe, except by the free consent of the tribe after its new organization, and unless the agent shall certify that such party is, through poverty or incapacity, unfit to continue in the exercise of the responsibilities of citizenship of the United States, and likely to become a public charge." 15 Stat. 514, 516.
    Since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has passed several acts for naturalizing Indians of certain tribes, which would have been superfluous if they were, or might become, without any action of the government, citizens of the United States...

    ...The law upon the question before us has been well stated by Judge Deady in the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon. In giving judgment against the plaintiff in a case resembling the case at bar, he said: "Being born a member of `an independent political community' — the Chinook — he was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — not born in its allegiance." McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer, 118, 134.

    More at: Elk v. Wilkins
    Last edited by Swordsmyth; 11-03-2018 at 02:19 PM.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes he does on immigration matters:
    You thoughts on this one?

    Syllabus

    The Immigration Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, relates to foreigners as respects this country -- to persons owing allegiance to a foreign government; citizens of Porto Rico are not "aliens," and upon arrival by water at the ports of our mainland, are not "alien immigrants" within the intent and meaning of the act.

    The facts of this case, which involved the power of the Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York to detain a citizen of Porto Rico as an alien immigrant under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, are stated in the opinion of the court.

    Isabella Gonzales, an unmarried woman, was born and resided in Porto Rico, and was an inhabitant thereof on April 11, 1899, the date of the proclamation of the Treaty of Paris. She arrived at the Port of New York from Porto Rico August 24, 1902, when she was prevented from landing, and detained by the Immigration Commissioner at that port as an "alien immigrant" in order that she might be returned to Porto Rico if it appeared that she was likely to become a public charge.

    If she was not an alien immigrant within the intent and meaning of the Act of Congress entitled "An Act in Amendment to the Various Acts Relative to Immigration and the Importation of Aliens under Contract or Agreement to Perform Labor," approved March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, c. 551, the commissioner had no power to detain or deport her, and the final order of the circuit court must be reversed.

    The act referred to contains these provisions:

    "That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States, in accordance with the

    Page 192 U. S. 8

    existing acts regulating immigration, other than those concerning Chinese laborers: all idiots, insane persons, paupers, or persons likely to become a public charge."

    "SEC. 10. That all aliens who may unlawfully come to the United States shall, if practicable, be immediately sent back on the vessel by which they were brought in. . . ."

    "SEC. 11. That any alien who shall come into the United States in violation of law may be returned as by law provided. . . ."

    The treaty ceding Porto Rico to the United States was ratified by the Senate February 6, 1899; Congress passed an act to carry out its obligations March 2, 1899, and the ratifications were exchanged and the treaty proclaimed April 11, 1899, 30 Stat. 1754. Then followed the act entitled "An Act Temporarily to Provide Revenues and a Civil government for Porto Rico, and for Other Purposes," approved April 12, 1900. 31 Stat. 77, c. 191. The treaty provided:

    Page 192 U. S. 9

    "Article II"

    "Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones."

    "Article IX"

    "Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty, may remain in such territory or may remove therefrom, retaining in either event all their rights of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property or of its proceeds, and they shall also have the right to carry on their industry, commerce, and professions, being subject in respect thereof to such laws as are applicable to other foreigners. In case they remain in the territory, they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making, before a court of record, within a year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, a declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which declaration they shall be held to have renounced it, and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside."

    "The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress."

    By the Constitution of the Spanish monarchy and the Spanish Civil Code, in force in Porto Rico when the treaty was proclaimed, persons born in Spanish territory were declared to be Spaniards, but Porto Ricans who were not natives of the Peninsula, remaining in Porto Rico, could not, according to the terms of the treaty, elect to retain their allegiance to Spain. By the cession, their allegiance became due to the United

    Page 192 U. S. 10

    states, which was in possession and had assumed the government, and they became entitled to its protection. The nationality of the island became American, instead of Spanish, and, by the treaty, Peninsulars not deciding to preserve their allegiance to Spain were to be "held to have renounced it and to have adopted the nationality of the territory in which they may reside."

