You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #192: At least one piece of your information isn't correct... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-28-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #188
192. At least one piece of your information isn't correct...
The US does recognize dual citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no mechanism by which a person may be forced to surrender their US citizenship. My children (now well into their adult years) are beneficiaries of this policy and carry two passports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Nathan Deal, Georgia Lawmaker, Wants To End "Birthright Citizenship" kristopher  May-26-09 02:37 PM   #0 
  - Yah, well...good luck with all that. Amending the  MineralMan   May-26-09 02:40 PM   #1 
  - Yes and no.  kristopher   May-26-09 05:19 PM   #24 
  - You have no idea. Such an amendment would not be possible.  MineralMan   May-26-09 07:01 PM   #52 
  - It is true that I'm not paying attention.  kristopher   May-26-09 09:52 PM   #58 
  - public support for this issue is "very high" ?? I guess you polled everyone?  Blue_Tires   May-27-09 01:41 PM   #101 
     - Public atitutudes on immigration reform are one of the most highly polled subjects out there  kristopher   May-27-09 01:47 PM   #103 
        - public support for general immigration reform and support for this specific proposal  Blue_Tires   May-27-09 02:19 PM   #107 
           - It says the climate is favorable.  kristopher   May-27-09 03:54 PM   #121 
              - The climate for making every delivery a paternity verification issue  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:21 PM   #152 
                 - It seems to work in the rest of the world.  kristopher   May-27-09 11:16 PM   #158 
                    - Here is a reality check  nadinbrzezinski   May-28-09 01:02 AM   #182 
                       - Actually I found the list  kristopher   May-28-09 01:12 AM   #184 
                          - Partly to dredd scott, partly as the standard of the age in international law  nadinbrzezinski   May-28-09 01:24 AM   #188 
                             - At least one piece of your information isn't correct...  kristopher   May-28-09 01:40 AM   #192 
                                - Not when you pick up the US Citizenship  nadinbrzezinski   May-28-09 01:42 AM   #193 
                                   - It's getting late  kristopher   May-28-09 01:48 AM   #196 
  - I say go for it and then ship the Anti-American out!  rustydog   May-26-09 07:41 PM   #55 
     - Deal may or may not be a racist  kristopher   May-26-09 10:27 PM   #65 
  - I prefer the simplicity of: you were born here, you're American.  Eric J in MN   May-26-09 02:41 PM   #2 
  - Why?  kristopher   May-26-09 05:31 PM   #25 
     - Because the children of immigrants shouldn't have to prove their Americanism  Bucky   May-26-09 09:59 PM   #60 
        - That is probably the WORST straaw man I've seen today.  kristopher   May-26-09 10:15 PM   #63 
        - Correction: second best  Bucky   May-26-09 10:33 PM   #68 
           - What was written:  kristopher   May-26-09 10:46 PM   #69 
              - you seem to be ignoring a few important words  fishwax   May-27-09 10:05 PM   #146 
                 - I'm ignoring nothing  kristopher   May-27-09 11:24 PM   #159 
                    - none of which is relevant to your silly presumption that the Bucky was advocating one-world govt  fishwax   May-27-09 11:46 PM   #167 
                       - I'd love to hear of the others  kristopher   May-27-09 11:49 PM   #169 
                       - Canada, for instance  fishwax   May-27-09 11:52 PM   #171 
                          - Thank you!!!  kristopher   May-28-09 12:13 AM   #175 
                       - And to your other comment  kristopher   May-27-09 11:51 PM   #170 
                          - what you continue to ignore is the fact that  fishwax   May-27-09 11:53 PM   #172 
                             - your double negative is a bit confusing  kristopher   May-28-09 12:04 AM   #174 
                                - what makes you think he doesn't?  fishwax   May-28-09 12:17 AM   #176 
                                   - I think I'm more focused on the word "unfairly"  kristopher   May-28-09 12:33 AM   #177 
                                      - it's still a huge logical leap to get to the elimination of the nation state itself  fishwax   May-28-09 12:42 AM   #178 
                                         - I read the post (in its totality) differently than you.  kristopher   May-28-09 12:47 AM   #179 
                                            - as they say, you're entitled to your own interpretation, but not your own facts  fishwax   May-28-09 12:55 AM   #180 
                                               - I'm not "making up facts"  kristopher   May-28-09 01:05 AM   #183 
                                                  - that's rather amusing  fishwax   May-28-09 01:13 AM   #185 
                                                  - If I had, I would  kristopher   May-28-09 01:17 AM   #186 
        - I'm for changing it three ways...  DatManFromNawlins   May-26-09 10:29 PM   #67 
           - Well, the law is that if you are born here, you are an American.  closeupready   May-26-09 10:53 PM   #70 
           - The discussion is "Do we want to change that law?"  kristopher   May-26-09 10:57 PM   #73 
           - Not sure I understand the logic behind two and three.  kristopher   May-26-09 10:56 PM   #72 
           - You use the word "easy"  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:22 PM   #154 
              - That's a red herring  kristopher   May-27-09 11:27 PM   #160 
                 - That's not a rational response to the comment  jberryhill   May-28-09 08:36 AM   #206 
  - won't change a thing right now ...  zbdent   May-26-09 02:41 PM   #3 
  - DING DING DING! Zbdent, you're our grand prize winner!  rocktivity   May-26-09 02:48 PM   #8 
  - That makes no sense.  kristopher   May-26-09 05:32 PM   #26 
     - meaning that it's a cosmetic law ...  zbdent   May-26-09 06:37 PM   #50 
        - I really don't give a fig about the right's goals and deporting people.  kristopher   May-26-09 09:57 PM   #59 
  - And it's not something a Governor has any say over...  joeybee12   May-26-09 02:41 PM   #4 
  - That = 1 red herring, 1 poisoning the well, and 1 shoot the messenger  kristopher   May-26-09 05:36 PM   #27 
  - So he needs to repeal that portion of the 14th amendment.  WeDidIt   May-26-09 02:42 PM   #5 
  - Yah. This is flagburning, gay marriage, Republican junk legislation.  aquart   May-26-09 02:52 PM   #10 
  - Yep, only another amendment can override it.  Xithras   May-26-09 03:02 PM   #15 
  - There is extremely high support for changing this  kristopher   May-26-09 05:37 PM   #28 
     - Citation please  WeDidIt   May-26-09 06:06 PM   #37 
        - The issue of anchor babies is part and parcel of the immigration issue.  kristopher   May-26-09 06:39 PM   #51 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   May-26-09 07:32 PM   #53 
              - Yes  kristopher   May-26-09 09:47 PM   #57 
                 - You made the assertion and cannot back it up  WeDidIt   May-27-09 08:19 AM   #77 
                    - "Public Opinion Snapshot: Public More Supportive of Immigration Reform"  pampango   May-27-09 08:37 AM   #79 
                       - 'Not directly related to your discussion of "anchor babies"'  WeDidIt   May-27-09 08:38 AM   #80 
                          - One of two.  kristopher   May-27-09 12:35 PM   #86 
                             - I made no assertions. You did.  WeDidIt   May-27-09 01:03 PM   #90 
                             - Stating the obvious means...  kristopher   May-27-09 01:15 PM   #93 
                                - Methinks thou dost protest too much  WeDidIt   May-27-09 01:24 PM   #97 
                                   - Considering you've made about 8 posts  kristopher   May-27-09 01:28 PM   #99 
                                      - Dude, I'm still waiting for a citation  WeDidIt   May-27-09 02:39 PM   #113 
                                         - Dude you still have the google. I don't respond to attempts to bully.  kristopher   May-27-09 03:54 PM   #120 
                                            - Deleted message  Name removed   May-27-09 06:15 PM   #136 
                             - There is no case involving native Americans n/t  WeDidIt   May-27-09 02:48 PM   #117 
