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.
Man I hope this goes through and is signed. I doubt it,I mean we have Reid and Obama who both hate America and want it turned into Mexico so....
Sounds very sensible. Further more, we need a new treaty with all countries that we allow visas of entry with. this new treaty will state that if any of their citizens gives birth to a child within our borders, and the mother/parents entered illegally, are in violation of US immigration laws, or reside illegally within the US, that child will be a citizen of the country of their parents, and not a US citizen.
And yet I have given you the exact wording as to why illegals must register (MSSA 453), yet they can not be conscripted unless an act of Congress somehow allows them legality (INA 101(a)(13)).
which shows yet again that you are not able to understand what Conscription is. OUR military is purely voluntary.
Quote:
So you now use dicta from a dissenting opinion as proof, in which, he equates "freemen" to that of citizen of a State based on the fact they could vote as registered "freemen".
And yet I have given you the exact wording as to why illegals must register (MSSA 453), yet they can not be conscripted unless an act of Congress somehow allows them legality (INA 101(a)(13)).
MSSA 453 gives only one "why" for anybody, and it is the same why for everybody. They must register in case we decide to draft them.
INA 101(a)(13) reads as follows:
Quote:
(13)(A)The terms "admission" and "admitted" mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
(B) An alien who is paroled under section 212(d)(5) or permitted to land temporarily as an alien crewman shall not be considered to have been admitted.
(C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien-
(i) has abandoned or relinquished that status,
(ii) has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days,
(iii) has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States,
(iv) has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under this Act and extradition proceedings,
(v) has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2), unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 212(h) or 240A(a), or
(vi) is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
Nothing here has anything even vaguely remotely to do with the Selective Service System. You are at this point simply blowing smoke randomly, not even trying to make any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
You making claims still doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect that illegals can be drafted. IIRCA(1996) doesn't allow for them to be drafted, take it up with Clinton for signing the Bill. Prior to 1996, yea, they could have been drafted.
Please, quote for us all the section that exempts them from the draft. I'll wait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
A claim from a footnote (22) from Plyler, from a book as written by Bouve?
Sorry, that's not SC precedent.
It references Bouve, but is not "as written" by him. These are Justice Brennan's words. And you have nothing that contradicts them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
So you now use dicta from a dissenting opinion as proof, in which, he equates "freemen" to that of citizen of a State based on the fact they could vote as registered "freemen".
No. I have a statement of objective fact by a Justice of the US Supreme Court that prior to the 14th Amendment several states granted citizenship (to include the right to vote) to free blacks. And you have nothing that contradicts it.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 01-22-2013 at 07:05 PM..
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns Again, legal immigrants can be conscripted if and when the US initiates a draft.
Actually, I want to take this moment to admit an earlier error. I have checked, and LR is correct that legal aliens can be conscripted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
which shows you do not know what dicta is.
Please just stop embarrassing yourself.
You do know that the dissent as addressed by Curtis and Mclean holds as much water as a net right. The arguments and opinions of dissent are only dicta. Curtis and Mclean's dissent hold no precedent or for that matter, anything at all.
Please, catch-up before you start making allegations that make yourself look the fool.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-22-2013 at 08:13 PM..
MSSA 453 gives only one "why" for anybody, and it is the same why for everybody. They must register in case we decide to draft them.
Your half correct, they must register due to 453. However due to INA 101(a)(13) they can not be conscripted (drafted for the laymen) due to as I have shown
Quote:
The adoption of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 revised section 101(a)(13) to eliminate the concept of “entry” from the immigration framework, and replaced it with a paradigm that distinguishes among aliens based on whether they were lawfully admitted into the United States or illegally entered the country.207 In the current version, which reflects the 1996 amendments, section 101(a)(13) uses the term “admission,” which is defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.”208 An alien who has not been lawfully admitted is subject
to removal proceedings in accordance with INA section 240, notwithstanding his length of residence in the United States.209 Although physically present within the United States, aliens who are not admitted into the country are not considered U.S. residents.210
INA 101(a)(13) reads as follows:
Nothing here has anything even vaguely remotely to do with the Selective Service System. You are at this point simply blowing smoke randomly, not even trying to make any sense.
So your issue is that it doesn't pertain? I hate it when Law Review articles show YOU to be incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Please, quote for us all the section that exempts them from the draft. I'll wait.
Now I have to do your homework for you? Hell I already gave you the quoted paragraph and the appropriate INA numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
It references Bouve, but is not "as written" by him. These are Justice Brennan's words. And you have nothing that contradicts them.
Lets place your quote into the context of the footnote (obiter dictum) and continue with it from where you left off. ...Appellants have not shown that the families of undocumented children do not comply with the established standards by which the State historically tests residence. Apart from the alienage limitation, § 21.031(b) requires a school district to provide education only to resident children. The school districts of the State are as free to apply to undocumented children established criteria for determining residence as they are to apply those criteria to any other child who seeks admission.
Footnotes really hold no value in the case other than reference to something, in this case Bouve, and not any case precedent or holding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
No. I have a statement of objective fact by a Justice of the US Supreme Court that prior to the 14th Amendment several states granted citizenship (to include the right to vote) to free blacks. And you have nothing that contradicts it.
NO, YOU have a dissenting Judges claim as made by assumption and opinion where the judge is "equating" one thing to another based on his opinion.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-22-2013 at 08:15 PM..
Your half correct, they must register due to 453. However due to INA 101(a)(13) they can not be conscripted (drafted for the laymen) due to as I have shown.
You have shown nothing of the sort. Exactly nothing in your link or the cut and paste from it even pretends to address conscription. You are waving your hands in the air hoping beyond hope that we won't notice that there is nothing there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
So your issue is that it doesn't pertain? I hate it when Law Review articles show YOU to be incorrect.
First you have to find one that does that. Neither the law, nor the law review article even mentions conscription.
You fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Now I have to do your homework for you? Hell I already gave you the quoted paragraph and the appropriate INA numbers.
First and foremost, why not? I regularly have had to do your homework for you.
But in this case you have to do no homework for me. You have to support your claim. I asked you to do so, and all I get instead is hand waving. Either quote for us all the section that exempts them from the draft or admit that it does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Lets place your quote into the context of the footnote and continue with it from where you left off. ...Appellants have not shown that the families of undocumented children do not comply with the established standards by which the State historically tests residence. Apart from the alienage limitation, § 21.031(b) requires a school district to provide education only to resident children. The school districts of the State are as free to apply to undocumented children established criteria for determining residence as they are to apply those criteria to any other child who seeks admission.
How do you hallucinate that helped you? It supports my position directly, and devastates your own by asserting that the appellants failed to show what you keep insisting is true. It is even worse when we include what preceded it:
Quote:
It is thus clear that Tyler's residence argument amounts to nothing more than the assertion that illegal entry, without more, prevents a person from becoming a resident for purposes of enrolling his children in the public schools. A State may not, however, accomplish what would otherwise be prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause merely by defining a disfavored group as nonresident. And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State. C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 340 (1912). Appellants have not shown that the families of undocumented children do not comply with the established standards by which the State historically tests residence. Apart from the alienage limitation, § 21.031(b) requires a school district to provide education only to resident children. The school districts of the State are as free to apply to undocumented children established criteria for determining residence as they are to apply those criteria to any other child who seeks admission.
The section in whole and in its parts explicitly asserts that an illegal alien is as much a resident as a legal alien and has no problem establishing domicile. Everything you have claimed about residence and domicile is wrong.
Everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Footnotes really hold no value in the case other than reference to something, in this case Bouve, and not any case precedent or holding.
Are you insane? Footnotes are as much a part of the decision as anything else, and are often referenced by subsequent courts for their explication of the reasoning and the background of cited precedence. It explicitly contradicts every claim you have ever made regarding the residence and domicile status for illegal aliens. You have nothing with which to counter it.
So your limp excuse is that "footnotes really hold no value?" Really? That's all you've got?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
NO, YOU have a dissenting Judges claim as made by assumption and opinion where the judge is "equating" one thing to another based on his opinion.
1) It is not just any dissenting opinion. It is the dissenting opinion that was formalized into law not merely as statute but as a constitutional amendment.
2) It is not an assumption or an opinion. It is a statement of objective fact, not an analogy. Again, the statement is "Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens."
Nothing ambiguous, no analogy, not opinion or assumption. They were citizens.
Not sure what minorities have to do with anything, but what I don't want is automatic citizenship for anyone who happens to be born within US borders or territories.
What you're saying is end this anchor baby BS which I agree with. The parents need to get in line behind everyone else and come into this country legally.
If the baby has one legal US citizen for a parent, then it's a citizen. Two illegal parents=illegal baby.
You do know that the dissent as addressed by Curtis and Mclean holds as much water as a net right. The arguments and opinions of dissent are only dicta. Curtis and Mclean's dissent hold no precedent or for that matter, anything at all.
The depth and breadth of historical cluelessness necessary to allow a person to pretend that the dissents in Scott v. Sandford are "only dicta" is profound, almost beyond words. That is the equivalent of calling an alligator a lizard, of describing Albert Einstein as "smart," or of calling Nate Silver a "good guesser." The Dred Scott decision is not recognized as the single worst decision in all of American Jurisprudence just for fun. And the dissents are not merely the losing side of a court case.
