Uh, no. A foreign national has no right to an American citizenship.
So what guaranteesyouto American citizenship? And please don't play the born here card, as by that logic very few Americans are entitled to live in America.
Uh, no. A foreign national has no right to an American citizenship.
So what guaranteesyouto American citizenship? And please don't play the born here card, as by that logic very few Americans are entitled to live in America.
Please explain.
Lets take the example you gave before.......
Think of it this way: A pregnant woman enters your house (legally or otherwise) and gives birth on your floor. Afterwards she now claims that the child is a member of your family (as well as hers) and you are now legally and financially responsible for this baby simply because it was born inside your house.
OR
A pregnant woman enters your house (legally or otherwise) and gives birth on your floor. Afterwards you now claim that the child is a member of your family (as well as hers) and you are now legally and financially responsible for this baby simply because it was born inside your house.
Well now lets say this baby stays in your house for 16 years and gives birth to a second child, is the second child any more legitimately a member of your family (or nation). Now repeat this cycle about 10 times and you have the current American population. If you accept that analogy, then the whole of America still belongs to the native peoples.
If you accept that analogy, then the whole of America still belongs to the native peoples.
By Steve's analogy, it should. Unless you think that manifest destiny was right, in which case may the god that gave you the right to that pilfered land have mercy on your soul.
If you accept that analogy, then the whole of America still belongs to the native peoples.
By Steve's analogy, it should. Unless you think that manifest destiny was right, in which case may the god that gave you the right to that pilfered land have mercy on your soul.
uh no... if you want to use that sort of logic than no one can be a citizen of any country.
uh no... if you want to use that sort of logic than no one can be a citizen of any country.
Then correct your analogy to suit the reality of American ethnic composition. The United States was basically built on the first case--European "mothers" having their children on aboriginal lands and saying that the natives were responsible to provide land to their "new children." Right now, your analogy is entirely faulty, and I don't see any reason to contest an argument that is almost wholly fallacious. It's a bad argument even if I stretch the Principle of Charity to its absolute limit.
uh no... if you want to use that sort of logic than no one can be a citizen of any country.
Then correct your analogy to suit the reality of American ethnic composition. The United States was basically built on the first case--European "mothers" having their children on aboriginal lands and saying that the natives were responsible to provide land to their "new children." Right now, your analogy is entirely faulty, and I don't see any reason to contest an argument that is almost wholly fallacious.
incorrect. Some of the land was taken unjustly but not all of the land. If you really want to be accurate you could say that the original states were stolen from England.
Also, the settlers who came to the New World did not ask the natives to provide for them. They bartered for some things and killed for others.
Why do you feel the "native americans" present when europeans arrived had a supreme claim to the lands they were living on?
Irrelevant. It's simple conquest doctrine; the conqueror absolutely cannot recognize the property rights of those conquered. If we did then we would have to give them everything we took and the property rights bestowed upon the European settlers would mean nothing.
Academically, it's nice to talk about the aboriginals, but as far as legal theory goes, they are pretty much irrelevant to modern rights.
If you are medically unfit for service and lack an advanced skill set why would the US want you as a citizen? What do you bring to the table?
No more than anyone else in the broad sense, I suppose, However, there are many people who are let in with the same or less, so while it's a point, it's not the strongest one, I think. If nothing else, I'm willing to work my arse off, and rather unwilling to take benefits like welfare even if I were able to, and there is no job that I consider beneath me - which is more than can be said for a not-insignificant number of people who do have US citizenship.
Anyway, you said you don't have a high enough degree to warrant citizenship. I don't know anything about your background, and I don't want to pry or anything, but have you considered applying to a US college? I think you can receive a student visa even as a part-time student. The F-1 is your friend if you can make ends meet, and the degree you get could help you get a green card--at least, in theory. Also, note that the F-1 will allow you to be employed in the US while you're enrolled, so you can get some income going. EDIT: You can work 20 hours per week with approval on an F-1. It's not a lot, but its a window.
This is something I'm looking into. I could make ends meet on 20 hours a week, if I was careful, and supplemented my income with savings and such.
That is always a plus :P
Depends what kinda crazy, not all crazy is good crazy.
Churbs, couldn't you come over on a travel visa and network? I mean, that's probably a good start. If you have to have a valuable skill set, you should probably find out what skill sets are desirable to people who are actually willing to hire people on a work visa. From everything I've seen, people are way more willing to stick it out for a person they have actually met. I know you can't actually work on a travel visa, but that doesn't mean you can't start meeting people and developing a support network.
That's a secondary option, if the primary options don't work out - I do have a Preliminary network that I've been working on already throughout the area I'll be moving to, and a few contacts in cities besides - I've exploited the Hackspace, noisebridge, 2600 and LAdead communities for that, and also been catching up with some old FA and other international friends. Also, worse comes to worse, I can bust my ass and live off stand up comedy and entertaining gigs, and supplement it with some quasi-legal buying and selling - Last of all, I have a slowly expanding Acquisitions and Consulting business that I can legally register back home, simply do business under that name and possibly get a business visa, but again, I'll be busting my ass to make it work. Absolute worst case, I can run my business affairs back home from the states, and live off that, though the mechanics of transporting money into the country can be a little shady, I'm still looking into that.
Most of the debate focuses on the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Does it mean a full and complete jurisdiction or does it mean a temporary jurisdiction such as one experiences when on vacation?
My personal opinion is that it requires full jurisdiction but the court does not agree with me.
Most of the debate focuses on the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Does it mean a full and complete jurisdiction or does it mean a temporary jurisdiction such as one experiences when on vacation?
My personal opinion is that it requires full jurisdiction but the court does not agree with me.
Most of the debate focuses on the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Does it mean a full and complete jurisdiction or does it mean a temporary jurisdiction such as one experiences when on vacation?
My personal opinion is that it requires full jurisdictionbut the court does not agree with me.
Imagine that.
Are you trying to insult me by pointing out that I do not agree with SCOTUS? If so it is a very lame attempt at an insult because most SCOTUS opinions are not unanimous, including this one.
I didn't agree with the Dread Scott decision and I'm glad it was eventually reversed. Are you going to insult me for not agreeing with that one?
Steve, if you'll look at the previous comments, you'll see that no one here agrees with you either. That's because, as usual, you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about. Furthermore, as usual, you don't understand that the lack of agreement you find on this board added to the lack of agreement with the Court (because you so obviously don't understand what you're talking about) is the substance of the joke. The joke is that (also as usual) no one who understands the concept you are trying to discuss agrees with you.
One thing I've realized is that it's not worth getting wound up over such things. Surely you didn't miss feelings of anger. Re-engaging with the forum was risky enough. If nobody agrees with him, why fall back into that harmful mindset? Been there, done that. Moved on and happy for it.
Wow. That was interesting. I can tell you that, based on my own experience, at least one other country out there is similar. Never underestimate Government red tape. It even holds back the workers. I've seen first hand that smart, motivated workers eventually leave. It's really a shame.
Wow. That was interesting. I can tell you that, based on my own experience, at least one other country out there is similar. Never underestimate Government red tape. It even holds back the workers. I've seen first hand that smart, motivated workers eventually leave. It's really a shame.
I know that Australia, while we do have a pretty good level of bureaucracy, we're not quite that bad, though there are a fair few hoops to jump though. We're not exactly throwing the gates open, but even we're more chilled out than that.
However, to Temper her statements in that article, it's entirely possible that it was simply a run of bad luck that she had, rather than the process overall - though, of course, the opposite is just as likely(if not more likely) to be true.
The federal agency has filed a lawsuit claiming the state has overstepped its authority, and that the law will lead to racial profiling and discrimination.
A preliminary injunction argues the Arizona law is unconstitutional, stating that "A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws."
So, why is there no mention of racial profiling in the complaint? How is AZ interfering with federal immigration laws? Why is the DOJ not suing Rhode Island over their immigration policy?
So, why is there no mention of racial profiling in the complaint?
Racial profiling is a concern, but the illegality of the law does not require this as a prerequisite for overturning it. The law is likely unconstitutional for a number of other reasons, primarily for the fact that it supercedes a federal law in a manner beyond the power vested into a state's government. It also makes contradictory requirements in enforcement due to its poor writing.
That aside, this law was and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by local potentates to show their "tough stance on illegal immigration," which is really just a scapegoat down their for wider economic hardship.
It's very telling that all of the links in this article that supposedly prove that "Missouri, Virginia and Rhode Island have identical laws to Arizona’s immigration law" link back instead to the same source and the same author. The only time he gets close to using an actual source is when he states that "one of our contributors, M.K., says that Missouri law says thus and and so".
I'd say that without cites to the actual statutes in Missouri, Virginia, and Rhode Island along with a side-by side comparison to Arizona, the proposition that these states are identical to Arizona in this respect is a big fail. Try again.
The amicus briefs point out that federal law already allows states to enforce immigration statutes. “While much of border enforcement is left to the federal government, federal law expressly allows states to arrest people who are not legally present in the United States. Arizona’s law doesn’t change any of this. That’s why we are stunned that the government has sued Arizona,†Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said. \
Missouri, Virginia, and Rhode Island certainly are huge avenues of daily immigration concerns, I'll grant you that. I mean, think of all the border crossings they have to worry about that would generate enforcement cases and SCOTUS appeals! True, they directly border places like Mexico, Canada, Lithuania, Iranizfghanizbackistan, Portugal, West Virginia, Antarctica -- all places with undesirable, evil, jorrrbs-stealing ruffians.
Guess what? When Arizona's law is ruled unconstitutional, any theoretically identical laws in other states would be, too.
The federal agency has filed a lawsuit claiming the state has overstepped its authority, and that the law will lead to racial profiling and discrimination.
A preliminary injunction argues the Arizona law is unconstitutional, stating that "A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws."
So, why is there no mention of racial profiling in the complaint? How is AZ interfering with federal immigration laws? Why is the DOJ not suing Rhode Island over their immigration policy?Are you really going to fucking argue this case? I'll ask again: are you really, REALLY going to fucking do this?
Are you really going to fucking argue this case? I'll ask again: are you really, REALLY going tofucking do this?
Really?
That's the same questiondemocrat governorsare asking the administration.
No, Steve, that's not the fucking question. I am asking you whether or not you are actually going to sit in your chair and rally against a law which is patently unconstitutional and racist.
Stop pussyfooting around, building strawmen, and answer my goddamn question.
Are you really going to fucking argue this case? I'll ask again: are you really, REALLY going tofucking do this?
Really?
That's the same questiondemocrat governorsare asking the administration.
No, Steve, that's not the fucking question. I am asking you whether or not you are actually going to sit in your chair and rally against a law which is patently unconstitutional and racist.
Stop pussyfooting around, building strawmen, and answer my goddamn question.
Yeah, good luck with that. 20:1 skippy posts a barely related question instead of providing evidence or trying to make a sensible argument.
Comments
Also, the settlers who came to the New World did not ask the natives to provide for them. They bartered for some things and killed for others.
Why do you feel the "native americans" present when europeans arrived had a supreme claim to the lands they were living on?
Academically, it's nice to talk about the aboriginals, but as far as legal theory goes, they are pretty much irrelevant to modern rights.
Also, worse comes to worse, I can bust my ass and live off stand up comedy and entertaining gigs, and supplement it with some quasi-legal buying and selling - Last of all, I have a slowly expanding Acquisitions and Consulting business that I can legally register back home, simply do business under that name and possibly get a business visa, but again, I'll be busting my ass to make it work. Absolute worst case, I can run my business affairs back home from the states, and live off that, though the mechanics of transporting money into the country can be a little shady, I'm still looking into that.
Oh Joe... you just made my night.
I didn't agree with the Dread Scott decision and I'm glad it was eventually reversed. Are you going to insult me for not agreeing with that one?
Are you really this clueless?
Yarrrrrr.
However, to Temper her statements in that article, it's entirely possible that it was simply a run of bad luck that she had, rather than the process overall - though, of course, the opposite is just as likely(if not more likely) to be true.
That aside, this law was and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by local potentates to show their "tough stance on illegal immigration," which is really just a scapegoat down their for wider economic hardship.
Missouri, Virginia and Rhode Island have identical laws to Arizona’s immigration law
I'd say that without cites to the actual statutes in Missouri, Virginia, and Rhode Island along with a side-by side comparison to Arizona, the proposition that these states are identical to Arizona in this respect is a big fail. Try again.
SCS SBs 348, 626 & 461 - MO
I'll let you google the rest...
Nine states (and the Mariana Islands) have Arizona’s back
Guess what? When Arizona's law is ruled unconstitutional, any theoretically identical laws in other states would be, too.
Really?
Stop pussyfooting around, building strawmen, and answer my goddamn question.