Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On Dec 4, 1:54 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>> On Dec 4, 1:32 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 3, 10:24 am, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> milt.sh...@... wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 4:09 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> Timothy Crowley wrote:
>>>>>>>>> hint: there are reason they chose THESE words
>>>>>>>> There sure is: the reason is that "subject to the jurisdiction" *MEANS*
>>>>>>>> owing full and exclusive allegiance to the U.S., something the U.S.-born
>>>>>>>> offspring of illegal do not.
>>>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>> > has been explicitly acknowledged in two Supreme Court decisions,
>>>>> > Slaughter-house Cases (1873) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).
>>>>> Canoza:
>>>>> I hate to be the one to break you the news (actually, I am lying: I
>>>>> love it):
>>>>> Back in 1873 and 1884, jet aircraft travel was not very widespread.
>>>> This is a perfect example of what an incoherent .wit you are. Those
>>>> decisions have nothing to do with modes of transportation. It's just
>>>> bizarre that you'd think your comment is relevant to anything. You are
>>>> not much of a thinker.
>>> I am referring to the "exclusive allegiance" principle, which is the
>>> crux of your argument.
>
>> No, you're not. There is no conceivable tie between modes of
>> transportation and the allegiance inherent in citizenship.
>
> Did you know that one of the prevalent definitions of intelligence is:
>
> - The ability to find relationships
No, it isn't. In any case, those who find fanciful "relationships"
between things having no meaningful connection are commonly referred to
as insane. |