A country does not have a vagina or a penis: It is impossible, or not natural, to be physically born from a country. Given that, citizens, and the idea of citizenship, are naturally born through their exposure and orientation towards a country. When people say, "You are born in X," they are often talking about a physical birth and are using or promoting discrimination and lobbying for aliens; alienating people from society based on factors that they themselves have no input over. It is physically impossible to be born from a country. When you are born from a vagina, a penis, or simply physically born, it is impossible for you to be a "natural born citizen" anywhere on this earth. You are merely a baby and people will now tell you that you must be a citizen to X. If you do not identify with or grow up away from X, then you will be persecuted or physically sent to X and told to accept citizenship to X. There is little or no path for you with Y, because people have become so obsessed with the idea that citizenship is a physical thing, that they have lost all touch with our reality. When you state where you are born, you should not be talking about your physical birth: It is not natural for anyone to be born into or from a country at the time of their physical birth.
That is what is being said in law. However, it is impossible for a citizen to be born in this way. The soil does not give birth, as that is not the nature of the world. The baby has absolutely no concept or understanding of citizenship. These are learned concepts and terms that the baby will grow to understand. We may treat the child as a citizen, but that does not mean the child will be, or is a citizen at heart. As a baby develops into childhood, and into adulthood, citizenship is taught and learned. When we say that people are born abroad, to non-US parents, and are therefore not citizens, we have just accepted a foreign influence, used it to alienate a person and their family, and given the individual no choice in the matter. This happens all the time, and the person being persecuted is then increasingly alienated or told that they must accept foreign citizenship prior to our accepting them as one of US.
Natural born US citizen = 1 parent is an US citizen Natural born US citizen = physically born within the borders of US states or territories. That's it. You do not have to be a citizen anywhere, Sounds like your trying to redefine "citizenship" as we have redefined the word "boy" and the word "girl" in recent decades.
All over the news in the US, people are being called illegals, immigrants, foreigners, and non-citizens. Extensive exercises in hunting people down, sending them to X, and forcing them to represent X are being carried out. These people are told that they are not citizens and that they must represent X or we won't let them travel freely. They are waving US flags and getting deported, so this concerns me. The public or the news broadcasts seems to have a general lack of awareness about citizenship, so I'm hoping to stop this kind of alienation and terrorist activity in the administration by raising awareness about citizenship. It is impossible for citizenship to be physically born. It's not natural for a country to give physical birth to a human. A country is not capable of giving birth to a physical creature of nature. Being born above US soil means nothing to a baby. The baby doesn't even know what the US is yet. Women were considered to be non-citizens at one point in our history, so yes: It would be good to address the growing problem and to clarify that we are shipping natural born citizens into foreign territories, imprisoning them, and alienating them from the US. Nobody should be forced to represent another country because we determine they are citizens of a foreign country due to their physical birth above a piece of foreign soil. That is the sickest form of discrimination and it is akin to how we were saying women or were not citizens do to the birth of their flesh or the same of those with dark skin tones.
US citizenship is NOT based on gender or skin color. Its based in law. What's your issue exactly? What do you want or what are you trying to say. If you want to be a US citizen, get a visa and get in line.
That's what I thought but back in January I turned on the television and went to Fox News and what did I see ? Vaginas !!! Big ones, tall vaginas, short vaginas. All shapes and sizes of vaginas. No diversity with the vaginas, all were pink.
People of certain gender or skin color were considered NOT to be US Citizens until we applied amendments to clarify to the public at that time that such a view on citizenship is wrongful. The issue is that our law states that citizenship is born naturally and there are people working to alienate or divide US Citizens by forcing some to accept that they are foreign citizens working for a foreign government. If they try to travel with a bus in the US, they are incarcerated and shipped abroad. If they try to travel or visit the US, they are banned and barred until they fully support foreign citizenship or claim to be working for a foreign power other than The United States based on the location of their physical birth (which they have no control over).
Dang it. When did our country develop a vagina? Why wasn't I informed about this sooner!? Did we also develop a penis? Is it pink?
Who cares? You may choose to look at it that way but the Constitution and the government of the United States, it's laws and traditions, do not.
I am an American citizen first and foremost. I am a world citizen a distant second. I care because The US Citizen should not be second to the foreign citizen. We have never had to start dealing with US Citizens across the globe until the invention of computer technology and rapid public air travel. Stating that intellectual property is not supported by the globe do to a history of physical property and traditions rooted in bartering is asinine; it's a lazy way of saying: we haven't had to deal with it yet, so why should we bother. There's a crisis of millions in displacement and billions in spending on relocating, building a wall, and incarcerating people that are trying to work for The United States and I think this is as good a time as any to take a look at the root of the citizenship crisis, so that we can divert those funds into development and growth rather than a continued exhaustion of resources who's whole agenda is to make sure that The United States dies at the border and the airports behind the Wall of China. Next we'll be blocking The United States from international communications, so that it's influence does not spread through public communications. It's ridiculous and I can't believe that foreign influence has penetrated into our government this heavily. Those same funds could be used to ensure these citizens DO get documented and that their accounts and monetary transactions flow mainly into the 50 states themselves. We could be implementing programs and policies that encourage everybody to represent themselves as US Citizens and to help educate the unintelligent on how to best represent US in their lives and interactions.
First, define "penetrated". Second, how heavily has the government been penetrated and what evidence have you seen of this?
For penetration, I mean that when we were drafting the Constitution, prior to the final draft, foreign influence was suggested to the congregation. The final draft was then adjusted, but it wasn't fully worded to reflect the idea of alienation that JJ suggested. This would be form of penetration into the drafting and resistance from the council at the time. There's some evidence of this on wikipedia, and I assume that you can trace their sources: http://www.conservapedia.com/Natural-born_citizen Gradually, this concept has been used to form laws around citizenship. It's interpretation has resulted in alienation and then conversely to clarify or unify people through amendments. Now we have a nation where it is generally accepted and understood that women and people of color are citizens and the current target of alienation is those born on foreign soil or to foreign parents. I believe that our enactment of computer technology and rapid global communications and travel have brought it to such a point, since people or citizens anywhere outside the 50 states would normally have had little or no regular association to The United States in the time period prior to such innovations. As for how far the penetration, or alienation, into our government is this time around, I am only aware of several million being affected by it in The United States according to the papers and any number of people that have to deal with our issues at embassies and consulates across the globe. We also launched an entire department named Homeland Security to deal with this kind of issue this time around. Based on funding reports that previously went to the military, it seems like a rather large issue. I can't say how many people in the administration are working to alienate people, or working for a foreign policy, and how many are trying to bring US Citizens together or to help spread acceptance of US Citizens.
No you're not. The Fourteenth Amendment is the most misinterpreted amendment of the Constitution. Many constitutional scholars also say the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional but that's another issue. The authors of the 14th Amendment used the "Law of Nature" not "Common Law." Congress used Vattel's "Law of Nations" when debating the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment comes from Vattel's Law of Nations. "Son follows the condition of his father." Anchor babies are not natural born citizens or even American citizens. FYI: Even though Native Americans were born on U.S. soil they weren't American citizens because they belonged to a sovereign Indian nation and it took an act of Congress in 1924 where Native Americans became U.S. citizens.
I am not certain I understand the notion of women and people of color generally being accepted as citizens. Are you suggesting that foreign women and foreign people of color are given preferential treatment during the naturalization process? People born on U.S. Soil, regardless of sex and skin color, are considered citizens. I sense that you have a point and I am interested in what it is, but I don't see it clearly.
I am not suggesting that. In US history, we had a time where black people were not allowed to travel on buses, and they were called non-citizens by a large number of the public. The same was true for women that deviated from the traditional norm. There were revolutions and ultimately amendments to the constitution as individual cases and public interest around these issues came to question their status and rights according to their gender or the color their skin. People are now saying that people not born on U.S. soil are non-citizens by default and that they must first prove their citizenship to a foreign nation prior to being allowed to travel. Many in The United States and outside the 50 states, are not citizens of a foreign country and cannot willingly prove themselves as foreign citizens, because they naturally were born into a US Citizenship and not a foreign one. These people are being told that they must accept that they are aliens and that they must reject US Citizenship in order to immigrate or to be allowed to travel. This presents a problem, because it's similar to a foreign government holding a gun to a person's head and saying, "You will represent our Non-US government or you will not be allowed to travel or to see your family in the US." Members of our own administration are also operating in such a way, under the influence of that foreign government. Those people being told that they must serve a foreign government may be unwilling to comply to the foreign influence. If they are found in the US, they are shipped abroad, and if they approach our missions abroad, they are ignored and sometimes foreign police will interrogate them and pressure them to represent a foreign government other than the United States. They are told this is due to the location of their birth above a piece of soil and that they must accept a foreign citizenship do to the factors of their birth which they have no control over. That is a problem for the US, because these are our citizens being alienated at home and abroad. Those are our corrupted members of administration wasting our currency to pressure people into representing or accepting a foreign citizenship.
There are sons or daughters that grew up without a father or under the influence of a group or a society. Parental figures influence the development of a child only so far as their presence and influence on the child carry them. An "anchor baby" may be a natural born citizen if their citizenship was born into the US and not into another nation. By the same token, that person may not be a US Citizen if they naturally adopted another nation while on US Soil.
Does it really help your argument when all you are doing is disputing the semantics of the words instead of their intention? Nowhere does anyone imply a human is born of the soil when they say you are born in any country. You've chosen to make it sound that way in your argument that is just wrong. Otherwise we would all just say "vagina" as place of birth, with the exception of those born through C-section. Seems silly to me since that's how the biology of it works and it covers for the "real" place of birth that you're arguing.
If you read the thread, then you may note that US Soil (or of the soil) is explicitly cited in response and that I did not use the term at all in your quote of my initial post. This is a common thought, which is why I mentioned it as a problem in modern thinking and why commentators talked about the idea of soil spawning citizenship as something that they heard is the case today. Soil does not give birth to citizenship, obviously, which is why I am pointing out that there are US Citizens naturally born all around the world. Many people think that people who exit a vagina above a piece of soil are not citizens and that they must be alienated from traveling unless they accept citizenship to the country that we identify with that soil. Please remember that there are people who are told they are born in a certain country, who may in-fact only consider that to mean that they exited a vagina above that [named] soil, while harboring no citizenship for any country by the same name. There are also people that will alienate and try to send people to that soil, simply for believing that they have no choice but to support that country or nation unquestioningly. It's like saying, "You were born black and you must represent black society or we won't allow you to travel." That was the whole point of the post: It's a form of discrimination that many people seem to be unaware of and it's a core component of the current citizenship crisis.
Mexico like most countries in the world also uses "Natural Law" that "Son follows the condition of father" and claim that all anchor babies who's father at time of birth on U.S. soil were Mexican citizens hold their loyalty to Mexico not the United States. Every six years during the Mexican Presidential elections you will see hundreds if not thousands of anchor babies lined up at one of the 50 Mexican consulates across the United States voting for who will be the next President of Mexico. Source -> http://www.limitstogrowth.org/
A country claiming that a person holds their loyalty towards their country has no say over the loyalty of that person. We may claim a person is our citizen or another country may claim that their loyalty belongs to them, but ultimately it is the citizen that decides their loyalty. If hundreds of people are lined up at the Mexican consulates, then they may in fact be Mexican Citizens. However, this has no bearing on everybody else and the "Son follows the condition of the father" is only accepted by those lining up and not the rest. *Bearing in mind that there are 11 million citizens in distress out there in the US alone and that the hundreds or even thousands would be a small number of those pledging to Mexico.
