1 - 8
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 11:28 PM
Yes, I have. But the debates and the meaning of the phrase "subject,,," are two separate issues. And it's the phrase that made it into the law.
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 11:25 PM
Nope. They were referring to ethnic background. The meaning of the phrase "Subject to..etc" is referring to not owing any foreign allegiance. It has nothing to do with being subject to laws. YOu can accept that or not. The research material on the actual meaning as related to 1868 is widely available on the internet.
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 10:28 PM
Read the FULL Senatorial transcript of the debate on the 14th from the 1860s, they talk about things like the children of Chinese immigrants , gypsies and Ethiopian immigrants getting citizenship. I believe they were referring to ETHNIC background, not ALLEGIANCE. Back then, just about everyone was a race, the Italian race, the Irish race, the Anglo-Saxon race, etc. etc.....
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 10:17 PM
I should've written.... It would be best to use a dictionary of legal terms from the time period.....
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 10:16 PM
It would be best to use a dictionary from the time period that covered the years in which the amendment was written. "Subject to the jursidiction thereof" refers to owing no foreign allegiance. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone in the country is compelled to follow the law. Think about it along these lines- if everyone born in the country has citizenship at birth, why include the "subject" phrase at all? It makes no sense along those lines.
When my parents had me there was more reason to hope for americas future. So I have no anomosity towards them as they really could not have known. And I've had some great times in life, so I am grateful that they had me. Now these days america's future doesn't look bright at all. No way am I going to do that to a child. The government will just have to look elsewhere for new worker "property." IN addition, due to technological advances in the field of communication, personal privacy is certain to become a thing of the past. No way would I have a child in a world where they would be denied one of the most basic parts of human dignity-privacy.
Why have a baby in this country now? Just so he or she can grow up to work until they drop and then be taken off and essentialy executed by the government when they are old and no longer considered of any value to the government? Tell me why exactly anyone would want to do that to someone?
In response to:

Where Will You Go if America Collapses?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 04, 2013 1:26 AM
I wouldn't recommend Australia in case the US government collapses. First off, so much of their wealth depends on trade by sea. So they pretty much have to have good relations with the dominate naval power in the world. So if the US goes, then Australia becomes China's wipping boy. They are in reality a very vulnerable country. But there is also a large anti-American sentiment there that few Americans seem to be aware of. That's right. Despite the fact that the benevolance of our navy allows them to thrive ( given the size of our military it wouldn't be that difficult to reduce them to third world status if the US government wanted to) they can be very very nasty to visiting Americans.
1 - 8