Discussion:
Anchor Babies are not U.S. citizens they are citizens of Mexico according to the Mexican Constitution
(demasiado antiguo para responder)
Jose
2011-01-06 18:21:59 UTC
Permalink
BorderFire Report -

"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."

http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-not-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-constitution.php
Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway criminals
2011-01-06 18:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
Of course anchor bablies are mexican citizens. That has never been in
dispute. But mexico has always claimed they are also american citizens
and stupid america has gone along with that.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-07 03:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-not
-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-con
stitution.php
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf


"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
The most common documents that establish U.S. citizenship are:
• Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf


"We can accept only certain documents as proof
of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth
certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S.
passport, Certificate of Naturalization or
Certificate of Citizenship."
US Social Security Administration
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html



"American citizenship is acquired by children born
in the United States, even though their parents were
always aliens, and even if the parents were themselves
ineligible to become citizens of the United States.
Nor has the acquisition of citizenship been affected
by the circumstance that the child's alien parents were
in the United States temporarily or even illegally at
the time the child was born."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Strabo
2011-01-08 08:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-not
-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-con
stitution.php
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
• Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"We can accept only certain documents as proof
of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth
certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S.
passport, Certificate of Naturalization or
Certificate of Citizenship."
US Social Security Administration
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html
"American citizenship is acquired by children born
in the United States, even though their parents were
always aliens, and even if the parents were themselves
ineligible to become citizens of the United States.
Nor has the acquisition of citizenship been affected
by the circumstance that the child's alien parents were
in the United States temporarily or even illegally at
the time the child was born."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Standard DOJ propaganda.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-08 14:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all
diplomatic
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-
not
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-
con
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
stitution.php
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
• Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"We can accept only certain documents as proof
of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth
certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S.
passport, Certificate of Naturalization or
Certificate of Citizenship."
US Social Security Administration
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html
"American citizenship is acquired by children born
in the United States, even though their parents were
always aliens, and even if the parents were themselves
ineligible to become citizens of the United States.
Nor has the acquisition of citizenship been affected
by the circumstance that the child's alien parents were
in the United States temporarily or even illegally at
the time the child was born."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Standard DOJ propaganda.
OK, let's say you get your way and birth certificates
no longer establish citizenship.

Then what does?
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-08 15:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.

T.Schmidt
Post by Jose
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the
US
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all
diplomatic
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
and legal forces at his disposal to..protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-
not
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-
con
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
stitution.php
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
. Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child's birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"We can accept only certain documents as proof
of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth
certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S.
passport, Certificate of Naturalization or
Certificate of Citizenship."
US Social Security Administration
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html
"American citizenship is acquired by children born
in the United States, even though their parents were
always aliens, and even if the parents were themselves
ineligible to become citizens of the United States.
Nor has the acquisition of citizenship been affected
by the circumstance that the child's alien parents were
in the United States temporarily or even illegally at
the time the child was born."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Standard DOJ propaganda.
OK, let's say you get your way and birth certificates
no longer establish citizenship.
Then what does?
n***@nada.com
2011-01-16 06:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.

"Mixed races cannot have nationality

But that's plain ridiculous. A huge proportion of the world is "mixed
race", which is a faulty concept at best. Recent advances in FNA
analysis show huge numbers of people have "mixed race" in their
genes.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-16 13:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-16 13:37:04 UTC
Permalink
The maximimum percentage of genes may be used. If a person has 99% of Jewish
genes he would be Jewish wherever is born. Or more than 50%, that would be
sufficient.

T.Schmidt
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Strabo
2011-01-17 05:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born. The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.

That's not too difficult for you is it?
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-17 13:42:35 UTC
Permalink
In Germany citizenship was determined by either parent. There was no birth
right.

T.Schmidt
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born. The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
That's not too difficult for you is it?
Strabo
2011-01-19 10:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@gmail.com
In Germany citizenship was determined by either parent. There was no birth
right.
Mother Russia and Father Germany. This came about from determining
bloodlines by either the mother or the father.

Modern states may differ in such criteria but this does not detract
from the need to formally recognize cultural and national
identification.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born. The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
That's not too difficult for you is it?
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-19 12:35:28 UTC
Permalink
However, most royal families in Europe are German. Talking about bloodlines.

T.Schmidt
P.S. Your genes are what makes you. Protect them.
Post by Strabo
Post by T***@gmail.com
In Germany citizenship was determined by either parent. There was no birth
right.
Mother Russia and Father Germany. This came about from determining
bloodlines by either the mother or the father.
Modern states may differ in such criteria but this does not detract
from the need to formally recognize cultural and national
identification.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born. The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
That's not too difficult for you is it?
Espanuelo
2011-01-19 18:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Post by T***@gmail.com
In Germany citizenship was determined by either parent. There was no birth
right.
Mother Russia and Father Germany. This came about from determining
bloodlines by either the mother or the father.
Modern states may differ in such criteria but this does not detract
from the need to formally recognize cultural and national
identification.
Male line: grandson, son, father, paternal grandfather,
paternal great-grandfather, paternal great-great-grandfather, ....

Female line: granddaughter, daughter, mother, maternal grandmother,
maternal great-grandmother, ...
Post by Strabo
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born. The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
That's not too difficult for you is it?
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-17 14:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was
used in Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races
cannot have nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
OK, lets see how that works:

Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.

Ronald Reagan was thus not an American - right?
Strabo
2011-01-19 10:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was
used in Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races
cannot have nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.
Mary Anne Elsey was a naturalized citizen. Her daughter, Nelle,
was a US citizen by virtue of being born in Fulton, Illinois.
Hence, her son, Ronald Reagan was a US citizen.

If however, the father had been a foreign national and Nelle
under aged, maybe not.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Ronald Reagan was thus not an American - right?
Keep working at it, you'll figure it out.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-19 13:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was
used in Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races
cannot have nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.
Mary Anne Elsey was a naturalized citizen. Her daughter, Nelle,
was a US citizen by virtue of being born in Fulton, Illinois.
That is to say, birthright citizenship.
Post by Strabo
Hence, her son, Ronald Reagan was a US citizen.
Reagan was a citizen because of birthright citizenship.
Strabo
2011-01-23 00:47:14 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.
Mary Anne Elsey was a naturalized citizen. Her daughter, Nelle,
was a US citizen by virtue of being born in Fulton, Illinois.
That is to say, birthright citizenship.
Post by Strabo
Hence, her son, Ronald Reagan was a US citizen.
Reagan was a citizen because of birthright citizenship.
Just because you learned a new word doesn't justify misusing it.

Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native-born
residents are not necessarily citizens.

Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance to
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen ones parents must be
native born.

A birthright was a medieval practice guaranteeing certain
positions or heritage based on age ranking within a
privileged family. Neither US common law nor statutory law
recognizes the concept of 'birthright'.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-23 03:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
<snipped>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.
Mary Anne Elsey was a naturalized citizen. Her daughter, Nelle,
was a US citizen by virtue of being born in Fulton, Illinois.
That is to say, birthright citizenship.
Post by Strabo
Hence, her son, Ronald Reagan was a US citizen.
Reagan was a citizen because of birthright citizenship.
Just because you learned a new word doesn't justify misusing it.
Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native-born
residents are not necessarily citizens.
Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance to
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen ones parents must be
native born.
So Mitt Romney is not a US citizen because his
father was born in Mexico?
Post by Strabo
A birthright was a medieval practice guaranteeing certain
positions or heritage based on age ranking within a
privileged family. Neither US common law nor statutory law
recognizes the concept of 'birthright'.
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)

7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION

d. All children born in and subject, at the time
of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States
acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their
parents were in the United States illegally at the
time of birth.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
Strabo
2011-01-24 08:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
<snipped>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.
Mary Anne Elsey was a naturalized citizen. Her daughter, Nelle,
was a US citizen by virtue of being born in Fulton, Illinois.
That is to say, birthright citizenship.
Post by Strabo
Hence, her son, Ronald Reagan was a US citizen.
Reagan was a citizen because of birthright citizenship.
Just because you learned a new word doesn't justify misusing it.
Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native-born
residents are not necessarily citizens.
Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance to
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen ones parents must be
native born.
So Mitt Romney is not a US citizen because his
father was born in Mexico?
Was he a naturalized citizen by the time his son was born?
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
A birthright was a medieval practice guaranteeing certain
positions or heritage based on age ranking within a
privileged family. Neither US common law nor statutory law
recognizes the concept of 'birthright'.
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
d. All children born in and subject, at the time
of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States
acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their
parents were in the United States illegally at the
time of birth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
And the IRS believes that US citizens automatically owe
federal taxes.

I note that most sections of these regulations were changed
in 2009. It has the stamp of Obama-Soetoro style Socialism.

1. Per the 14th A., foreign nationals are not *subject* to US
jurisdiction.

2. The regulation you cite is devoid of common sense and it
is unconstitutional.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-24 13:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
<snipped>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to
eliminate the birthright citizenship for anchor babies.
Citizenship should be determined by the citizenship of the
mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she
was born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.
Mary Anne Elsey was a naturalized citizen. Her daughter, Nelle,
was a US citizen by virtue of being born in Fulton, Illinois.
That is to say, birthright citizenship.
Post by Strabo
Hence, her son, Ronald Reagan was a US citizen.
Reagan was a citizen because of birthright citizenship.
Just because you learned a new word doesn't justify misusing it.
Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native-born
residents are not necessarily citizens.
Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance to
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen ones parents must be
native born.
So Mitt Romney is not a US citizen because his
father was born in Mexico?
Was he a naturalized citizen by the time his son was born?
Nope.

So explain how Mitt Romney is a Mexican even
tho he was born in the US.
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
A birthright was a medieval practice guaranteeing certain
positions or heritage based on age ranking within a
privileged family. Neither US common law nor statutory law
recognizes the concept of 'birthright'.
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
d. All children born in and subject, at the time
of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States
acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their
parents were in the United States illegally at the
time of birth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
And the IRS believes that US citizens automatically owe
federal taxes.
I note that most sections of these regulations were changed
in 2009. It has the stamp of Obama-Soetoro style Socialism.
1. Per the 14th A., foreign nationals are not *subject* to US
jurisdiction.
Tell that to all the foreign nationals in US prisons.
THEY seem to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of US laws.

Then tell to Manuel Noriega, who had never even been
to the US but was still a subject to US laws.
Post by Strabo
2. The regulation you cite is devoid of common sense and it
is unconstitutional.
"The 14th amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent,
includes the children born within the territory of the United
States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color,
domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject
of another country, while domiciled here, is within the
allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to
the jurisdiction, of the United States."

US Supreme Court, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649
Strabo
2011-01-30 05:14:38 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
d. All children born in and subject, at the time
of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States
acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their
parents were in the United States illegally at the
time of birth.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
And the IRS believes that US citizens automatically owe
federal taxes.
I note that most sections of these regulations were changed
in 2009. It has the stamp of Obama-Soetoro style Socialism.
1. Per the 14th A., foreign nationals are not *subject* to US
jurisdiction.
Tell that to all the foreign nationals in US prisons.
THEY seem to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of US laws.
Then tell to Manuel Noriega, who had never even been
to the US but was still a subject to US laws.
A foreign national being subject to criminal law is a decision
of the DOJ and State Department.

Unless a specific law applies in a specific case, jurisdiction
refers to the *ordinary* laws, rights and privileges of
citizens.

Your examples were not citizens and ordinary laws, rights and
privileges did not apply.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
2. The regulation you cite is devoid of common sense and it
is unconstitutional.
"The 14th amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent,
includes the children born within the territory of the United
States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color,
domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject
of another country, while domiciled here, is within the
allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to
the jurisdiction, of the United States."
US Supreme Court, United States v. Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649
Espanuelo
2011-01-19 18:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was
used in Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races
cannot have nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
Without birthright citizenship what determines the
citizenship of the mother?
Unless she officially changed citizenship, the country where she was
born.
That is birthright citizenship. Show us how
you determine citizenship WITHOUT reference to
where one was born.
Post by Strabo
The kid's citizenship is the same as that of the mother.
Ronald Reagan had the same citizenship as his
mother (Nellie Wilson), who had the same citizenship
as HER mother, (Mary Anne Elsey) who was born in
England in 1844.
Ronald Reagan was thus not an American - right?
In this case is citizenship.
American is a citizenship.
Do not confuse citizenship with nationality.
Citizenship is determined by regulations or rules.
Strabo
2011-01-17 05:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
"Mixed races cannot have nationality
But that's plain ridiculous. A huge proportion of the world is "mixed
race", which is a faulty concept at best. Recent advances in FNA
analysis show huge numbers of people have "mixed race" in their
genes.
Nevertheless, skin color or race is a major dividing point in
human society. The only places where multiple races lived with
minimal conflict were class/slave societies.

Take your pick:

- a mixed race scenario with constant conflict and threat of war;
- a mixed race scenario with one race enslaving the others;
- or, separation of races.
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-17 13:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Skin colour is very easy to determine, but has many difficulties. For
example, there are Aryans with dark skin. Under the skin all races are the
same, so we must look for something more representative and accurate. In
Canada is normal to accept diversity as a human characteristic. We let
others live the way they want and so far has been fairly good (but it could
be better). Not forcing separation is going to produce something like the
Latin-American, which is a mix of black, white and Indian.

T.Schmidt
P.S. Pure race would be most of our natives. But being pure has not proven
advantageous.
Post by Strabo
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
"Mixed races cannot have nationality
But that's plain ridiculous. A huge proportion of the world is "mixed
race", which is a faulty concept at best. Recent advances in FNA
analysis show huge numbers of people have "mixed race" in their
genes.
Nevertheless, skin color or race is a major dividing point in
human society. The only places where multiple races lived with
minimal conflict were class/slave societies.
- a mixed race scenario with constant conflict and threat of war;
- a mixed race scenario with one race enslaving the others;
- or, separation of races.
Strabo
2011-01-19 09:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@gmail.com
Skin colour is very easy to determine, but has many difficulties. For
example, there are Aryans with dark skin. Under the skin all races are the
same, so we must look for something more representative and accurate.
There are anatomical and physiological differences. How much they
influence perception and behavior is not known.
Post by T***@gmail.com
In
Canada is normal to accept diversity as a human characteristic. We let
others live the way they want and so far has been fairly good (but it could
be better).
People can live as they want so long as they don't obligate me.

When they band together to use government to limit my options
I get unhappy.
Post by T***@gmail.com
Not forcing separation is going to produce something like the
Latin-American, which is a mix of black, white and Indian.
There's typically mixing when different groups are in
close proximity but always with conflict. Future generations
might not be aware of their forebearor's problems, but we
can deduce them through observation. Races do not mix without
adverse consequences.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
P.S. Pure race would be most of our natives. But being pure has not proven
advantageous.
Yes, a certain amount of mixing ensures a more adaptable human.
But, we don't know the future challenges so, how much mixing
and with whom is unknowable.

Segregation is the natural response to gross differences and is
desirable for stable societies. Then these different groups can
trade and mix superficially.
Post by T***@gmail.com
Post by Strabo
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
"Mixed races cannot have nationality
But that's plain ridiculous. A huge proportion of the world is "mixed
race", which is a faulty concept at best. Recent advances in FNA
analysis show huge numbers of people have "mixed race" in their
genes.
Nevertheless, skin color or race is a major dividing point in
human society. The only places where multiple races lived with
minimal conflict were class/slave societies.
- a mixed race scenario with constant conflict and threat of war;
- a mixed race scenario with one race enslaving the others;
- or, separation of races.
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-19 12:33:17 UTC
Permalink
About mixing races:

Europeans are the most mixed humans we can think of.
They have Mongols, Africans, Semites and Aryans just to begin.
Very beautiful women (Miss Universe, actresses, for example) usually are a
mix of races.

Conflict is inherent in the human race, no necessary to be racial. American
Indians were fighting all the time.

Hitler and his mafia were for segregation and destroyed half Europe. Ask
black men in the USA about segregation.

I agree segregation is convenient, that is why we are selective when
choosing our partner and murder our children when they don't look like us.

T.Schmidt
P.S. White race is disappearing everywhere in the planet. That is why we get
so many neo-nazis. Remember death either of individuals or of species is a
law of nature. We are gong in the way of dinosaurs.
P.S. Don't forget the USA is basically a terrorists haven (from KKK to
Posada Carriles, the kidnapping of Elian, and the diverse conspiracies to
murder Castro and Hugo Chavez).
http://www.history.com/topics/chicago-race-riot-of-1919/videos#the-kkk
For the Americans racism is a curse. Survival as a nation requires the
elimination of racism.
Post by Strabo
Post by T***@gmail.com
Skin colour is very easy to determine, but has many difficulties. For
example, there are Aryans with dark skin. Under the skin all races are the
same, so we must look for something more representative and accurate.
There are anatomical and physiological differences. How much they
influence perception and behavior is not known.
Post by T***@gmail.com
In
Canada is normal to accept diversity as a human characteristic. We let
others live the way they want and so far has been fairly good (but it could
be better).
People can live as they want so long as they don't obligate me.
When they band together to use government to limit my options
I get unhappy.
Post by T***@gmail.com
Not forcing separation is going to produce something like the
Latin-American, which is a mix of black, white and Indian.
There's typically mixing when different groups are in
close proximity but always with conflict. Future generations
might not be aware of their forebearor's problems, but we
can deduce them through observation. Races do not mix without
adverse consequences.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
P.S. Pure race would be most of our natives. But being pure has not proven
advantageous.
Yes, a certain amount of mixing ensures a more adaptable human.
But, we don't know the future challenges so, how much mixing
and with whom is unknowable.
Segregation is the natural response to gross differences and is
desirable for stable societies. Then these different groups can
trade and mix superficially.
Post by T***@gmail.com
Post by Strabo
Post by n***@nada.com
Post by T***@gmail.com
Only genes are the rational way to establish nationality. It was used in
Europe for centuries and was very succesful. Mixed races cannot have
nationality.
T.Schmidt
I am opposed to illegal immigration and would like to eliminate the
birthright citizenship for anchor babies. Citizenship should be
determined by the citizenship of the mother.
"Mixed races cannot have nationality
But that's plain ridiculous. A huge proportion of the world is "mixed
race", which is a faulty concept at best. Recent advances in FNA
analysis show huge numbers of people have "mixed race" in their
genes.
Nevertheless, skin color or race is a major dividing point in
human society. The only places where multiple races lived with
minimal conflict were class/slave societies.
- a mixed race scenario with constant conflict and threat of war;
- a mixed race scenario with one race enslaving the others;
- or, separation of races.
Don Gabacho
2011-01-22 19:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-not
-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-con
stitution.php
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
• Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"We can accept only certain documents as proof
of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth
certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S.
passport, Certificate of Naturalization or
Certificate of Citizenship."
US Social Security Administrationhttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html
"American citizenship is acquired by children born
in the United States, even though their parents were
always aliens, and even if the parents were themselves
ineligible to become citizens of the United States.
Nor has the acquisition of citizenship been affected
by the circumstance that the child's alien parents were
in the United States temporarily or even illegally at
the time the child was born."
 http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Colonization is unlawful.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-23 02:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Gabacho
innews:122c4af7-ca7f-47a4-8569-78d5fc37d4
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will
not tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on
Mexicans. Our contention is that we are not enacting or dictating
any laws on the Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal
alien females in the US territory. Further, he states that "he was
going to use all diplomatic and legal forces at his disposal
to….protect Mexicans living in the Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n
ot
-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-
con stitution.php
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
• Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"We can accept only certain documents as proof
of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth
certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S.
passport, Certificate of Naturalization or
Certificate of Citizenship."
US Social Security Administrationhttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html
"American citizenship is acquired by children born
in the United States, even though their parents were
always aliens, and even if the parents were themselves
ineligible to become citizens of the United States.
Nor has the acquisition of citizenship been affected
by the circumstance that the child's alien parents were
in the United States temporarily or even illegally at
the time the child was born."
 http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Colonization is unlawful.
Native American tribes would tend to agree.
Don Gabacho
2011-02-01 19:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Gabacho
innews:122c4af7-ca7f-47a4-8569-78d5fc37d4
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will
not tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on
Mexicans. Our contention is that we are not enacting or dictating
any laws on the Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal
alien females in the US territory. Further, he states that "he was
going to use all diplomatic and legal forces at his disposal
to .protect Mexicans living in the Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n
ot
-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-
con stitution.php
"If you were born in the United States, you do not need
to apply to USCIS for any evidence of citizenship. Your
birth certificate issued where you were born is proof
of your citizenship."http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"What documents are usually accepted as proof of U.S.citizenship?
Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was
born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State
(if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who
registered the child s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S.
Embassy or consulate);http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A4eng.pdf
"We can accept only certain documents as proof
of U.S. citizenship. These include a U.S. birth
certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S.
passport, Certificate of Naturalization or
Certificate of Citizenship."
US Social Security Administrationhttp://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html
"American citizenship is acquired by children born
in the United States, even though their parents were
always aliens, and even if the parents were themselves
ineligible to become citizens of the United States.
Nor has the acquisition of citizenship been affected
by the circumstance that the child's alien parents were
in the United States temporarily or even illegally at
the time the child was born."
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm
Colonization is unlawful.
    Native American tribes would tend to agree.
Good.
Patxi
2011-01-08 01:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Dual citizenship is not unusual. In these cases the person in question
usually has the option to decide for himself on his eighteenth birthday, or
other recognized anniversary of maturity. In some cases the citizen
acquires two passports and maintains dual citizenship, although this is
rarely recognized by either country.

Yo mismo mantengo la ciudadanía doble, extraterrestre y yunaitense a la vez.

By the laws of power and "might makes right", the United States Constitution
supersedes the Mexican one, ¿no?

