This is what is required to be a citizen of the U.S.A.

[resident_evil]

14th amendment:
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.

I give a link for a more expansive and real understanding of the intention of the 14th Amendment below.



http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

 

[Arkady]

I give a link for a more expansive and real understanding of the intention of the 14th Amendment below.

View attachment 37762

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

If anyone is interested in reading an actual analysis of the issue, rather than just propaganda from a disreputable right-wing blog, here's a law review article on the issue:

http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=akronlawreview

 

[resident_evil]

If anyone is interested in reading an actual analysis of the issue, rather than just propaganda from a disreputable right-wing blog, here's a law review article on the issue:

http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=akronlawreview

You know what is funny. People are more willing to accept the blog's explanation because it makes natural sense. It is what they as citizens would have intended themselves and in point of fact that is what is historically true.

It is amazing to think that your interpretation requires the belief that the 14th was passed quickly and without any kind of forethought by the writers of it. As if they were comical human beings who just serendipitously wrote what YOU wanted them to write.

ha ha ha ha ha

You have got to be a clown.

 

[Hmmmm]

You know what is funny. People are more willing to accept the blog's explanation because it makes natural sense. It is what they as citizens would have intended themselves and in point of fact that is what is historically true.

It is amazing to think that your interpretation requires the belief that the 14th was passed quickly and without any kind of forethought by the writers of it. As if they were comical human beings who just serendipitously wrote what YOU wanted them to write.

ha ha ha ha ha

You have got to be a clown.

"[Some conservative ]People are more willing to accept the blog's explanation because it makes natural sense [to them]."

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

 

[marvin martian]

You know what is funny. People are more willing to accept the blog's explanation because it makes natural sense. It is what they as citizens would have intended themselves and in point of fact that is what is historically true.

It is amazing to think that your interpretation requires the belief that the 14th was passed quickly and without any kind of forethought by the writers of it. As if they were comical human beings who just serendipitously wrote what YOU wanted them to write.

ha ha ha ha ha

You have got to be a clown.

Not a clown, a lawyer. That's worse.

 

[resident_evil]

"[Some conservative ]People are more willing to accept the blog's explanation because it makes natural sense [to them]."

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

Clearly your spouse is the handyman around the house. You can't fix ****. :0)

 

[Hmmmm]

I give a link for a more expansive and real understanding of the intention of the 14th Amendment below.

View attachment 37762

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

You realize that the 14th amendment over-rides the statute cited at the beginning of the opinion piece and the wording of that statute is rendered meaningless. I don't understand why you think that the wording of that statute can be used to interpret the wording of the constitutional amendment. Neither of us are lawyers but the wording is fairly clear.

 

[Hmmmm]

Clearly your spouse is the handyman around the house. You can't fix ****. :0)

Fix what? Shit? Man up and be specific.

 

[resident_evil]

You realize that the 14th amendment over-rides the statute cited at the beginning of the opinion piece and the wording of that statute is rendered meaningless. I don't understand why you think that the wording of that statute can be used to interpret the wording of the constitutional amendment. Neither of us are lawyers but the wording is fairly clear.

Yeah, come back when you know the difference between rule of man and rule of law. Believe me you really want to live under rule of law.

 

[resident_evil]

If anyone is interested in reading an actual analysis of the issue, rather than just propaganda from a disreputable right-wing blog, here's a law review article on the issue:

http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=akronlawreview

Funny, your link points to an opinion by a Matthew Ing. He may have ulterior motives for his opinion.

We have Chinese citizens coming to this country to give birth and go home with a born U.S. citizen. Your intentional misinterpretation of the 14th is a seditious and traitorous one.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/03/california-chinese-birth-tourism-raids/24338087/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

 

[as seen on tv]

there was a similar debate about catholics. when JFK ran for president he had to specifically assert that his allegiance was to America, not the pope.

 

[Arkady]

You know what is funny. People are more willing to accept the blog's explanation because it makes natural sense. It is what they as citizens would have intended themselves and in point of fact that is what is historically true.

It's historically incorrect and definitely not what the citizens would have intended. Some blogger wrote historical fiction that appealed to your xenophobic mind. But if you'd prefer to read a real legal analysis, I linked you to some.

 

[Arkady]

Funny, your link points to an opinion by a Matthew Ing. He may have ulterior motives for his opinion.

And what would that be?

 

[resident_evil]

And what would that be?

The internet is killing the lie so try your race card somewhere else.

 

[resident_evil]

It's historically incorrect and definitely not what the citizens would have intended. Some blogger wrote historical fiction that appealed to your xenophobic mind. But if you'd prefer to read a real legal analysis, I linked you to some.

You ain't got jack shit.

 

[resident_evil]

there was a similar debate about catholics. when JFK ran for president he had to specifically assert that his allegiance was to America, not the pope.

Yeah, not the issue at hand here.

 

[Dawg]

If anyone is interested in reading an actual analysis of the issue, rather than just propaganda from a disreputable right-wing blog, here's a law review article on the issue:

http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=akronlawreview

Pure unadulterated thread jacking

 

[Dawg]

"[Some conservative ]People are more willing to accept the blog's explanation because it makes natural sense [to them]."

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

thread hijacking #2
both libs

 

[Arkady]

The internet is killing the lie so try your race card somewhere else.

No answer, eh?

 

[Arkady]

Pure unadulterated thread jacking

Yes, this post of yours is thread jacking. The topic is the proper understanding of what makes someone born here a citizen. Resident Evil and I each promoted a stance on that. Then you stumbled into the thread, drunk off your ass as always, and tried to derail it with this wholly unrelated post. That's thread jacking. So stop.