And a "person" is a legal term for a FICTION.
So, once you say that you are that "person" you just contracted yourself as collateral to that business contract between corporations.
I myself am NOT a person.
All law and Constitution in this country emphatically state that Citizenship is a voluntary contract. Nobody is born a citizen.
And if people get offended over simple cussing at the twits here, then that's their problem. Them wimps should just stay in their basements and not deal with the outside world. Because the real world is rough. Nobody is here to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
If you study on the foundation of the Declaration of Independence of this country (America) you'll see that none of the Representatives were punks. The
first thing they calculated on their way to that meeting was "What is the strength of the other Representatives ? How old are they and what weapons are they proficient in ?"
This was because several disputes over the hammering out of the Declaration of Independence was set by PRIVATE DUELS (all caps for emphasis only).
It's like this: I'm a Representative from such and such colony. And I'm invited to a "pow wow" with other Representatives from other colonies.
Now, the first thing on my mind is "Will so and so from such and such other colonies be with or against my moves ?"
So the thing I'll be calculating is WHAT WEAPONS are you good at.
Simply because if you keep fucking with me I'll fuck with you hard enough to piss you off at me for you to SMACK MY FACE with the DUELING GLOVES.
Because once you smack my face with them gloves, it's up to MEEEE to pick the dueling weapons. And I'm making a proper choice for
me. Because if you're a proficient fencer, I'll NOT pick swords. And if you're a country dude and good with the pistols or rifle, I'll NOT pick that.
So I'll just sit back all quiet and MEASURE you. Because I want my constituents to go forward. And I'll KILL YOU. But I'll NOT smack your face with the gloves because that would give YOU "the upper hand" and choice of weapons.
Benjamin Franklin had a cane-sword. And he's noted to have killed at least one man during the debate over the Declaration of Independence. He was challenged out to the back yard. And Ben was the only dude who walked back in.
So yous pussies here think that it's all about singing and holding hands and humming ?
Them dudes back then were all KILLERS.
Patrick Henry himself said " I may not agree with your nor with your opinions. But I will defend you and your opinions WITH MY LIFE." (all caps for
--- On Fri, 8/24/12, Gary K Shepherd <gshepher@...> wrote:
From: Gary K Shepherd <gshepher@...>
Subject: RE: [WorldCitizen] Re: born in america travelling
Date: Friday, August 24, 2012, 5:37 PM
I was most impressed with the depth and intellectual level of your response. It is too bad that there are some people who, when faced with someone who disagrees with them, respond like a blustering, foul-mouthed, school-yard bully. I think it is a shame, because I would like to see this list serve as a forum where people can hold rational, serious conversations.
World Peace and Unity,
Gary K. Shepherd
Editor, United World Magazine
From: WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldCitizen@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andres Espino
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:57
Subject: Re: [WorldCitizen] Re: born in america travelling
*sigh* you tend to come across as abusive and I tend to resent the tone.... however I am glad to cite many links to legal statutes which support this point of view.
You can claim to be a citizen or not a citizen as you choose, However, CITIZENSHIP is not a matter of what country or jurisdiction you claim, but rather what country claims you. A
country often sees its population as a national asset and may refuse its native born population to leave. Some countries require exit visas in order to achieve that. The World Passport offers an International Exit Visa to try and help people out of that dilemma.
The United States CLAIMS the people who are born there as citizens and obligated to its laws and taxes.
The 14th amendment: all persons born or naturalized
in the United States...are citizens of the United States.
Interpreted by the Supreme Court US v Wong Kim Ark to mean the U.S. adheres to the doctrine of citizenship based on jus soli (right of soil) rather than jus sanguinis (right of blood)
This is binding enough to support President Obama running and being elected to office based on his claim to US Citizenship by Birth.
YES There IS a Current controversy
During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American
Indians who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded. However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.
Most of the debate on this section of the Amendment centered on whether the wording in the Civil
Rights Act or Howard's proposal more effectively excluded Aboriginal Americans on reservations and in U.S. territories from citizenship. Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable, but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.
Edward Erler argues that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, there is no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship
to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants: "Even if the logic is that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen by birth with the permission of the United States when it admitted his parents to the country, no such permission has been given to those who enter illegally." Angelo Ancheta, by contrast, criticizes the "consent-based theory of citizenship", saying that "The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for 'all persons' born in the United States, particularly in response to ambiguities in legal status that attached to being the descendants of an outsider class, namely slaves."