                                - yes there is.  kristopher   May-27-09 03:58 PM   #122 
  - A reasonable measure  gratuitous   May-26-09 02:43 PM   #6 
  - "Babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if  rocktivity   May-26-09 02:44 PM   #7 
  - Are you sober?  kristopher   May-26-09 05:45 PM   #30 
     - But SHOULD it be waived on the grounds of a child existing?  rocktivity   May-26-09 06:28 PM   #48 
     - What waiver due to impending parenthood?  kristopher   May-26-09 06:35 PM   #49 
        - The problem is that there WOULD be pregancy scenarios  rocktivity   May-26-09 08:22 PM   #56 
           - Well, that's an opinion  kristopher   May-26-09 10:00 PM   #61 
           - The law would be unconstitutional on its face. n/t  WeDidIt   May-27-09 02:47 PM   #116 
           - Maybe, but the author of the clause didn't think so.  kristopher   May-27-09 04:00 PM   #123 
              - SCOTUS already set the precedent, so his views don't mean shit.  WeDidIt   May-27-09 06:31 PM   #138 
                 - Brick, meet thick....  kristopher   May-27-09 09:30 PM   #141 
                    - Wrong again  WeDidIt   May-28-09 05:46 AM   #204 
           - They don't have to pay US citizens for that...  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:25 PM   #155 
     - Uh-huh....  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:02 PM   #145 
        - I don't know  kristopher   May-27-09 11:33 PM   #161 
  - Deal can go to hell. And take Dane with him.  aquart   May-26-09 02:49 PM   #9 
  - Sounds reasonable to you, does it?  Hugabear   May-26-09 02:53 PM   #11 
  - There are several ways nations determine citizenship,  kristopher   May-26-09 05:16 PM   #23 
  - Sounds perfectly reasonable.  Lance_Boyle   May-26-09 02:56 PM   #12 
  - My wife gave birth In China  Blue Meany   May-26-09 03:01 PM   #14 
  - See Post #11  Hugabear   May-26-09 04:12 PM   #22 
  - That is a false claim.  kristopher   May-26-09 05:40 PM   #29 
  - Why should the Dutch be able to disregard our drug laws?  closeupready   May-26-09 10:54 PM   #71 
  - Can we give you the "reasonable" job of Official Identifier Of Fathers then /nt  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:27 PM   #156 
     - Perhaps you and your wife have something you should talk about...  kristopher   May-27-09 11:36 PM   #162 
        - Most countries have a national health care system  jberryhill   May-28-09 09:49 AM   #210 
  - That dimwit is MY Rep! He's a do nothing AH! You know he used to be  napi21   May-26-09 02:59 PM   #13 
  - What would that change? The baby would still be in this country,  ecstatic   May-26-09 03:04 PM   #16 
  - How so?  kristopher   May-26-09 05:47 PM   #31 
     - Yes. Notice the amount of undocumented workers has declined sharply  ecstatic   May-26-09 06:17 PM   #43 
        - I don't see a connection between the points you're listing  kristopher   May-26-09 06:21 PM   #45 
           - Sorry for the confusion. I'm saying that people  ecstatic   May-27-09 12:44 AM   #74 
              - Thank you.  kristopher   May-27-09 01:00 AM   #75 
  - So if a baby is born here and we don't recognize her citizenship because of her parents' status  Hello_Kitty   May-26-09 03:08 PM   #17 
  - The vast majority of coutries  kristopher   May-26-09 05:53 PM   #32 
     - Except for the ones that don't. eom  Hello_Kitty   May-26-09 06:02 PM   #36 
     - What "ones that don't"?  kristopher   May-26-09 06:08 PM   #39 
     - YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THE FATHER OF A BABY  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:06 PM   #147 
        - What a stupid criticism based on a problem  kristopher   May-27-09 11:37 PM   #164 
           - Obsession?  jberryhill   May-28-09 08:39 AM   #208 
  - If this were part of an effective, comprehensive legislation aimed at  Zorra   May-26-09 03:11 PM   #18 
  - It's neither. It's about 2010. He's got an election to win.  EFerrari   May-26-09 03:13 PM   #19 
     - What do you mean"It's neither."  kristopher   May-26-09 05:56 PM   #33 
        - What part of electioneering is unclear to you?  EFerrari   May-26-09 05:58 PM   #34 
           - There were no insults in my post.  kristopher   May-26-09 06:12 PM   #41 
           - What false argument? Today, Republicans are raising money  EFerrari   May-27-09 03:02 PM   #118 
              - You are still off topic.  kristopher   May-27-09 04:05 PM   #124 
                 - Not at all. I'm not off topic. Your premise is false.  EFerrari   May-27-09 04:18 PM   #125 
                    - Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaase read a history book. nt  kristopher   May-27-09 04:24 PM   #128 
                       - I have my history straight, thanks.  EFerrari   May-27-09 04:32 PM   #130 
           - ...  varelse   May-27-09 01:48 PM   #104 
  - It wasn't meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants?  HiFructosePronSyrup   May-26-09 03:14 PM   #20 
  - Hmmm  kristopher   May-26-09 06:07 PM   #38 
  - The 14th amendment was for the protection of the children born not the parents.  county worker   May-26-09 06:11 PM   #40 
     - That isn't true.  kristopher   May-26-09 06:16 PM   #42 
     - How so?  county worker   May-27-09 10:54 AM   #82 
        - The question what was the original intent of Sec. 1 Ammendment 14  kristopher   May-27-09 12:40 PM   #88 
           - No it wasn't. The question is, can a law passed now change the  county worker   May-27-09 02:22 PM   #108 
     - The first sentence of the XIV amendment was there for a  Thothmes   May-26-09 06:24 PM   #46 
        - read on  county worker   May-27-09 10:55 AM   #83 
           - You are arguing a red herring  kristopher   May-27-09 01:01 PM   #89 
              - I've shown you that you can't change that with a law.  county worker   May-27-09 02:24 PM   #111 
                 - You still don't get it.  kristopher   May-27-09 04:21 PM   #126 
                    - You apparently don't understand contsitutional law vs. codified law. n/t  WeDidIt   May-27-09 06:17 PM   #137 
                       - You are the one making uninformed broad generalizations.  kristopher   May-27-09 09:32 PM   #142 
                          - You've made claims that infer a constitutional provision  WeDidIt   May-28-09 05:42 AM   #203 
  - I would rather let my 3 year old granddaughter take out my  Libertyfirst   May-26-09 03:49 PM   #21 
  - WOW!!!  kristopher   May-26-09 06:19 PM   #44 
  - I just love when conservatives adopt a "strict constructionist" view...  colinmom71   May-26-09 06:02 PM   #35 
  - There have been two lawsuits that went to the Supreme Court.  kristopher   May-26-09 06:25 PM   #47 
     - Now you're citing BIRTHER BULLSHIT  WeDidIt   May-26-09 07:33 PM   #54 
     - What "birther bullshit"?  kristopher   May-26-09 10:29 PM   #66 
     - No citations and spouting off Birther bullshit as your evidence  WeDidIt   May-27-09 08:19 AM   #76 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   May-27-09 12:29 PM   #85 
           - Again, citation  WeDidIt   May-27-09 02:42 PM   #114 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   May-27-09 04:22 PM   #127 
           - By "birther bullshit", he refers to the Obama Birth Conspiracy Folks  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:11 PM   #150 
              - Thank you  kristopher   May-27-09 11:39 PM   #165 
     - "I'll keep an eye on you."  snooper2   May-27-09 11:07 AM   #84 
     - ...  kristopher   May-27-09 01:24 PM   #98 
     - You knew it was going to come up in this thread, though dincha?  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:09 PM   #149 
     - Larf - Go read the real law at Obamaconspiracy.org, Birther /nt  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:07 PM   #148 
        - This has nothing to do with Obama nor the claims regarding his birth  kristopher   May-27-09 11:46 PM   #166 
           - Your failure to cite the precedent to which you refer  jberryhill   May-28-09 08:37 AM   #207 
  - I believe this is called picking nits. Has this asshole ever read the  walldude   May-26-09 10:03 PM   #62 
  - Do you really consider that a rebuttal?  kristopher   May-26-09 10:25 PM   #64 
  - And once again a Repuke reveals his utter unfamiliarity with the Constitution.  Vickers   May-27-09 08:23 AM   #78 
  - How so?  kristopher   May-27-09 01:10 PM   #92 
