 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsAustralia and NZCanadaUSAUSA Marriage Base ImmigrationKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Immigration Forum / USA / March 2010L.A. County - 1/4 of welfare to illegals
http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_14644442 Report: One-fourth of welfare payments go to illegals From wire service reports Posted: 03/10/2010 07:08:55 AM PST Nearly one-quarter of state welfare payments and food stamps issued in Los Angeles County go to children whose parents are in the U.S. illegally, according to January figures released today. Supervisor Mike Antonovich offered the statistics, generated by the county's Department of Public Social Services, to help make the case for enforcing the nation's borders, establishing health care clinics on the border with Mexico and reimbursing local governments for unfunded state and federal mandates, according to his press deputy, Tony Bell. The numbers show that more than $50 million in CalWORKS benefits and food stamps for January went to children born in the United States whose parents are in the country without documentation. This represents approximately 23 percent of the total benefits under the state welfare and food stamp programs, Antonovich said. "When you add this to $350 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year -- not including the millions of dollars for education," Antonovich said. Shirley Christensen of the Department of Public Social Services said, "Our mission is to aid people who qualify and are eligible to receive benefits. We're carrying out the laws, federal laws." Christensen emphasized that those receiving benefits were eligible for aid as U.S. citizens. (snip) ------------------------------ This is due to our idiotic policy of birthright citizenship that congress could easily change. Canada and america are the only developed countries that still have it. The law should say children inherit the nationality of the mother. On Mar 10, 8:59 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_14644442 > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > that still have it. The law should say children inherit the nationality > of the mother. The roads in LA are in horrible shape and it's also one of the most under-policed major cities in the U.S. It's very expensive if you are property or business owner. The residents who actually pay taxes are NOT getting good value for their money. > The roads in LA are in horrible shape and it's also one of the most > under-policed major cities in the U.S. It's very expensive if you are > property or business owner. The residents who actually pay taxes are > NOT getting good value for their money. CA used to be the richest state in america and now it's a dump thank to the invading mexicans. People have to realize the racists are right. The black and brown skins are stupid and only good at breeding. They can't run a technologically advanced state. America is going the way of zimbabwe and south africa. On Mar 10, 12:42 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The roads in LA are in horrible shape and it's also one of the most > > under-policed major cities in the U.S. It's very expensive if you are > > property or business owner. The residents who actually pay taxes are > > NOT getting good value for their money. > People have to realize the racists are right. Correct. They have always been predominantly from the right. -Ramon > On Mar 10, 12:42 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Correct. They have always been predominantly from the right. ROFL, you're not even trying very hard anymore, are you? Continue wailing, failure :) > -Ramon > On Mar 10, 12:42 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Ramon OMG - such wit!! On Mar 10, 10:59 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > This is due to our idiotic policy of birthright > citizenship that congress could easily change. Many thanks to Drunkie for proving -one more time- that hate and ignorance go hand in hand (*). The Jus Sanguinis (by blood) and Jus Soli (by place of birth) principles are both consecrated in our Constitution. The Constitution of the United States (in particular, its 14th. Amendment) cannot be easily changed. It would take 2/3 of states legislatures. -Ramon (*) And the world is infinitely better off with an illiterate black than with you. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_US_Constitution_be_amended > On Mar 10, 10:59 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_US_Constitution_be_amended Or it could be challenged in The Supreme Court, and interpreted properly. > > On Mar 10, 10:59 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > >http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_US_Constitution_be_amended > Or it could be challenged in The Supreme Court, > and interpreted properly. Thus requesting the high court that a century of precedents and customs be disregarded? Not to mention the nose dive that the US image and world leadership would take. I wouldn't want to be the one to give the bad news -nay, the slap on the face- to the parents of all those anchor babies who are giving their life and limb. Good luck with that approach, keep us posted... -Ramon > > > On Mar 10, 10:59 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > > > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Not to mention the nose dive that the US image and world leadership > would take. America's fastest growing minority will make us just another