Saludos cordiales,

Patxi

"Jose" <***@todito.com> wrote in message news:122c4af7-ca7f-47a4-8569-***@p7g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
BorderFire Report -

"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."

http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-not-u.s.-citizens-they-are-citizens-of-mexico-according-to-the-mexican-constitution.php
Cris
2011-01-08 03:57:44 UTC
Permalink
The issue is important.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/politics/07fourteenth.html

Also in the House, a new bill was introduced by Republican Steve King
of Iowa to essentially rewrite the 14th Amendment.

Can we give a group of racists and hatreds so much space?
Definitely NO. We are talking about a person born in USA!

What is the intention of the bill? It does not accomplish deterring
immigration. Does Mr. King believe that people come to the country to
have babies?
Does the bill intend to penalize the irregular immigration status of
the mother? Denying an innocent baby his/her right to citizenship is
penalizing the baby.
Are they going to change the 8th amendment also? The one that has the
clause about the ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.
What is the true intention of the bill?

The 14th amendment is one of the incorporated amendments to all States
and it is a reason for it. Before the 1860s was about blacks. Are we
so much moving backwards that now in 2010 it should be modified to
allow the segregation of other groups?

The more I think about it, the more absurd it gets. Sad.
Dual citizenship is not unusual.  In these cases the person in question
usually has the option to decide for himself on his eighteenth birthday, or
other recognized anniversary of maturity.  In some cases the citizen
acquires two passports and maintains dual citizenship, although this is
rarely recognized by either country.
Yo mismo mantengo la ciudadan a doble, extraterrestre y yunaitense a la vez.
By the laws of power and "might makes right", the United States Constitution
supersedes the Mexican one, no?
Saludos cordiales,
Patxi
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to .protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
RLunfa
2011-01-08 07:04:30 UTC
Permalink
"Cris" <***@gmail.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:d6864e05-76bb-491c-a129-***@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
[...]
We are talking about a person born in USA!
[...]

El mejor camino que tiene EEUU es una buena guerra de secesión y que el
infierno se los trague.

RLunfa
s***@msn.com
2011-01-17 15:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cris
The issue is important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/politics/07fourteenth.html
Also in the House, a new bill was introduced by Republican Steve King
of Iowa to essentially rewrite the 14th Amendment.
Can we give a group of racists and hatreds so much space?
Definitely NO. We are talking about a person born in USA!
What is the intention of the bill? It does not accomplish deterring
immigration. Does Mr. King believe that people come to the country to
have babies?
Does the bill intend to penalize the irregular immigration status of
the mother? Denying an innocent baby his/her right to citizenship is
penalizing the baby.
Are they going to change the 8th amendment also? The one that has the
clause about the ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.
What is the true intention of the bill?
The 14th amendment is one of the incorporated amendments to all States
and it is a reason for it. Before the 1860s was about blacks. Are we
so much moving backwards that now in 2010 it should be modified to
allow the segregation of other groups?
The more I think about it, the more absurd it gets. Sad.
Dual citizenship is not unusual.  In these cases the person in question
usually has the option to decide for himself on his eighteenth birthday, or
other recognized anniversary of maturity.  In some cases the citizen
acquires two passports and maintains dual citizenship, although this is
rarely recognized by either country.
Yo mismo mantengo la ciudadan a doble, extraterrestre y yunaitense a la vez.
By the laws of power and "might makes right", the United States Constitution
supersedes the Mexican one, no?
Saludos cordiales,
Patxi
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to .protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nothing absurd nor racist about it. What race are we talking about
if it is racist? Many illegals may not coming here intentionlly to
give birth but once here many do so and they know that means welfare
for their U.S. born child till they are 18 years old. They also
think they can anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on
our soil.

The 14th was never intended to include babies born from illegal alien
parents. It makes a mockery of our citizenship. Most countries
today require that at least one parent be a citizen in order for their
newborn to qualify for instant citizenship. Time to have the Supreme
Court revisit this fiasco and make this ruling so that there is some
value to our citizenship rather than the scam it has become.
Strabo
2011-01-19 10:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@msn.com
Post by Cris
The issue is important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/politics/07fourteenth.html
Also in the House, a new bill was introduced by Republican Steve King
of Iowa to essentially rewrite the 14th Amendment.
Can we give a group of racists and hatreds so much space?
Definitely NO. We are talking about a person born in USA!
What is the intention of the bill? It does not accomplish deterring
immigration. Does Mr. King believe that people come to the country to
have babies?
Does the bill intend to penalize the irregular immigration status of
the mother? Denying an innocent baby his/her right to citizenship is
penalizing the baby.
Are they going to change the 8th amendment also? The one that has the
clause about the ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.
What is the true intention of the bill?
The 14th amendment is one of the incorporated amendments to all States
and it is a reason for it. Before the 1860s was about blacks. Are we
so much moving backwards that now in 2010 it should be modified to
allow the segregation of other groups?
The more I think about it, the more absurd it gets. Sad.
Post by Patxi
Dual citizenship is not unusual. In these cases the person in question
usually has the option to decide for himself on his eighteenth birthday, or
other recognized anniversary of maturity. In some cases the citizen
acquires two passports and maintains dual citizenship, although this is
rarely recognized by either country.
Yo mismo mantengo la ciudadan a doble, extraterrestre y yunaitense a la vez.
By the laws of power and "might makes right", the United States Constitution
supersedes the Mexican one, no?
Saludos cordiales,
Patxi
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to .protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nothing absurd nor racist about it. What race are we talking about
if it is racist? Many illegals may not coming here intentionlly to
give birth but once here many do so and they know that means welfare
for their U.S. born child till they are 18 years old. They also
think they can anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on
our soil.
The 14th was never intended to include babies born from illegal alien
parents. It makes a mockery of our citizenship. Most countries
today require that at least one parent be a citizen in order for their
newborn to qualify for instant citizenship. Time to have the Supreme
Court revisit this fiasco and make this ruling so that there is some
value to our citizenship rather than the scam it has become.
Until then, I've visited the situation and rule in your favor.

Every evidence says that the 14th A. clause pertains only to ex-slaves.

Some of these idiots are just too stupid to figure it out
and others use this issue to further their agenda of destruction.
Cris
2011-01-22 19:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
The issue is important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/politics/07fourteenth.html
Also in the House, a new bill was introduced by Republican Steve King
of Iowa to essentially rewrite the 14th Amendment.
Can we give a group of racists and hatreds so much space?
Definitely NO. We are talking about a person born in USA!
What is the intention of the bill? It does not accomplish deterring
immigration. Does Mr. King believe that people come to the country to
have babies?
Does the bill intend to penalize the irregular immigration status of
the mother? Denying an innocent baby his/her right to citizenship is
penalizing the baby.
Are they going to change the 8th amendment also? The one that has the
clause about the cruel and unusual punishment .
What is the true intention of the bill?
The 14th amendment is one of the incorporated amendments to all States
and it is a reason for it. Before the 1860s was about blacks. Are we
so much moving backwards that now in 2010 it should be modified to
allow the segregation of other groups?
The more I think about it, the more absurd it gets. Sad.
Nothing absurd nor racist about it.   What race are we talking about
if it is racist?   Many illegals may not coming here intentionlly to
give birth but once here many do so and  they know that means welfare
for their U.S. born child till they are 18 years old.   They also
think they can anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on
our soil.
The 14th was never intended to include babies born from illegal alien
parents.   It makes a mockery of our citizenship.  Most countries
today require that at least one parent be a citizen in order for their
newborn to qualify for instant citizenship.  Time to have the Supreme
Court revisit this fiasco and make this ruling so that there is some
value to our citizenship rather than the scam it has become.
 >
Until then, I've visited the situation and rule in your favor.
Every evidence says that the 14th A. clause pertains only to ex-slaves.
Some of these idiots are just too stupid to figure it out
and others use this issue to further their agenda of destruction.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Dios los cria y ellos se juntan, que desastre)

Absurd! I insist.

