It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Plain Text: Anchor Baby Policy Is Unconstitutional

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah, now that would be 'presuming' I subscribe to the 'freeman' and 'sovereign citizen' methodology.


There is no legal (corporate) Fiction for 14th 'citizens'. Just like the 16th amendment was ratified, and in the slight(est) chance it wasn't (doubtful) it didn't confer any new powers of taxation, but, I digress... They are simply 'nationals' and owe allegiance to a state. [8 USC 1101(a)(21)]

The corporate fiction is the 'US Citizen'...the ones who 'voluntarily' [generally for protection or benefit] domicile in the District of Columbia - recall one can have multiple 'residences' but only one 'domicile'. "This Right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration." [Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 US, 698 (1893)]

... Does one expressly declare a 'domicile' by checking 'US Citizen' on a government from? If so, where is that 'domicile' located?

For [general] clarification I came to my conclusion(s) through understanding the three 'senses' of 'United States' as presented in Hooven &Allison Co v. Evatt. Reading the definitions in 8 USC 1101 and other titles of the USC. And, spending many hours digesting Rules of Statutory Construction, and How the SCOTUS has ruled on statutory interpretation, particularly definitions. Bouviers Maxim are delightful.
edit on 31-8-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: cites and rhetoricals

edit on 31-8-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: nit noids

edit on 1-9-2015 by J.B. Aloha because: Case Law misprint




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Good. The laws of the United States govern the ones you call "illegals." They might well be citizens of another dominion, but when they are within the borders of the United States WITHOUT diplomatic immunity, they are SUBJECT to said laws.

They are subject to and "under" the jurisdiction of the United States.

The United States which has jurisdiction over individuals within its territory and or boundaries.

The United States which has jurisdiction over a child born on US soil of said individuals.

Per force of the Constitution and US Code by right of the JURISDICTION of same, these children are born (jus solis) US citizens.

As to the rest of the jabber in your post, feel free to keep that barrel of red herring to yourself.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

no in the sense that it was ALWAYS intended (and doesn't even matter really) that the people be the final authority (try reading the Dec of Ind) no, not in that sense... In the actual sense, that the people ARE the final authority PERIOD...

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." ~Declaration of Independence...

So yeah, when those new guards also do the same as those that were thrown off, it is the People's duty to be the FINAL authority...

The SCOTUS is only the final authority in judging constitutionality when said judging does not evince a design to reduce them under absolute despotism.

I don't know what you've been watching, but the things seen as despotism back then weren't as bad as some of those things now.

So, NO, the SCOTUS is NOT the final authority, the PEOPLE are.

Jaden



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wrong they are neither subjects of nor under the jurisdiction of the United States. They need not have diplomatic immunity to not be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. That is why they have embassies here and we have embassies there and negotiation often comes into play when non-U.S. citizens are found to be in violation.

They do not have the rights of citizens, nor the obligations of citizens and are NOT under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Jaden



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

If regular (non-diplomatic-office) visitors break the law here, no matter where they are from, their embassy won't help them.

Same with Americans traveling abroad - the visitor is subject TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND, and the US Embassy will NOT be able to help them if they break the laws OF THE COUNTRY they are visiting.


There are several mechanisms in public international law whereby the courts of one country (the domestic court) can exercise jurisdiction over a citizen, corporation, or organization of another country (the foreign defendant) to try crimes or civil matters that have affected citizens or businesses within the domestic jurisdiction. Many of these jurisdictional "hooks" can even reach conduct that affected the domestic citizen when the citizen was beyond his or her domestic borders. There are five such doctrines:[2]

The territorial principle is the most important and widely used.

It is the idea that a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws.


Mechanism in public international law for exercising jurisdiction over an international defendant






edit on 9/1/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/1/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
So... much... twisting... of the... language.

'Breaking the law and facing the consequences' is not the same as 'placing yourself at the allegiance of the governing authority.'

Why did they break the law? Why are they illegal or undocumented? Why are they being affected by the jurisdiction's laws against illegals? Because they have no allegiance to the territory they have trespassed upon.

Seriously, are you trying to be obtuse?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So... much... twisting... of the... language.

No twisting needed.


'Breaking the law and facing the consequences' is not the same as 'placing yourself at the allegiance of the governing authority.'

True but the former still means being under jurisdiction.


Why did they break the law? Why are they illegal or undocumented? Why are they being affected by the jurisdiction's laws against illegals? Because they have no allegiance to the territory they have trespassed upon.

Actually the parents are not the ones who this is about. The child born on US soil has no allegiance with anyone. According to the law they are citizens of the US.
edit on 1-9-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Actually the parents are not the ones who this is about. The child born on US soil has no allegiance with anyone. According to the law they are citizens of the US.


It is ridiculous for a child to be an American citizen without either parent being an American citizen plain and simple. Things have to change and people are trying to do something about it for a change.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Night Star
It is ridiculous for a child to be an American citizen without either parent being an American citizen plain and simple. Things have to change and people are trying to do something about it for a change.

That is some peoples opinion.

That is not the law in effect.

It is your right to seek that change.

Don't keep invoking an intent which may or may not have been. Don't try to reinterpret what already has been interpreted by the authority established for that. Flat out change it, then there will be no question.

If that happens and I see someone arguing that the new law is wrong and that people have a right to jus solis citizenship then I will gladly tell them what I am saying here. It's the law in effect.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Still waiting for someone to present a tenable argument against the OP...

Deferring to opinion is not a tenable argument.
Repeatedly asserting falsities is not a tenable argument.
Claiming that widely-circulated sources are somehow less credible is not a tenable argument.

We are talking about the law here. A legal case is not built on opinions and sentiments.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
Deferring to opinion is not a tenable argument

Than the OP is not a tenable argument.

What someone feels the 14th means, backed up by nothing more than an opionion piece from a blog.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik
No offense intended, but if we can't agree that words have defined, objective meanings then I see no point in attempting debate with you.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: daskakik
No offense intended, but if we can't agree that words have defined, objective meanings then I see no point in attempting debate with you.

Words do, sentences don't.

I'm not debating with you. I said you were right in my first post of this thread. Still doesn't change anything.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join