Congress had and has the power to discriminate all it wants, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. I don't even understand your point here.

I'm summarizing just to be clear:

• Judge Taney rules that blacks aren't citizens.
• This ruling is overturned by the 14th Amendment.
• You say that the 14th Amendment is illegal.
• Therefore, blacks aren't citizens?
• Wait, but they are, because they are born here.
• In Dred Scot it was clearly stated that, regardless of birth, blacks were not citizens.
• Mexicans obviously were not born here, either.

So, how does enforcing a border with a foreign state = "discriminating" against anyone, regardless of skin color?

You also state that "racist" decisions of the courts are null and void, but won't say why.

And, if it's about skin color, what explained the discrimination against the Irish, as in "No Irish Need Apply?"

HUH?

Congress has NO authority to discriminate. NONE. But , again show me the article, section and clause .

Judge Taney was wrong because he had no Constitutional authority for his ruling. In his dissenting opinion Judge Curtis stated that the majority was wrong because NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING in the Constitution permitted those Justices from concluding that the constitution prevented them from considering negroes as US citizens.

BTW , Judge Curtis ruled that way - 10 -TEN - years before the 14th Amendment was allegedly adopted.


Mr. Justice CURTIS dissenting.

Did the Constitution of the United States deprive them or their descendants of citizenship?

That Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, or those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon, in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of that State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on this subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of 'the people of the United States,' by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. It would be strange, if we were to find in that instrument anything which deprived of their citizenship any part of the people of the United States who were among those by whom it was established.

I can find nothing in the Constitution which, proprio vigore, deprives of their citizenship any class of persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of its adoption, or who should be native- born citizens of any State after its adoption; nor any power enabling Congress to disfranchise persons born on the soil of any State, and entitled to citizenship of such State by its Constitution and laws. And my opinion is, that, under the Constitution of the United States, every free person born on the soil of a State, who is a citizen of that State by force of its Constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.

U.S. Supreme Court
DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

OK, then. I agree with your logic, now that you've actually presented some of it.

Ms. Arellano was born in the state of Michoacán. I trust you don't think that the reference above applies to her?

Also, she sought and received "sanctuary" in a Chicago church for a year. Is the concept of a church as a law-free "sanctuary" constitutional?

It's news to me that regulating immigration is discriminating, but anyway, the Article and clause would be Article 1, section 8. The naturalization and interstate commerce clauses coupled with the necessary and proper clause, I'm pretty sure.

Why not?


We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights,

Our rights are not granted by our Constitution they are SECURED by the same. But those rights are universal. Unless nature's god does not operate in the State Of Michoacan.





Yes, Congress has the exclusive authority to naturalize US CITIZENS ONLY. In Ms. Arellano's case she is not a US citizen. But she was a citizen of the State of Illinois. If the state of illinois had decided to revoke the citizenship it was up to her to find a state of the union that would welcome her. The state of NY is a sanctuary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been to parts of Michoacán where nature's God arguably is on sabbatical.

Anyway, by this logic, if all 6 billion people came to Chicago, they would have the "right" to stay?


The state of NY is irrelevant!!!!111@!1111!!!!

As for Illinois, no she is NOT a citizen of Illinois. That right was not "secured" for her by any legal or governmental body in this state. She was a resident of Illinois. That residency was based upon fraudulent documents - a stolen social security number. Most employers and even schools and state services can be denied to those who have proved their residency status with false documents.

• Born in Mexico in the 1970's.
• Ms. Arellano illegally immigrated to the US in 1997 and was deported.
• She then returned and lived illegally in Oregon for 3 years.
• In 2000, she moved to Chicago and worked as a cleaning lady at O'Hare for about 18 months.
• In 2002, she was busted for Social Security fraud and sentenced to probation.
• Our system being as efficient as it is, she was to appear before immigration court in August of 2006.
• Rather than go to court, she holed up in a church here in Humboldt Park who gave her "sanctuary."
• She didn't even really do that, as she was seen all over town, and even in Mexico City.
• Finally in 2007, the feds ordered her deported when arrested in California this year.

At what point in the timeline above did she become a citizen of Illinois?

Just to add, does this sound like she even claims to be a "citizen of Illinois" to you?


Before being deported, she famously said "I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight."

How many other patriotic Mexicans are citizens of Illinois? All 100 million of them?

I see so, I take it that you have knowledge that all 6 billion want to come to Chicago?



And you that...how? Your post alleges that she resided in Illinois and Oregon for over 6 mos. Most states only require a 6 mos residence before considering the indivual a citizen!!!!

Can you back up anything you're posting here? What States allow illegal immigrants to be residents after six months? I know your logic is, um, different than a lot of, uh, humans but how do you reconcile that this woman was in anyway an American Citizen?

Any one who was born in the Americas is an "American" citizen.

I did not say that she is a US citizen.

In Illinois an individual typically becomes a citizen of that state if he/she has maintained residency for 90 days.

The question is IF the 6 billion came to Chicago, would they have the right to stay. In other words, can everybody stay wherever they go as "citizens" according to you, even when they arrive by stealing someone else's identity.


Please provide a source for this assertion. Thanks.


Now you are just being disingenuous. From your link:



Your reference to divorce law is particularly amusing. In order to get a Divorce in the Dominican Republic, you only have to spend one night there, and only one of you has to be present. By your logic, I am a Dominican "citizen" based on a prior vacation there. Wrong. Please try again.

Residence does not equal citizenship. I have lived in the US, France, Mexico and the United Kingdom, and have only been an American citizen throughout. There isn't a country in the world that would grant you citizenship based on your ability to sneak in and steal someone else's identity.

It appears that you are missing the point perhaps intentionally.

(1)If I understand the facts of her case correctly neither the State of Oregon nor Illinois try to remove her from their jurisdiction. Most states confer citizenship according to the common law. I used the divorce statute to show that under common law it is very easy to become a citizen of a state.


"Citizenship and domicile are substantially synonymous. * * * Citizenship implies more than residence. It carries with it the idea of identification with the state and a participation in its functions. * * * The registration of a man as a voter * * * [is] likewise strong evidence of * * * citizenship * * *." (Baker v. Keck (E.D. Ill. 1936), 13 F. Supp. 486, 487.) As one can abandon a domicile by removing to another place with an intention of remaining there for an indefinite time (Story, Conflict of Laws § 46 (8th ed. 1883)), so can one renounce citizenship. If a person establishes a domicile in a foreign country, he loses his State citizenship (but not necessarily his United States citizenship, a question not at issue here.) Alla v. Kornfeld (N.D. Ill. 1949), 84 F. Supp. 823."

In Re Estate of Cohn, 95 Ill. App.3d 204, 419 N.E.2d 951 (Ill.App. Dist.1 04/10/1981)

The the ONLY thing that the State of Illinois demanded was "the intention" that Ms Arellano was going to remain there. That is it. Over and out.


(2) The issue of 6 billion individuals relocating to Cook County is a unfounded - aryan -speculation. You continue to forget that we had open borders with Mexico from the late 1700's up until the mid 1960's. So our Mexican Alien friends had an ample opportunity to relocate here, but never did.

How could they remove Elvira Arellano from their state, when she had not announced her presence in their states? She lived and worked under an alias. Anyway,desipte your constitutional fantasies, the feds manage immigration and they deported her at least twice. Perhaps the Republic of Illinois/Oregon will protest at the UN or some thing, but I doubt it.


Well, under common law I would have to agree with the finding in Baker v. Keck. Unfortunately, Ms. Arellano did not "identify with the state and participate in its functions." Nor did she "register to vote." Rather, she stole a Social Security number and lived using a false identity!

According to Black's Law Dictionary, an "alien" is someone who "owes allegiance to a foreign government." Since she is in Mexico now, calling it "my country" left and right, it's safe to say that she "renounced" her "Illinos citizenship" anyway, per your Alla v. Kornfeld citation.


It's not speculation, it is a hypothetical, which you have now refused to answer 3 times. IF everyone in the world arrived in Cook County and announced their "intention to stay," would they be citizens of Illinois? Yes or no.

While you are at it, please answer the above given the further hypothetical that they were all using your social security number, which they had stolen.

As for your "aryan" quip, I'm at a loss. Are you hinting that if Cook County, Illinois is full of blond-haired, blue-eyed white people? I'm on my way to a youth football practice; let me assure you that the d-line and skill positions would be amused to hear this.

Well we concur there , the US Constitution has been reduced to a fantasy, a relic.

But this is what the powers that be use to say about the sates right to confer their citizenship on whomsoever

(1) Thomas Jefferson:



4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.





(2) US Supreme Court

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

- The federalist quote you provided assumes that she is a "citizen" of a state. Moreover it asserts that a state has "conferred" citizenship upon her. You haven't come close to proving this is the case.
- You also seem to argue that she's an alien. In which case, you haven't addressed how Ms. Arellano is an "alien friend" when she doesn't even use her real name.
- Just in general, you seem to ignore that she was living as someone else.
- For the fourth time, you are dodging the hypothetical on immigrants to Chicago.
- You have given no indication why you used the word "aryan" in a conversation regarding immigration.
- You have never sourced that "most states" require only 6 months residency to confer "citizenship"

Just FYI, ignoring every argument posed to you, preferring to post endless excerpts of the Federalist papers, is not really debate. There are other websites that do this, if you'd prefer. Given your monicker, perhaps you don't really care to meaningfully participate?

Look how happy her 12-year-old son is about being used by the Code Pink wackos to deliver a letter to Nancy Pelosi's house. See it in context at 1:03 of this youtube video. That kid looks terrified, and why exactly isn't he in school? Or in Mexico with mom, "Rosa Parks?"