    By section 7, the inhabitants of Porto Rico who were Spanish subjects on the day the treaty was proclaimed, including Spaniards of the Peninsula who had not elected to preserve their allegiance to the Spanish Crown, were to be deemed citizens of Porto Rico, and they and citizens of the United States residing in Porto Rico were constituted a body politic under the name of The People of Porto Rico. *

    Page 192 U. S. 12

    Gonzales was a native inhabitant of Porto Rico and a Spanish subject, though not of the Peninsula, when the cession transferred her allegiance to the United States, and she was a citizen of Porto Rico under the act. And there was nothing expressed in the act, nor reasonably to be implied therefrom, to indicate the intention of Congress that citizens of Porto Rico should be considered as aliens and the right of free access denied to them.

    Counsel for the government contends that the test of Gonzales' rights was citizenship of the United States, and not alienage. We do not think so, and, on the contrary, are of opinion that, if Gonzales were not an alien within the act of 1891, the order below was erroneous.

    Conceding to counsel that the general terms "alien," "citizen," "subject," are not absolutely inclusive or completely comprehensive, and that therefore neither of the numerous definitions of the term "alien" is necessarily controlling, we nevertheless cannot concede, in view of the language of the treaty and of the Act of April 12, 1900, that the word "alien," as used in the act of 1891, embraces the citizens of Porto Rico.

    We are not required to discuss the power of Congress in the premises; or the contention of Gonzales' counsel that the cession of Porto Rico accomplished the naturalization of its people, or that of Commissioner Degetau, in his excellent argument as amicus curiae, that a citizen of Porto Rico, under the act of 1900, is necessarily a citizen of the United States. The question is the narrow one whether Gonzales was an alien within the meaning of that term as used in the act of 1891.

    Page 192 U. S. 13

    The act excludes from admission into the United States, "in accordance with the existing acts regulating immigration other than those concerning Chinese laborers," certain classes of "aliens" or "alien immigrants" arriving at any place within the United States, in respect of all of whom it is required that the commanding officer and agents of the vessel by which they come shall report the name, nationality, last residence, and destination before any are landed.

    The decisions of the inspection officers adverse to the right to land are made final unless an appeal is taken to the Superintendent of Immigration, whose action is subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury, and all aliens who unlawfully come into the United States in violation of law shall be immediately, if practicable, sent back, or may be returned as by law provided.

    We think it clear that the act relates to foreigners as respects this country, to persons owing allegiance to a foreign government, and citizens or subjects thereof, and that citizens of Porto Rico, whose permanent allegiance is due to the United States, who live in the peace of the dominion of the United States, the organic law of whose domicil was enacted by the United States and is enforced through officials sworn to support the Constitution of the United States, are not "aliens," and, upon their arrival by water at the ports of our mainland, are not "alien immigrants" within the intent and meaning of the act of 1891.

    Indeed, instead of the immigration laws' operating externally and adversely to the citizens of Porto Rico, they were themselves put in force and effect there by section 14 of the Act of April 12, 1900, as the Secretary of the Treasury was advised by the Acting Attorney General July 15, 1902, in respect of the Act "to Regulate Immigration," approved August 3, 1882, 22 Stat. 214, c. 376; 24 Op. 86. The act provided for the collection of

    "a duty of fifty cents for each and every passenger, not a citizen of the United States, who shall come by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port to any port within the United

    Page 192 U. S. 14

    States. . . . The money thus collected shall be paid into the United States Treasury, and shall constitute a fund to be called the immigrant fund, and shall be used, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to defray the expense of regulating immigration under this act. . . ."

    Again, in respect of paragraph 703 of the Tariff Act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 203, c. 11, exempting "works of art, the production of American artists residing temporarily abroad," the Department of Justice held that Mr. Molinas, a native of Porto Rico, and an artist, temporarily living in Biarritz, France, and there on April 11, 1899, became, under section 7 of the Act of April 12, 1900, a citizen of Porto Rico, and as such an American artist entitled to the privileges of that paragraph. 24 Op. 40.

