Bill would end birthright citizenship.

It's as true now as the first time I refuted you. It's in plain English. You lost. Deal with it

 

And I've shown you the only people not in "allegiance" are ambassadors and invading armies.

They did no such thing, and proven here...... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

I've proven every statement of your wrong. Sorry.

 

Jus soli is not an inalienable right no matter how badly you want to make it one.

I don't need to remember anything, jus soli is not an inalienable right, it is a civil right based on common law.

It seems hard for you to understand, jus soli is not an inalienable right of the person, no matter how badly you wish it to be. Your ideological perceptions are nothing but mere distortions of civil/common law. Its not taught that way in our schools simply because your perception is ideologically driven, and ideologically perverted.

- - - Updated - - -

<Flame-baiting/Replies>

 

You didn't show anything. You made a claim based on a quote that you say does something that it doesn't. <Flame-baiting/Replies>

<Flame-baiting/Replies>

What part of the quote is it you don't understand? You do realize that SC Justice Gray agrees with this since he is the one using it as holding in the Wong Kim Ark case, right? https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

 

What part of the criteria for an Inalienable Right does citizenship based Jus Soli not comply with?

The Right of Citizenship to the territory of one's birth existed long before there was government or common law. Even today in nature an animal has a "right of citizenship" to their place of birth. The snake, the lion, and the antelope has a right of territory (citizenship) based upon where they are born.

You confuse statutory law (and common law) with natural law. Natural law exists outside of the scope of statutory and common law.

 

You've been told in every forum you have posted this, even in the Libertarian forums that you are quite wrong, why do you keep repeating this tired BS if everybody you have tried to convince keeps telling you you are wrong, even Libertarians?

 

<Mod Edit>

its settled US law.

Nowhere is he staying it is REQUIRED. He then goes on to cite English common law showing the only children not born citizens are to ambassadors and foreign invading armies. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

 

Lets use a quote from another that stated this to you when you tried to explicitly use this same inane claim: I'm surprised you don't understand the concept that "rights" are always negative. You cannot possibly have an inherent right to a positive.

There is no right to citizenship that existed prior to government or common law. Animals have a "right to citizenship to their birthplace"? Animals may be born in an area and forced to move to another or be ran out by a more dominant beast from their "birth area", they have no right to citizenship.

Citizenship is a governmental concept.

I'm not confusing anything, it is you that is perverting laws.

 

No, you didn't.

It's not, granting citizenship to children born to illegals (EWI's) is mere policy.

So you don't understand words again. unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, This is second grade English. So if the General Rule (domiciled parents) is not accepted, then the clause failed to accomplish its purpose, and the freedmen (aliens) are not born citizens. That pretty much makes your claim asinine and shows the ineptness of your claim.

Lets highlight the words from your quote again:

What do all those big bolded words mean? "of such aliens" limits those born in England to only aliens that are born within the "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King, or predicable of aliens in amity. <Flame-baiting/Replies>

<Flame-baiting/Replies>

 

Of course I did.

14th amendment isn't just policy, lol.

Refuted here.... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

 

That is not an argument. Citizenship based upon Jus Soli meets the explicit criteria for an Inalienable/Natural Right of a Person. You, and others, would have to point out how it doesn't meet this criteria but no one has ever done this. So once agian here's the criteria:

An inalienable (natural) right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

Just saying it doesn't meet this criteria doesn't provide an argument. You actually have to provide an argument based upon this criteria as to why it isn't an Inalienable Right of the Person.

 

As was also addressed in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark any law that denies citizenship to a person "born in the United States... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is unconstitutional.

Of course many social conservatives agree with a statement attributed to former President Bush where (he might have) said (paraphrased), "Don't wave the Constitution in my face. It's just a *******ned piece of paper!"

 

<Flame-baiting/Replies>

Never said the 14th was policy, but granting citizenship to children born to EWI illegals is policy that gets interpreted by each new administration. Besides, citizenship is merely assumed until proven otherwise. Unless you hold a US Passport stating you to be a US Citizen, you are simply assumed to be one. (That is even in case law from the SCOTUS).

That quote does no such thing, <Flame-baiting/Replies>

 

You might do well to point out that claim in WKA, since NO where in there does it state "ANY LAW that denies citizenship to a person is unconstitutional."

Like the rest of your diatribe - (he might have) said. If only farts were rainbows.

 

Repetition. You've been proven wrong.

 

The 14th Amendment is being abused and taken advantage of and EVERYONE knows it. If you don't you're either insanely ignorant or an excellent liar. No one wrote that law knowing that we'd have millions rushing the border every year, popping out babies for free education and healthcare.

 

Post limit thread closure notification

Shangrila
Moderator