Posted on 05/22/2010 2:17:14 PM PDT by pissant
According to the retards, yes. We will change that.
If you did that, you would never get anything done in real life ... :-)
What makes you think anyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen?
See Post #13 ...
Life is what happens when you’re making other plans.
Agreed.
This question is not settled. So far Kagan trades one progressive for another. The next one may change the balance. The Kenyan needs to go.
Meanwhile, the burden of unchecked illegal immigration is in the face of state budgets. Momentum favors us for a short while...
I'm familiar with Ark, and the only way the finding in Ark can be reconciled with the Constitution goes back to English law and the concept of Intent [as in knowledge, consent, and full disclosure].
Arks parents legally resided in the US, and, could not by law become citizens because of the treaty with the Emperor of China.
But what was their intent? Would they, given the opportunity, BECOME Americans? If their intent was to be American, then yes, their son was a native born US citizen.
Had they intended to stay Chinese without trying to assimilate into their adopted country, then no. Ark would have been born a Chinese national even though he was born here.
[This conclusion was based mostly on Vattel's Law of Nations, BTW]
-----
You're quite welcome for the link. I read your posts quite often and enjoy your insights. We must have a great interest in the same subject matter because we always seem to be on the same threads. ;-)
-----
If you enjoy such writings, are you familiar with St George Tucker's View of the Constitution of the United States ?
IMHO, it's the definitive work for discerning the original Intent of the Founders.
Part of Tucker's annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries, it was printed and distributed solely for the purpose of explaining the newly created Constitution to the People.
The original concept of Constitutional treason wasn't what we were all taught it was.....
In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
emphasis mine
The administrative law of government trying to blend it's laws with the civil laws of the People is treason.
Things like health care, for instance.
What do think is being ignored, or are you simply ignoring it more?
WKA was addressing someone born of alien parents who were in the US legally, long term for business. As such, they set up their child as analogous to natural born subjects. This is explained in the first half dozen pages - and natural born subjects were such even if their parents were both aliens.
HOWEVER, natural born subjects did NOT address those born of illegals, since illegals in the 1600s would have been executed as spies.
Nor does WKA address those born from parents here as tourists. It would support the idea that someone here illegally, owing allegiance to another country, is NOT a citizen.
A state cannot determine citizenship. It COULD decide how to interpret certain legal phrases as applying to state procedures, which would force a court case since other states would have a different standard. However, AZ is getting ample heat from illegals and the illegal-loving Obama that I see no chance whatsoever of any such law passing.
HOWEVER, natural born subjects did NOT address those born of illegals, since illegals in the 1600s would have been executed as spies.
You don't need a law if you want to get a clarification of this point and make sure that no illegal aliens' kids get citizenship. All that has to be done is to set up a legal case in regards to this (with any appropriate person for this kind of case) and dispute citizenship status in the case. Carry the case to the Supreme Court, get them to hear it and have the issue clarified that way.
If it is as you say, then the Supreme Court will given a decision that reflects your understanding.
One could get such a law passed (as is talked about in this thread) and have a case come up on account of that law, as it would be disputed (by those opposing that law), but I'm afraid that kind of law would be overturned on another basis, than the one you're talking about, so that kind of court case would not accomplish anything.
For me, it's strains credulity to say that something has been done illegally by the United States all this time and everyone knew it too (namely from that understanding that you have from that Supreme Court decision) -- for over 100 years and yet not a single case has been brought up in that 100 years to get the "right thing done" by the US Government and its agencies.
NOT according to the retards—according to the Constitution of the United States of America. See, I think I have more of a right to claim the US as a homeland than you likely do. My ancestors roamed the central plains centuries before Europeans came here. And I would stand against changing the Constitution to exclude natural born citizens. You go right ahead and proceed to change the Constitution—you will fail, and I will help see that you do. I always surprises me when fellow Conservatives want to dump the Constitution. But I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised anymore.
It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. It has everything to do with moving BACK to its original intent. And no, illegal aliens from Mexico, or anywhere else, are NOT native, natural, or any other kind of citizen, no matter how much you and the libtards tell us they are.
Hey, a chat mate for Star Traveler. Enjoy each other’s company.
OR...instead of a lie detector test maybe what we should do is hold all candidates to their campaign promises the same way we hold all companies responsible for all THEIR advertising and promises.
If a president elect says they will do something and then after elected doesn’t...then immediate impeachment. false advertising is illegal.
They already have. These children are no more citizens of the US than the children of foreign diplomats who happen to be born here. The law is quite clear on the matter.
Sorry, Pissant. What you suggest has EVERYTHING to do with the Constitution. The ORIGINAL intent of the Constitution was to guaranteed that people who were born in the United States are automatically citizens—no need to bribe anyone for citizenship or to use one’s influence or corruption to become citizens. Your proposition is absolutely without foundation and flawed. At what point to do you stop, Pissant? Blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians who are born here are citizens but brown-skinned people are not? You are giving the Mexicans-are-the-only-ones-who-will-be-asked-for-identifications the ammunition they are dying for to prove that Conservatives are racists. You are wrong. Accept it. Read your Constitution again.
You are now resorting to race baiting? Nice. Not sure how this statement gets you there: And no, illegal aliens from Mexico, or anywhere else, are NOT native, natural, or any other kind of citizen., but hey, leaps of logic like that help you justify the libtards interpretation of the this.
Conservatives KNOW better. There are 92 cosponsors of Brian Bilbray's bill to prohibit anchor babies. Of course, Nancy and Obama are in your camp. Enjoy.
I had always respected you, pissant, but that has ended. You have not give me ONE Constitutionally-based and well-reasoned argument for your proposal to change the Constitution. And, if you were hit by the fact that your arguments are racist-based, then you’ll have to live with it, because that’s what they are. And I don’t care How many sponsors the bill has, I fully believe that it will be found unconstitutional, and it will go away. By the way, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, who routinely ignore the Constitution, are in YOUR camp. YOU enjoy.
Well, it's one of the byproducts of hanging on to a liberal court's and Pelosi's interpretation of the citizen clause in the constitution. It's one of the byproducts of believing the Founders intended for those who illegally invaded our country to get to squat out citizens. It's one of the byproducts of you thinking you peripheral knowledge of the subject is greater than that of those who have studied this for many years, including myself and many constitutionalists and scholars. So be it.
Here is one referenced in a George Will piece here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html
You have not give me ONE Constitutionally-based and well-reasoned argument for your proposal to change the Constitution.
I have too. Let me be clear, THE FOUNDERS DID NOT INTEND FOR ILLEGAL INVADERS, CITIZENS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WHO ILLEGALLY ENTERED OUR TERRITORY TO BE GIVEN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR THEIR ILLEGAL SPAWN. It's that simple. You can cling to the open borders crowd's wet dream, but we are going to end it. I'll send you a box of kleenex when we do.
And of course you don't care how many constitutionally minded conservatives sponsor the bill. You desperately want the illegal spawn to be citizens. Just like Obama, Pelosi, and all the open borders advocates.
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.