Posted on 07/11/2010 8:49:50 PM PDT by Lmo56
I’ve been trying to figure this out …
The 14th Amendment declares that anyone born in the US and under its jurisdiction is a citizen. But what about the children of the Russian spies, are they citizens?
Those that claim that they are citizens say that the 14th Amendment declares it so and that the only exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction are the children of ambassadors and children of enemies. But these children’s parents did not fall under those exceptions. They were not ambassadors [or have diplomatic immunity], nor is Russia a declared enemy of the U.S. They just did not properly register with the U.S. as Russian agents. Thus, the parents were illegal aliens.
If the government decides that the children of the Russian agents are not citizens because of this lack of proper registration, then are “anchor babies” of illegal aliens [mostly Hispanic] also not citizens? Their parents also have not registered with the U.S.
we got a muzzie in the white house with intent to demolish the USA and CHANGE it into a socialist autocracy! !
"AOL News spoke to Jane Spinak, a law professor and the co-founder of the Child Advocacy Clinic at Columbia University, to learn about what may be in store for the children of the accused agents.
...
What's the legal status of the children?
If the children were born here, then they are citizens. If they are citizens, then they can't be deported. Either they are foreign nationals and so they don't have a right to be here, or they were born here and so they're citizens and they have a right to stay, regardless of what happens to their parents."
Not true Spinak.
Regardless, it was not MY OPINION. Got it?
I merely read or heard something and repeated it. I’ll let you “experts” expound in it now.
Thank you for living up to my expectation and searching by the way, but the analysis is laughably amateur. We routinely see better on FR both pro and con.
AOL ain't what it used to be, and it never was much.
I never said it was your opinion.
There are two types of spie: the ones who are attached to an embassy and are accredited diplomats and the ones who are simply in-country, masquerading as something they are not.
The first category are diplomats not subject to the jurisdiction of the host country. If they get caught, diplomatic immunity means the worst punishment is they get sent home. They don't even have to pay their parking tickets. (And their kids, if any, are furriners, as would be expected.)
However, the second category are subject to the jurisdiction. If they get caught, the Justice Department can land on them like a ton of bricks, and they are screwed blue and royally tatooed, unless an exchange or such can be negotiated. (But their kids, if any, are eligible to become president, such is 14th Amendment law.)
Once again, I have not given my opinion on whether the children are citizens.
I entered into this thread merely repeated what I heard or read and you come out ready to paint me as a heretic.
Are you drinking or drunk? You are not using normal judgment.
Ms. Spinak is apparently unaware that some of these Russian spy parents were naturalized, stripped of their citizenship and deported to their nation of origin rather than tried in a court of law.
Well, we have someone here on this thread that is going hog wild that I am somehow “guilty” because I posted what I read or heard. And smearing me in the process.
The opinion for which I thanked you was your calling me “an a—,” BunnySlippers. Isn’t that fairly clear?
Now, you have a good night, you hear?
Your hysterics are no more effective in opposition here than they are in support on Apple threads, BunnySlippers. I say that as someone who is on the same side on those Apple threads.
Maybe you should reconsider your approach.
You are are an a— for attacking me for merely saying I heard something. I was not giving you my opinion.
Regardless, you are a rude and ignorant person who cannot parse a sentence!
Hohoho! So this has to do with Apple!
Hahahahah!
You are THAT angry with Apple! LOLOOLOOL.
Again, are you drinking or drunk?
I’ve carefully thanked you for your every, ever-so-kind comment directed my way, BunnySlippers.
My ability to parse a sentence is better than yours, apparently.
But really, you should try to avoid the hysterics, it does nothing but disrupt the thread, whether you’re in support, opposition or merely driveby posting.
You might want to read that reply again, BunnySlippers. I suggest you do.
I NEVER took a stand on this issue. Never. And you are over the top!
You are looking for a confrontation.
And you are obsessed about the Apple threads. Get some sleep, please!
We are unfortunately on the same side on those threads, BunnySlippers.
Do you understand this yet?
I have. Why would you drag Apple in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM into this issue? Shouldn’t you be going to bed now?
I do understand. Why even mention Apple?
Look at my FIRST post. i never said anything that voiced an OPINION. Yet you excoriate me!
You intended to driveby post leaving a vague, unsourced “saw it somewhere, maybe heard it” saying that the issue had been “decided.”
It hasn’t.
Now, you go take whatever it is you clearly need to take, and I’ll call it a night, OK?
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.