Thursday, July 9, 2015

D.C. Politicians Advance New Law To Give Illegals The 'Right To Vote'

It was bound to happen. Liberals are now claiming that all "residents" and "our neighbors and friends" a greater say in government...






(Daily Caller) District of Columbia council members voiced their support Wednesday for a new law that would allow non-citizens to vote in local elections.

"These are residents who are well on their paths to citizenship," Councilman David Grosso said. "Unfortunately not all of our residents have a say in the politicians who are elected to represent them."

The bill would allow permanent residents in the city who are not American citizens to vote in elections for mayor, city council, the attorney general and State Board of Education members, among other things.

"They are our neighbors and our friends and they want to see our city flourish, yet they have no say in how the city’s government is run," said Councilwoman Elissa Silverman...

Read The Full Story

37 comments:

  1. Syllabus

    A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

    "All person 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."
    (The 14th Amendment sited in the Syllabus)

    Read the rest here;
    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/

    ReplyDelete
  2. What ever happened to the law??? Why are politicians pushes something that is clearly wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just wait until the illegals vote for things that will break the DC budget and raise taxes for everyone else. That's what they did in California!

    ReplyDelete
  4. First they release them to rape and murder and now they'll have the 'right to vote' ? They are NOT citizens!!!! Hello!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would certainly enjoy a CSA, Conservative States of America & the libs, rinos, gays, ACLU, muslim theocracy and all other miscrants can have their U.S.S. of A. -- United Socialist States of America.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re: "I have read the entire syllabus ..."

    Answer: Duh, you have to read the OPINION.

    The quotation from that OPINION is above. It begins: "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England..."



    That quotation has been used by 11 appeals courts that say that the Wong Kim Ark case defined the term "Natural Born Citizen"---and it did, since it said the same rule, THE SAME RULE, was used in England and in the 13 colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


    As for you not 'recognizing' the common law as the authority---tough. YOU do not get to make the decision. The Supreme Court does get to make it, and it did, and it said that the rule comes from the common law----which it did since John Jay was an expert in the common law and since Tucker and Rawle and Storey and Kent all used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that the common law did.


    We are not England, to be sure---but it was not possible or even desirable to change EVERYTHING, and the writers of the US Constitution didn't.


    BTW, the words of "The Star Spangled Banner"---our national anthem---are from an American. But the music is English, an English drinking song.


    And the 15 or so references to the common law in the Federalist Papers (NONE for Vattel) are almost universally with praise for the common law.


    BTW, not only the Wong Kim Ark ruling but the Heritage Foundation book accept that the term Natural Born Citizen comes from THE COMMON LAW.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Look at the picture---these animals should vote?????

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe people will start to research their candidates voting records against the constitution instead of drooling over a charismatic smile and saying what they want to hear

    ReplyDelete
  9. The end of our country, . We cut 40,000 more troops, push the national debt higher, we can't keep a carrier in the Mid East and our planes will be on a French carrier, Russia is Threatening Alaska and both our coasts, China is threatening in the Pacific, ISIS claims they are here and going to kill us, Al Qaeda is Threatening us again, and Afghanistan is talking directly to Al Qaeda after we lost how many troops? And we now live in Sodom and Gomorrah. And we are letting Iran Get Nukes, and last we stepped away from long time allies and Israel. The Greatest Generation that won ww2, both fronts, handed this country over to the Baby Boomers. The Baby Boomers are now retiring. yes there are some good ones, but very few good honest Politicians in that group, very few honest good professors and teachers in that group, Very few honest people in Banking and wall street in that group. The Democrats I grew up with, gone. Now we have Facist (NAZIS) the Bilderberg Group which has total control of the Democrats and partial control; of the Republicans. We are at the edge of being placed in a Dictatorship.. (Don't think so? Look up Bilderberg group, started in 1954 by a NAZI. Our God today, Greed, Money and Allah (Satan). 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, first we fall away, then the Lord brings them that fall away delusion, (Lies) from Satan, then the Lord comes and destroys the none believers. Or, Isaiah, chapter 5, verse 20, woe unto them that call evil good, that put darkness for light and light for darkness, that out bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. verse 21, Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight. The Democrats and the Rinos have betrayed American Values, the working people and the American minorities. But even worse yet, they have betrayed their own children and gran children. They didn't even get 30 pieces of silver did they.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Retired MSgt USAFJuly 9, 2015 at 4:51 PM

    First they UST become Citizens BEFORE they can Vote. This PC crappola is just a Democrat way of making new Democrats Illegally! They are Not undocumented Immigrants. They are Technically, BY LAW, Illegal Aliens and calling them something other than what the LAW states is WRONG and a LIE. Read the Immigration Laws that Congress Passed and the Presidents of the Past have signed. There is NO SUCH thing as an Undocumented Immigrant. An Immigrant is one that goes by the Law on the books. Gets a Legal Visa to Immigrate in this country Legally. Jumping the Border or flying in and overstaying a Tourist or Student Visa is Illegal and ALL should be deported. I don't care if they have children while they were here in this Country or not. Deport the entire family. The Law is the Law, and NO INVADER has ANY Rights whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You have to read the OPINION. The quotation from the opinion is above. It begins: "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England..."

    That quotation has been used by 11 appeals courts that say that the Wong Kim Ark case defined the term "Natural Born Citizen"---and it did, since it said the same rule, THE SAME RULE, was used in England and in the 13 colonies and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

    ReplyDelete
  12. charles flemmingJuly 9, 2015 at 4:57 PM

    don't let that confederat flag go yet it may be put back in use. obama needs to be run out of town

    ReplyDelete
  13. There are felons by committing an illegal act. They entered this country by crossing the boarder. We need another Elision Island.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, he wrote in French. So the writers of the US Constitution would have to have translated at least the one French word that was not translated in the English translation that they had at the time. That word was not "les naturales." That was translated as "the natives." The word that was not translated was Indigines.


    THAT word, some French scholars say, should be translated as "aboriginals." (American aboriginals, Indians, were not US citizens, to be sure, but they were citizens of their tribes.)


    So what you imagine is that the writers of the constitution took the word "indigines" and translated it as an American Natural Born Citizen (not an Indian)----without telling anyone that they did do so, and how and why they did it. And then they used that translation instead of the far more common COMMON LAW, and did not tell anyone that they did, and did not even mention Vattel in the Federalist Papers even once.


    Frankly, that is stupid. The Heritage Foundation book got it right. The term really does come from the common law.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is what happens when stupid people vote for stupid people. Real Americans will not betray Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This just shows that the real problems that we are having are not important. Since Boehner has surrendered the power of the purse he has nothing else to do but to worry about the Confederate it shows how concerned he is about the real problems we are having.

    ReplyDelete
  17. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN..Non citizens will never be able to register,let alone vote..Just another example of urban legend magnified by the media..The ridiculous media is responsible for stirring more shit in this country,over and over and over again..The frightening thing is,many,many people end up believing the fabrications..

    ReplyDelete
  18. In DC? Surely you don't believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The OPINION is not IAW the 14th Amendment...Born on soil is a CIITIZEN under current LAW.

    Why don't we just go back in time and start living by the old law that the colonies were first formed under before the Constitution...If you want to bring back British Common Law then why don't we make Obama a King and we can all be his subjects...oh, too late it has already happened.,,He is an illegally elected president due to his father is a British Subject and that means Barry is a British Subject as well...Remember the war of 1812, maybe they will come get him.

    That is why the framers used Vattel, it fits perfectly into the eligibility clause and the reason the citizen was grandfathered, he was not a natural born citizen, born of two citizen parents....He was just like Wang Kim Ark that was born on soil under the 14th amendment and made a citizen....It all lines up perfectly, the Chinaman was being exported and WKA just so happen to be born on soil so was saved by the 14th Amendment....it is right there in the syllabus, you don't have to go looking for it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. That's your esteemed muslim president

    ReplyDelete
  21. Don't you get it? Obummer makes his own rules......

    ReplyDelete
  22. THEY DO NOW...wake up.....

    ReplyDelete
  23. Watch the morons vote for billary..........

    ReplyDelete
  24. Since the 14th Amendment does not include the words "Natural Born," it only affects the citizen part of Natural Born Citizen.

    Obama, having been born on US soil (like Rubio and Jindal) is a Natural Born Citizen.

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

    "Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    More reading on the subject:

    http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

    http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. TREASONOUS . ARREST and TRY , EVERY DEMONICrat that's IN ON this ILLEGAL , UNCONSTITUTIONAL BILL .

    ReplyDelete
  26. GREASY SPIC BASTARDS . KICK THEIR ILLEGAL SPIC ASSES OUT

    ReplyDelete
  27. Re: " It quoted the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett."

    Answer: NO it did not. It quoted the common law ("by the law of England for the last three hundred years") and it said (correctly) that under the common law EVERY child born on the soil of the country was NATURAL BORN.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Re: They don't run for president...."

    Answer: There is not a single word in the US Constitution or in the Federalist Papers that says that two citizen parents or even one are required in order to run for president.

    The fact that they did not say that is sufficient under any law. Rubio and Jindal, who are running, and maybe even Cruz (who was born in Canada) are all eligible because the US Constitution does not say that they are NOT eligible. They all are US citizens, and they all were BORN US citizens-----and none of them were naturalized citizens so with the possible exception of Cruz, who was not born on US soil, there is no doubt that they are NATURAL BORN citizens and hence eligible to become PRESIDENT.

    ELEVEN appeals courts ruling on presidential eligibility all ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and hence that he is eligible, and he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the USA----and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party did not object.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You have to use logic....The eligibility clause (A2S1) list two types of citizens that are eligible to be President...The "Natural Born Citizen" and the "Citizen"

    First you have to realize that the definition of a Citizen is found in the 14tth Amendment:
    Citizen= born on soil or naturalized....Then you have to realize from reading A2S1 that the CITIZEN was only grandfathered to be eligible to those that were only alive during the time of the adoption of the Constitution....Why was that? Logic: Due to our nation was young at the time and many of our leaders were not born to citizen parents...Can you give another logical reason for the Grandfather Clause???Again, get this through your head, those born on soil w/out citizen parents were only allowed to be eligible to those that were alive during the time the Constitution was adopted.....So therefore the Citizen born on soil or naturalized, defined in the 14th Amendment, is no longer eligible.

    So now we only have the the Natural Born Citizen left to consider... As described by Vattel:
    Natural Born Citizen=born on soil + citizen parents.
    .“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Here we can plainly read born in the country of parents who are citizens.......But now we must use logic....If the citizen in A2S1 is only born on soil and the natural born citizen is born on soil then what is it that makes them different?

    If the NBC and the Citizen are only required to be born on soil to be President, they why was the citizen grandfathered to those only alive during the time of the adoption of the Constitution..WHY???...It should now be easy to see that there was something that made them different and the only logical answer is that the Framer's were using Vattel to construct the eligibility clause and reading the dicta from WKA as well as other cases that used Vattel plainly stated that those born on soil from citizen parents were natural born citizen but those born from others were doubtful if they were even citizens at all.

    In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.

    At this point there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why doesn't he just ask the South to secede and get it over with? Something awful has happend to our culture and country! This is being orchestrated by groups who don't give a rat's ear about anything but their own power and the destruction of America as we once knew it. What nobody talks about is the Democrat Party's complicity in maintaining and upholding the ugly segregated past. That's where the so-called 'racist' problem originated..It took Republicans to restore some measure of sane behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Throw away our history because a few don't understand or like it. Export those who want it banned out of our country to someplace like Iraq, Afghanistan or better yet put them where Osama Bin Laden it resting.

    ReplyDelete
  32. boner!! he's a gutless wonder. If the rep. want any chance of taking the white house they have to GET RID OF HIM. Pelosi has bigger BALLS

    ReplyDelete
  33. They may be our "neighbors"(I question the "friends" ;part), but they are STILL not CITIZENS, and as such have no right to vote until they EARN their citizenship like my Irish immigrant grandmother and all the millions of LEGAL immigrants who came with and before her.

    ReplyDelete
  34. DETAILS ALL ONLINE BY ME. someone dummied up the certified record, as it never got issued. The initial notice of birth and newspapers in Hawaii did get done from his grandmother putting the form she filled out in the in box a the hospital receptionist ho called in the births to those places; the birth was in the paper in Topeka, too. Obama is not the dad. It was a marriage arranged by her dad and my dad married them, in\Topeka,, to give the baby a name; I have gotten into this for justice for the 3 dead including his real dad as I and 'everyone' else then have always it to be, Jim T Parks from the lynching attack that was to have killed both his parents and POTUS unborn at the time in 3/61, an open murder case to this day.where some one might yet be brought to trial for it.THAT IS MORE REASON FOR THE COVER UP THAN ANYTHING.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There is nothing wrong with being born in Kansas. However, your recollections are not sufficient proof that someone was born there.


    What is proof?


    Answer: A birth certificate is, of course, and Obama's birth certificate says that he was born in Hawaii, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have confirmed that they sent it to him (and they, sorry, are more credible than you are). And there are the birth notices on two different microfilm rolls, both of which are in two different libraries. The old rolls would have had to have had to have been taken out of both libraries, and then new ones forged, and then the new ones put back into the libraries without anyone noticing, for Obama to have been born anywhere else than in Hawaii.

    ReplyDelete

Posted By: Chris Carmouche