[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

New World Order
See other New World Order Articles

Title: Birthright citizenship in the United States
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth ... tizenship_in_the_United_States
Published: Nov 1, 2018
Author: Food for thought
Post Date: 2018-11-01 11:52:43 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 6987
Comments: 80

Current U.S. law

Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States Constitution.

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: "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."[10] Statute, by birth within U.S.

United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" or "
a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924). "
a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States" "
a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case respecting the citizenship status of Indians.

John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause.[2] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha.

The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.

The United States Congress later enacted The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which established citizenship for Indians previously excluded by the US Constitution; however no subsequent Supreme Court case has reversed the majority opinion offered on Elk v. Wilkins including the detailed definitions of the terms of the 14th Amendment as written by Justice Gray. The Elk v. Wilkins opinion remains valid for interpretation of future citizenship issues regarding the 14th Amendment, but has been rendered undebatable for its application to native Indians due to the Act of Congress.

Indian Citizenship Act

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any person born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment has been interpreted that the Tribes are separate Nations to which an Indian owes allegiance and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-11) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#12. To: nolu chan, vicomte13 (#9)

Diplomats are subject to our jurisdiction. Laws can take away their immunity and they are subject to being expelled.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   12:56:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#6)

The states ratified language, not legislative history. The Congress ratified language, not the opinions of individual legislators.

Exactly.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 699 (1898), Gray J.

Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment; and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244, 254 (1901), Brown J.

The arguments of individual legislators are no proper subject for judicial comment. They are so often influenced by personal or political considerations, or by the assumed necessities of the situation, that they can hardly be considered even as the deliberate views of the persons who make them, much less as dictating the construction to be put upon the Constitution by the courts.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290; 318-319, Peckham J.

Looking simply at the history of the bill from the time it was introduced in the Senate until it was finally passed, it would be impossible to say what were the views of a majority of the members of each House in relation to the meaning of the Act. It cannot be said that a majority of both houses did not agree with Senator Hoar in his views as to the construction to be given to the Act as it passed the Senate. All that can be determined from the debates and reports is that various members had various views, and we are left to determine the meaning of this act, as we determine the meaning of other acts. from the language used therein.

There is, too, a general acquiescence in the doctrine that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 91 U. S. 79; Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 44 U. S. 24, Taney, Chief Justice; Mitchell v. Manufacturing Co., 2 Story 648, 653; Queen v. Hertford College, 3 Q.B.D. 693, 707.

The reason is that it is impossible to determine with certainty what construction was put upon an act by the members of a legislative body that passed it by resorting to the speeches of individual members thereof. Those who did not speak may not have agreed with those who did, and those who spoke might differ from each other, the result being that the only proper way to construe a legislative act is from the language used in the act, and, upon occasion, by a resort to the history of the times when it was passed. (Cases cited supra.)

United States v. St. Paul, M. & MR Co., 247 US 310, 318 (1918), Pitney, J.

It is not our purpose to relax the rule that debates in Congress are not appropriate or even reliable guides to the meaning of the language of an enactment.

Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 474 (1921), Pitney J.

By repeated decisions of this court, it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the lawmaking body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 44 U. S. 24; United States v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72, 91 U. S. 79; United States v. Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290, 166 U. S. 318.

Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 US 281, 311 (1979), Rehnquist, J.

The remarks of a single legislator, even the sponsor, are not controlling in analyzing legislative history. Congressman Moss' statement must be considered with the Reports of both Houses and the statements of other Congressmen…

Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845), Taney CJ

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.
Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (1993), Scalia, J., concurring

The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy.

We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history. And the present case nicely proves that point.

Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   13:05:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: nolu chan (#13) (Edited)

Okay some courts offered some opinions but that's all they are is opinions. There's good points in those opinions ill admit that. The opinions expressed during those debates match the language in my opinion. It's absurd to think that they were talking about foreigners invading us

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   13:10:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: A K A Stone (#10)

If they said all persons born on the United States you would be correct. I respectfully disagree with you.

The Constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."

The plain meaning of the words is clear.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   13:21:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone (#11)

My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.

My take is Trump has no desire to get slam dunked by SCOTUS.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/31/trump-congress-path-end-birthright-citizenship/

Trump backs off executive order threat, says Congress is better path to end birthright citizenship

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 31, 2018

President Trump said Wednesday he’s still committed to ending birthright citizenship for babies born to immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, but would prefer to go through Congress rather than use an executive order.

That’s a softening of his stance from an interview published Tuesday, where he told Axios, an online political outlet, that he was preparing an executive order to test the boundaries of the Constitution’s definitions of automatic citizenship.

[snip]

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   13:23:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#12)

Diplomats are subject to our jurisdiction. Laws can take away their immunity and they are subject to being expelled.

FALSE. They can be expelled. If Kate Steinle's killer had been a recognized diplomat, with diplomatic immunity, he could have been decertified, declared persona non grata and ordered to leave the country, but he could not have been prosecuted.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   13:27:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: nolu chan (#15)

Mexicans arent our subjects.

I honestly see it different no spin here.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   13:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: nolu chan (#17)

If they can be expelled they are subject to our jurisdiction at the time they are here.

We can also change our laws anytime to strip their immunity. Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   13:31:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: nolu chan (#9)

A SCOTUS vote would likely be 9-0 against. The plain language meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment cannot be avoided.

I agree.

To stop the illegal alien invasion we have to spend the money and the effort to wall and patrol the Border, and to patrol the workforce and punish businesses that hire illegals.

The easy end-run won't work. Trump has started the conversation, and will move on immigration after the election - maybe even move for a constitutional amendment. (Probably not.)

He can police the border, put the army there, throw up a wall, and heavily enforce border security. He's not going to be able to erase birth right citizenship.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:17:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#11) (Edited)

My take on what Trump said is. He would issue an executive order defining what he thought the amendment meant. Then acting on it. Thus triggering a Supreme Court decision.

He might well do that.

The decision will be either 9-0, 8-1 or maybe 7-2 against him.

Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh will never go along with Trump on this one.

Can't say for Gorsuch. Thomas might.

But I have not observed Trump doing futile gestures. He doesn't like to lose, and he will lose this one, so I agree with Nolu Chan that he won't do it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:19:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh will never go along with Trump on this one.

Truthfully you do not know that. It is your imagination. A mere thought in your head. Thoughts in your head are not the substance of the constitution.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   14:23:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#19)

Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.

No, that's been a principle of international law, in the West anyway, since the Age of Reason at least, maybe before that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:24:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)

Truthfully you do not know that. It is your imagination. A mere thought in your head. Thoughts in your head are not the substance of the constitution.

It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment.

And they're all Catholics to boot, just not likely to lie in this particular way on this particular issue.

It's not vain imagining on my part, it is reasoned speculation from fact.

Do you know what lawyers get paid to do? This. We look at precedent. We look at the fact pattern. To the extent we can know it, we look at the judicial history of the judge or judges who will be deciding the case. We look at the language itself. And we come to a reasoned opinion as to what will probably happen in a particular case.

Our clients pay us to speculate as to what WILL happen, based on what HAS happened, what the words say, and who the judges are. That is the very essence of legal advice and the legal opinions for which clients pay tens of thousands of dollars.

The future is unknown, but the PROBABLE future is knowable by studying those things. I've made my living doing just exactly this: speculating, based on the facts, on what will happen in court and how courts will apply laws to a particular fact set.

When it comes to this sort of thing - not predicting elections, but predicting appellate decisions, I have very rarely been wrong. Obviously I have not fully researched this speculation here, but I have kept up on it over the years, and read a great deal of the argumentation. I'm professionally certain that there is no possibility whatsoever that the Supreme Court would uphold an assertion by the President that birth right citizenship does not inhere in anchor babies.

I am morally certain that, were I hired to opine on the subject, my formal research on the subject would produce precisely that result, and that my bill, probably something on the order of $12,000, would not be paid in vain by the President were he to pay it.

This one is not a close case. It's self-evidently obvious on the language of the statute.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:32:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)

It's not imagination. They're senior, educated jurists whose judicial philosophies are well documented, and whose conservative careers have been dedicated to really hating the very sort of wild, language-ignoring judicial activism that would be required to cut clear birth-right citizenship out of the 14th Amendment.

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   14:36:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)

Better more skilled more knowledgeable lawyers disagree with you.

Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders and that Muslim cunt who organized the pussy march all agree with you.

You're wrong, i'm right. It is a fact.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   14:39:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#25)

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 145h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

The words of the 14th Amendment say nothing whatever about former slaves. Not a word. They will read the language that says "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."