So, for you the citizenship of the mother is related to where she was
born because she was born outside the US but the citizenship of the
baby is not related to the place where he was born but is attached to
the citizenship of the mother? Did I read you OK? Then, I insist:
ABSURD!

And, assuming that not ALL but ‘some’ have the intent to anchor
themselves to the country through the citizenship of their children
(another absurd stretch), how are you going to indentified them?
Penalizing everybody? In particular penalizing a new born? You must
admit, this is beyond absurd.

The main issue that you don’t want to address is the fact that you are
supporting an unjust rule about the future of a baby.

And you go on adding to the mix the welfare. If you have a problem
with the welfare system then change that. And if you have a problem
with immigration laws, then work on that. It is absurd to change
citizenship of a new born to accommodate other collateral and unfound
ridiculous assumptions. We are looking at it from the Bill of Rights
angle but Human Rights are involve here also.

The 14th Amendment it was intended for exactly what it says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Assuring that other amendments in the Bill of Rights will be also
incorporated to the states by the due process clause. We can’t give
that up!!!! Today we change it to accommodate an absurd (I insist)
obstacle against a group (by race or not, xenophobic nevertheless) and
tomorrow everybody may be a target.

And about most countries, well… most countries today have better
welfare, social previsions, and health care than the US. And they are
not in continuous war . Perhaps we should use our energy to work
towards those important issues that bottom line could improve the life
of ALL Americans.

[Lol. I can help to think that you are probably a supporter of
Israel’s policy that if the mother is a Jew then the children are
Jews… :)
Now I get it. You want USA to be like Israel. Sure, let’s start
building kibbutz and militarized the whole population…
OMG, please start thinking and reconsidered. Although I may be wasting
my time with you.]
s***@msn.com
2011-01-23 03:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cris
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
The issue is important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/politics/07fourteenth.html
Also in the House, a new bill was introduced by Republican Steve King
of Iowa to essentially rewrite the 14th Amendment.
Can we give a group of racists and hatreds so much space?
Definitely NO. We are talking about a person born in USA!
What is the intention of the bill? It does not accomplish deterring
immigration. Does Mr. King believe that people come to the country to
have babies?
Does the bill intend to penalize the irregular immigration status of
the mother? Denying an innocent baby his/her right to citizenship is
penalizing the baby.
Are they going to change the 8th amendment also? The one that has the
clause about the cruel and unusual punishment .
What is the true intention of the bill?
The 14th amendment is one of the incorporated amendments to all States
and it is a reason for it. Before the 1860s was about blacks. Are we
so much moving backwards that now in 2010 it should be modified to
allow the segregation of other groups?
The more I think about it, the more absurd it gets. Sad.
Nothing absurd nor racist about it.   What race are we talking about
if it is racist?   Many illegals may not coming here intentionlly to
give birth but once here many do so and  they know that means welfare
for their U.S. born child till they are 18 years old.   They also
think they can anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on
our soil.
The 14th was never intended to include babies born from illegal alien
parents.   It makes a mockery of our citizenship.  Most countries
today require that at least one parent be a citizen in order for their
newborn to qualify for instant citizenship.  Time to have the Supreme
Court revisit this fiasco and make this ruling so that there is some
value to our citizenship rather than the scam it has become.
 >
Until then, I've visited the situation and rule in your favor.
Every evidence says that the 14th A. clause pertains only to ex-slaves.
Some of these idiots are just too stupid to figure it out
and others use this issue to further their agenda of destruction.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Dios los cria y ellos se juntan, que desastre)
Absurd! I insist.
So, for you the citizenship of the mother is related to where she was
born because she was born outside the US but the citizenship of the
baby is not related to the place where he was born but is attached to
ABSURD!
And, assuming that not ALL but ‘some’ have the intent to anchor
themselves to the country through the citizenship of their children
(another absurd stretch), how are you going to indentified them?
Penalizing everybody? In particular penalizing a new born? You must
admit, this is beyond absurd.
The main issue that you don’t want to address is the fact that you are
supporting an unjust rule about the future of a baby.
And you go on adding to the mix the welfare. If you have a problem
with the welfare system then change that. And if you have a problem
with immigration laws, then work on that. It is absurd to change
citizenship of a new born to accommodate other collateral and unfound
ridiculous assumptions. We are looking at it from the Bill of Rights
angle but Human Rights are involve here also.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Assuring  that other amendments in the Bill of Rights will be also
incorporated to the states by the due process clause. We can’t give
that up!!!! Today we change it to accommodate an absurd (I insist)
obstacle against a group (by race or not, xenophobic nevertheless) and
tomorrow everybody may be a target.
And about most countries, well… most countries today have better
welfare, social previsions, and health care than the US. And they are
not in continuous war . Perhaps we should use our energy to work
towards those important issues that bottom line could improve the life
of ALL Americans.
[Lol. I can help to think that you are probably a supporter of
Israel’s policy that if the mother is a Jew then the children are
Jews… :)
Now I get it. You want USA to be like Israel. Sure, let’s start
building kibbutz and militarized the whole population…
OMG, please start thinking and reconsidered. Although I may be wasting
my time with you.]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How is making babies born here from illegal alien parents citizens of
their parent's country, punishing them? No, what it is about is not
rewarding the illegal parents for dropping their babies on our soil
with our precious citizenship due to fraud.

What do you mean that a particular race or ethnic group would be the
only ones denied citizenship in that manner? You're lying now
because illegal aliens aren't just one race or ethnic group.

Amendments are made to the Constitution all the time. It is ludicrous
to think that it was the intent of the writer's of the 14th to reward
the spawn of illegal aliens with birthright citzenship. It doesn't
even need a new Amendment just interpreted to way it was intended.
Why do you think the qualifer of "and" subject to the jurisdiction was
put in that amendment? If there was no question as to the
jurisdiction of any newborn then there would have been no need to put
that qualifier in it.
Strabo
2011-01-23 04:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cris
Post by Strabo
Post by s***@msn.com
Post by Cris
The issue is important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/politics/07fourteenth.html
Also in the House, a new bill was introduced by Republican Steve King
of Iowa to essentially rewrite the 14th Amendment.
Can we give a group of racists and hatreds so much space?
Definitely NO. We are talking about a person born in USA!
What is the intention of the bill? It does not accomplish deterring
immigration. Does Mr. King believe that people come to the country to
have babies?
Does the bill intend to penalize the irregular immigration status of
the mother? Denying an innocent baby his/her right to citizenship is
penalizing the baby.
Are they going to change the 8th amendment also? The one that has the
clause about the cruel and unusual punishment .
What is the true intention of the bill?
The 14th amendment is one of the incorporated amendments to all States
and it is a reason for it. Before the 1860s was about blacks. Are we
so much moving backwards that now in 2010 it should be modified to
allow the segregation of other groups?
The more I think about it, the more absurd it gets. Sad.
Nothing absurd nor racist about it. What race are we talking about
if it is racist? Many illegals may not coming here intentionlly to
give birth but once here many do so and they know that means welfare
for their U.S. born child till they are 18 years old. They also
think they can anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on
our soil.
The 14th was never intended to include babies born from illegal alien
parents. It makes a mockery of our citizenship. Most countries
today require that at least one parent be a citizen in order for their
newborn to qualify for instant citizenship. Time to have the Supreme
Court revisit this fiasco and make this ruling so that there is some
value to our citizenship rather than the scam it has become.
Until then, I've visited the situation and rule in your favor.
Every evidence says that the 14th A. clause pertains only to ex-slaves.
Some of these idiots are just too stupid to figure it out
and others use this issue to further their agenda of destruction.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Dios los cria y ellos se juntan, que desastre)
Absurd! I insist.
Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native born
residents are not necessarily citizens.

Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance by
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen one must be born
within the US to parents who are American citizens.
Post by Cris
So, for you the citizenship of the mother is related to where she was
born because she was born outside the US but the citizenship of the
baby is not related to the place where he was born but is attached to
ABSURD!
I cannot unravel this tangled prose.
Post by Cris
And, assuming that not ALL but ‘some’ have the intent to anchor
themselves to the country through the citizenship of their children
(another absurd stretch), how are you going to indentified them?
If you cannot show that you are a citizen then you are not a citizen.
Simple.
Post by Cris
Penalizing everybody? In particular penalizing a new born? You must
admit, this is beyond absurd.
1. The issue is not about penalties but about citizenship.

2. We, the people of the US will not be obligated to solve other
people's problems.

If your newborn is not born to American citizens, it cannot
be a *natural* citizen. Take it away and apply for citizenship.
Post by Cris
The main issue that you don’t want to address is the fact that you are
supporting an unjust rule about the future of a baby.
Sorry friend, you're up against a libertarian capitalist. I
I don't need your approval to survive and thrive.

And, I'm not the least bit interested in your baby or notions of
social justice.
Post by Cris
And you go on adding to the mix the welfare. If you have a problem
with the welfare system then change that. And if you have a problem
with immigration laws, then work on that. It is absurd to change
citizenship of a new born to accommodate other collateral and unfound
ridiculous assumptions. We are looking at it from the Bill of Rights
angle but Human Rights are involve here also.
1. Left to me there wouldn't be a "welfare system."

2. The immigration laws are fine, they're just not being enforced.

3. You wouldn't know a Right if you were sitting on one.
Post by Cris
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
*and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*..."

Jurisdiction refers to ordinary, everyday rights, laws
and privileges. Illegal aliens ARE NOT SUBJECT to ordinary
US rights, laws and privileges.

Therefore, foreign nationals ARE NOT subject to US jurisdiction.
Foreign nationals ARE CITIZENS of another country or nation
and are subject to that jurisdiction. That's why we call them
FOREIGN NATIONALS.

That's if one even accepts the validity of the 14th A. Since
that clause of the 14th A. was self-canceling, it is not valid.
Post by Cris
Assuring that other amendments in the Bill of Rights will be also
incorporated to the states by the due process clause. We can’t give
that up!!!! Today we change it to accommodate an absurd (I insist)
obstacle against a group (by race or not, xenophobic nevertheless) and
tomorrow everybody may be a target.
And about most countries, well… most countries today have better
welfare, social previsions, and health care than the US.
Good! Now go there.
Post by Cris
And they are
not in continuous war . Perhaps we should use our energy to work
towards those important issues that bottom line could improve the life
of ALL Americans.
"We" are not going to do anything and "we" are not inclined to
improve your life.
Post by Cris
[Lol. I can help to think that you are probably a supporter of
Israel’s policy that if the mother is a Jew then the children are
Jews… :)
It'd better be or else a whole bunch of Jews are gonna cry;
but it's not an Israeli policy, it's Jewish law and culture.

