Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    az.general    |    What goes on in exciting Arizona...    |    2,977 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 1,974 of 2,977    |
|    Rudy Canoza to benj    |
|    Re: More on the unconstitutionality of b    |
|    05 Jan 15 11:37:41    |
      XPost: or.politics, seattle.politics, talk.politics.guns       XPost: alt.california, can.politics, rec.crafts.metalworking       XPost: az.politics       From: LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con              On 1/5/2015 11:18 AM, benj wrote:       > On 01/05/2015 11:40 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:       >> Good stuff.       >       >> Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through       >> ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the       >> jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does       >> not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question.       >> Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically make you a       >> "subject" of US jurisdiction like some pro-alien advocates would like       >> to believe.       >       > You sure are stretching the words here to try to make your case. The law       > is clear if you are born in the United States and "subject to the       > jurisdiction thereof" means that if you are born in the United States       > and not subject to the jurisdiction of it, then you are not a citizen.       > Otherwise you are.              I'm not stretching anything. "Jurisdiction" in the citizenship clause       does not mean merely subject to the laws. As those who wrote, debated       and adopted the citizenship clause made very clear, jurisdiction in that       context meant owing allegiance to the country. They said that       explicitly. Obviously a tourist traveling in a foreign country is       subject to the jurisdiction of that countries laws, but he does not owe       any allegiance to that country. Lyman Trumbull, the chairman of the       Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the amendment's passage, put       it with perfect clarity:               “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.’ [emphasis added]        … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United        States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”              "Subject to the jurisdiction" means *more* than merely subject to the       laws. It means that, but it also means owing allegiance to the country,       something a foreigner does not. That's what it means. Someone born       here of foreign visitors does not owe allegiance to the country; he owes       allegiance to his parents' country or countries.              --              "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to 'the common       good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own       personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."              Ayn Rand              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca