<DIV>Andreas,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Your argument was that people born in the United States were US Citizens, and that the intent of the author didn't matter but the language. Native Americans were born IN the United States, and not citizens. So it is not unheard of for people to be born in a country and still not be a citizen of that country. Native Americans do have sovereignty and self governance. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Illegal immigration is not a crime." </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Yes, it is, that is why they call it "Illegal". That is what illegal means. It is against international law to invade the United States and violate its international policies. Working illegally in the United States, not reporting yourself to authorities in the US and ignoring US policy, is a crime. Not getting a Visa, is a crime. Trespassing on private property to get into the country is a crime. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Make me a promise,
Andreas, when you as a lawyer start saying, "Being a terrorist is not a crime", quit being a lawyer, and be a driver for Meals on Wheels. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Andreas Schou <ophite@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">> Native Americans were not considered US citizens until after the 1920s.<BR>> African Americans were not considered citizens until after 1865. So, it has<BR>> not always been so that just because someone is born in the United States<BR>> they are automatically entitled to be a US Citizen.<BR><BR>The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1868, and Native Americans<BR>were only given US citizenship (in a bill stripping tribal<BR>sovreignity) in 1924. The fact that reservation lands are not "under<BR>the jurisdiction" of
the United States is the reason that they did not<BR>have citizenship -- though even under that decision, Native Americans<BR>born inside US territory did have citizenship.<BR><BR>> If someone born here is born here in the commission of a crime against the<BR>> country, I don't think you can argue that always necessarily entitles<BR>> automatic citizenship.<BR><BR>Illegal immigration is not a crime. If it were, the government would<BR>have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual was not a<BR>citizen of the US -- an impossible burden, in most cases. The vast<BR>majority of immigration cases are handled administratively, in courts<BR>that do not (and cannot) handle criminal cases.<BR><BR>> If you argue, as you have, that someone who has lived in the United States<BR>> since they were 2 years old, and now at the age of 32, should not be sent<BR>> back to Mexico because they have not managed to get their papers in order;<BR>> then it should
also follow that just because someone was born in the United<BR>> States they are always entitled to live here.<BR><BR>"Should" and "is" are different things. It *is* the case that children<BR>of illegal immigrants born in the United States are US citizens.<BR><BR>> It makes more since to me to be a citizen of a country of your parents then<BR>> the one you happen to be in when you are born. It is also much easier to<BR>> establish blood relationship then where you were born. A DNA test can<BR>> establish disputed parents, what test can you do to establish where you were<BR>> born?<BR><BR>"What makes sense to Donovan" is, thank God, not the same thing as<BR>"the Constitution of the United States."<BR><BR>-- ACS<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net
<BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> 
<hr size=1>Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a>