In the late 1990s opposition arose over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship on a jus soli basis as fears grew in some circles that the existing law encouraged parents-to-be to come to the United States to have children in order to improve the parents' chances of attaining legal residency themselves. Some media correspondents and public leaders, including former congressman Virgil Goode, have controversially dubbed this the "anchor baby" situation, and politicians have proposed legislation on this basis that might alter how birthright citizenship is awarded.
The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of unauthorized immigrants. In total, about four million American-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents. The Center for Immigration
Studies—a think tank which favors stricter controls on immigration—claims that between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born each year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have sought to declare American-born children of foreign nationals not to be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", and thus not entitled to citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless at least one parent was an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
Some legislators, unsure whether such Acts of Congress would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through a constitutional amendment. Senate Joint Resolution 6, introduced on January 16, 2009 in the 111th Congress, proposes such an amendment; however, neither this, nor any other proposed
amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.
The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense." He explained, "A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it." Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship
is a policy that "Congress should rethink" and that the United States "should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children."
Professor Edward J. Erler of the California State University has argued that "Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923." Some others have disagreed with this interpretation, contending that while Congress can define territories (such as an Indian Reservation) as US jurisdiction, it has no power to define people as under US jurisdiction aside from where they were born.
Republicans in the State of Arizona have indicated an intention to introduce state legislation which would seek to deny American citizenship to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrant parents by prohibiting the issuance of a birth certificate unless at least one parent has legal status. However, critics argue that the child or parents could immediately sue the state for discrimination and that the federal courts would immediately force the state to issue the
A report by an organization called the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) in 2012 asserted that revoking birthright citizenship would be bureaucratic, expensive, would result in a national ID card, and would not slow illegal immigration. Under current law, if a citizen parent gives birth in a foreign country, they must prove their own citizenship in order for their baby to have citizenship. The NFAP estimated this to cost $600 per baby, not including legal fees. The report alleged that if birthright citizenship were eliminated, every baby in the United States would be subject to this cost. For the four million babies born each year in the U.S., this would total $24 billion per year. In addition, currently the US government does not keep any record of births, instead using the records of individual states to issue passports. The report alleged that the end of birthright citizenship would leave the states unable to verify whether a new baby should be granted citizenship, requiring the federal government
instead to issue birth certificates, and likely a national ID card. Finally, the report claimed that eliminating birthright citizenship would not reduce illegal immigration. The report said that immigrants come to the United States for economic reasons, and illegal immigrants cannot use a citizen child to be granted citizenship. The report also said that all proposals to end birthright citizenship, aside from a constitutional amendment, would be unconstitutional and quickly be overturned in court. The Center for Immigration Studies disputed these conclusions, asserting in its own 2012 report that the NFAP's claims were "unsupported", that a bureaucratic overhaul would not be necessary, and that ending automatic birthright citizenship would not cost parents money,
result in a caste system, or create stateless children.
More info available here at wikiLAW
Also Here with plenty of documented footnotes and LINKS.
Birthright citizenship in the United States
Current U.S. law
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Statute, by birth within U.S.
As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. According to that law, the following acquire citizenship at birth:
- "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
- "a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
- "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
- "a person born in an outlying
possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person"
There are special provisions governing children born in current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama
Canal Zone, Panama, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that "[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".
According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.
Statute, by parentage
Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):
- If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever legally resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth
- If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child's birth
- If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
- the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present" in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
- at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday.
Children born overseas out of wedlock
There is an asymmetry in the way citizenship status of children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, is handled.
Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth.
8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that children born to American fathers unmarried to the children's non-American mothers are considered U.S. citizens only if the father meets the "physical presence" conditions described above, and the father takes several actions:
- Unless deceased, has agreed to provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18,
- Establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence and, while the person is under the age of 18 years
- the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
- the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
- the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that acknowledgment of paternity can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise "legitimated" by law.
of this rule, unusual cases have arisen whereby children have been fathered by American men overseas from non-American women, brought back to the United States as babies without the mother, raised by the American father in the United States, and later held to be deportable as non-citizens in their 20s. The final element has taken an especially significant importance in these circumstances, as once the child has reached 18, the father is forever unable to establish paternity to deem his child a citizen.
This distinction between unwed American fathers and American mothers was constructed and reaffirmed by Congress out of concern that a flood of illegitimate Korean and Vietnamese children would later claim American citizenship as a result of their parentage by American servicemen overseas fighting wars in their countries. In many cases, American servicemen passing through in wartime may not have even learned they had fathered a child.
In 2001, the Supreme Court, by 5–4 majority in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, first established the constitutionality of this gender distinction.
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)