    The Attorney General, in his communication to the Secretary of the Treasury, among other things, said:

    "It will be observed that paragraph 703, above quoted, does not mention citizenship, but uses the phrase 'American artists.' It is clearly not inconceivable

    Page 192 U. S. 15

    for a man to be an American artist within the meaning of such a statute and yet not a citizen of the United States."

    And after commenting on the effect of the temporary absence of Mr. Molinas at the time the treaty was proclaimed, the Attorney General concluded his opinion thus:

    "But even in supposing that a native Porto Rican like Mr. Molinas, temporarily absent at the date of the treaty, has been unintentionally omitted from section 7, he is undoubtedly one of those turned over to the United States by Article IX of the treaty to belong to our nationality. He is also clearly a Porto Rican -- that is to say, a permanent inhabitant of that island, which was also turned over by Spain to the United States. As his country became a domestic country, and ceased to be a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff act above referred to, and has now been fully organized as a country of the United States by the Foraker Act, it seems to me that he has become an American notwithstanding such supposed omission."

    The Attorney General applied the ruling in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, that "with the ratification of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, April 11, 1899, the Island of Porto Rico ceased to be a "foreign country" within the meaning of the tariff laws."

    Our conclusion is not affected by the provision in the Sundry Civil Act of August 18, 1894, 28 Stat. 372, 390, c. 301, in relation to the finality of the decisions of the appropriate immigration or custom officers, or the similar provision in the act "to Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the United States,"

    Page 192 U. S. 16

    approved March 3, 1903, 32 Stat. 1213, c. 1012. The latter act was approved after the Gonzales litigation was moved, but it is worthy of notice that the words "United States," as used in the title and throughout the act, were required to be construed to mean "the United States and any waters, territory, or other place now subject to the jurisdiction thereof." § 33. The definition indicates the view of Congress on the general subject.

    Gonzales was not a passenger from a foreign port, and was a passenger "from territory or other place" subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/192/1/
    "IF GOD DIDN'T WANT TO HELP AMERICA, THEN WE WOULD HAVE Hillary Clinton"!!
    "let them search you,touch you,violate your Rights,just don't be a dick!"~ cdc482
    "For Wales. Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. But for Wales?"
    All my life I've been at the mercy of men just following orders... Never again!~Erik Lehnsherr
    There's nothing wrong with stopping people randomly, especially near bars, restaurants etc.~Velho

  19. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes he does on immigration matters
    Which branch of government is the attorney general in again?


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Sorry but it means what that illegals can't be citizens:
    Nope. You skipped everything in between. Y'know, the parts about how the Indians were, at one point in time, specifically exempted from US law and the Constitution by certain treaties and Constitutional language despite their nations being considered part of US territory. It's right there in your quote, you just bolded the wrong parts.

    Why did this only apply to some Indians, the ones who were not taxed, and not to others? Because those Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, despite being within the United States. It would have differed from tribe to tribe depending on treaty.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

    This view is confirmed by the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "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." Slavery having been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made citizens, this clause fixing the apportionment of representatives has abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original Constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons. But Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the reason that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the further provision of the second section for a proportionate reduction of the basis of the representation of any State in which the right to vote for presidential electors, representatives in Congress, or executive or judicial officers or members of the legislature of a State, is denied, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, to "any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States," cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to Indians not taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to representation.
    Last edited by TheCount; 11-03-2018 at 06:37 PM.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I just can't stand liars.

  20. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by aGameOfThrones View Post
    You thoughts on this one?
    PR was put in a weird state of limbo where it was considered American territory but was given its own semi-independent government and not considered to be under the jurisdiction of the United States, its citizens at the time were given a weird status of being domestic Americans but not citizens.
    It was a thoroughly intolerable state of affairs.
    PR should have been either fully absorbed as a territory or treated as a totally foreign possession.
    PR's current status is somewhat better but not very good, it needs to be made a state or made independent but its people cant agree on what to do and we can't afford to add another potentially blue state unless we get rid of several that we already have first.

