Business Insider misleads its readers on birthright citizenship.

[Mac-7]

Birth right citizenship is a fact.

Only SCOTUS can change it, and even this Court seems to have no interest in doing so.

Why is that so important to you?

 

[surada]

.

See: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Both Trump and DeSantis want it gone, and they'll need the court's help to do it.

Madison Hall writes:

“As granted by the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, anybody born in the United States is guaranteed citizenship. The right was affirmed thirty years later by the Supreme Court, which ruled that Wong Kim Ark was legally an American citizen after being born in the US, despite having Chinese-born parents who were barred from becoming citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act.”

Madison Hall ignores the qualifying condition stated in the 14th Amendment, i.e., ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ". And she relies upon Wong Kim Ark which is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.

The factors involved which led to the court's opinion in Wong were:

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :

For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges' mind met the qualifying criteria, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.


The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment. And this is what both Trump and DeSantis are addressing.

Aside from that, one of the few times the Court did approach answering the qualifying condition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in the *Slaughterhouse Cases* 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Also see *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) in which our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

Finally, the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.

JWK

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[surada]

.

See: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Both Trump and DeSantis want it gone, and they'll need the court's help to do it.

Madison Hall writes:

“As granted by the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, anybody born in the United States is guaranteed citizenship. The right was affirmed thirty years later by the Supreme Court, which ruled that Wong Kim Ark was legally an American citizen after being born in the US, despite having Chinese-born parents who were barred from becoming citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act.”

Madison Hall ignores the qualifying condition stated in the 14th Amendment, i.e., ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ". And she relies upon Wong Kim Ark which is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.

The factors involved which led to the court's opinion in Wong were:

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :

For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges' mind met the qualifying criteria, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.


The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment. And this is what both Trump and DeSantis are addressing.

Aside from that, one of the few times the Court did approach answering the qualifying condition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in the *Slaughterhouse Cases* 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Also see *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) in which our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

Finally, the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.

JWK

All foreign nationals on US soil are subject to US jurisdiction with the exception of diplomats. No other country's laws have jurisdiction in the US

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[busybee01]

.

See: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Both Trump and DeSantis want it gone, and they'll need the court's help to do it.

Madison Hall writes:

“As granted by the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, anybody born in the United States is guaranteed citizenship. The right was affirmed thirty years later by the Supreme Court, which ruled that Wong Kim Ark was legally an American citizen after being born in the US, despite having Chinese-born parents who were barred from becoming citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act.”

Madison Hall ignores the qualifying condition stated in the 14th Amendment, i.e., ". . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . . ". And she relies upon Wong Kim Ark which is not applicable to the question of citizenship being granted to a child born on American soil, to an illegal entrant foreign national.

The factors involved which led to the court's opinion in Wong were:

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in our country legally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship :

For the reasons above stated (which apparently in the judges' mind met the qualifying criteria, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.


The simple truth is our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment. And this is what both Trump and DeSantis are addressing.

Aside from that, one of the few times the Court did approach answering the qualifying condition, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was in the *Slaughterhouse Cases* 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Also see *Elk v. Wilkins* (1884) in which our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

Finally, the best evidence regarding the question is to be found in the Congressional Record when the 14th Amendment was framed and debated.

John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section remarks on March 9th, 1866, during Congressional debates upon the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in the following manner:

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

Later, May 30th, during the debates when framing the 14th amendment and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows:

The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” LINK 1st column halfway down.

Mr. Trumbull later [same page] emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Business Insider needs to clean up its act and end perpetuating a myth.

JWK

All the bullshit you can find. The Congressional record clearly states that the senators knew that this was about birthright citizenship. You are the one trying to rewrite history.

 

[johnwk]

All the bullshit you can find. The Congressional record clearly states that the senators knew that this was about birthright citizenship. You are the one trying to rewrite history.

I have no idea what you are asserting. The adoption of the 14th Amendment, as the record shows, was certainly not about granting citizenship to a baby born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. The qualifying words regarding citizenship "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." excludes a child born to aliens.

That seems to be in full harmony with what our Supreme Court has stated and, those who framed and debated the clause in question, e.g., Trumbull, notes:


"[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." LINK

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The statement "The qualifying words regarding citizenship "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." excludes a child born to aliens" is false.

 

[johnwk]

The statement "The qualifying words regarding citizenship "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." excludes a child born to aliens" is false.

Thank you for you unsubstantiated opinion.

"False" to you, maybe, but not our Supreme Court:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Thank you for you unsubstantiated opinion.

"False" to you, maybe, but not our Supreme Court:

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.” ___ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

Our SCOTUS has never ruled in your favor of those words. Birthright citizenship is a fact that will not change in this century. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

 

[surada]

I have no idea what you are asserting. The adoption of the 14th Amendment, as the record shows, was certainly not about granting citizenship to a baby born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. The qualifying words regarding citizenship "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." excludes a child born to aliens.

That seems to be in full harmony with what our Supreme Court has stated and, those who framed and debated the clause in question, e.g., Trumbull, notes:


"[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." LINK

And how does a foreign national become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under which birthright citizenship would apply? By taking our nation's Oath of Allegiance.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America


“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

You don't understand jurisdiction.

 

[johnwk]

Our SCOTUS has never ruled in your favor of those words. Birthright citizenship is a fact that will not change in this century. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

Your notion about United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) is debunked HERE

Wong has nothing to do with a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national.

 

[johnwk]

You don't understand jurisdiction.

Did the Supreme Court understand the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

How about in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) in which our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

And, what about John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, did he understand the meaning of "jurisdiction" and stated the following?

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

 

[pknopp]

As I point out in every one of these threads, there is a reason no one will appeal this to the Supreme Court.

 

[surada]

Did the Supreme Court understand the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in which the Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”

How about in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) in which our S.C. points out:

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized..."

And, what about John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, did he understand the meaning of "jurisdiction" and stated the following?

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…" LINK (middle column 1/3 down)

There are only two kinds of US citizenship. Natural born and naturalized.
.

 

[surada]

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

www.law.cornell.edu

No other country has jurisdiction in the US.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

johnwk and his ilk deliberately refuse to accept the jurisdiction as it practiced in the US.

Birthright citizenship will not end in our lifetimes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Birth right citizenship is a fact.

Only SCOTUS can change it, and even this Court seems to have no interest in doing so.

The High Court (or any other court) was not given authority to legislate/initiate legislation and this current court recognizes and exercises that much better than previous courts. And it is truly a breath of fresh air.

It may take a constitutional amendment but if Congress would write one ending jus solis and send it to the states for ratification, I'm guessing it would be ratified and I don't think the current SCOTUS would have any problem with it whatsoever.

Common sense should tell us that children should have at least one U.S. citizen parent in order to automatically be citizens.

 

[surada]

The High Court (or any other court) was not given authority to legislate/initiate legislation and this current court recognizes and exercises that much better than previous courts. And it is truly a breath of fresh air.

It may take a constitutional amendment but if Congress would write one ending jus solis and send it to the states for ratification, I'm guessing it would be ratified and I don't think the current SCOTUS would have any problem with it whatsoever.

Common sense should tell us that children should have at least one U.S. citizen parent in order to automatically be citizens.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Foxfyre]

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

www.law.cornell.edu

You love to disagree with posts for which you have no argument don't you. Point to ANYTHING in my post that says your link isn't the law now. My argument is what the law should be. I swear you leftists would disagree if I said sometimes the sky is blue.

 

[surada]

You love to disagree with posts for which you have no argument don't you. Point to ANYTHING in my post that says your link isn't the law now. My argument is what the law should be. I swear you leftists would disagree if I said sometimes the sky is blue.

Who's laws do you think should have jurisdiction in the United States?

 

[Foxfyre]

Who's laws do you think should have jurisdiction in the United States?

How about addressing the topic instead of trying to derail the thread?