Is Puerto Rico onto something here?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: The Usual Mexican Fifth Column Traitors seek to thwart Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law (before it is signed into law).
Next: Remember when folks around here liked tractors?
From: Bob Myers on 22 Apr 2010 16:55 On 4/22/2010 8:48 AM, ? wrote: > This could be a way to get control of all the anchor babies in the > USA! > > Invalidate their birth certificates and ake them prove that all their > great great grandparents were America citizens (like mine were). > Or here's an even better idea - realize that where a person's great-to-the-Nth grandparents were born, or who they were or what they did, has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not you're the sort of person we should be keeping around. Maybe you should have to prove your value as a citizen through, say, oh, I don't know - getting a decent score on a simple civics test, maybe? Bob M.
From: Bob Myers on 22 Apr 2010 16:57 On 4/22/2010 1:43 PM, Datesfat Chicks wrote: > > http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp > > If you have credible evidence to the contrary ... "Credible evidence" and Krusty go together just like oil and water... Bob M.
From: ? on 22 Apr 2010 17:36 On Apr 22, 1:55 pm, Bob Myers <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > Or here's an even better idea - realize that where a person's > great-to-the-Nth grandparents were born, or who they were or what they > did, has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not you're the sort of > person we should be keeping around. The US government's criteria for citizenship of children of US citizens in the late 18th century was that "citizens produce citizens," and mere accident of birth on US soil did not make a foreigner into a citizen. It's impossible to deport a legal citizen of the USA on any grounds. In a recent case, an Arab was born here in the USA to Saudi parents who were here on business. The family lived in the USA for about two years and returned to Saudi Arabia. The kid grew up and was captured on the battlefield, helping terrorists. He was brought back to the USA and held prisoner. He claimed that he could not be deported because of his US citizenship. He lost. > Maybe you should have to prove your value as a citizen through, say, oh, > I don't know - getting a decent score on a simple civics test, maybe? I did better than the average American on the civics test, I got a C+ because of the trick questions.
From: Bob Myers on 22 Apr 2010 18:02 On 4/22/2010 3:36 PM, ? wrote: > On Apr 22, 1:55 pm, Bob Myers<nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > > >> Or here's an even better idea - realize that where a person's >> great-to-the-Nth grandparents were born, or who they were or what they >> did, has absolutely ZERO to do with whether or not you're the sort of >> person we should be keeping around. >> > The US government's criteria for citizenship of children of US > citizens in the late 18th century was that "citizens produce > citizens," and mere accident of birth on US soil did not make a > foreigner into a citizen. > Thanks for the completely irrelevant history lesson. Now how about saying something relevant to the above? Or at the very least, give a rational reason as to why we should CARE what the government's criteria WAS in the late 18th century, as opposed to what it is and/or what it should be in the early 21st. > I did better than the average American on the civics test, I got a C+ > because of the trick questions. > And most notably, you also did no better (and in some cases, did significantly more poorly) than certain persons who were not even American citizens... Let's face it, if you were to have to provide a list of reasons re why you were worth keeping around as a citizen, having only "but - but - but - my distant ancestors were!" doesn't sound like nearly enough to offset that huge pile of negatives you've built up. Bob M.
From: Bob Myers on 22 Apr 2010 18:10
On 4/22/2010 3:04 PM, CS wrote: > "Datesfat Chicks" <datesfat.chicks(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:OqudneVJc-p6O03WnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> "?" <breoganmacbrath(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > <snip> >>> The reason that Obama shouldn't have been elected is that he's not >>> constitionally qualified to serve as POTUS, not being a US citizen. >> >> I believe that argument has been settled. >> >> http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp >> >> If you have credible evidence to the contrary ... > > You do. Look at your own birth certificate. > > The problem with this 'evidence' is the fact that it's not an actual > copy of a birth certificate, certified or otherwise. And the problem with THAT statement is that the State of Hawaii has also verified that Obama's birth certificate was and is legitimate; there is also considerable "unofficial" evidence to support the notion that he was born as stated in Honolulu (birth announcements in local newspapers, accounts from those living near the Obamas at the time, etc.) and essentially zero credible evidence that suggests he was born elsewhere. The man obviously had to have been born SOMEWHERE, and there is far more evidence to support Honolulu as that "somewhere" than exists for any other proposed location. Further, if there were any credible evidence to be had, suggesting that Obama was not a U.S. citizen or otherwise not qualified for the office of President, one would think that the Republican party would have brought such forward long ago and backed a formal challenge. The mere fact that this was never done strongly supports the hypothesis that no such evidence exists. It is not required that Obama show proof that he is a citizen; there is sufficient reason to believe that he is so that the burden of proof is upon those of suggest otherwise. If they have evidence to bring forward, they should be doing that. Bob M. |