<DIV>Keely,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Not being a US citizen is not a crime. So to deny its citizenship would not be a punishment. Why should the US recognize events as relevant if they happen during the commission of a crime?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>keely emerinemix <kjajmix1@msn.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <STYLE> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </STYLE> <DIV>"Donvan says:<BR><BR>"If someone born here is born here in the commission of a crime against the country, I don't think you can argue that always necessarily entitles automatic citizenship."<BR><BR>Your argument presumes that the criminal and the one punished would be one and the same. And what crime, exactly, would the infant thusly
born be committing? "Exodus a Felonius Uterus"? <BR><BR>Perhaps you've spent too much time with students of Latin . . . <BR><BR>Keely<BR><BR></DIV><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 16:40:56 -0700<BR>From: donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<BR>To: ophite@gmail.com; jampot@roadrunner.com<BR>CC: vision2020@moscow.com; donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sali Seeks to Delay Mexican Consulate<BR><BR> <DIV>"They also note that this understanding of birthright citizenship has<BR>persisted in Anglo-American common law since at least the 1500s. Your<BR>argument is, by contrast, an entirely novel interpretation of the law;<BR>one that isn't in accord with anything other than right-wing<BR>conspiracy theories about "anchor babies." This is why nothing like<BR>your interpretation has been tried *in the past century*."<BR><BR>-- ACS</DIV> <DIV><BR> </DIV> <DIV>Andreas,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Native Americans were
not considered US citizens until after the 1920s. African Americans were not considered citizens until after 1865. So, it has not always been so that just because someone is born in the United States they are automatically entitled to be a US Citizen. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If someone born here is born here in the commission of a crime against the country, I don't think you can argue that always necessarily entitles automatic citizenship. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you argue, as you have, that someone who has lived in the United States since they were 2 years old, and now at the age of 32, should not be sent back to Mexico because they have not managed to get their papers in order; then it should also follow that just because someone was born in the United States they are always entitled to live here. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It makes more since to me to be a citizen of a country of your parents then the one you happen to be in when
you are born. It is also much easier to establish blood relationship then where you were born. A DNA test can establish disputed parents, what test can you do to establish where you were born?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Birth papers can be forged, DNA is a little bit more difficult. I for example, am related to dozens of people in the Palouse. So my DNA would match up to bones going back to the 1880s, and lots of other people. If I was to prove where I was born, that would be harder because A) I don't remember that. B) There were a limited number of people there that do may not recall or may be dead C) Gritman might have lost or misplaced my birth certificate : ). D) Someone could forge my birth certificate to establish I was in fact born in Mexico City, Mexico. : P</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>Andreas Schou <ophite@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=EC_replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, g. crabtree wrote:<BR>> What part of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" do you not<BR>> understand?<BR><BR>Individuals residing within the territorial boundaries of the United<BR>States, legally or illegally, are subject to the jurisdiction of the<BR>United States. This is why we can, for instance, try and convict<BR>visitors to the United States.<BR><BR>Foreign visitors have always been subject to US jurisdiction and thus<BR>have birthright citizenship (though no Supreme Court case has been<BR>decided on this issue). Foreign ambassadors are excluded on the<BR>grounds that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the nation in<BR>which they reside (cf. "diplomatic immunity."). Native Americans were<BR>excluded until 1924 on the fiction that Indian reservations were<BR>sovereign territories not under the jurisdiction of the United
States.<BR><BR>And though Chinese-Americans could not become US citizens until the<BR>repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the one Supreme Court case on the<BR>issue (US v. Wong Kim Ark) decided that even the children of<BR>noncitizen US residents can become US citizens. The one remaining<BR>ambiguity is the actual relationship between the immigration status of<BR>Wong Kim Ark's parents and the status of modern illegal immigrants.<BR>Wong Kim Ark's parents entered the United States well before the<BR>complex system of visas and immigration statutes we have today.<BR><BR>As they entered through San Francisco, they likely just showed up on a<BR>boat -- didn't have to take an immigration test; didn't have to pledge<BR>allegiance to the United States; didn't have to sign any paperwork or<BR>carry a green card. Rather, they were just assumed to be US citizens.<BR>The rationale of the decision is in line with this thinking: the court<BR>argues that because Wong Kim Ark's parents
were not *agents* (such as<BR>occupying soldiers or diplomats) of a foreign power, and were<BR>domiciled in the United States (intending to make the United States<BR>their place of residence), Wong Kim Ark was entitled to birthright<BR>citizenship.<BR><BR>They also note that this understanding of birthright citizenship has<BR>persisted in Anglo-American common law since at least the 1500s. Your<BR>argument is, by contrast, an entirely novel interpretation of the law;<BR>one that isn't in accord with anything other than right-wing<BR>conspiracy theories about "anchor babies." This is why nothing like<BR>your interpretation has been tried *in the past century*.<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><BR> <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%20" target=_blank>Try it now.</A></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <HR> Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. <A href="http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_052008" target=_new>IM anytime you're online.</A> =======================================================<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>=======================================================</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>