They will comment that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States: the are subject to the laws and are tried in our courts (unlike diplomats, or reservation Indians in that day, or foreign troops occupying parts of US soil in war). And that will be that: they will uphold the 14th Amendment by striking down Trump.

At least 7 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices, and probably 9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:41:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here.

Have a good day.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   14:43:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

9 out of 9, will agree with my professional, educated legal assessment.

In your imagination they will do that.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   14:44:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: A K A Stone (#26)

Better more skilled more knowledgeable lawyers disagree with you.

There are not many of those. I graduated from top law schools in the US and France, easily passed the bar in two states, worked in the top firms, and have always been very successful in this profession.

Go find federal judges or law partners of white shoe firms who agree with you.

Now I'm hoping Trump does sign that Executive Order. Since it seems to be an open question, let's close that question.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, at least, along with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will all agree with me.

Thomas and Gorsuch might agree with you. But I doubt even that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:45:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)

They aren't subjects of this jurisdiction. They are illegally here.

They are illegally here, and we can arrest them and try them in our courts for being so and breaking our laws. If the court can try you, you are subject to its jurisdiction. That's what "subject to jurisdiction" MEANS: it MEANS that the court has the legal power to try you.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:47:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#29)

In your imagination they will do that.

Right now, it's in everybody's imagination that Trump will sign such an EO.

Once he does, the lower courts will swiftly block it. It will be appealed to the Supremes. I predict a 9-0 opinion. It's not a close case.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   14:48:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone (#19)

If they can be expelled they are subject to our jurisdiction at the time they are here.

We can also change our laws anytime to strip their immunity. Correct.me if I'm wrong but I believe diplomatic immunity came after the 14th.

Wrong on all counts. Persons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction. If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him. The United States government could advise his government that his recognition as a diplomat was being withdrawn and he had to leave by a specified date.

Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries. Internationally, persons allowed in as diplomats cannot be detained or tried for alleged crimes if they enjoy a grant of immunity.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   15:06:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#33)

ersons with recognized diplomatic immunity are not subject to our jurisdiction.

Sure they are. We can expel them from this country. So it is within our right to do that.

We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   15:09:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: nolu chan (#33)

Diplomatic immunity preceded the Constitution by centuries

Ok you and Vic taught me that one. I'll give you that.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   15:09:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: nolu chan (#33)

If you read the constitution about equal protection. If that was followed to a T. Diplomatic immunity would be unconstitutional.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   15:12:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: A K A Stone (#18)

Mexicans arent our subjects.

What Mexican are you talking about???

The 14th Applies to infant children born in the United States. If the child does not enjoy immunity from our laws, the child is a natural born United States citizen.

The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   15:14:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: nolu chan (#33)

If the killer of Kate Steinle were a recognized diplomat at the time, he could not have been arrested, detained, and tried for the crime, regardless of the evidence against him.

nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Those don't jive with each other. How would Kate receive equal protection. She couldn't have.

If the words meant what they said there would be no diplomatic immunity without repealing the 14th.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   15:15:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: nolu chan (#37)

The United States has no subjects, but it has citizens.

Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans.

Americans who have babies are Americans.

It is really that simple.

I disagree with you. I always will. There is no changing my mind on this one.

None of us is going to decide this. We will just have to wait and see.

I do respect your opinions though unlike some others here. I respect Vics as well. I just don't agree. Other constitutional experts also agree with me. As others agree with you.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   15:21:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#25)

If they are educated Jurists. They will side with the words of the 14[t]h amendment. It was to make sure former slaves were citizens. Nothing more.

This is emphatically incorrect. The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.

The common law rule of jus soli already existed in the United States, since day 1, and the 14th Amendment did not change that.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   15:28:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: nolu chan (#40)

The stated purpose was to take the existing common law rule and place its application beyond the control of Congress.

Which Senator stated that?

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   15:35:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: A K A Stone (#34)

We can withdraw from treaties that obligate us to diplomatic immunity if we so choose.

And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere.

If we are to have their diplomats here, or our diplomats there, immunity is just part of the deal. You would essentially break off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

We do not expel foreign diplomats in the sense that we arrest them and put them on an outbound flight. We advise the foreign country that their diplomat is no longer welcome and they fly them out.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-11-01   15:37:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: nolu chan (#42)

And nobody would have diplomats here, and we would not have diplomats anywhere.

If we are to have their diplomats here, or our diplomats there, immunity is just part of the deal. You would essentially break off diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

We do not expel foreign diplomats in the sense that we arrest them and put them on an outbound flight. We advise the foreign country that their diplomat is no longer welcome and they fly them out.

They are still subject to our jurisdiction. If they weren't we wouldn't be to tell them to leave. If they weren't subject... We would have to let them stay because we had no jurisdiction over them.

Diplomatic immunity should never include the right to kill our people. If they kill our people they should be punished. If a country doesn't like that deal. We can kill their country.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   15:47:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone (#39)

Mexicans who have babies are Mexicans.

Americans who have babies are Americans.

And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination"

That applies to Mexican, American, and all other flavors of Goyim... especially if you happen to be Kosher meat packer illegally employing over 400 of them!

VxH  posted on  2018-11-01   15:55:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: VxH (#44)

And -- "Only Jews have the right to self-determination"

They should exple the muslims. Since they can do whatever they want right.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   16:20:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: A K A Stone (#45)

Since they can do whatever they want

"PRAISED BE HE WHO PERMITS THE FORBIDDEN"

www.google.com/search? q=p...s+the+forbidden+sabbatean

{ golf clap ]

VxH  posted on  2018-11-01   16:33:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: A K A Stone, Nolu Chan (#43)

They are still subject to our jurisdiction.

Respectfully, Stone, you're misunderstanding this word.

"Jursidiction" doesn't mean "subject to power". It means subject to the rulings of a COURT. It's not about executive power, it's about judicial power, about the power of judges to judge you, as a person (in personam jurisdiction), or to issue judgment over a thing (say, a ship) (in rem jurisdiction), or to preside over a case on a specific subject matter (example: family court) (subject matter jurisdiction).

It does not refer to the police power, which is executive branch stuff. It does not refer to the power to make rules, which is legislative branch stuff. It is a very specific legal term that refers to the power of a specific court to judge a case and impose a penalty.

"JURIS" means law. "Diction" refers to speaking. Jurisdiction refers to the power of a judge to pronounce a binding decision at law. Murder is illegal in the USA and everywhere else, but US courts do not have the jurisdiction to try murder cases that happen between two regular Norwegians in Trondheim. It didn't happen on us soil (the location was not subject to US courts), it did not happen between people who could be haled before US Courts (US courts can't judge Norwegians in Norway for things that happen in Norway). The crime committed there is a crime here too, and US cops could certainly arrest the Norwegian culprit who got caught here, if there were an Interpol report or an international warrant. But the district attorney could not bring that murder case before the state court, because the crime didn't happen under US jurisdiction, and the persons involved were not subject to US law when they did it.

On the other hand, a Norwegian traveler killing another Norwegian while in a US airport CAN be tried in US court for the murder, because it occurred on US soil, and whatever happens on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction...unless it happened in the Norwegian embassy (then things get murky and there might be a fight IF Norway wasn't going to hold the killer accountable), or unless the killer was a Norwegian diplomat. Then he could be arrested, but whether or not he could be tried would depend on the terms of our agreement with Norway. Norway could waive diplomatic immunity, and then our courts could try the guy.

Jurisdiction is a legal term with a specific meaning: it refers to the authority of the courts to try a case. Illegal aliens can be tried for anything they do on US soil. Therefore, they are subject to US jurisdiction, full stop. That's what the word means. It doesn't mean subject to arrest, it means subject to trial.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-11-01   16:45:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: All (#0)

You might want to read page 2890 of The Congressional Globe dated 30 May 1866.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage? collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

"I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the US and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the US".

"This will not of course include persons born in the US who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the US but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the US".

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!

CZ82  posted on  2018-11-01   16:48:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Vicomte13 (#47)

Vic you're a smart guy no doubt. You have also been taught things that is legalise talking points bullshit. Read cz82s post above this and see the truth.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-11-01   17:01:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: A K A Stone (#49)

The Immigration Bill of 1897 would have required immigrants to pass a literacy test.

Was / is that a good idea?

Why or why not.

VxH  posted on  2018-11-01   17:09:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: VxH (#8)

You the only commie here.

You are the biggest CT person on this site and that says a good deal about you.

Justified  posted on  2018-11-01   18:23:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Justified (#51) (Edited)

Spam deleted. Take the day off.

VxH  posted on  2018-11-01   18:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (53 - 80) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com