Those Crazy Arizonans

[Red Arrow]

Red said;
I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.

Got me started wondering if the parents went home, would the children then be the illegal aliens there?  And would that country allow them in?

Might depend on the country but if US citizens have a child in another country, the child is offered US citizenship.  The child may have dual citizenship but I don't know the ins and outs of that.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not exactly "offered" citizenship - they ARE US citizens.  (Otherwise, John McCain would not have been eligible to run for President.)


I'm thinking about Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaraqua, etc.  I guess I could use Google if it were that big a deal to me.  I guess it isn't....

[Red Arrow]

Not exactly "offered" citizenship - they ARE US citizens.  (Otherwise, John McCain would not have been eligible to run for President.)
I'm thinking about Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaraqua, etc.  I guess I could use Google if it were that big a deal to me.  I guess it isn't....

I said "offered" because I don't know that they are required to accept it.   Maybe they are.

[nathanm]

I said "offered" because I don't know that they are required to accept it.   Maybe they are.

Children born to US citizens are, in most cases, US citizens at birth, even if the birth isn't registered. Needless to say it's much easier to make the claim of citizenship if the birth was timely registered.

[eDuece]

    What's interesting is, if you actually read the first two sentences of the 14th amendment, (as opposed to that murky second amendment on gun rights,) it's pretty clear what the meaning is. The second sentence speaks directly to Randy Terrill and his statehouse cohorts.

   Try this: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State (meaning our Oklahoma legislature) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Seems pretty clear to me and what is most ironic is these guys are all "constitutional conservatives" hard over on "original intent."

   Also Remember, a lot of the Founding fathers were immigrants, mostly from England, so be careful when you badmouth immigrants

[heironymouspasparagus]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing murky at all about that, especially given the pre-revisionist attempts to define what a militia is - they were the sum total of the CITIZENS of the country - "the people".  The was no such thing as a national guard - the later days revisionist militia we hear so much about.

And as a subordinate clause, the first four words are specifically designed as a phrase to enhance, elaborate, clarify, etc - but NOT to subvert or redefine the main clause of the phrase which is specific and crystal clear - the right of THE PEOPLE.  Same people specifically designated in so many other amendments and held for decades if not centuries to be a personal right.  (Free speech, etc).  (Ref; Miss Penfield, 9th grade English)


As far as the RWRE - their concern is NOT the Constitution.  Or personal rights.  It is their agenda.  As is evidenced by their poster child Sarah Palin.  Or their poster child of legislation, the un-"Patriot Act".  Everyone has heard her - the one who works the word "Constitution" into EVERY conversation, but cannot identify one of the main clauses of the First Amendment when told what it is.  Yeah, her.

[eDuece]

    Actually, back in 1780's when the Constitution was being put together, most colonial towns actually did have militias and called them that, kind of like modern small towns now have volunteer firemen. (The National Guard wasn't actually created until 1903) The famous "Minute Men" of the Revolution were the town militias from Concord and Lexington.

   So as I read the Constitution (from a strict constructionist view point,)  it's pretty clearly referring to these part time colonial town militias. The second amendment was intended to allow the able bodied men in town to keep the old flintlock over the fireplace along with some powder and shot and be ready to gather as a "well regulated militia" to defend the village from marauding Indians and roving bands of renegade Canadians.

   That "original intent" pretty much died out by the time of the Civil War when most towns no longer need defending. The invention of six shot side arms of Western movie fame around the 1850's suddenly gave new meaning to the rest of the amendment after the comma. "The right to keep and bear arms", now took on a whole new meaning beginning with guys like Jesse James and Wyatt Earp and our current gun enthusiasts.
   
   If you believe in the liberal idea of a living Constitution, then the concept of every civilians right to open carrying semi automatics around town on their hips at political rallies, into restaurants and around campus is a very modern reading of what, to me, is a very elastic (but currently legal) interpretation of the Constitutions original intent.

[custosnox]

    Actually, back in 1780's when the Constitution was being put together, most colonial towns actually did have militias and called them that, kind of like modern small towns now have volunteer firemen. (The National Guard wasn’t actually created until 1903) The famous “Minute Men” of the Revolution were the town militias from Concord and Lexington.

   So as I read the Constitution (from a strict constructionist view point,)  it’s pretty clearly referring to these part time colonial town militias. The second amendment was intended to allow the able bodied men in town to keep the old flintlock over the fireplace along with some powder and shot and be ready to gather as a “well regulated militia” to defend the village from marauding Indians and roving bands of renegade Canadians.

   That “original intent” pretty much died out by the time of the Civil War when most towns no longer need defending. The invention of six shot side arms of Western movie fame around the 1850's suddenly gave new meaning to the rest of the amendment after the comma. “The right to keep and bear arms”, now took on a whole new meaning beginning with guys like Jesse James and Wyatt Earp and our current gun enthusiasts.
   
   If you believe in the liberal idea of a living Constitution, then the concept of every civilians right to open carrying semi automatics around town on their hips at political rallies, into restaurants and around campus is a very modern reading of what, to me, is a very elastic (but currently legal) interpretation of the Constitutions original intent.

However, if you keep in mind that when the constitution was written the power was to belong to the states and the people, and that the bill of rights was written to protect the powers of these, then it gives a new light on the purpose of those militias.  It wasn't merely to give the individuals the ability to protect themselves indians and renegades, but from over reaching federal governments as well.  Also, you assume that the type of firearm make a differance to this law, but don't take into account that in order to be able to defend ones home that you really need a weapon of the same, or better, ability as those you are defending against.  As such, when the firepower of those that may threaten the home increases in ability, so must that of those meant to defend it.

[custosnox]

oh, and the bill of rights was not included in the writting of the constitution (hence why they are amendments), but were agreed to be included at a later point in order to get the states to ratify them.

[nathanm]

As such, when the firepower of those that may threaten the home increases in ability, so must that of those meant to defend it.

Where's my nuclear-tipped ICBM? 

[custosnox]

Where's my nuclear-tipped ICBM? 

I've been asking the same thing for years.  Though the description is often updated. Now it needs to be a nuclear-tipped ICBM with pinpoint GPS guidance systems and stealth capabilities.

[dbacks fan]

Where's my nuclear-tipped ICBM? 

I happen to have one, where would you like me to aim it?

[nathanm]

I happen to have one, where would you like me to aim it?

First, I suggest you tell all those people looking over the edge at it to get off your freakin' lawn.

[Red Arrow]

I've been asking the same thing for years.  Though the description is often updated. Now it needs to be a nuclear-tipped ICBM with pinpoint GPS guidance systems and stealth capabilities.

Probably don't need pinpoint GPS guidance.  Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and Nuclear Weapons.

[dbacks fan]

Probably don't need pinpoint GPS guidance.  Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and Nuclear Weapons.

Get me within 5 miles and I'm good. Do you want an air burst or ground level?