  - Great! An underclass that can be exploited permanently!  dendrobium   May-27-09 09:37 AM   #81 
  - We used to use Puerto Ricans for that purpose in this country  old mark   May-27-09 12:38 PM   #87 
  - How is that related to how citizenship is passed on?  kristopher   May-27-09 01:21 PM   #96 
     - People born in Puerto Rico ARE US citizens - I don't know why you are fighting when people  old mark   May-27-09 02:23 PM   #109 
        - Sorry  kristopher   May-27-09 04:32 PM   #131 
  - That has to do with immmigration policy.  kristopher   May-27-09 01:16 PM   #94 
     - dendrobium made an apt point about "citizens of nowhere"  suffragette   May-28-09 01:27 AM   #190 
        - I didn't say it wasn't.  kristopher   May-28-09 01:45 AM   #194 
           - That is a problem that would be a direct result of what you advocate  suffragette   May-28-09 01:56 AM   #198 
              - It is a narrow issue in the scheme of the immigration problem  kristopher   May-28-09 02:04 AM   #201 
                 - It is a potential negative effect of a policy you advocate  suffragette   May-28-09 02:10 AM   #202 
  - Another distraction designed to fire up the racist redneck base.  Ganja Ninja   May-27-09 01:10 PM   #91 
  - How is it "racist crap"?  kristopher   May-27-09 01:18 PM   #95 
     - 14th amendment n/t  WeDidIt   May-27-09 02:43 PM   #115 
  - what a masturbatory crock....good luck getting THAT amendment past the dream stage  Blue_Tires   May-27-09 01:39 PM   #100 
  - Why respond with name calling?  kristopher   May-27-09 01:45 PM   #102 
     - i understand what you are trying to say  Blue_Tires   May-27-09 02:14 PM   #106 
        - Of course it wouldn't be retroactive.  kristopher   May-27-09 04:40 PM   #132 
  - Children born and raised here, knowing no other home  varelse   May-27-09 01:57 PM   #105 
  - See post #132  kristopher   May-27-09 04:42 PM   #133 
     - Ummm it wouldn't need to be retroactive to have this effect  varelse   May-27-09 07:01 PM   #140 
        - Did you read post 132?  kristopher   May-27-09 09:48 PM   #143 
  - Is this the one that wants to fuck a mule, or the other one?  Vickers   May-27-09 02:24 PM   #110 
  - I know whose campaign fund will be getting *my* money :P  varelse   May-27-09 06:55 PM   #139 
  - What a bunch of crap.  hunter   May-27-09 02:37 PM   #112 
  - I agree with him. n/t  konnichi wa   May-27-09 03:29 PM   #119 
  - Pandering to the lowest common denominator...  LanternWaste   May-27-09 04:29 PM   #129 
  - Ain't gonna happen....  Joe the Liberal   May-27-09 05:14 PM   #134 
  - i've thought about that myself  libodem   May-27-09 05:26 PM   #135 
  - Food for Thought  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:30 PM   #157 
     - It happens all the time everywhere in the world.  kristopher   May-27-09 11:47 PM   #168 
        - Not At The Rate It Happens Here  jberryhill   May-28-09 08:34 AM   #205 
  - What the hell? Is this an April Fools joke that got lost? Someone at DU thinks  McCamy Taylor   May-27-09 10:01 PM   #144 
  - That's an ignorant assessment of the discussion  kristopher   May-28-09 12:02 AM   #173 
  - Nathan Deal, Georgia Asshat, Thinks Fathers Are Known At Birth  jberryhill   May-27-09 10:16 PM   #151 
  - I'd prefer to keep jus soli  fishwax   May-27-09 10:22 PM   #153 
  - This is "reasonable"? I've heard it all on DU  Uzybone   May-27-09 11:36 PM   #163 
  - 14th amendment and international law  nadinbrzezinski   May-28-09 12:58 AM   #181 
  - What does international law have to do with it? nt  kristopher   May-28-09 01:19 AM   #187 
     - We are signatories to plenty of treaties that deal with this  nadinbrzezinski   May-28-09 01:26 AM   #189 
        - The UN Conventions on Human Rights  kristopher   May-28-09 01:37 AM   #191 
           - Metternich and the origin of the nation state.  nadinbrzezinski   May-28-09 01:48 AM   #195 
           - Thanks, I'll look that stuff over.  kristopher   May-28-09 01:55 AM   #197 
              - While you are at it look up NAFTA and side agreements  nadinbrzezinski   May-28-09 02:02 AM   #200 
           - Indirectly, Yes...  jberryhill   May-28-09 09:45 AM   #209 
  - I'm dead against this.  TheKentuckian   May-28-09 02:02 AM   #199 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC