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.

 

Natural Born Citizen

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   




posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Of course they acquire U.S. citizenship at birth but they don't loose their tribal rights. They have both not one or the other.



Thanks.

There is no argument.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yes, there is. Hence the law I quoted was enacted.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Only in your mind, backed by your confidence in your own argument. No bias there.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Only in your mind, backed by your confidence in your own argument. No bias there.



Still waiting on any link or source to support 'da way u c it.'



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Here you go, the definition of tribe according to the government:


§ 303.19 Indian; Indian tribe.
(a)Indian means an individual who is a member of an Indian tribe.

(b)Indian tribe means any Federal or State Indian tribe, band, rancheria, pueblo, colony, or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional village corporation (as defined in or established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1601et seq.).

(c) Nothing in this definition is intended to indicate that the Secretary of the Interior is required to provide services or funding to a State Indian Tribe that is not listed in the Federal Register list of Indian entities recognized as eligible to receive services from the United States, published pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a-1.

So "Federal or State Indian Tribe", not in Uganda or any other country.

ETA: Just to add a little more, the Indian Citizenship Act which ammended 8 USC 1401 actually said:

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property."

So, non citizen Indians, not just members of any old tribe.


edit on 10-2-2018 by daskakik because: To correct source and keep panties from bunching up.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Here you go, the definition of tribe according to USC:


§ 303.19 Indian; Indian tribe.
(a)Indian means an individual who is a member of an Indian tribe.

(b)Indian tribe means any Federal or State Indian tribe, band, rancheria, pueblo, colony, or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional village corporation (as defined in or established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1601et seq.).

(c) Nothing in this definition is intended to indicate that the Secretary of the Interior is required to provide services or funding to a State Indian Tribe that is not listed in the Federal Register list of Indian entities recognized as eligible to receive services from the United States, published pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a-1.

So "Federal or State Indian Tribe!", not in Uganda or any other country.


You quoted a definition from the 'Code of Federal Regulations' (CFR) and are attempting to apply it to the law under U.S. Code (USC) § 1401.

One has nothing to do with the other. One is a definition used for a section of federal regulations, the other is U.S. law and CLEARLY covers tribes beyond 'Indian tribes.'

Derp and derp and derp.

I have looked at this particular law for at least eight years. You are contemplating it as of today. Perhaps you aren't as informed as you think you are? Has that occurred to you?

ETA: AND what an OUTRIGHT LIAR you are for saying your definition comes from USC when it clearly is a CFR definition.

Your definition: CFR

The LAW I quoted: USC

And it figures some dumb@ss would star your lies. Probably someone who would lament about 'Cult45' when they are a devoted member of 'Cult44.'

Ya basic.



edit on 2/10/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe the edit will please you more and it even concurs with the CFR. They are not as different as you would like.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Maybe the edit will please you more and it even concurs with the CFR. They are not as different as you would like.


Cool story, bruh.

Except the law I quoted goes BEYOND just Indian tribes:


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


Basic. You.

Are.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, it doesn't because what you quoted still only applies to "Indians" according to the law that amended 8 USC 1401. You asked for something to back that up and there it is. If you don't like it then tough but I bet you couldn't find one case to back up your interpretation.

That wouldn't be your fault of course because nobody sneaks into the us and drops an anchor baby just to refuse to have it be a citizen.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, it doesn't because what you quoted still only applies to "Indians" according to the law that amended 8 USC 1401. You asked for something to back that up and there it is. If you don't like it then tough but I bet you couldn't find one case to back up your interpretation.

That wouldn't be your fault of course because nobody sneaks into the us and drops an anchor baby just to refuse to have it be a citizen.


No. Obviously what I quoted includes Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribes, too.

And, here's the thing...you are just proving my point - again and again -- NOT EVERY CHILD BORN ON U.S. SOIL ACQUIRES U.S. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH.

That was my point.

You seem to agree.

The rest is a bunch of irrelevant bickering.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
a reply to: howtonhawky

If you heard that dreamers are people born here .... you're misinformed. Their is actually no argument at all. If you are born here. You're a citizen. That's the law.
Dreamers specifically and only refer to kids brought to the US by their parents.


Oh yea i heard it and is likely the reason the thought of making them magically legal gets high numbers in national poles.

because they conflate the two in reporting and they do it very often


There is a lot of conflation surrounding the subject. In my opinion the worst is the conflation of "imigrents" and "undocumented or illegal immigrants"

The later is certainly a subset of the former; but today's news media seems to think the later and the former are the exact same thing.

In my family the generation proceding mine are imigrents to this country. They and I clearly love "imigrents" cause to do so is to love ourselves. By extension we feel strongly that immigration and imigrents are an important part of this country. However we are intelectualy honest enough to admit that there needs to be regulation pertaining to immigration in order for our country to prosper and that iligeal immigration is a problem that can not be ignored. It is baseless to browbeat people who want to discuss these issues as "anti imigrention" as if that is the same as saying "anti illegal immigrantion" when it clearly is not.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   
U2Uing instead....
edit on 2/10/2018 by MotherMayEye because: 'Imigrents' is not a word. I think you mean 'emigrants.'



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

By the way here is the USC def for Indian Tribe:

(4) Indian tribe
The term “Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community which administers justice or plans to administer justice under its inherent authority or the authority of the United States and which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indian tribes because of their status as Indians.

Notice the similarity to what I posted before.

And you are missing the nuance. Any child born of foreigners in the US is a citizen, regardless of whether they belong to a tribe outside the US because they are not the people mentioned in 8 USC 1401 (b).

Your point is in fact rather moot.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

By the way here is the USC def for Indian Tribe:

(4) Indian tribe
The term “Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community which administers justice or plans to administer justice under its inherent authority or the authority of the United States and which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indian tribes because of their status as Indians.

Notice the similarity to what I posted before.

And you are missing the nuance. Any child born of foreigners in the US is a citizen, regardless of whether they belong to a tribe outside the US because they are not the people mentioned in 8 USC 1401 (b).

Your point is in fact rather moot.


HELLO????

The law is not restricted to only "Indian" tribes. For the umpteenth time:


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe
Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe
Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe
Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe
Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe
Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe


AND still, my point is that not everyone born on U.S. soil acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.

my point is that not everyone born on U.S. soil acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.
my point is that not everyone born on U.S. soil acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.
my point is that not everyone born on U.S. soil acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.
my point is that not everyone born on U.S. soil acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.
my point is that not everyone born on U.S. soil acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.
my point is that not everyone born on U.S. soil acquires U.S. citizenship at birth.

My god.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:57 PM
link   

edit on 10-2-2018 by JaneyShmaney because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't care how many times you post it, it does not apply to foreigners because they might be part of a tribe because those are not the aboriginal tribes the law was referring to. It was referring to american "Indian Tribes".

Derp is right, the children of diplomats are not automatically citizens either, so why grasp at straws with the tribal thing?

Still your tribal interpretation is wrong even if your main point is valid.


edit on 10-2-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't care how many times you post it, it does not apply to foreigners because they might be part a tribe because those are not the aboriginal tribes the law was referring to. It was referring to american "Indian Tribes".

Derp is right, the children of diplomats are not automatically citizens either, so why grasp at straws with the tribal thing?

Still your tribal interpretation is wrong even if your main point is valid.



"Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe"

Clearly the law extends beyond "Indian" tribes.

But, thank you for conceding to my main point: People simply born on U.S. soil cannot be considered 'natural born citizens." We must look to 8 USC 1401 (b), first, to determine if they ACQUIRE citizenship at birth OR NOT. Just because a person is born on U.S. soil...it doesn't mean they are naturally born a citizen.



edit on 2/10/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You didn't even bother to follow the links provided did you?

8 USC 1401 was amended, adding subsection (b) by the "1924 Indian Citizenship Act" and it applied to "non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States" so, no, your interpretation is off.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You didn't even bother to follow the links provided did you?

8 USC 1401 was amended, adding subsection (b) by the "1924 Indian Citizenship Act" and it applied to "non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States" so, no, your interpretation is off.


I did. And it only applies to "Indian" tribes. Not Aleutians, Eskimos, or other aboriginal tribes which are also included in 8 USC 1401 (b).

So...you seized on only one of many types of tribes included and ignored the rest.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join