failed Latin American nation like Mexico. The rest of the world respected us more when we were 90 percent White and the U.S. was the bread basket and manufacturing giant of the world rather than a loser country that is fighting two wars overseas while allowing Mexico to dump its mestizos and narcotics into our urban areas and Balkanize our nation. > I wouldn't want to be the one to give the bad news -nay, the slap on > the face- to the parents of all those anchor babies who are giving > their life and limb. Don't worry. You won't be in a position to announce that news. > Good luck with that approach, Thanks. > keep us posted... > > -Ramon- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in news:936c41f2-4038-45c7-88ef- 07690889502b@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: > The Jus Sanguinis (by blood) and Jus Soli (by place of birth) > principles are both consecrated in our Constitution. > > The Constitution of the United States (in particular, its 14th. > Amendment) cannot be easily changed. It would take 2/3 of states > legislatures. Liar - the 14A does NOT sanction birthright citizenship. Please have someone read it to you. "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. " The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is your problem. If the mother is mex, then she is subject to mexico's jurisdiction and so too the kid. Congress needs to clarify that. No need to change the const, you idiot. On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in news:936c41f2-4038-45c7-88ef- > 076908895...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State > wherein they reside. " LOL Can you read? "ALL persons born..." Now just what do you suppose that means? > On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Can you read? > "ALL persons born..." > Now just what do you suppose that means? M: There are indeed exceptions, as she claims; more specifically 2 exceptions: (1) Children of diplomats. (2) Children of invading forces. Had Germany and/or Japan invaded, little Otto or baby Yoko would have not been granted citizenship. Courts, laws and custom have interpreted the 14th. in this way. The anti-immigrant movement would like the term "invading force" to be applied, as if the undocumented parents were wearing military uniform and following orders from superiors in Mexico City, Tegucigalpa or Caracas. -Ramon On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in news:936c41f2-4038-45c7-88ef- > 076908895...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State > wherein they reside. " LOL Can you read? "ALL persons born..." Now just what do you suppose that means? ---- Can YOU read? What do you think the word "AND", which follows, means? On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in news:936c41f2-4038-45c7-88ef- > 076908895...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is your problem. If the mother is mex, then she > is subject to mexico's jurisdiction If that were the case, then the word "born" would never have been used. IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply exclusively, all the legislator had to do was to write it like this: "To be citizen of the US the person must have a US citizen parent". Every person (every mother) in the world is subject to the jurisdiction of some country. According to you, all non-US mothers are (or should be) excluded from having US children: that concept has a name. That concept is called Jus Solis. Your intention is clear: you do no want a concept ("subject to jurisdiction") so be interpreted, you are demanding that the whole wording of the 14th. to be rewritten. You are hoping that someday "we will elect enough real conservatives to Congress" and that balance of power will make your Quixotic quest much easier than a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that... -Ramon > On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > -Ramon Erratum: Where I wrote: > That concept is called Jus Solis. I meant to write: That concept is called Jus Sanguinis. The point is that it is exceedingly easy to exclude the Mexican (or Swedish) mother with a couple of words. The legislator chose not to exclude them from the 14th. Amendment, and a century later the anti Hispanics are having a temper tantrum. -RFH >> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> If that were the case, then the word "born" would never have been >> used. Wrong. The phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" is MODIFIED BY the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Which means if the person is NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then the closing phrase DOES NOT APPLY. Which means so-called "anchor babies" are NOT automatically US citizens and CAN BE deported WITH their parents... >> IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply exclusively, >> all the legislator had to do was to write it like this: >> "To be citizen of the US the person must have a US citizen parent". Wrong. They would simply have REMOVED the MODIFIER giving: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But they SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED that MODIFIER for a REASON. And that reason is that you can't come here and grunt out a brown citizen. AND even if you do YOU can't stay and neither can the Turd. >>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Which means so-called "anchor babies" are NOT automatically US > citizens and CAN BE deported WITH their parents... No, it doesn't. The term "anchor babies" just to make it clearer has been around for many decades. It is not a new thing. Babies born in the US are US citizens. Get used to it. Here is the historical reference: It comes from the implicit rule of jus soli. According to this ancient doctrine - the term means "right of land or ground - citizenship results from birth within a territory. This contrasts with jus sanquinus, or right of blood, by which nationality derives from descent. Citizenship based on place of birth was a feudal remnant, in tension with principles of liberal theory that reast political legitimacy on a foundation of consent. See US v Wong Kim Ark - 1898, Graham v Richardson - 1971, Trop v Dulles - 1958 The portion of the 14A that you are citing "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not say what you think it does. What it did do was to reverse Justice Taney's opinion in Scott v Sanford that blacks were not and could not be "people of the United States" because they were not members of the political community known to the Framers when the Constitution was written and ratified. Taney said that not even Congress could confer citianeship on free blacks who were born in the United States and thus citizens of their states. ..... Reversing Tanney's decision, this section makes nationals citizenship paramount, citizenship in a state now automatically follows a US citizen's residence. Citizenship is vested with birth or upon naturalization: only Congress, not the states, has the power to bestow citizenship. When it does, it may not impose restrictions. The only qualification to the general rule is that persons claiming citizenship by birth must have been subject to US jurisdiction, meaning that children of foreign diplomats and of alien enemies may not claim citizenship merely by being born within the United States or its territories. Source: The Evolving Constitution - Liebermann. Under Citizens and Citizenship. >>> IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply exclusively, >>> all the legislator had to do was to write it like this: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And that reason is that you can't come here and grunt out a brown > citizen. AND even if you do YOU can't stay and neither can the Turd.  SignatureSleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) "Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." --Joseph T. Chew >>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >See US v Wong Kim Ark - 1898, Graham v Richardson - 1971, Trop v Dulles - >1958 1898? Are you serious? Hahahahahaha!!! >The portion of the 14A that you are citing "...subject to the >jurisdiction thereof" does not say what you think it does. The Supreme Court will TELL YOU what it says... >What it did >do was to reverse Justice Taney's opinion in Scott v Sanford that blacks [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >citizenship merely by being born within the United States or its >territories. Try reading that last sentence again... >>>> IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply exclusively, >>>> all the legislator had to do was to write it like this: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> And that reason is that you can't come here and grunt out a brown >> citizen. AND even if you do YOU can't stay and neither can the Turd. See above. >>>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >>>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Hahahahahaha!!! Told you it had been around a long time. Do you think that Supreme Court decision only count if they are less than a couple of years old? >>The portion of the 14A that you are citing "...subject to the >>jurisdiction thereof" does not say what you think it does. > > The Supreme Court will TELL YOU what it says... Yes, and has. See above. >>What it did >>do was to reverse Justice Taney's opinion in Scott v Sanford that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Try reading that last sentence again... Anchor babies are not the offspring of foreign diplomats and we are not at war with any of the countries they have been coming from...ergo, they are not the spawn of alien enemies. Read it again yourself. >>>>> IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply >>>>> exclusively, all the legislator had to do was to write it like [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See above. Where should I look? Where you didn't understand what was written or somewhere else? SignatureSleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) "Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." --Joseph T. Chew >>>>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >>>>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Told you it had been around a long time. Do you think that Supreme Court >decision only count if they are less than a couple of years old? No, they count... But they ONLY count based on the details of the Decision. >>>The portion of the 14A that you are citing "...subject to the >>>jurisdiction thereof" does not say what you think it does. >> The Supreme Court will TELL YOU what it says... >Yes, and has. See above. Completely different matter. >>>What it did >>>do was to reverse Justice Taney's opinion in Scott v Sanford that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >at war with any of the countries they have been coming from...ergo, they >are not the spawn of alien enemies. Read it again yourself. It's easy to understand but it points DIRECTLY to why you can't understand the 14th Amendment. The FIRST PART "The only qualification to the general rule is that persons claiming citizenship by birth must have been subject to US jurisdiction" is CLARIFIED BY EXAMPLE on the SECOND PART "meaning that children of foreign diplomats and of alien enemies may not claim citizenship merely by being born within the United States or its territories." The FIRST PART is specific, the SECOND PART is merely an EXAMPLE, also known in legal circles as a "clarifying emendation." YOU have it BACKWARDS think the SECOND PART is a specific limitation, it isn't. >>>>>> IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply >>>>>> exclusively, all the legislator had to do was to write it like [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Where should I look? Where you didn't understand what was written or >somewhere else? Trust me, your Socialist DemocRAT best friends will almost certainly try to pass Criminal Beaner Free Citizenship this year. If it passes you can be certain that will be on hold until a suit reaches the Supreme Court... >>>>>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >>>>>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > No, they count... But they ONLY count based on the details of the > Decision. That's true of any decision. It is the details. >>>>The portion of the 14A that you are citing "...subject to the >>>>jurisdiction thereof" does not say what you think it does. >>> The Supreme Court will TELL YOU what it says... >>Yes, and has. See above. > > Completely different matter. Only if you disagree with the Court. >>>>What it did >>>>do was to reverse Justice Taney's opinion in Scott v Sanford that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It's easy to understand but it points DIRECTLY to why you can't > understand the 14th Amendment. Why *I* don't? ;) > The FIRST PART "The only qualification to the general rule is that > persons claiming citizenship by birth must have been subject to US > jurisdiction" is CLARIFIED BY EXAMPLE on the SECOND PART "meaning that > children of foreign diplomats and of alien enemies may not claim > citizenship merely by being born within the United States or its > territories." Correct. > The FIRST PART is specific, the SECOND PART is merely an EXAMPLE, also > known in legal circles as a "clarifying emendation." It is a specific in that it is telling you the simple fact that a baby simply being born in this country does not apply to foreign diplomats or alien enemies. > YOU have it BACKWARDS think the SECOND PART is a specific limitation, > it isn't. And you are an idiot if think it is merely there as an example. >>>>>>> IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply >>>>>>> exclusively, all the legislator had to do was to write it like [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Trust me, your Socialist DemocRAT best friends will almost certainly > try to pass Criminal Beaner Free Citizenship this year. What socialist DemocRAT friends are those? If it passes > you can be certain that will be on hold until a suit reaches the > Supreme Court... Anchor babies have been defined for a long time. I would say....since about 1789.....and, again, in 1868. SignatureSleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) "Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." --Joseph T. Chew >>>>>>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >>>>>>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> Completely different matter. >Only if you disagree with the Court. No, the Details are different. >>>>>What it did >>>>>do was to reverse Justice Taney's opinion in Scott v Sanford that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> understand the 14th Amendment. >Why *I* don't? ;) Correct. >> The FIRST PART "The only qualification to the general rule is that >> persons claiming citizenship by birth must have been subject to US [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >simply being born in this country does not apply to foreign diplomats or >alien enemies. Wrong. You just COMBINED the TWO parts. >> YOU have it BACKWARDS think the SECOND PART is a specific limitation, >> it isn't. >And you are an idiot if think it is merely there as an example. I know this screws up your Liberal hopes for Beaner Amnesty but the facts are what they are. Using MODIFYING CLAUSES in writing the Constitution was common. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We did not need "being necessary to the security of a free State" in the 2nd Amendment. They were NOT required to explain themselves but they DID (as a clarifying emendation) to provide WEIGHT for what follows: "shall not be infringed." "Shall not be infringed" leaves absolutely ZERO wiggle room. Which IS what they intended. They chose to provide an EXAMPLE of BOTH why we need an armed citizenry AND WHY there should (never) be any question about it. Its the SAME with that part of the 14th Amendment. If they did NOT want "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" they simply would NOT have included it. If they wanted it to MEAN something specific they would have WRITTEN IT. Obviously the presence of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is VITAL to the intended meaning. Since the FIRST PART "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" tells us WHO they are talking about, and the THIRD PART tells WHAT they are talking about "are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" it is TOTALLY CLEAR that the WHAT depends on the MODIFYING PORTION. Note ALSO that it does NOT say "All persons born in