Mexico may elect a far left President

Sorry, but Supreme Court precedent trumps your batshit crazy ramblings.

Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

You should actually read the ruling.....Specifically this part.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

 

Again, sorry, but Supreme Court precedent trumps your batshit crazy nonsense.

Plyler v doe defines “subject to the jurisdiction there of” and they got it from the Wong Kim ark ruling.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202

 

....

 

There have been thousands of children of foreign diplomats born on American soil who are not American citizens.

John McCain was born in Panama but he was no Panamanian citizen, he followed the condition of his father.

My best friend was born in England while his father was serving in the U.S. Air Force. Under British Common Law, my friend ass belonged to the Queen of England and he found himself being a British subject. But under Natural Law that America recognizes and the U.S.Constitution is based upon, he was also an American citizen (Son follows the condition of his father) and ended up having dual citizenship.

The Mexican government claims jurisdiction over all anchor babies who were born on U.S. soil to Mexican citizens under natural law the "Law of Nations" and that all Mexican anchor babies are Mexican citizens who owe their allegiance to Mexico not the U.S.A. and can vote in the upcoming Mexican Presidential election.

How many military brats out there were born in Germany while their fathers was serving in Germany who are German citizens ??? None. Son follows the condition of his father. Germany like America follows Vattels "Law of Nations."

The 14th Amendment is the most misinterpreted amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The only intent of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was to grant U.S. citizenship to former slaves. That's why until 1924 Native American Indians who were born on U.S. soil were not U.S. citizens because the U.S. government didn't have jurisdiction over Native American Indian tribes because each tribe was a sovereign nation.

Under Natural Law, anchor babies are not U.S. citizens.

 

diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which is why their children are not citizens. Every other person born in US soil, is a US citizen. Parents citizenship is irrelevant.

Has no relevance to this discussion.

Which also has no relevance.


There is no such thing as natural law. Here in the US, we are under constitutional law. And the law states, anyone born on US soil is a US citizen.

 

How many of the SCOTUS Justice's were activist judges ?

The SCOTUS doesn't always get it right and fail to do their job of interpenetrating the intent of the law.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Ever been to a professional soccer game in L.A. where it's a USA team vs. a Mexico team ?

The stadium is packed, 40,000 or more 99% with brown faces maybe 20,000 anchor babies in the bleachers rooting for the team from Mexico because that's where their true loyalty lies. And when they play the American National Anthem, 99% refuse to stand and all you hear is booing.

 

Your problem is you think a blog entry somehow overrules a Supreme Court case, lol.

You were given the case whic( defined subject to the jurisdiction there of. Plyler v. Doe.

 

You sound like a cultural-marxist revisionist.

 

Because I quoted Supreme Court precedent? Lol, ok

 

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority), Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance) and Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person) all in one sentence. Could have added argument to logic but three should be ample.

Nine mystical beings in black robes that seldom ever agree with each other, offer either conccuring or dissenting opinions with and against each other but only upon the question or questions before it. It defies all logic, thinking this to be somehow authoritative, especially when the split is along political lines. But the questions are always skillfully crafted to avoid sensitive areas that would open the curtain and reveal the truth.

Nat. Fedn. of Indep. Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 - Supreme Court 2012 - Obamacare, the level of the depravity of those mystical beings was fully exposed by Clarence Thomas in his dissenting opinion. When an illegal act is passed by congress. Then rammed down peoples throat by the executive under threat of arms. But when those mystical beings declare unconstitutional the enabling act congress used as vested powers by legislating from the bench they meant a tax and as the question did not involve a tax and congress had the power to tax. And the chances of this ever getting out of tax court to make it to those mystical beings is longer than the full reality of the scam failing of it's own volition. That is called tyranny but it's me that's crazy. I can accept that but experience can be a cruel teacher.

Even your wonderwhatever, those mystical beings in black robes have tended to agree with me. "The Court" offered as their opinion by common usage interrupted the law whereas the people settled it.

Really, then explain Native American or slavery no matter the color. Guess that would make it a selective choice, there goes anyone and born. That only leaves soil, not all soil but soil modified by US. So we are speaking of the constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. But to most psychopaths in government the constitution doesn't count and much braying and threatening and lengthty draw out court battles keep all the sheeple in line.

But me personally I prefer the Declaration of Independence, I don't consent, puts the burden of proof where it belongs.

You do know you posted a syllabus which is nothing more than a summary by a law clerk so lawyers don't have to read the whole thing. It has no standing in law.

I prefer to read decisions from the nine mystical being direct, not modified by the filters of Cornell Law, after all they are indoctrinating lawyers. But if you had actually read the whole decision, you would have a brief reference to US v Wong Kim Ark in footnote 10:

Which referred to:

Doesn't support your position at all. Plyler was contending a restriction on jurisdiction whereas Ark was contending an expansion. All this court has done was to borrow Judge Gray's work on jurisdiction and add an additional expansion to include illegals where the Ark court took pains to ensure legal.

