One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Posts for: pescado rojo
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 162 next>>
Apr 17, 2024 09:02:00   #
(Main)
Birth Citizenship For The Children Of I******s Is A Sham Part II
"Further, Congress knows what words to use if it wants to declare that every non-citizen born within the United States is a citizen. The Indian Citizenship Act of 192433 provides that “all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States.” There is no reason to believe that the Congress of 1866 was any less able to use such words if it intended to provide citizenship to all persons born within the territorial limits of the United States. That it did not use such words requires the conclusion that no such all-encompassing grant of citizenship was intended.

I am not the first person to reach this conclusion as to the meaning of the Birthright provision. In 1873—only five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment—the U.S. Attorney General provided an official government opinion: “The word ‘jurisdiction’ must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of the amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction only to a limited extent.”34 Being subject only to a limited extent does not meet the requirement of “absolute and complete jurisdiction” necessary to obtain citizenship."

I h**e to admit it, but Mr Walpin has stated the same thing as me, just in more detail.

https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/birthright-citizenship-two-perspectives
Go to
Apr 17, 2024 08:57:03   #
(Main)
Birth Citizenship For Children Of I******s Is A Legal Sham
No doubt, i*****l i*********n is one of the most contentious subjects that will influence November's e******ns. One of the biggest attractions is the concept of anchor babies, a sham and farce that has been allowed to continue by a Congress that is more interested in keeping their snouts in the taxpayer trough than in doing their jobs.
The following is an article by Gerald Walpin, writing for the Federalist which re-states what I have stated before on OPP, with a bit more information. It will be in two parts, as they don't all fit in one post.


Applying these rule of law principles, how should we construe the words of the Birthright Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Does the clause, as some now assert, give citizenship to a child on the sole condition that he or she was born on United States soil, even if (i) born to a foreign citizen mother who promptly returns to her native land where the child also is a citizen of that foreign country, or (ii) born to foreign citizens while they are illegally in this country? Let’s together do the analysis that is necessary to determine what the rule of law requires.

We start with the relevant words of the 14th Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868. It requires that two conditions—not just birth in this country—be present for citizenship to be granted: (i) the baby must be “born … in the United States;” and (ii) when born, the baby must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. A cursory glance at the words themselves makes it clear that those who argue that mere birth within the United States results in citizenship fail reasonably to address this second requirement.9

Two Supreme Court opinions, both issued within the decade after ratification of the 14th Amendment are particularly relevant to construing the meaning of the Birthright Citizenship provision. Note that, because the meaning of the Birthright Citizenship provision did not determine the outcome in either case, the Court’s statements in both decisions are dicta, not binding holdings. But the Justices’ words should be considered authoritative insofar as they were expressed by Justices who lived through the enactment of the provision they were construing, and thus were well positioned to comprehend the meaning and intention of the words. These Court-expressed views on the meaning of the Birthright Citizenship provision should also be considered authoritative because the Justices were unanimous in making the statement in one case, and, in the other, the dissenters did not disagree with that particular point.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases,10 the Court wrote that “[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.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a t***sient alien mother. Then, two years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the Court unanimously and expressly recognized the existence of “doubts” that citizenship was automatic for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” after noting that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.11 These two Supreme Court rejections of automatic birthright citizenship for anyone born in this country, without regard to the parents’ citizenship status, are supported by facts undoubtedly known to those Justices, and certainly known to us.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/ (Cite insertion mine)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/ (Cite insertion mine)

During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”12 A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship. The record makes clear that, in considering the 14th Amendment, Congress did not repudiate the statute it had just enacted. Not even a single member introduced a bill to rescind that legislation. The absence of any attempts to walk back the statute suggests that Congress remained satisfied with that law, and that the same-session approval of the 14th Amendment did not signal any change of view.

Despite these facts, some might still question why, with this statute already enacted, it was necessary to adopt the 14th Amendment so shortly thereafter, if not to change the condition for granting citizenship. Others might ask why the 14th Amendment did not copy the negative requirement that the baby “not [be] subject to any foreign power,” but instead substituted the affirmative requirement that the baby must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. If one were to stop the analysis with the substitution, it certainly would leave reasonable questions. However, the statements made by the proposers of the 14th Amendment provide clear answers: The proposers sought to prevent any future Congress, by a simple majority v**e, from altering or rescinding the civil rights statute.13 In contrast, altering or rescinding a constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds v**e of each house of Congress and approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures—a vastly increased burden and, as history has shown, seldom obtained.

We do not know the specific reason for the change in phraseology. However, it is irrelevant in our search for the meaning of the Amendment, because Senator Jacob Howard, the Amendment’s co-author, described it as “simply declaratory of … the law of the land already,”14 referring to the Civil Rights Act already enacted. Thus, he was confirming that the 14th Amendment, with slightly different wording, was intended to constitutionalize the statute’s requirement that the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”

This conclusion that no change of meaning was intended was also confirmed by the provision’s prime author, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it v**ed, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required being “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” meaning, as he put it, “not owing allegiance to anyone else.”15 As Thomas Jefferson earlier wrote, “aliens are the subjects of a foreign power,”16 and thus owe allegiance to another country; hence, the alien’s children are not U.S. citizens simply by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. Furthermore, Senator Howard’s explanatory words are nearly identical to the Civil Right Act’s words “not [be] subject to any foreign power,” making explicit that the 14th Amendment was intended to put in Constitutional “stone” what Congress had first enacted as legislation. Applying that meaning, the U.S.-born child, returning to the parent’s country, is a citizen of and subject to that foreign country, and thus does not meet this requirement for birthright citizenship.

In its 1884 decision in Elks v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court adopted Senator Trumbull’s formulation that, to receive birthright citizenship, the parents must “not merely [be] subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and not subject to any foreign power,” as well as owe the U.S. “direct and immediate allegiance.”17 Parents and child, returning to their native land of which they are citizens, remain subject to that foreign power and must show it allegiance, and thus do not give the U.S. “immediate allegiance.” An immigrant who violated U.S. law by entering or overstaying illegally also fails to show “allegiance,” which by definition requires loyalty and obedience to the law.18 William B****stone, the famed English legal commentator in the period the 14th Amendment was enacted, and to whom American lawyers, judges, and legislators then repeatedly cited and quoted in decisions, legal briefs, and statements in the legislatures, defined “allegiance” in this context as requiring that the subject “will demean himself faithfully.”19 An i*****l a***n, breaking America’s laws, by definition, certainly does not meet that requirement. Further, an i*****l a***n, while subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, is not “completely subject to [U.S.] political jurisdiction” and, as a citizen of a foreign country, remains “subject to [a] foreign power”—thus falling outside of the Court’s stated requirements for birthright citizenship.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/ (Cite insertion mine)

Most proponents of the assertion that the Birthright Citizenship provision grants citizenship to all non-diplomats’ babies born in the U.S. ignore the three Supreme Court decisions discussed above, and instead rely on the Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.20 In that case, the Court granted citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to alien Chinese parents. But the Court made clear that its decision does not apply to the birth to a foreign alien mother who either promptly returns to the foreign country or is in this country illegally and therefore, under law, subject to deportation back to her foreign country. The Court expressly conditioned its decision on the facts that the parents “have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business.”21 Neither the parents nor the child are permanently domiciled here when, after birth, the parents and child return to and continue their allegiance to the parents’ native country. In Wong Kim Ark, the child who had been born on U.S. soil to Chinese parents had traveled to China, but only for temporary visits, and this was found not to undercut his claim to birthright citizenship due to his continued permanent and legal domicile in the U.S.22 Illegal status is more like returning to the foreign country than it is like temporary visits, for purposes of the Birthright Citizenship clause. An i*****l a***n is legally subject to deportation every day she is present on U.S. soil, unless she has been granted relief from deportation. Such a situation cannot be described as “a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States,” given that “permanent” is defined as “lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.”23

Another reason the Birthright Citizenship provision does not give automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal or t***sient aliens is that there is no evidence that those who v**ed to adopt the 14th Amendment even considered such a scenario. The purpose of this portion of the 14th Amendment was, as one senator put it during the Senate debate on the 14th Amendment, “simply to declare that Negroes shall be citizens of the United States,”24 and therefore guaranteed equal citizenship rights in the aftermath of the Civil War.25

Furthermore, they could not have intended to grant citizenship to children of i*****l a***ns because no category of “i*****l a***ns” then existed. In 1866, when Congress approved the amendment, immigration was essentially unhindered; any immigrant was a legal immigrant, entitled to citizenship after a minimum residence period.26 The first category of “i*****l a***n” was not created until 1875—nine years later—when federal law denominated the first aliens prohibited from entering; the only ones prohibited even then were convicts, prostitutes, and “orientals.”27 Ellis Island, which housed the first federal immigration inspection station, was not opened until 1892.28 I have not seen any explanation from those who argue that the 14th Amendment provides citizenship to illegal or t***sient aliens’ babies born here that reconciles that position with the undisputed fact that no category known as “i*****l a***n” was then even imagined to exist.

The fact that there were no i*****l i*******ts when the 14th Amendment was enacted is not the only basis for concluding that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to a child born to t***sient aliens. To hold otherwise would require attributing to the enactors of this Amendment the intent to scuttle a provision of the original Constitution that was sacrosanct at that time and has remained so until the current date. Article II of the Constitution prohibits anyone who is not “a natural born citizen” from being president. John Jay, later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a letter to George Washington, then presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, that sheds light on the purpose of this provision. He suggested that it would “be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”29 Such a “strong check” would be non-existent if a child of foreign parents, who left the U.S. following birth and lived as a citizen of that foreign land, owing it allegiance, could return at age 35, or even 20, and become president. That inconsistent continuing provision in the Constitution—not only never questioned, but specifically mentioned during the debate on the 14th Amendment30—counsels a rejection of the theory that the Birthright Citizenship provision granted citizenship to any child of non-diplomat foreign citizens born in the U.S.

Proponents of the broad view of birthright citizenship also err in asserting their premise that two clauses of the Amendment section that contains the Birthright Citizenship provision—“within the U.S.” and “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction”—are synonymous as applied to illegal and t***sient immigrants. But the Amendment’s authors, in fact, made clear that they did not believe that “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” meant the same as “within the U.S.” In the same section of this Amendment, it guaranties “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The “within” phrase was defined by co-author Senator Howard as meaning “all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction,” meaning that anyone physically present must be treated equally under our laws.31 In contrast, the Court has stated and later reaffirmed that “subject to jurisdiction” means much more: “owing … direct and immediate allegiance.”32 No allegiance, and certainly not immediate allegiance, is given by a parent who, following birth, returns with her newly born baby to live in the country of her citizenship; nor does one who remains here in violation of law show such allegiance.
continued in Part II
Go to
Apr 16, 2024 21:25:18   #
(Main)
Am I responsible for the doings of my great-great grandfather?
LogicallyRight wrote:
I am not responsible for r********ns. Period. My ancestors came to America after those times. And since those times there have been countless examples of giving favoritism to those whose ancestors were victims of those bad times. And many who weren't and still had those advantages offered to them. Those people are all responsible for not making the maximum of those extra advantages offered to them and their ancestors. Just as those that might have had more favorable advantages offered to them because of their ancestry, were responsible for how they used them. It balances over time and if you or your ancestors did not take advantage to what was available to them, it is there faults, and your hard luck, and not my responsibility. Now act like an adult, stand on your own two feet, and make the best of yourself on your own. There is no such rational thing as equity and DEI is better spelled DIE as it will cause a free society where the best can achieve their best, to DIE.
I am not responsible for r********ns. Period. My a... (show quote)


Since some of my ancestors owned s***es, and others WERE s***es, I have decided, as a said before, to just write myself a r********ns check and call it even.
Go to
Apr 10, 2024 12:45:30   #
(Main)
You can always count on MTG
tomhoff24 wrote:
How about asking his fellow Republicans to v**e on a border bill?


You mean the one that allows 30,000 wetbacks into this country per week? That one?
Go to
Apr 10, 2024 12:42:21   #
(Main)
History of Genocides
TJKMO wrote:
Israel
On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed an Application instituting proceedings against Israel with the ICJ alleging that Israel had violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the "Genocide Convention") during its 2023 offensive in the Gaza Strip.[109] South Africa's standing is based on the erga omnes partes nature of the Genocide Convention, which allows and obligates States Parties to the convention to take measures to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. South Africa requested indication of provisional measures by the ICJ, including that Israel end its military operations, to "protect against further, severe and irreperable harm to the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention", triggering an urgent preliminary hearing. Public hearings on the provisional measures question were held on January 11 (oral arguments by South Africa) and January 12 (oral arguments by Israel), respectively.[110]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
Israel br On December 29, 2023, South Africa filed... (show quote)


This is the same South Africa that is engaged in the systematic eradication of white farms and farmers, giving them to deserving b****s who grow nothing but weeds?
That is almost as ridiculous as giving Iran a seat on the Human Rights Council at the UN.
Go to
Apr 10, 2024 12:40:13   #
(Main)
Another reason why President Biden will be re-elected
American Scene wrote:
And a top issue for millions of v**ers who love their country.


I hope you are not counting your own worthless ass among them.
Go to
Apr 10, 2024 12:39:06   #
(Main)
Rich, white maga offers solution to the Arizona mess
American Scene wrote:
As seen on the fools at fox with krudlow


The "Arizona Mess" does not prohibit a******n when the mother's health is at risk, Einstein.
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 23:25:14   #
(Main)
Greta Thunberg Detained by Police
Liberty Tree wrote:
Does she have a job?


Head wart at Trolls R Us.
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 04:56:02   #
(Main)
What to do about Cannon...
Liberty Tree wrote:
Of all the biased ones who Trump has to deal with you whine about one who will not walk Jack Smith's crooked line.


Jack Smith? Oh, yeah! He was the prosecutor who got a conviction on former governor Bob McDonald, only to have it overturned by a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision because of his prosecutorial misconduct. Yep, those Leg Humping Liberals sure know how to pick 'em.
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 04:53:19   #
(Main)
Babies
publican wrote:
No, you don't get it. Here's a bit of advice: stay away from things that are beyond your comprehension.


If you took your own advice, you would have to stay away from pretty much everything.
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 04:52:13   #
(Main)
Babies
publican wrote:
I'm not asking for a reference, I want an actual definition.


You aren't smart enough to look up the US Code? Figures. I provide links with my posts and apparently Leg Humping Liberals aren't smart enough to click on the links, or get confused because of the number of multi-syllabic words
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 04:44:26   #
(Main)
Trump will face the music for Georgia e******n i**********e
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
It is alright if Trump stacks the deck though .


Let's see, the New York statute of limitations was amended to allow E Jean Carroll to make Trump the seventh man she has accused of raping her. This rape, which follows the story line of an episode of Law and Order SVU supposedly happened in the same store as the fictional TV episode whose story line her story mimics. She was raped for about 3 minutes, although she cannot remember what year it happened, in a busy store in a flimsy walled dressing room and there was no evidence and no witnesses.
Trump's over valuation of his property... He was charged under New York law 63(12), and in seventy years and more than one hundred fifty suits filed, his is the only one with no concrete victims and no specifically enumerated financial losses from specific parties. Judge Engoron stated publicly BEFORE the trial started that he thought Trump was guilty, and stated he would not allow a jury trial in the matter which is why Trump's attorneys didn't ask for one. Deutsche Bank, who provided most of the loan, stated under oath that their own appraisers agreed with Trump's valuation, that he repaid the loans on time with interest, and they suffered no damage.
Trump's classified documents case in Mar-a- Lago, where FBI agents took Melania Trump's underwear as a "trophy" is a crime, but Biden removing classified documents when he had no legal right to do so while he was a Senator or Vice President is okay because "he would be seen as a forgetful old man. He wasn't one when he took the documents.
While we are on the subject of stacked decks, let us not forget the appointment of David Weiss as "Special Prosecutor" for H****r B***n, (aka Daddy's Little Dopehead).The guy who slow walked H****r's prosecution until the statute of limitations expired, when he had been appointed in DIRECT VIOLATION of Federal law, namely 28 CFR 600.3(a) which plainly states that a Special Prosecutor may not be an employee of the Federal Government. I guess Joe Biden who is from Delaware, and US Attorney General Merrick Garland who serves at the pleasure of said Biden, were not aware that Weiss was Delaware State Attorney General, answering to Merrick Garland, when he was appointed.
Let's talk about deck-stacking.
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 04:28:42   #
(Main)
Biden Slaps Bibi. Bibi Will Take and He Will Like It.
pegw wrote:
I see Israel as needing weapons and support to continue their nefarious ways in Gaza
The trigger happy Israelis have been going too far for months. I see Biden finally coming around to that conclusion. President Biden isn't as week as the MAGA i***ts think he is. We still haven't goven a foreign aid package to the Israelis

.


Funny you don't see Hamas as needing weapons to continue murdering, raping and k*****g unarmed Israelis. Perhaps you should go to Gaza and help out first hand.
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 04:26:10   #
(Main)
Biden Slaps Bibi. Bibi Will Take and He Will Like It.
TJKMO wrote:
F**e tough guys like you are a dime a dozen.
Your CultMaster, trump, is another F**er.
Then like Hawley you run when the going gets rough.

It is a laugh r**t.


Says the civilian contractor кто все еще трахает корову
Go to
Apr 6, 2024 04:19:53   #
(Main)
Trump says he would 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒐𝒏 the J****** 6th "Hostages"
dwp66 wrote:
Looks like you can't use italics in a Title! Sorry about that.

Trump has repeatedly said he would pardon the J** 6 "Hostages" on Day 1 if he's elected. Could this be because he knows the only reason they're there in the first place is because of him? Well, for all the Trump supporters here who claim to "Back The Blue", here's a sample of the people he wants to hand a Get Out Of Jail Free card:

Peter Schwartz of Pennsylvania, sentenced to just over 14 years in prison. Schwartz was found guilty on 10 charges, including four felony charges of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers while using a dangerous weapon. A jury convicted Schwartz on assault and civil disorder charges for throwing a chair at officers and spraying them with pepper spray. Schwartz also has a prior criminal history of 38 felony convictions dating back to 1991.

Thomas Webster, a retired New York City police officer who assaulted a D.C. officer on the front lines of the Capitol r**t, was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Patrick McCaughey, sentenced to seven and half years in prison after images captured McCaughey pinning a D.C. police officer in a Capitol doorway as he howled in pain.

Kyle Young, who pleaded guilty to assaulting D.C. Police Officer Michael Fanone, sentenced in September to a little over seven years in prison. A judge sentenced Young after describing his “enthusiastic” participation in the mob violence against Fanone.Young pleaded guilty to assaulting, resisting or impeding a police officer. He is one of the several r****rs who assaulted Fanone, who was tased.

Albuquerque Cosper Head, who was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison, a r****r considered to have committed one of the day’s most brutal assaults against a police officer. He pleaded guilty to yanking Fanone away from police lines and shouting, “I got one!” before other r****rs d**gged the officer away, tased him and robbed him of his badge and radio.

Julian Kh**er, sentenced to over six years in prison after he pepper-sprayed three police officers in the face, including Brian Sicknick, who died of multiple strokes the next day. A U.S. District Court judge found that Kh**er found his way to the front of the mob and used pepper spray that injured at least three officers.

Robert Palmer, sentenced to more than five years for assaulting police and participating in some of the most violent episodes of J*** 6, throwing threw wooden boards and a fire extinguisher at police officers who were guarding the Lower West Tunnel of the Capitol.

Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the far-right O**h K****rs, last week, sentenced to 18 years in prison for s*******s conspiracy — the longest sentence imposed on a J*** 6 defendant to date. Prosecutors say Rhodes planned a weekslong effort to derail the t******r of p***r from Donald Trump to Joe Biden, leading to dozens of his allies descending on Washington.

None of these were A****A. None of these were “FBI”. But every one of them was a Trump supporter.

But let's just let them go. Because they're simply “hostages”.

OPP righties, please defend this crap.
Looks like you can't use italics in a Title! Sorry... (show quote)


Lt. Michael Byrd, the Gestapo officer who shot a visibly unarmed woman, Ashley Babbit, a 12 year Air Force veteran. to death.The C*****l P****e Gestapo were so sure of his innocence that they conducted a secret, in-house investigation and found him innocent without even releasing his name. We still would not know if it had not been leaked.
https://rollcall.com/2024/01/05/family-files-wrongful-death-lawsuit-over-j***6-police-shooting/

Victoria White, an unarmed woman who was pushed into a restricted space and was beaten badly by four C*****l P****e Gestapo, who hit her repeatedly, about 35-40 times. Guess who wasn't charged?
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/j***6-protester-claims-officers-beat-her-federal-lawsuit-filed-against-dc

https://www.businessinsider.com/accused-capitol-r****r-sues-dc-police-for-1-million-2022-1?op=1
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 162 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.