    However the totally foreign countries that our current illegals come from have neither the original nor the current status of PR and their citizens who invade or visit us are completely ineligible to have their children receive birthright citizenship.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Which branch of government is the attorney general in again?
    It doesn't matter, the law puts him in charge of immigration courts and allows him to make rulings for them and in any case a court accepted the definition.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Nope. You skipped everything in between. Y'know, the parts about how the Indians were, at one point in time, specifically exempted from US law and the Constitution by certain treaties and Constitutional language despite their nations being considered part of US territory. It's right there in your quote, you just bolded the wrong parts.

    Why were the Indians not taxed? Because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, despite being within the United States.
    Those parts don't change the principles outlined in the parts I bolded.

    Read it slowly:

    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.

    {Illegals are not completely subject to [American] political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. This part states that that is the definition to be used in relation to the 14thA regardless of any of the issues involved with indians}

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

    {And since illegals don't meet the 14thA requirement then children born to them are no more automatically citizens than the children of ambassadors are in spite of the fact that the details involved differ}

    It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

    {Note that the "not subject to any foreign power" comes before the mention of "Indians not taxed", illegals are subjects of a foreign power}

    You just can't spin your way out of this, the case did involve other differing elements but it clearly discusses facts and definitions that apply to illegals and make their children ineligible for birthright citizenship.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It doesn't matter, the law puts him in charge of immigration courts and allows him to make rulings for them and in any case a court accepted the definition.
    He cannot make a ruling for a court. He can submit amicus briefs for consideration by a court... just like anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Those parts don't change the principles outlined in the parts I bolded.
    Yes, they do. Or else they wouldn't be there. Like this part:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
    Why does that say "born within the domain of that government?" If what you are claiming were true, that phrase would not be there. It would just say "children of subjects of any foreign government."
    Last edited by TheCount; 11-03-2018 at 07:05 PM.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I just can't stand liars.

  23. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    He cannot not make a ruling for a court. He can submit amicus briefs for consideration by a court... just like anyone else.
    He can for immigration courts and Sessions has done so recently.

    One example:
    The Trump administration will stop granting asylum to victims of gang violence and domestic abuse, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday.
    “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Sessions wrote in his decision.
    “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim,” he continued.


    The ruling came hours after Sessions announced that he would issue a new interpretation of asylum law.
    He told the judges — administrative employees of the Department of Justice, rather than part of the judicial branch — that the asylum system was being “abused to the detriment of the rule of law.”

    Sessions's ruling came under the attorney general's review powers over immigration cases.

    He came to the decision by overturning a case known as the Matter of A-B-, a Salvadoran woman granted asylum by the Board of Immigration Appeals on the grounds that her husband had abused her and the police had done nothing to stop it.

    "In reaching these conclusions, I do not minimize the vile abuse that the respondent reported she suffered at the hands of her ex-husband or the harrowing experiences of many other victims of domestic violence around the world," Sessions said in the decision.

    But, Sessions added, quoting an earlier decision, "the ‘asylum statute is not a general hardship statute.’ "

    In overturning the A-B- appeal, Sessions also overturned a prior decision that allowed for women fleeing domestic violence without state protection to be considered a "particular social group."

    Under asylum law, migrants seeking asylum can claim to be part of a particular social group that is fleeing persecution.

    The ruling overturned by Sessions allowed women under those circumstances to qualify for asylum.

    More at: https://thehill.com/latino/391684-tr...ontent=2250152







    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Yes, they do. Or else they wouldn't be there. Like this part:



    Why does that say "born within the domain of that government?" If what you are claiming were true, that phrase would not be there. It would just say "children of subjects of any foreign government."
    It says that because it was another factor involved with the specific case but elsewhere it states the more general principle which you studiously ignore:

    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.

    {Illegals are not completely subject to [American] political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. This part states that that is the definition to be used in relation to the 14thA regardless of any of the issues involved with indians}

    It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

    {Note that the "not subject to any foreign power" comes before the mention of "Indians not taxed", illegals are subjects of a foreign power}
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He can for immigration courts and Sessions has done so recently.

