home bbs files messages ]

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