Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Mother`s Day to all Moms!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:32 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,311 posts, read 45,022,208 times
Reputation: 13783

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
please cite these educated experts who concur with your opinion.
Again, I'm not stating my opinion. I'm stating the 14th Amendment, actual federal law, and the facts of the actual historic record.

It's you all who seem to want to insert your "opinion" to make the Constitution and federal law mean whatever you imagine it does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:32 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,938,173 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Out of context, perhaps.

In the context of the 14th Amendment and the federal nationality law on which it was based, we know that the definition is such:

"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.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif

Trumbull's role in drafting and introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
Committee History
I understand that you've dug yourself so deep into this argument that there's no way for you to ever abandon this interpretation, but the simple truth is that jurisdiction is never incomplete. Jurisdiction is what it is. The ONLY people on US soil who are not subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States are diplomats and members of an invading army. In Trumbull's day, American Indians were another exception, hence your reference. But that exception no longer applies. Today, and when President Obama was born, the ONLY exceptions were diplomats and members of an invading army. President Obama was born a United States citizen because he was born in Hawaii. That British law may have also conferred citizenship is irrelevant to the laws of the United States. AMERICAN law determines who is an AMERICAN citizen, without consideration of the laws of other countries. That's why you can be a dual citizen in the United States. And there are many dual citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:33 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,938,173 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Again, I'm not stating my opinion. I'm stating the 14th Amendment, actual federal law, and the facts of the actual historic record.

It's you all who seem to want to insert your "opinion" to make the Constitution and federal law mean whatever you imagine it does.
And funnily enough, it's WE who keep on winning in court. And your "opinion" is the one that keeps failing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:36 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,311 posts, read 45,022,208 times
Reputation: 13783
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
NO, I admit that other countries have different laws. That's it.
Then why balk at U.S. law in the U.S.? U.S. nationality law requires one born in the U.S. to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in order to acquire U.S. birthright citizenship, a requirement which abides by the superior 14th Amendment.

We know the definition of the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement because it's a matter of public record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:39 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,311 posts, read 45,022,208 times
Reputation: 13783
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I understand that you've dug yourself so deep into this argument
I've dug nothing. I've stated the 14th Amendment and actual historical facts.

I know you're frustrated but you simply cannot make the 14th Amendment and actual historic facts disappear because you don't like them, or whatever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:41 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,311 posts, read 45,022,208 times
Reputation: 13783
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And funnily enough, it's WE who keep on winning in court.
Winning? Based on what? A flawed Ankeny interpretation of a severely flawed reference in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark?

I guess you'll take what you can get. Truth be damned.

Idiocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:42 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,938,173 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So you admit that sovereign countries deny citizenship to those born within their boundaries but are foreign citizens/subjects because they were born to alien parents.

Those sovereign countries recognize other countries' nationality laws. You've just admitted it.
No, dear. Those sovereign countries decide who is and who isn't a citizen based on the sovereign country's laws. Their laws aren't dependent on the laws of other nations.

In your argument, our laws do depend on the laws of other nations. And how do we know this to be a facet of your argument? Because your argument is that the United States has to change its decisions depending on which country a person hails from. If President Obama's father had been from Morocco, then your argument would have to be different. And that's not how it works. A sovereign country has to craft its own laws independent from the laws of other countries. It cannot craft its laws so that citizenship depends on whether a person's father came from Italy or from Japan or from Brazil. The law has to be uniformly applied regardless of where a person's father came from. That's what give laws primacy, that they can be applied uniformly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:43 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,938,173 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
But they haven't yet. You have been unable to cite any federal law or Constitutional Amendment supporting any of your claims.
SO YOU ADMIT that there is no law that clarifies what a natural-born citizen is. YOU ADMIT IT!!!! Hallelujah and amen!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:45 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,311 posts, read 45,022,208 times
Reputation: 13783
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
No, dear. Those sovereign countries decide who is and who isn't a citizen based on the sovereign country's laws.
As does the U.S. which REQUIRES one to be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. at birth.

You just proved my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2013, 10:50 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,311 posts, read 45,022,208 times
Reputation: 13783
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
SO YOU ADMIT that there is no law that clarifies what a natural-born citizen is.
If it requires a law for a definition, it's statutory, not natural or Constitutional.

I'll quote the State Dept on that:
"In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:03 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top