Posted on 05/22/2006 12:49:34 PM PDT by SmithL
I quoted your entire post.
I can't help it if you post stupid things.
It's a matter of what the law will be going forward.
Your INTERPRETATION of the meaning of my post is the misrepresentation of which I spoke.
Especially considering that probably more American men are married to foreign women than vice-versa. Consider servicemen stationed overseas, businessmen, husbands of mail-order brides, etc.
Exactly.
Shall we deny all those men the right to pass citizenship to their children solely because they're men?
The very idea is both absurd and anathema to American values. Worthy of a feminist rant, not a FReeper.
Are the tourists or visiting businessmen "subject to the jurisdiction of ..." who DO NOT WANT for their newborn children US citizenship? Are the foreign diplomats "subject to the jurisdiction of ..."? If not why people who are illegaly here should be?
Are the foreign diplomats "subject to the jurisdiction of ..."? If not why people who are illegaly here should be?
Bad example. Foreign diplomats are specifically exempted from our laws. We can't prosecute them for crimes committed in the United States, we can only boot them out of the country.
Unless you're willing to argue that deportation is the only legal remedy we have against illegals who commit crimes in our nation, you have proven the point that they are subject to the jurisdiction.
Being temporarily in a legal domain is something else that belonging to the jurisdiction. Imagine a tourist whose child happen to be born prematurely in USA and who did not want it to happen, and whose child later does not want to come to USA. Is this child a subject to US taxation, US military draft, considered a traitor if serving in army of the REAL home country etc ...? It is absurd.
Is this child a subject to US taxation, US military draft, considered a traitor if serving in army of the REAL home country etc ...?
This child is if it then decides to live in the United States as an adult.
I could be wrong, but don't dual citizens (as would be this case) have to declare before they reach majority? If the child does not want his US Citizenship, he has ample opportunity to reject it.
That doesn't have anything to do with trying to pretend that illegals are not "subject to the jurisdiction" simply because we don't like the law and can't be bothered to change it.
No more "anchor babies"!!!!!
Change the constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.