Do dissents create binding precedent? No. Are they often cited as "persuasive authority?" Absolutely. And in this case their persuasive authority was so powerful that they ultimately became an Amendment to the United States Constitution. They were the dissents that history has declared correct.
But even that is not to the point here. We are not speaking of their power as "legal reasoning." They are not reasoning at all. They are objective statements of historical fact.
Prior to 1866 free blacks could be (and often were) citizens of the United States.
You have shown nothing of the sort. Exactly nothing in your link or the cut and paste from it even pretends to address conscription. You are waving your hands in the air hoping beyond hope that we won't notice that there is nothing there.
Nothing but word games from you. Illegals must register with Selective Service, Yet they are exempt from service.
Quote:
Sec. 456. Deferments and exemptions from training and service
(a) [ Exemptions from Registration and Service ]
-16-
(1) Commissioned officers, warrant officers, pay clerks, enlisted men, and
aviation cadets of the Regular Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine
Corps, the Coast Guard, and the Environmental Science Services
Administration; cadets, United States Military Academy; midshipmen, United
States Naval Academy; cadets, United States Air Force Academy; cadets,
United States Coast Guard Academy; midshipmen, Merchant Marine
Reserve, United States Naval Reserves; students enrolled in an officer
procurement program at military colleges the curriculum of which is
approved by the Secretary of Defense; members of the reserve components
of the Armed Forces and the Coast Guard, while on active duty; and foreign
diplomatic representatives, technical attacheAE1s of foreign embassies and
legations, consuls general, consuls, vice consuls and other consular agents
of foreign countries who are not citizens of the United States, and members
of their families, and persons in other categories to be specified by the
President who are not citizens of the United States, shall not be required to
be registered under section 3 (section 453 of this Appendix) and shall be
relieved from liability for training and service under section 4 (section 454 of
this Appendix), except that aliens admitted for permanent residence in the
United States shall not be so exempted:
If the draft was tomorrow, illegal aliens could not be drafted
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
First you have to find one that does that. Neither the law, nor the law review article even mentions conscription.
You fail.
Funny, my link has the word "conscript" and its variations atleast 10 times in it. Looks like you failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
First and foremost, why not? I regularly have had to do your homework for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
But in this case you have to do no homework for me. You have to support your claim. I asked you to do so, and all I get instead is hand waving. Either quote for us all the section that exempts them from the draft or admit that it does not exist.
Lets see, I have shown they must register, then I showed they can not be conscripted due to IIRCA INA 101(a)(13). Although physically present within the United States, aliens who are not admitted into the country are not considered U.S. residents.INA 235(a)(1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
How do you hallucinate that helped you? It supports my position directly, and devastates your own by asserting that the appellants failed to show what you keep insisting is true. It is even worse when we include what preceded it:
The section in whole and in its parts explicitly asserts that an illegal alien is as much a resident as a legal alien and has no problem establishing domicile. Everything you have claimed about residence and domicile is wrong.
Are you insane? Footnotes are as much a part of the decision as anything else, and are often referenced by subsequent courts for their explication of the reasoning and the background of cited precedence. It explicitly contradicts every claim you have ever made regarding the residence and domicile status for illegal aliens. You have nothing with which to counter it.
So your limp excuse is that "footnotes really hold no value?" Really? That's all you've got?
Footnotes are mere dicta, thanks for playing. Hillebrand v. Supervised Estate of Large “a footnote’s legal value is merely dicta at best.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
1) It is not just any dissenting opinion. It is the dissenting opinion that was formalized into law not merely as statute but as a constitutional amendment.
2) It is not an assumption or an opinion. It is a statement of objective fact, not an analogy. Again, the statement is "Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens."
Nothing ambiguous, no analogy, not opinion or assumption. They were citizens.
Freemen did not equal citizen of the State at any time in our history. Whether the dissent ended up as a Constitutional amendment or not has no bearing on the fact that prior to Freemen of color were not considered citizens, the dissent equates them, nothing more.
Free Blacks of the time exercised the rights of citizens by possessing the right to vote in certain states. Free Blacks could vote, in some states they could hold office, that did not make them citizens as Curtis claims. He is equating based on the State allowing rights to Freemen. His opinion they were citizens based on his equating doesn't make it so no matter how hard you attempt to change it, and no matter how he claims otherwise. A child born to a Freeman was also a Freeman and not a born citizen until after 1866. You don't get to re-write history, it is what it is.
wow, the lengths that someone will go to stay willfully ignorant, when his own sources doesn't support his claims.
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.
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.
Nothing but word games from you. Illegals must register with Selective Service, Yet they are exempt from service. 