the United States" for the simple reason that one can come here LEGALLY and procedurally become a Naturalized Citizen, AND IF you come here LEGALLY you ARE "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." >>>>>>>> IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply >>>>>>>> exclusively, all the legislator had to do was to write it like [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> try to pass Criminal Beaner Free Citizenship this year. >What socialist DemocRAT friends are those? All of 'em. >> If it passes >> you can be certain that will be on hold until a suit reaches the >> Supreme Court... >Anchor babies have been defined for a long time. No, not really. They were ignored for a long time, and then they were waved on by for a long time. And this was partly because nobody tested it directly, partly because the punishment for the crime wasn't severe, and partly because nobody in their right mind wants to prosecute children for something they didn't do and can't control anyway. >I would say....since about 1789.....and, again, in 1868. Neither case (details thereof) covers the situation we have now. I can guarantee you the Supreme Court will do a Heller when they see the 14th Amendment case... In Heller they said "shall not be infinged" means "shall not be infinged" except not really! When they get the next 14th case they will rule that so-called "Anchor Babies" are NOT automatically citizens BUT since that's ALL they can rule on the informal process of assumng they are citizens will then be made a formal process by Congress' Beaner Amnesty.... > >>>>>>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > >>>>>>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > Wrong. You just COMBINED the TWO parts. He's NOT wrong. "AND" means to combine the parts - BOTH must be met. > >> YOU have it BACKWARDS think the SECOND PART is a specific limitation, > >> it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > rule on the informal process of assumng they are citizens will then be > made a formal process by Congress' Beaner Amnesty.... What Congress needs to do is realize that the "brown invasion" is actually organized by the Mexican Government, and therefore take action against all the invaders. > >>>>>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > >>>>>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > simply being born in this country does not apply to foreign diplomats or > alien enemies. It means that the simple fact of being born on U.S. soil is INSUFFICIENT by itself to grant U.S. citizenship at birth. Another requirement exists that must also be met. Wetbacks don't meet that second requirement. > > YOU have it BACKWARDS think the SECOND PART is a specific limitation, > > it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Anchor babies have been defined for a long time. I would say....since > about 1789.....and, again, in 1868. > >>>>>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > >>>>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > The FIRST PART is specific, the SECOND PART is merely an EXAMPLE, also > known in legal circles as a "clarifying emendation." ...And by no means an exhaustive example. In fact, in the 1860's when the Amendment was ratified, there were 5 enumerated classes excluded from the jurisdiction. For example, one of the other excluded classes was the "native American indians" - until decades later granted citizenship by an act of Congress. There is nothing that says that these 5 were exhaustive either. Child born to at least one U.S. Citizen parent and in the U.S: Citizen (but not a "natural born citizen" unless BOTH parents were U.S. citizens). Child born to a lawfully admitted permanent resident alien: U.S. Citizen (but again, not a "natural born citizen"). Child born to a lawfully admitted alien visitor: Dual-citizen at best (not a "natural born citizen"), and perhaps a non-citizen. <= Gray area. Child born to a wetback (illegal alien): Alien SCUM, ripe for deportation (or target practice). > YOU have it BACKWARDS think the SECOND PART is a specific limitation, > it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > you can be certain that will be on hold until a suit reaches the > Supreme Court... > >>> On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > >>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > See US v Wong Kim Ark - 1898, Graham v Richardson - 1971, Trop v Dulles - > 1958 The typical MISINTERPRETATION of the Wong Kim Ark case. Wong Kim Ark was granted/found to be a citizen by virtue of the illegality of the Chinese Exclusion Act, thus finding that his parents were legal resident aliens, and thus their children when born were citizens. Such has nothing to do with any child of a parent having entered the U.S. illegally. > The portion of the 14A that you are citing "...subject to the > jurisdiction thereof" does not say what you think it does. What it did [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > citizenship merely by being born within the United States or its > territories. And children of illegal aliens are NOT because their parents BYPASSED the jurisdiction with their illegal entry, no different from an invading or occupying "alien enemy." > Source: The Evolving Constitution - Liebermann. Under Citizens and > Citizenship. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And that reason is that you can't come here and grunt out a brown > > citizen. AND even if you do YOU can't stay and neither can the Turd. > > On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > -RFH As I was saying, the law is very clear and has been applied for a very long time. This is the bottom line: There isn't a single so-called anchor baby who is not a citizen of the United States. There never was one and -if the 14th continues being the law of the land, as expected by any rational observer- there never will be one. During the time I wrote this, several new babies were born, automatically US citizens under the 14th. Amendment. The anti-Hispanic movement tried for a while the Amendment modification strategy, they then realized it was too uphill, and now they are talking about re-interpretation (by Congress or USSC). They just blah and blah for decades and don't have an iota of results. Ooops, another one was just born: "Bienvenido a los Estados Unidos! El mejor pais del mundo!". -Ramon >> > On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Ooops, another one was just born: "Bienvenido a los Estados Unidos! El > mejor pais del mundo!". Exactomundo, Ramon...bienvenido! SignatureSleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) "Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces." --Joseph T. Chew On Mar 13, 10:49 am, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Exactomundo, Ramon...bienvenido! Hope you brushed your teeth that time :) > -- > Sleep well tonight, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > --Joseph T. Chew > On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > -Ramon Erratum: Where I wrote: > That concept is called Jus Solis. I meant to write: That concept is called Jus Sanguinis. The point is that it is exceedingly easy to exclude the Mexican (or Swedish) mother with a couple of words. The legislator chose not to exclude them from the 14th. Amendment, and a century later the anti Hispanics are having a temper tantrum. --------------------------- That's because we have no problem with the children of LEGAL immigrants being U.S. citizens when born here. That doesn't count you, wetback. > I so love to destroy the US with my illegal muchacho hordes Illegals should be shot with tazers, tossed in a bus, and dumped back in their turd world country where they belong. On Mar 12, 7:16 am, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote: > I so love to destroy the US with my illegal muchacho hordes Illegals should be shot with tazers, tossed in a bus, and dumped back in their turd world country where they belong. -------- You first four words above were sufficient. They should be sent back in garbage trucks AS garbage. Such may even IMPROVE the looks of some Mexican cesspool border towns like Tijuana. On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in news:936c41f2-4038-45c7-88ef- > 076908895...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is your problem. If the mother is mex, then she > is subject to mexico's jurisdiction If that were the case, then the word "born" would never have been used. IOW: If the legislator intended Jus Sanguinis to apply exclusively, all the legislator had to do was to write it like this: "To be citizen of the US the person must have a US citizen parent". Every person (every mother) in the world is subject to the jurisdiction of some country. According to you, all non-US mothers are (or should be) excluded from having US children: that concept has a name. That concept is called Jus Solis. -------- Which came fron British common law. U.S. law requires MORE than just birthplace, dimwit. -------- Your intention is clear: you do no want a concept ("subject to jurisdiction") so be interpreted, you are demanding that the whole wording of the 14th. to be rewritten. You are hoping that someday "we will elect enough real conservatives to Congress" and that balance of power will make your Quixotic quest much easier than a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that... -Ramon SignatureOne can't teach an old spic new tricks. On Mar 10, 10:59 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > This is due to our idiotic policy of birthright > citizenship that congress could easily change. Many thanks to Drunkie for proving -one more time- that hate and ignorance go hand in hand (*). The Jus Sanguinis (by blood) and Jus Soli (by place of birth) principles are both consecrated in our Constitution. The Constitution of the United States (in particular, its 14th. Amendment) cannot be easily changed. It would take 2/3 of states legislatures. -Ramon (*) And the world is infinitely better off with an illiterate black than with you. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_the_US_Constitution_be_amended -------- The Constitution doesn't have to be amended. It only has to be ENFORCED. There is no citizenship MERELY by birthplace - as the 14th Amendment has TWO requirements: birthplace AND "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION." Illegals BYPASSED the jurisdiction - and therefore, their children do NOT get U.S. citizenship by being born on U.S. soil. They get the citizenship of their parents and need to be deported with them since they are as illegal as their parents. > .. On Mar 10, 10:59 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" > <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > They get the citizenship of their parents and need to be deported > with them since they are as illegal as their parents. Keep believing that. Anchor babies are a fact of life and have been since 1789. SignatureSleep well, tonight........ RD (The Sandman) The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.