"johnny@." wrote in
news:Vn3xj.80526$vt2.6575@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> johnny@. wrote:
>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>>>> GeekBoy wrote:
>>>>> "Deadrat" wrote in message
>>>>> news:bX%wj.12785$Ch6.8026@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>> John Rohan wrote in
>>>>>> news:9cba661b-ae2a-434d-8cf2-
>>>>>> 5799556b8baf@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>> On 26 Feb., 19:58, thedarkoneli...@... wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've heard for years about laws that entice illegals to jump
>>>>>>>> the border - to the effect that if they give birth in the U.S.
>>>>>>>> no matter the status of the mother and father, the baby is
>>>>>>>> automatically a citizen and gives the parents different status
>>>>>>>> than simply "illegal". I believe I've seen this referred to as
>>>>>>>> an "anchor baby". Specifically what statutes or laws are these,
>>>>>>>> where can I find more
>>>>>>>> info including who was responsible for drafting such laws in
>>>>>>>> the first place, and why despite outrage over illegal
>>>>>>>> immigration within the US population, such laws that would seem
>>>>>>>> to be an obvious incentive to cross illegally have remained in
>>>>>>>> effect.
>>>>>>> The law is the 14th ammendment to the US constitution which
>>>>>>> states: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the
>>>>>>> United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
>>>>>>> citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they
>>>>>>> reside."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree that this means that children born to people
>>>>>>> illegally in the US are automatically citizens, but
>>>>>>> unfortunately, that's how the courts have interpreted it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JR
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just out of curiosity what else could it mean? What about "All
>>>>>> persons born ... in the United States" don't you understand?
>>>>> The part about "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
>>>> So an ignoramus like you is asserting that Tourists and Aliens
>>>> present in the U$A without papers are NOT subject to U$ laws ?
>>> That is correct.
>>
>> You really are dumber than a bucket of dirt, aren't you boy?
>>
>>> If they are arrested for murder, their consulate
>>> must be informed to provide legal help, and in the case of Mexico, a
>>> Mexican that commits murder in the United States cannot receive the
>>> death penalty.
>>
>> What's that Treaty got to do with whether or not the U$ has
>> jurisdiction over them and their case ?
>
> I'm not talking about the treaty that Carter signed, I'm talking about
> Mexicans illegally in the United States that commit murder. Mexico
> appealed the death sentences of all Mexicans to the International
> Court, and the court agreed with Mexico, and George Bush agreed with
> the court.
Please point us to the decision of the International Court (Do you mean
the International Court of Justice?) In any case, Miguel Flores was
executed in 2000. He was a Mexican citizen convicted of murder in Texas
(natch). He never got the help from his consular office, help he was
supposed to get. The Supreme Court wouldn't hear his case, and George
Bush refused to intervene. (W was guv of Texas at the time.)
>>> Illegal Mexicans that are stopped by police, with no license, and no
>>> insurance, are allowed to drive off into the sunset. An American
>>> citizen's car would be towed.
>>
>> Did your racism make you stupid, or did your stupidity make
>> you a racist ?
>
> You tell me why a state trooper would release 15 illegal aliens in van
> he just pulled over, and no one in the van had any identification, and
> couldn't speak English.
Did you just make up that story? Even if it's true, what does it have to
do with the law?
|