Is there a politician with the balls to lobby for a rewrite of the 14th / the anchor baby statute?

[IM2]

Angry Black man digging deep to find reasons to throw insults. Not the mark of intelligence. I hope you are taking meds for your high blood pressure.

Black man who is correct about the stupidity of this subject.

 

[IM2]

The argument about the 14th amendment made by the right is based on b.s. derived from the chrisian identity movement which believes the 14th was not legally ratified. So this is another b.s. white race bait thread.

 

[Ringtone]

Definition of jus soli. : a rule that the citizenship of a child is determined by the place of its birth.

So you think you can school us about the principle of jus soli, eh?

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on it beyond your Googly Oogly with a scholar, namely, yours truly. But wait! Even better, why don't you try to school me on it relative to the principle of jus sanguinis. Then explain how these principles of citizenship-nationality law alternately apply to persons born abroad, born in incorporated territories, and born in unincorporated territories. Be sure to cite the pertinent statutory and case law, and, incidently, don't forget to discuss the specifics of the prevailing JURISDICTION in each case.

Even better yet, why don't you just shut the hell up, get a clue as to whom you're talking, sit at my feet, and learn real things. You know, instead of just making shit up as you so along.



.

 

[Ringtone]

The argument about the 14th amendment made by the right is based on b.s. derived from the chrisian identity movement which believes the 14th was not legally ratified. So this is another b.s. white race bait thread.

^^^^^^^^^
Lunatic Alert!

 

[BackAgain]

Black man who is correct about the stupidity of this subject.

The subject isn’t stupid, you ignorant dill weed. Some of the persons talking about it are stupid, like when you and dopes like surada, the flying parasquirrel, are the ones talking about the subject.

 

[otto105]

First, I'm not pushing an anti-immigrant screed. What the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?

Second, what the hell is a "born right subject"? Would that be a person born with ten fingers and toes?

LOL!

Third, the mere reading of the Amendment is only clear to those who KNOW the pertinent natural, territorial, statutory, and case law, as well as the historical development of the same. You don't. I do.

You and surada, especially, have unwittingly contradicted yourselves repeatedly. Unkotare, who should know better, is unwisely disagreeing with me on this thread when in fact he hasn't any real first-hand knowledge on the matter either.

​

C_Clayton_Jones is prattling his usual pablum sans any real knowledge about the historical development of U.S. jurisdiction for the purpose of citizenship/nationality vis-à-vis the constitutional construct of natural-born citizenship of original intent.​

The thrust of BS Filter's observations stems from the emboldened in the above. BS Filter is neither denying nor ignorant of the wider constitutional applications of the 14th. C_Clayton_Jone is just throwing shade on BS Filter with his ho-hum regurgitation 14th-Amendment factoids.

That is to say, BS Filter's observation regarding the incongruity between original intent and contemporary practice per the gaping hole in prevailing in immigration law, primarily due to the injudicious Wong Kim Ark decision, is spot on.

Unlike you, surada, Unkotare, C_Clayton_Jone, and others, I recognize that.

But, then, I am an expert on citizenship and nationality law--steeped in the pertinent natural, territorial, statutory, and case law, as well as in the historical development of the same. Once again: Righting the Confusion of Citizenship and Nationality: The Facts, The Myths and Other Riddles. I'm the author, Michael Rawlings, a.k.a., Ringtone.

As for BackAgain and Indeependent, they're not pretending to be experts; rather, they're wise and smart enough to recognize that all of you are pretending to know things you don't. How? They readily recognize that your guff is riddled with non sequiturs and logical inconsistencies.

They smell the stink leaking from your soiled undies.

When was the last time this Amendment was in court?

The language is clear. You want it to mean something it does not delineate.

Much like you want “a well regulated militia” to mean less than it states.

 

[Ringtone]

When was the last time this Amendment was in court?

The language is clear. You want it to mean something it does not delineate.

Much like you want “a well regulated militia” to mean less than it states.

More meaningless blather by which you unwittingly reveal your duplicity, ignorance, and rank stupidity.

 

[Ringtone]

Natural Citizens
Being a natural citizen means that a person is automatically eligible for citizenship due to the circumstances of birth or parentage. There are several types of natural born citizens.

Born on U.S. soil. If a child is born inside the United States or its territories, that child is a citizen automatically. It doesn’t matter if the parents are citizens or not. Children born in the U.S. who then leave the country for many years do not lose their citizenship, no matter how long they live elsewhere. This rule about citizenship does not include children born to government officials or diplomats from other countries; children born to them are not U.S. citizens.

Born of U.S. parents living abroad. If one or both of a child’s parents are U.S. citizens (who meet certain requirements such as residence in the U.S. or other factors), the child can acquire U.S. citizenship. The parents must apply to the embassy or consulate for a Consular Report of a Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States. Once that is issued, the child is a citizen and can obtain a passport.

Adopted overseas. A foreign-born child who is adopted by U.S. parents automatically and legally becomes a U.S. citizen after being legally adopted by the parents or after living with them in the U.S. for two years.

False!

There is only one type of natural-born citizen under the law, not several types. Procedural matters of confirmation have absolutely no bearing on the status of one's citizenship. A natural-born citizen is a person who is a citizen AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH as opposed to those who become citizens subsequent to birth. The latter are naturalized citizens. Hence, there are only two types of U.S. citizens: (1) natural-born citizens or (2) naturalized citizens. Period.

 

[surada]

False!

There is only one type of natural-born citizen under the law, not several types. Procedural matters of confirmation have absolutely no bearing on the status of one's citizenship. A natural-born citizen is a person who is a citizen AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH as opposed to those who become citizens subsequent to birth. The latter are naturalized citizens. Hence, there are only two types of U.S. citizens: (1) natural-born citizens or (2) naturalized citizens. Period.

Damn I have said that 3 times. Can't you read?

 

[surada]

So you think you can school us about the principle of jus soli, eh?

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on it beyond your Googly Oogly with a scholar, namely, yours truly. But wait! Even better, why don't you try to school me on it relative to the principle of jus sanguinis. Then explain how these principles of citizenship-nationality law alternately apply to persons born abroad, born in incorporated territories, and born in unincorporated territories. Be sure to cite the pertinent statutory and case law, and, incidently, don't forget to discuss the specifics of the prevailing JURISDICTION in each case.

The argument about the 14th amendment made by the right is based on b.s. derived from the chrisian identity movement which believes the 14th was not legally ratified. So this is another b.s. white race bait thread.

Children born to US citizens abroad are natural born US citizens. The birth is registered at the nearest US embassy or consulate. The baby gets an inked footprint and a US passport. Are you drunk or just being abusive for fun?

 

[Ringtone]

Damn I have said that 3 times. Can't you read?

And yet you implied that the United States' jurisdiction per the law of the land and the United States' jurisdiction per cizenship-nationality law were one and the same thing when you thought to throw shade on my observation, only to unwittingly make an ass of yourself. And yet you also wrote the following la-la to boot: "There are several types of natural born citizens."

Several types of natural-born citizens, eh?!

crickets chirping

 

[BackAgain]

And yet you implied that the United States' jurisdiction per the law of the land and the United States' jurisdiction per cizenship-nationality law were one and the same thing when you thought to throw shade on my observation, only to unwittingly make an ass of yourself. And yet you also wrote the following la-la to boot: "There are several types of natural born citizens."

Several types of natural-born citizens, eh?!

crickets chirping

Jeez. Take it easy on her. She’s been nailed more than a guy on a cross.

lol

ok. Carry on.

 

[Ringtone]

surada writes to me: "Children born to US citizens abroad are natural born US citizens. The birth is registered at the nearest US embassy or consulate. The baby gets an inked footprint and a US passport. Are you drunk or just being abusive for fun?"

Are you a drooling 'tard?