FYI, the practice of matrilineal bloodlines predates the
Hebrews by thousands of years and is used in other cultures
today.
Post by Cris
Now I get it. You want USA to be like Israel. Sure, let’s start
building kibbutz and militarized the whole population…
OMG, please start thinking and reconsidered. Although I may be wasting
my time with you.]
At last you got something right.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-24 14:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
Post by Strabo
Post by s***@msn.com
Post by Cris
The issue is important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/politics/07fourteenth.html
Also in the House, a new bill was introduced by Republican Steve
King of Iowa to essentially rewrite the 14th Amendment.
Can we give a group of racists and hatreds so much space?
Definitely NO. We are talking about a person born in USA!
What is the intention of the bill? It does not accomplish
deterring immigration. Does Mr. King believe that people come to
the country to have babies?
Does the bill intend to penalize the irregular immigration status
of the mother? Denying an innocent baby his/her right to
citizenship is penalizing the baby.
Are they going to change the 8th amendment also? The one that has
the clause about the cruel and unusual punishment .
What is the true intention of the bill?
The 14th amendment is one of the incorporated amendments to all
States and it is a reason for it. Before the 1860s was about
blacks. Are we so much moving backwards that now in 2010 it should
be modified to allow the segregation of other groups?
The more I think about it, the more absurd it gets. Sad.
Nothing absurd nor racist about it. What race are we talking
about if it is racist? Many illegals may not coming here
intentionlly to give birth but once here many do so and they know
that means welfare for their U.S. born child till they are 18 years
old. They also think they can anchor themselves unto our country
by giving birth on our soil.
The 14th was never intended to include babies born from illegal
alien parents. It makes a mockery of our citizenship. Most
countries today require that at least one parent be a citizen in
order for their newborn to qualify for instant citizenship. Time
to have the Supreme Court revisit this fiasco and make this ruling
so that there is some value to our citizenship rather than the scam
it has become.
Until then, I've visited the situation and rule in your favor.
Every evidence says that the 14th A. clause pertains only to
ex-slaves.
Some of these idiots are just too stupid to figure it out
and others use this issue to further their agenda of destruction.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Dios los cria y ellos se juntan, que desastre)
Absurd! I insist.
Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native born
residents are not necessarily citizens.
Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance by
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen one must be born
within the US to parents who are American citizens.
The 14th Amendment says nothing parents, much
less their citizenship.
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
So, for you the citizenship of the mother is related to where she was
born because she was born outside the US but the citizenship of the
baby is not related to the place where he was born but is attached to
ABSURD!
I cannot unravel this tangled prose.
Post by Cris
And, assuming that not ALL but ‘some’ have the intent to anchor
themselves to the country through the citizenship of their children
(another absurd stretch), how are you going to indentified them?
If you cannot show that you are a citizen then you are not a citizen.
If you were born in the US you are a citizen.
Post by Strabo
Simple.
Post by Cris
Penalizing everybody? In particular penalizing a new born? You must
admit, this is beyond absurd.
1. The issue is not about penalties but about citizenship.
2. We, the people of the US will not be obligated to solve other
people's problems.
If your newborn is not born to American citizens, it cannot
be a *natural* citizen. Take it away and apply for citizenship.
And how do you establish that the parents
were US citizens, if being born in the US is not
sufficient?
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
The main issue that you don’t want to address is the fact that you
are supporting an unjust rule about the future of a baby.
Sorry friend, you're up against a libertarian capitalist. I
I don't need your approval to survive and thrive.
And, I'm not the least bit interested in your baby or notions of
social justice.
Post by Cris
And you go on adding to the mix the welfare. If you have a problem
with the welfare system then change that. And if you have a problem
with immigration laws, then work on that. It is absurd to change
citizenship of a new born to accommodate other collateral and unfound
ridiculous assumptions. We are looking at it from the Bill of Rights
angle but Human Rights are involve here also.
1. Left to me there wouldn't be a "welfare system."
2. The immigration laws are fine, they're just not being enforced.
3. You wouldn't know a Right if you were sitting on one.
Post by Cris
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
*and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*..."
Jurisdiction refers to ordinary, everyday rights, laws
and privileges. Illegal aliens ARE NOT SUBJECT to ordinary
US rights, laws and privileges.
"The Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the
United States, including aliens, whether their presence is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
The US Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
Strabo
2011-01-30 05:07:00 UTC
Permalink
<snipped>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
Post by Strabo
Until then, I've visited the situation and rule in your favor.
Every evidence says that the 14th A. clause pertains only to ex-slaves.
Some of these idiots are just too stupid to figure it out
and others use this issue to further their agenda of destruction.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Dios los cria y ellos se juntan, que desastre)
Absurd! I insist.
Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native born
residents are not necessarily citizens.
Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance by
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen one must be born
within the US to parents who are American citizens.
The 14th Amendment says nothing parents, much
less their citizenship.
The pertinent clause in the 14th A. was designed only to
accommodate ex-slaves as its authors and sponsors stated
prior to its passage.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
So, for you the citizenship of the mother is related to where she was
born because she was born outside the US but the citizenship of the
baby is not related to the place where he was born but is attached to
ABSURD!
I cannot unravel this tangled prose.
Post by Cris
And, assuming that not ALL but ‘some’ have the intent to anchor
themselves to the country through the citizenship of their children
(another absurd stretch), how are you going to indentified them?
If you cannot show that you are a citizen then you are not a citizen.
If you were born in the US you are a citizen.
So the French ambassador's pregnant wife had better get out of
the US before she foals. If not I suppose the brat will have to
apply for French citizenship.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Simple.
Post by Cris
Penalizing everybody? In particular penalizing a new born? You must
admit, this is beyond absurd.
1. The issue is not about penalties but about citizenship.
2. We, the people of the US will not be obligated to solve other
people's problems.
If your newborn is not born to American citizens, it cannot
be a *natural* citizen. Take it away and apply for citizenship.
And how do you establish that the parents
were US citizens, if being born in the US is not
sufficient?
The burden of proof is on you. You must provide evidence of
birth and residence just as you supply evidence for a driver
license or a car loan.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
The main issue that you don’t want to address is the fact that you
are supporting an unjust rule about the future of a baby.
Sorry friend, you're up against a libertarian capitalist. I
I don't need your approval to survive and thrive.
And, I'm not the least bit interested in your baby or notions of
social justice.
Post by Cris
And you go on adding to the mix the welfare. If you have a problem
with the welfare system then change that. And if you have a problem
with immigration laws, then work on that. It is absurd to change
citizenship of a new born to accommodate other collateral and unfound
ridiculous assumptions. We are looking at it from the Bill of Rights
angle but Human Rights are involve here also.
1. Left to me there wouldn't be a "welfare system."
2. The immigration laws are fine, they're just not being enforced.
3. You wouldn't know a Right if you were sitting on one.
Post by Cris
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
*and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*..."
Jurisdiction refers to ordinary, everyday rights, laws
and privileges. Illegal aliens ARE NOT SUBJECT to ordinary
US rights, laws and privileges.
"The Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the
United States, including aliens, whether their presence is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
The US Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
SCOTUS often screws up.

The BOR, the enumerated Rights, pertain to Americans, not the French
or Mexicans or any other nationality that happens along.
Mitchell Holman
2011-01-30 05:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Strabo
<snipped>
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
Post by Strabo
Until then, I've visited the situation and rule in your favor.
Every evidence says that the 14th A. clause pertains only to ex-slaves.
Some of these idiots are just too stupid to figure it out
and others use this issue to further their agenda of destruction.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(Dios los cria y ellos se juntan, que desastre)
Absurd! I insist.
Being native born does not warrant natural citizenship. Native born
residents are not necessarily citizens.
Native refers to a birthplace not an automatic acceptance by
a particular nation. To be a natural citizen one must be born
within the US to parents who are American citizens.
The 14th Amendment says nothing parents, much
less their citizenship.
The pertinent clause in the 14th A. was designed only to
accommodate ex-slaves as its authors and sponsors stated
prior to its passage.
Show us where the 14th Amendment says anything about
the parentage of people born in the US.
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
So, for you the citizenship of the mother is related to where she was
born because she was born outside the US but the citizenship of the
baby is not related to the place where he was born but is attached to
ABSURD!
I cannot unravel this tangled prose.
Post by Cris
And, assuming that not ALL but ‘some’ have the intent to anchor
themselves to the country through the citizenship of their children
(another absurd stretch), how are you going to indentified them?
If you cannot show that you are a citizen then you are not a citizen.
If you were born in the US you are a citizen.
So the French ambassador's pregnant wife had better get out of
the US before she foals. If not I suppose the brat will have to
apply for French citizenship.
Dual citizenship is available to many, true enough.
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Simple.
Post by Cris
Penalizing everybody? In particular penalizing a new born? You must
admit, this is beyond absurd.
1. The issue is not about penalties but about citizenship.
2. We, the people of the US will not be obligated to solve other
people's problems.
If your newborn is not born to American citizens, it cannot
be a *natural* citizen. Take it away and apply for citizenship.
And how do you establish that the parents
were US citizens, if being born in the US is not
sufficient?
The burden of proof is on you. You must provide evidence of
birth
Bingo!

Citizenship is established by place of birth. Now
you are catching on..........
Post by Strabo
and residence just as you supply evidence for a driver
license or a car loan.
That is just what I have been trying to tell you.
Post by Strabo
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Strabo
Post by Cris
The main issue that you don’t want to address is the fact that you
are supporting an unjust rule about the future of a baby.
Sorry friend, you're up against a libertarian capitalist. I
I don't need your approval to survive and thrive.
And, I'm not the least bit interested in your baby or notions of
social justice.
Post by Cris
And you go on adding to the mix the welfare. If you have a problem
with the welfare system then change that. And if you have a problem
with immigration laws, then work on that. It is absurd to change
citizenship of a new born to accommodate other collateral and unfound
ridiculous assumptions. We are looking at it from the Bill of Rights
angle but Human Rights are involve here also.
1. Left to me there wouldn't be a "welfare system."
2. The immigration laws are fine, they're just not being enforced.
3. You wouldn't know a Right if you were sitting on one.
Post by Cris
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
*and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*..."
Jurisdiction refers to ordinary, everyday rights, laws
and privileges. Illegal aliens ARE NOT SUBJECT to ordinary
US rights, laws and privileges.
"The Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the
United States, including aliens, whether their presence is
lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent."
The US Supreme Court, Zadvydas v. Davis (2001)
<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-7791.html>
SCOTUS often screws up.
Birthright citizenship has been the law of the
land for over a century, get used to it.
Don Gabacho
2011-02-01 20:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Dual citizenship is not unusual.  In these cases the person in question
usually has the option to decide for himself on his eighteenth birthday,...
Not according to the Mexican Government as its "Jornadas de doble
nacionalidad" proves.
...or
other recognized anniversary of maturity.  In some cases the citizen
acquires two passports and maintains dual citizenship, although this is
rarely recognized by either country.
Dual(ed) citizenship should not be.

After the signing in NAFTA, the MxGov showed its cards (yet once
again) by decreeing its constitutional change to make Mexicans born
abroad (and all Mexican descendents according to the MxGov's
definition) "citizens of Mexico."

The act, among others, is blatant colonization.

See www.ime.gob.mx/ccime/ccime.htm to just begin to get the picture.
Yo mismo mantengo la ciudadanía doble, extraterrestre y yunaitense a la vez.
By the laws of power and "might makes right", the United States Constitution
supersedes the Mexican one, ¿no?
Saludos cordiales,
Patxi
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
Which he certainly appears to be doing still at Yale University.
T***@gmail.com
2011-02-01 20:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Hitler nacio en Austria y no le fue posible ser aleman hasta que cumplio mas
de 40 años.

T.Schmidt
P.S. Los alemanes no deben olvidar lo que sucede a menudo con los
inmigrantes. Recuerden que los gringos no existian hasta que llegaron los
inmigrantes del MayFlower. En todo el continente no habia gente mala con la
piel blanca. Por lo menos, eso parece. Tampoco habían negros.
Dual citizenship is not unusual. In these cases the person in question
usually has the option to decide for himself on his eighteenth
birthday,...
Not according to the Mexican Government as its "Jornadas de doble
nacionalidad" proves.
...or
other recognized anniversary of maturity. In some cases the citizen
acquires two passports and maintains dual citizenship, although this is
rarely recognized by either country.
Dual(ed) citizenship should not be.

After the signing in NAFTA, the MxGov showed its cards (yet once
again) by decreeing its constitutional change to make Mexicans born
abroad (and all Mexican descendents according to the MxGov's
definition) "citizens of Mexico."

The act, among others, is blatant colonization.

See www.ime.gob.mx/ccime/ccime.htm to just begin to get the picture.
Yo mismo mantengo la ciudadanía doble, extraterrestre y yunaitense a la vez.
By the laws of power and "might makes right", the United States Constitution
supersedes the Mexican one, ¿no?
Saludos cordiales,
Patxi
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
Which he certainly appears to be doing still at Yale University.

Ramon F Herrera
2011-01-08 18:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.

There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.

Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.

-Ramon
Espanuelo
2011-01-09 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.
There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.
Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.
-Ramon
Yes, we can. Just men dictate just laws.
The babies of Mexican citizens are Mexican.
Strabo
2011-01-17 05:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.
There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.
Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.
-Ramon
You Marxists are persistent, I'll give you that. Not very bright,
but persistent.
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-17 13:46:48 UTC
Permalink
You speak like a redneck. What is the level of your education? Have you been
in Europe?

T.Schmidt
P.S. About the time of the US independence the King of Spain granted Spanish
citizenship to all Indians in the continent. That means Sitting Bull and
Geronimo were Spanish citizens. You were not killing redskins, you were
murdering Spaniards.
Post by Strabo
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.
There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.
Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.
-Ramon
You Marxists are persistent, I'll give you that. Not very bright,
but persistent.
Strabo
2011-01-19 10:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@gmail.com
You speak like a redneck. What is the level of your education? Have you been
in Europe?
If by your question you mean to ask if I am poorly educated and
untraveled, the answer is no. Have we trod the same paths, I suspect
not.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
P.S. About the time of the US independence the King of Spain granted Spanish
citizenship to all Indians in the continent. That means Sitting Bull and
Geronimo were Spanish citizens. You were not killing redskins, you were
murdering Spaniards.
Post by Strabo
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.
There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.
Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.
-Ramon
You Marxists are persistent, I'll give you that. Not very bright,
but persistent.
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-19 12:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Evidently you are fairly acknowledgeable.

Travelling is good, but you learn more trying to work in different
countries. That is when you learn about the different cultures.

T.Schmidt
Post by Strabo
Post by T***@gmail.com
You speak like a redneck. What is the level of your education? Have you been
in Europe?
If by your question you mean to ask if I am poorly educated and
untraveled, the answer is no. Have we trod the same paths, I suspect
not.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
P.S. About the time of the US independence the King of Spain granted Spanish
citizenship to all Indians in the continent. That means Sitting Bull and
Geronimo were Spanish citizens. You were not killing redskins, you were
murdering Spaniards.
Post by Strabo
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.
There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.
Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.
-Ramon
You Marxists are persistent, I'll give you that. Not very bright,
but persistent.
Espanuelo
2011-01-19 16:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by T***@gmail.com
Evidently you are fairly acknowledgeable.
Acknowledgeable or knowledgeable (reconocible o informado)?
Post by T***@gmail.com
Travelling is good, but you learn more trying to work in different
countries. That is when you learn about the different cultures.
T.Schmidt
Post by Strabo
Post by T***@gmail.com
You speak like a redneck. What is the level of your education? Have you been
in Europe?
If by your question you mean to ask if I am poorly educated and
untraveled, the answer is no. Have we trod the same paths, I suspect
not.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
P.S. About the time of the US independence the King of Spain granted Spanish
citizenship to all Indians in the continent. That means Sitting Bull and
Geronimo were Spanish citizens. You were not killing redskins, you were
murdering Spaniards.
Post by Strabo
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.
There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.
Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.
-Ramon
You Marxists are persistent, I'll give you that. Not very bright,
but persistent.
T***@gmail.com
2011-01-19 17:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Both. Knowledgeable is what I wanted, but now is better. Thank you

T.Schmidt
Post by Espanuelo
Post by T***@gmail.com
Evidently you are fairly acknowledgeable.
Acknowledgeable or knowledgeable (reconocible o informado)?
Post by T***@gmail.com
Travelling is good, but you learn more trying to work in different
countries. That is when you learn about the different cultures.
T.Schmidt
Post by Strabo
Post by T***@gmail.com
You speak like a redneck. What is the level of your education? Have you been
in Europe?
If by your question you mean to ask if I am poorly educated and
untraveled, the answer is no. Have we trod the same paths, I suspect
not.
Post by T***@gmail.com
T.Schmidt
P.S. About the time of the US independence the King of Spain granted Spanish
citizenship to all Indians in the continent. That means Sitting Bull and
Geronimo were Spanish citizens. You were not killing redskins, you were
murdering Spaniards.
Post by Strabo
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by Jose
BorderFire Report -
"April 4, 1997, President Sedillo of Mexico stated that "We will not
tolerate foreign forces dictating and enacting laws on Mexicans. Our
contention is that we are not enacting or dictating any laws on the
Mexican illegal alien children born by illegal alien females in the US
territory. Further, he states that "he was going to use all diplomatic
and legal forces at his disposal to….protect Mexicans living in the
Uniited States."
http://www.borderfirereport.net/frosty-wooldridge/anchor-babies-are-n...
A country is neither a wife, nor a God.
There are millions of citizens with multiple nationality in the world.
Several of my friends have three.
Since the US is a SOVEREIGN country, Mexico CANNOT dictate to the US
who is a US citizen and who is not.
-Ramon
You Marxists are persistent, I'll give you that. Not very bright,
but persistent.
Loading...