    One example:
    The Trump administration will stop granting asylum to victims of gang violence and domestic abuse, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday.
    “Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,” Sessions wrote in his decision.
    “The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim,” he continued.
    That's not a court decision, that is a policy decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It says that because it was another factor involved with the specific case but elsewhere it states the more general principle which you studiously ignore:

    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.
    Which Indians were not and did not because they were exempt even while on American soil. They had partial immunity to American laws by treaty, just like diplomats have partial immunity to American laws by treaty. And that's why the judge bothers to explain that in all of the paragraphs surrounding your selective quotes. See, now we're back to those pesky parts of the ruling that you think aren't important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    political jurisdiction
    LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."

    {Note that the "not subject to any foreign power" comes before the mention of "Indians not taxed", illegals are subjects of a foreign power}
    I did note that. He quoted just a portion of that sentence. Why doesn't his quote stop after "not subject to any foreign power" if the fact that Indians are not taxed is unimportant? If, at that time, Congress and the judiciary considered Indians to be subject to a foreign power by mere fact of being citizens of a foreign nation (their tribe), then why are they mentioned twice in that law?

    Note that when I moved the underline and the italics, the emphasis changed. Huh. Maybe the surrounding context is important.

    Side note: If that's what the people wanted the amendment to say and mean, they could have made it say and mean that. They chose something different for the 'subject to any foreign power' part, but then they didn't change the 'Indians not taxed' part. Weird. It's almost as if... and hear me out here, because this is a radical concept... it's almost as if words have meaning, and that's not what the amendment means.




    Again, if what you believe is true, why are all those other paragraphs about representation in government and taxes included in the ruling? Why is the judge bothering to explain why Indians specifically are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Why does he say this:
    children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government
    And not this:
    children of subjects of any foreign government
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I just can't stand liars.

  25. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    That's not a court decision, that is a policy decision.
    The ruling came hours after Sessions announced that he would issue a new interpretation of asylum law.
    He told the judges — administrative employees of the Department of Justice, rather than part of the judicial branch — that the asylum system was being “abused to the detriment of the rule of law.”

    Sessions's ruling came under the attorney general's review powers over immigration cases.
    You are totally wrong and yet it doesn't even matter because we have a court case that accepted the definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Which Indians were not and did not because they were exempt even while on American soil. They had partial immunity to American laws by treaty, just like diplomats have partial immunity to American laws by treaty. And that's why the judge bothers to explain that in all of the paragraphs surrounding your selective quotes. See, now we're back to those pesky parts of the ruling that you think aren't important.
    He went into details that applied to Indians because that case dealt with an Indian but that doesn't change the general principle that is laid out here:

    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.
    Illegals do not owe direct or immediate allegiance to the US.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    LOL
    LOL?
    That is what it says in the quote:
    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.
    It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed."
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I did note that. He quoted just a portion of that sentence. Why doesn't his quote stop after "not subject to any foreign power" if the fact that Indians are not taxed is unimportant? If, at that time, Congress and the judiciary considered Indians to be subject to a foreign power by mere fact of being citizens of a foreign nation (their tribe), then why are they mentioned twice in that law?
    Probably because Indian tribes were not regular European style "foreign powers" and were not treated as such, in any case it doesn't matter why superfluous language was used, the only people that get birthright citizenship are people who aren't subject to a foreign power, no amount of spin can change that to mean that any class of people subject to any manner of foreign power are eligible.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Note that when I moved the underline and the italics, the emphasis changed. Huh. Maybe the surrounding context is important.
    The emphasis didn't change nor did it alter the meaning in the slightest, the context can't make anyone who is subject to a foreign power qualify.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Side note: If that's what the people wanted the amendment to say and mean, they could have made it say and mean that. They chose something different for the 'subject to any foreign power' part, but then they didn't change the 'Indians not taxed' part. Weird. It's almost as if... and hear me out here, because this is a radical concept... it's almost as if words have meaning, and that's not what the amendment means.
    That might work except they said what they meant and they meant that those subject to a foreign power weren't part of those under the jurisdiction of the United States:

    The Key Phrase: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’

    Howard and Trumbull see the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as key in determining the limits of citizenship. In a response to Anton in the Washington Post, Elizabeth Wydra dismisses the importance of this phrase as a fixation of those who “deny the plain meaning of the citizenship clause.”