If you're a lawyer, god help your clients.

 

I directly refuted all of this already. Your batshit crazy ramblings do not trump supreme court precedent. I quoted the relevant portions of both rulings.

Anyone physically inside US borders is subject to US jurisdiction (excepting diplomats, or a foreign invading army) and anyone born inside US borders is a US citizen at birth.

 

Actually you seem incapable of refuting anything. You make statements you have no capability to defend but instead use bullying techniques to bully your way through. You make no argument, just inneundo. You claim to know law but seem to have problems finding case opinions of the court. And what you do manage to find, you have no clue how to read.

Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356. “Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies for government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”

So by your own words that those mystical being in black robes are gods, they have deemed you ignorant.

 

lol, I gave you both court rulings, and cited the relevant portions.

Anyone inside US borders is subject to US jurisdiction. plyler v doe

Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. US v wong kim ark.

 

For you to give something you must first have it. I would suggest you first start with language, words have meanings, especially legal. All you really have are assumptions of which you cannot defend. Stating the same tired false statement over and over will not make it true.

Courts cannot make rulings, they offer opinions. But that would be putting the cart before the horse, you have demonstrated so well that you have no clue what a court really is. Have you ever made a court? If you did then I would predict you lost unless your opponent was mentally challenged or a lawyer, same thing.

In court, there are law and facts, without law, facts are immaterial as there is nothing to apply them to. Even though you have no clue about the cases you are trying to imply supports something they don't...

But to show the extent of your ignorance, let's look at the case of US v Wong Kim Ark. Before an appellate court must first determine the question to be considered as a matter of jurisdiction, is it within the powers of the court to act.

So with any opinion of the court must fit within the narrow confines therein so defined. Which leads to the opinion part:

So much for your claim you know anything about law much less justice. And what was that final opinion, "Order Affirmed".

I would ask how you rectify this comment:

So which is lying as A cannot be B at the same time in the same instance. This is not law, it's tyranny design to control the masses and make sure any that disagree face the barrel of a gun. Not a justices gun mind you as they are cowards that hide behind the government facades instead of standing with like honest men.

 

I do have it, which is why I quoted it, and linked you directly to the ruling.

I'm sorry you think your batshit crazy bullshit somehow trumps settled US law, and supreme court precedent, but reality shows that to be nonsense.

Anyone inside US borders is subject to US jurisdiction, regardless of legal status. Plyler v doe

Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen, regardless of parents legal status. US v wong kim ark.

 

Then both Mexico and the United States should wise up and decriminalize drugs. Even if only one side did it, it would be a good step forward in taking away the power of the cartels.

Then of course there is legalizing drugs. If that were done, producing, selling and consuming drugs would be legal, but that does not put the drug cartels off the hook. They would still be pursued for the violence they committed while the drugs were illegal.

 

Three more weeks until the election and Obrador as a candidate (as opposed to party or coalition) is leading by a majority now. That could still change, but it's getting less likely that his lead in the polls will fall as the election date gets closer.

The new president will be sworn in on December 1st so even if Obrador won, the consequences of his victory will not be felt for quite a while. Well, except maybe in the stock market which relies on short term thinking.

 

I'd argue he didn't wreck it at all. Lower (petty) crime rates, more rights for natives, a growing middle class, etc. Then he died, was replaced by an idiot and OPEC crashed oil prices trying to kill NA tar sands.

 

Doesn't matter who they elect they will do nothing about the gang's, Columbia has largely cleaned up it's act and a large price had to be paid in blood to get there Mexico needs to start down this route.

In reality we should legalise and control cocaine, prohibition hasn't worked it's just destroyed lives even more than the drug itself. Cocaine is also nowhere near as dangerous as it's been made out to be but you can make crack easily from it which is a truly nasty drug.

The only way to win this war is control, we have enough decades of experience to learn the old ways just don't work.

 

legalizing drugs doesnt take any power away from thr cartels....at all. All that will do is increase the carnage against anyone selling drugs who isnt a caryel member. Do you honestly believe the Cartel will evaporate if they make drugs legal?

 

No if it's not profitable they will concentrate on people trafficking, cigs, etc. Cartels only care about money and it's hard to fight a cartel when the country is poor and they offer life changing money for what seems little work.

 

They will make it profitable by cutting the heads off the family members of anyone who dares to compete with them.

 

In Mexic, sure but In America their money supply will dry up as white market dealers take over with lower prices and better product. That in turn will mean less money to buy American weapons which in turn will lessan the bloodshed in Mexico and allow the Mexican police and military to finally outmatch the cartels in battle. It's a process.

 

That's astounding.


That you're a Venezuela apologist that is!

 

None of what I said was false... Unless you're a believer in alternative facts in which case I suppose I am an apologist. For reality.