USAID may be the biggest scandal in American History.

#151
#151
hog88 said:
I wouldn't say that they are exclusively a tool of the administration. There's probably a ton of things they fund with our dollars that neither congress or the sitting administration are aware of.
Click to expand...
You think they work independently on subverting governments?
 
#154
#154
rekinhavoc said:
www.breitbart.com

Dem Rep. Connolly: Trump Can't Shut Down, Change USAID — It Was Created by Congress

Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) said on CNN's "OutFront" that Congress created the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), therefore President Donald Trump could not shut it down or make significant changes. | Clips
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

Representative Gerry Connolly (D-VA) said on CNN’s “OutFront” that Congress created the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), therefore President Donald Trump could not shut it down or make significant changes.

Found the problem....it's poop again.

View attachment 719384
Click to expand...

Disinformation.

Seems JFK created it by EO
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, UT_Dutchman, rekinhavoc and 1 other person
#157
#157
LSU-SIU said:
Actually, the more I look at it the more I believe its the opposite. Meaning, if the parents do not have citizenship nor have accepted the jurisdiction of the U.S. than the child would be excluded. (it seems increasingly relevant as to the status of the parents, obviously not all children born in the U.S. are auto-citzens, furthermore the whole dual citizenship should never really exist)

View attachment 719656

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK​

Actually touches on these points as well which comes down to accepting the jurisdiction of the host country by the parents, if one is not one that accept jurisdiction than it doesn't seem as clear as one would suspect. Most of this would not be an issue if it were merely where someone was born, clearly people can be excluded... heck, it can be done today statutorily if a person wants to renounce.
Click to expand...
The wording of the Amendment says otherwise though. We should clarify the issue via another Amendment.
 
#158
#158
EasternVol said:
The wording of the Amendment says otherwise though. We should clarify the issue via another Amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually, it seems to conform to it i.e. within its jurisdiction. Obviously, not everyone born in the U.S. is subject to its jurisdiction which is spoken about not only by the author but in a separate case by the Supreme Court which was provided. None of this would have ever needed to be addressed if there it was 100% automatic, obviously its not.

We should clarify the issue via another Amendment.
Click to expand...


Why? The more I read it and the U.S. Supreme Court it seems fairly straight forward. The rest could be handled statutorily, meaning codify what already exists constitutionally but not sure why it's needed other than maybe give dual citizens time to renounce they're other allegiance.
 
#160
#160
LSU-SIU said:
Actually, it seems to conform to it i.e. within its jurisdiction. Obviously, not everyone born in the U.S. is subject to its jurisdiction which is spoken about not only by the author but in a separate case by the Supreme Court which was provided. None of this would have ever needed to be addressed if there it was 100% automatic, obviously its not.
Click to expand...
Illegals are subject to our jurisdiction. They are not immune to our laws like diplomats are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#161
#161
EasternVol said:
Illegals are subject to our jurisdiction. They are not immune to our laws like diplomats are.
Click to expand...

Their illegal status is proof that they do not accept the jurisdiction, they have to accept it which is why they talk about people that have renounced. None of this would need to be spoke about if someone had 100% citizenship at birth. They even speak about the parents renouncing for the child as legal protector.
 
#162
#162
LSU-SIU said:
Actually, it seems to conform to it i.e. within its jurisdiction. Obviously, not everyone born in the U.S. is subject to its jurisdiction which is spoken about not only by the author but in a separate case by the Supreme Court which was provided. None of this would have ever needed to be addressed if there it was 100% automatic, obviously its not.




Why? The more I read it and the U.S. Supreme Court it seems fairly straight forward. The rest could be handled statutorily, meaning codify what already exists constitutionally but not sure why it's needed other than maybe give dual citizens time to renounce they're other allegiance.
Click to expand...
Because of how the 14th is worded.
 
#163
#163
EasternVol said:
Because of how the 14th is worded.
Click to expand...

Its worded that way because not everyone is included.

In the case of Wong, they accepted the legal status of the U.S. under the terms prior to conception and birth i.e. jurisdiction.

None of this would have had to be spoken about if it was just 100% you are born here = citizen.
 
#165
#165
EasternVol said:
Illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Their children born here are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...

No, they do not accept jurisdiction. Acceptance of the jurisdiction would be getting legal status, and not renouncing. Parents that bring their child to another country as a citizen there is renouncing for their child, imo.
 
#168
#168
EasternVol said:
If they commit a crime here they're subject to our legal system. That's jurisdiction. Them 'accepting' it isn't a factor.
Click to expand...
If they want to accept jurisdiction than they have to get proper legal status if they are an alien. The 14th amendment clearly doesn't involve everyone here. Wong Kim Ark would not be necessary to establish those facts asthe only fact that would be necessary is whether he was born here... which is clearly not the case. Domicile i.e. legal residence. His parents had valid legal status and established legal valid domicile before and after the birth i.e. legal.

None of this exercise would be necessary if what you say is correct.

Dual citizens are proof they're citizenship was renounced, imo. Although, I could see giving people a statutorily time to cure the defect i.e. renounce the other country's citizenship.

What the Supreme Court seems to me to be doing is making a determination if the parents accepted the rights, benefits, and possibly negatives that come with accepting the jurisdiction... in the case of diplomats that is not what they are doing as a generalization.

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 - Immigration History

More proof of intent would be the Indian Citizenship Act which granted citizenship for those who were born in the U.S. i.e. American Indians but not within it's jurisdiction. What Congress did was provide an avenue for certain American Indians to become citizens which they were not entitled via the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the American Indian would have to accept jurisdiction of the U.S. to become a citizen.

None of this would be necessarily if everyone is born here is a U.S. citizen. Its just not that easy at all.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#169
#169
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
To all you leftist goons screaming about defending this crap take a listen & then cry.

Click to expand...

So after she goes through that entire list of wasteful spending which is essentially money laundering and theft. The Democrat doesn’t really take issue with the corruption. He’s more concerned that Nancy Mace used the phrase “Tranny”. That’s what he’s concerned with.


The democrat party is a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, TN-POSSUM, SlipKidVol and 9 others
#170
#170
VOLS INC. said:
So after she goes through that entire list of wasteful spending which is essentially money laundering and theft. The Democrat doesn’t really take issue with the corruption. He’s more concerned that Nancy Mace used the phrase “Tranny”. That’s what he’s concerned with.


The democrat party is a joke.
Click to expand...
Democrats defend their wacky base over the concerns of money wasted on leftist crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#175
#175
LSU-SIU said:
Their illegal status is proof that they do not accept the jurisdiction, they have to accept it which is why they talk about people that have renounced. None of this would need to be spoke about if someone had 100% citizenship at birth. They even speak about the parents renouncing for the child as legal protector.
Click to expand...
You're off in the ether with that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top