    However, the meaning of this phrase was the central topic of debate precisely because it qualified who was to be considered a citizen in the citizenship clause. It is this phrase that made it clear that Indians were not included because even though they were born on American soil, they were not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States.

    For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

    Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.

    Williams clarifies this point at the end of the debate. “In one sense,” he says, “all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States [they are still expected to obey the laws of the land and be punished for breaking them], but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance].”


    Two-thirds of the senators present for the vote agreed that no further clarification was needed to make sure the amendment excluded Indians. Only those under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States are included in the clause. The fact that this amendment did not authorize birthright citizenship as it exists today is demonstrated further by the fact that Native Americans did not gain U.S. citizenship en masse when this amendment passed, in 1868, but 56 years later, with an act of Congress.

    Regardless of whether we should have birthright citizenship today or not, it is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend individuals not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States to be included as citizens. It is hard to believe that they would have accepted our modern conception of “birthright citizenship,” in which any person, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, and regardless of their parents’ citizenship, can claim U.S. citizenship.

    It is clear that individuals within the territory of the United States, under a tourist or student visa, or who have crossed the border illegally, are not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, but are still under the jurisdiction, at least in part, of a foreign nation.
    ...
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/...t-citizenship/
    And the court reminds us of that in its ruling:

    It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. § 1992.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Again, if what you believe is true, why are all those other paragraphs about representation in government and taxes included in the ruling? Why is the judge bothering to explain why Indians specifically are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Why does he say this:

    And not this:
    Because the case was about an Indian, but the general principles were discussed and they apply to everyone.

    And now let us look at United States v. Wong Kim Ark
    The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4])


    The Wong Kim Ark case is in conflict with the original intent of the 14thA as expressed by those who drafted it and unless overruled would allow legal visitors and dual citizens to qualify but even it would allow illegals to be excluded because illegals are hostile invaders who are occupying our territory.
    (It should be overruled)

    Remember that until the 1960's nobody claimed illegals were covered by the 14thA.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You are totally wrong and yet it doesn't even matter because we have a court case that accepted the definition.
    It did? Where in the court ruling did the judge quote the attorney general's opinion? Can you point it out to me?


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    He went into details that applied to Indians because that case dealt with an Indian but that doesn't change the general principle
    Then why did he mention it? Did he have some kind of infatuation with Indian facts? Is there a reason why he chose those particular, unimportant facts and not others? Why didn't he include a couple of paragraphs on how to make pemmican instead?

    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.
    Oops, you bolded the wrong part again. Here, let me help:

    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.
    As in, if they were not subject to some laws, like say... taxes, hypothetically, then that wouldn't count. Y'know what, I'll let the judge lay it out for you:

    Indians and their property, exempt from taxation by treaty or statute of the United States, could not be taxed by any State. General acts of Congress did not apply to Indians, unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Illegals do not owe direct or immediate allegiance to the US.
    Cool story, bro. Who is being born, the parents or their child?


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    LOL?
    That is what it says in the quote:
    Yep, it sure does. Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually... or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Probably because Indian tribes were not regular European style "foreign powers" and were not treated as such
    You don't have to "probably" anything, he explicitly explains it in the ruling.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    the only people that get birthright citizenship are people who aren't subject to a foreign power, no amount of spin can change that to mean that any class of people subject to any manner of foreign power are eligible.

    The emphasis didn't change nor did it alter the meaning in the slightest, the context can't make anyone who is subject to a foreign power qualify.

    That might work except they said what they meant and they meant that those subject to a foreign power weren't part of those under the jurisdiction of the United States:

    And the court reminds us of that in its ruling:
    Cool stories bro #s 2, 3, and 4

    Also:
    It is also worthy of remark, that the language used, about the same time, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. § 1992.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because the case was about an Indian, but the general principles were discussed and they apply to everyone.
    They apply to everyone who is granted exemption to American jurisdiction like the Indians, yes.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I just can't stand liars.

