Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AZRepublican
If that is true then why did Title XXX make a distinction between residing in the U.S. AND jurisdiction of the U.S.? If we take your hairbrain analysis seriously there would be no need because simply residing in the U.S. puts you under the jurisdiction of the U.S.!!

Because there are exceptions, defined by law. Those are the children of diplomats, foreign military, etc. The cases that are cited in the quotes above by the CongressCritters debating the resolution. At the time, but not now, many of the Indian tribes fell into that category as well.

73 posted on 04/07/2006 7:45:07 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato
OK, so do you think Congress was royally confused when when they talked about parents owing allegiance to the U.S.? Why was not Irish children declared U.S. citizens at birth, but had to wait till till their parents were naturalized in 1908? How come the the civils rights bill require allegiance to the United States for children born to be a citizen?
79 posted on 04/07/2006 8:57:13 PM PDT by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson