Birthright Citizenship Act would clarify 'under the jurisdiction'

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

And yet Indians were denied as even Gray adds. So yea, Congress can alter the meaning for children born of foreigners here by statute.

What part of "England has no Indians" (and hence "English common law has no Indians") do you continue to not get?

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

and yet I have given you the definition of Common Law, go figure.

You have linked to a definition you still explicitly do not understand.

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

It must be interpreted in the light of common law, not that common law is what confers BRC. Understand the case citations that Gray refers to. he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision

And of course under Anglo-American common law, anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a citizen by birthright.

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

That's a lot of envisioning. From Gray: a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question. That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was
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 of course, under more than a half millennium of Anglo-American common law, this would mean anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

What in your quoted paragraph mentions illegal aliens? (here is where you come back saying it doesn't need to because they aren't one of the 3 things Gray says can not obtain BRC by Common Law.)

There was no such thing as illegal aliens at the time the passage was written.

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

A person with an overt ego, who woulda thunk it!

What does that even mean?

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

I'll sum you up real quick, you fail to comprehend the discussion. I give you the definition of Common Law and you still tell me I am wrong? I show you that Common Law laws were in place prior to the US Revolution, and you still tell me I am wrong? You have some serious issues especially since you continue to change your claims to make yourself look correct. You claim my statement to be false, yet go right into proving it correct except you change dates and then limit it to what you want to say I am incorrect. You've become a joke. LMFAO

Your resort to half-assed amateur psychoanalysis is pretty much a surrender of the thread.

You do not have a clue as to what "common law" is. You linked to a definition that contradicts you completely. I have changed not a single claim in the entire thread, and I have demonstrated by citation to case law that you are, in fact, completely in error.

I am content with your laughter. It should make it easier to observe you abandoning the field.

[Liquid Reigns]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

What part of "England has no Indians" (and hence "English common law has no Indians") do you continue to not get?

You prove my point, you can't follow along with simple comprehension.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

You have linked to a definition you still explicitly do not understand.

SMH

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

There was no such thing as illegal aliens at the time the passage was written.

And you did, predictable.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

What does that even mean?

[Liquid Reigns]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

Your resort to half-assed amateur psychoanalysis is pretty much a surrender of the thread.

You do not have a clue as to what "common law" is. You linked to a definition that contradicts you completely. I have changed not a single claim in the entire thread, and I have demonstrated by citation to case law that you are, in fact, completely in error.

I am content with your laughter. It should make it easier to observe you abandoning the field.

A person with an overt ego, who woulda thunk it!

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

You prove my point, you can't follow along with simple comprehension.

You had no point. You are at this point simply flailing.

[Yac]

Seriously, . I'd comment more, but I'd just end up insulting people, like you two.
Closed.
Yac.