  28. #234
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    TheCount vs Swordsmyth was almost entertaining a few days ago, when they resorted to "nut uh" and "uh huh", but that was pretty stale. I thought it could not get any more stale.

    But this is a cookie left out on the back porch stale.

    Funny isn't it, as the elections approach, and emotions inflame, the instinct is to do what you have always been doing, but do it more?

    Ha ha ha.

    Not gonna change the outcome.

    Red Tsunami.

  29. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    It did? Where in the court ruling did the judge quote the attorney general's opinion? Can you point it out to me?
    I have been doing just that in this thread.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Then why did he mention it? Did he have some kind of infatuation with Indian facts? Is there a reason why he chose those particular, unimportant facts and not others? Why didn't he include a couple of paragraphs on how to make pemmican instead?
    Because courts and lawyers like to go into every detail that applies to a case and the details about Indians applied in a case about an Indian.



    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Oops, you bolded the wrong part again. Here, let me help:
    No, you are bolding the wrong part.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    As in, if they were not subject to some laws, like say... taxes, hypothetically, then that wouldn't count. Y'know what, I'll let the judge lay it out for you:
    That part applied because the case was about an Indian but illegals don't qualify because they don't owe direct and immediate allegiance to the US:

    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.






    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Cool story, bro. Who is being born, the parents or their child?
    It is the status of the parents that determines the eligibility of the child.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Yep, it sure does. Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually... or not.





    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    You don't have to "probably" anything, he explicitly explains it in the ruling.
    No, he doesn't.




    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Cool stories bro #s 2, 3, and 4


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Also:




    They apply to everyone who is granted exemption to American jurisdiction like the Indians, yes.
    They apply to everyone who doesn't meet the requirements for ANY reason, you must meet ALL the requirements.


    Your arguments get more pathetic the longer this thread gets.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    TheCount vs Swordsmyth was almost entertaining a few days ago, when they resorted to "nut uh" and "uh huh", but that was pretty stale. I thought it could not get any more stale.

    But this is a cookie left out on the back porch stale.

    Funny isn't it, as the elections approach, and emotions inflame, the instinct is to do what you have always been doing, but do it more?

    Ha ha ha.

    Not gonna change the outcome.

    Red Tsunami.
    The count is very stale, denying reality is always stale.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #237
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The count is very stale, denying reality is always stale.
    Relax, winning an argument against The Count isn't going to change reality.
    You can do that in other ways.

  32. #238
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The count is very stale, denying reality is always stale.
    I mean, I'll be real, I have read three more very good new stories coming out of Korea.... ..that I am supposed to rub his face in, but I'm getting so tired of this puppy.

    Why waste my time on it?

    I have better things to do, than to rub his puppy face in the Joint Korea hosting the Summer Olympics, and the closing of more guard stations on the border.

  33. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by UWDude View Post
    Relax, winning an argument against The Count isn't going to change reality.
    You can do that in other ways.
    I know.
    I just can't stand liars.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Talk about sell outs.



    Their noses should be rubbed in these snippets as often as possible so as to keep them off-balance. Make them address these gender-fluid positions on such issues, and make them do it PUBLICLY. Not just once, but every time they are in front of an audience. Hammer and harangue them until they can no longer stand it. Do it politely, but relentlessly and keep them on the spot.

    That is one of the techniques that needs to be employed. We should have started this years ago, but that's water under the bridge. From this point on, the idiocy, hypocrisy, blind ignorance, and criminality of these people should be latched on to and never let go, making their "work" lives all the more difficult, if not impossible. Keep asking the questions that point out the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of their spew.

    My plugged kopek's worth.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.




  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Birthright citizenship
    By TaftFan in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 12-18-2018, 06:02 AM
  2. Hey, wow, Huck wants to end Birthright Citizenship!
    By uncloned21 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 10-30-2018, 01:45 PM
  3. End birthright citizenship?
    By bc2208 in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-30-2018, 01:44 PM
  4. Birthright Citizenship?
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 10-30-2018, 01:41 PM
  5. [VIDEO] Trump: End Birthright Citizenship
    By jj- in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 08-17-2015, 11:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •