Jump to content

just_abc

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

just_abc last won the day on April 8 2013

just_abc had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

214 Good

About just_abc

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

6,555 profile views
  1. Btw sorry for my rather convoluted earlier post. The main point I was / am trying make is that.. Firstly the term 'jurisdiction' can have more than one meanings or rather types.. and.. If the meaning of the term 'jurisdiction' in the ammendment sentence is refering to type of jurisdiction that countries might have over their own citizens only.. then could that possibly mean that in order to be subject to such a jurisdiction of the Usa.. a person might need to already be an american citizen first? and.. If so.. does this mean there might possibly be an almost catch 22 type situation.. not just for children born in the Usa.. but also for adult naturalised citizens of the Usa? Since that particular ammendment sentence is specifically refering both to those born and those naturalised in the Usa ? (And not to the parent?) For example.. if the foreign spouse of an american citizen wanted to become a naturalised citizen of the Usa.. they would need to be 'subject to the jurisduction thereof' of the Usa.. But if in order for them to be subject to such a jurisdiction.. they might first need to already be an american citizen.. um how is this possible? i.e That in order to become an american citizen ..one would first need to already be an american citizen? That is confusing. Which is why I am wondering if the term 'jurisdiction' in that particular ammendment sentence could be refering to a different type of jurisdiction.. such as say someone being subject to the jurisdiction of many of the laws in a country etc? Rather than to the type of jurisdiction a country might have over its own citizens only? Just a thought. Thanks.
  2. hi Just a small note. I came across this article / page from an american government website (US Citizenship and Immigration Services). It has information about citizenship for children born outside the Usa but with an american parent. https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3 Also below is link to an article / page from the american state department website which has info about dual nationality. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Advice-about-Possible-Loss-of-US-Nationality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html
  3. Thanks for explaining. I am still a bit puzzled though. Is the term "jurisdiction" in the 14th Ammendment sentence refering to a different type of jurisdiction and not refering to someone being subject to a country's laws etc? If so I am wondering what is the type of jurisdiction that is being refered to? Is it refering to jurisdiction countries have over their own citizens? I am wondering partly because *if * the jurisdiction that is being refered to is the jurisdiction that different countries have over their own citizens.... then in the case of any child being born on Usa soil.. including those born to american parents.. wouldn't that child need to already have american citizenship in order to be subject to that type of jurisdiction? (since I think that type of jurisdiction applies to those who are already citizens of a country?.. and that sentence in the Ammendment regarding jurisdiction I think seems to be refering specifically to the child and not the parent?) So in other words.. in order to be given american citizenship.. a child would need to already be an american citizen..... ? Or in yet other words.. in order for the child to be 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' .. (assuming that the word jurisdiction in that sentence is refering to a jurisdiction that countries have over their own citizens).. the child would need to already be an american citizen.... But to already be an american citizen the child would first have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Usa.. Sorry but to me I think that is confusing..? It seems almost like a catch 22 situation? Or maybe I am just confusing myself lol Sorry! Thanks for your patience. ps I don't know the whole Ammendment.. so am just refering to the sentence /clip that was quoted earlier in this thread. ..If elsewhere in the American Constitution or Ammendment.. this issue had already been explained .. then please forgive me. Just basing the catch 22 perception on just that earlier sentence / clip. Thanks and sorry.
  4. Ok I am puzzled. In my country whether someone is in the country legally or legally.. I think they are still under the jurisdiction of the laws here? Isn't it the same in the Usa? Just wondering what was meant. Thanks. *edited to add the correction below An exemption : folk with diplomatic immunity etc might not be under the jurusdiction of the laws of the country they are serving in.. but most other folk are I think?
  5. Agreed. Most people around the world are just people.. Human beings.. Made in His image.. Loved by Him.. But who need Him too.. so very much.
  6. Thanks very much for explaining In the past in my country .... phrases along the lines that if someone was not happy with such-and-such then they should go back (to the countries their ancestors came from)... has been used by certain quarters against individuals who are born citizens of my country but from non-indigenous minority ethnicities.. Sometimes even if their family had lived in the country for generations.. some still viewed them as 'outsiders' or 'immigrants' (with the term for immigrant being used derisively in this context not positively) So yeah a "go back" phrase does not always have just nice meanings.. outside of the Usa.. I have never been to the Usa though.. so was/ am not certain what the meaning is in the Usa.. Thanks to you and deb for taking the time and trouble to explain to me. Much appreciated.
  7. hi sis Thanks for explaining To me though I think there is a big difference between say telling someone who is a born citizen of a country.. "that if they don't like the situation in the country they could simply move to any other country they wish".. and telling them.. "to go back to the countries of their ancestors".. If the tweet had been worded the same way as your sentence then I might not have even posted in this thread. Because your sentence is a perfectly normal sentence. Not something necessarily racist / bigoted /prejudiced or anything like that. Just an ordinary normal sentence. A "go back" sentence is different. The keyword is the phrase "go back". One can only go back to someplace that one came from. If someone is a born citizen of a country.. and grew up in that country etc.. then how can they "go back" to a country they were never from in the first place? Often the term "go back" to where your ancestors came from is used when the target of that phrase is not being viewed as an actual or full citizen of their own country.. but either just as second class citizens.. or perhaps even viewed as 'foreigners' in their own country. That is why.. to me.. that phrase is usually offensive or even bigoted etc. especially when used against those who are actually born citizens of a nation. Sorry just wanted to explain. I dont know if in the Usa perhaps the meaning is different? Thanks.
  8. hi Not sure if this will help or not.. but I came across this news article online https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-racist-tweets-progressive-democratic-congresswomen-go-back-to-countries-nancy-pelosi-slam-president/ hi sis. I have a question. Since three of the ladies are born citizens of the Usa.. does that mean they are being told to go back to the Usa? Sorry no offence intended truly sis. I am not from the Usa. But where I live "go back" comment type phrases directed at born citizens of the same country might often be viewed by many as racist or bigoted or prejudiced etc etc. Is it not also viewed that way in american culture? Or does "go back" phrase have a different meaning in your country compared to other countries? Sorry I hope it is ok for me to ask. To me it is highly highly offensive. One of the most bigoted or prejudiced etc types of comments in countries such as mine. So i am surprised more american Christians do not seem to view "go back" type comments the same way (if I am not mistaken). And I am wondering why? It is so hard to try to understand . Thanks. And truly not meaning any offence. Thank you.
  9. um.... I am not really sure why "the West" is singled out in article? What I mean is that.. there are many many different countries in Africa and elsewhere around the world.. Each country or area might have different issues or situation..ie it is not all exactly the same.. For those countries facing groups such as ISIS.. or similar type groups.. of course all countries need to try to stop them.. But this is something all countries both East and West need to try to do.. not just the responsibility of "the West"? Forgive me if my post sounds harsh. But I guess I don't understand the possible western-centric view of the article? Or maybe i have misunderstood? If so please forgive. Christians both in the East and West depend on the Lord first and foremost. Of course countries (both from the East and West) should help people in other countries. And Christians and Christian organisations should help. But that is the responsibilty of those both in the East and West.. not just the West alone.. Just my opinion thats all. No offence intended. And if I have misunderstood please please forgive. Thanks.
  10. um.... a general comment if I may.. There is a difference between the percentage of something.. and the actual numbers of something. For example.. a hypothetical example : 80 percent of say a hundred people is just 80 people. But 47 percent of say a thousand people is 470 people.. i.e a much larger number of people. So in the hypothetical example above.. even though a figure of 80 percent *looks* higher than 47 percent.... but in terms of actual numbers of human beings it is the 47 percent that actually translates into a much greater number of people compared to the 80 percent..? With regards to refugee admissions to the Usa.. from what I have read online.. I think the number of Christian refugees admitted to the Usa under last year of president Obama ie fiscal year 2016.. might potentially possibly be much greater than under 2017 or 2018 president Trump? Because even though in terms of percentage.. Christian refugees might have increased.. But in terms of actual numbers of human beings.. the number of Christian refugees allowed into Usa might possibly have potentially decreased under president Trump? since the overall number of refugees was decreased? Just wondering. Thanks.
  11. hi Footprint (nice name btw ) I am not an expert .. but I think that sometimes it might be difficult to directly translate some things.. literal word for word .. from one language into another unrelated language. For example if I were to translate your worthy name 'Footprint' into my second language.. I would be able to translate it directly..but by using 3 words phrase .. something like "effect base leg". The meaning of that is basically the same as the english word 'footprint'. That is why I can translate it directly.... i.e because term /concept for a footprint already exists in my second language.. However if the term or concept of a footprint did not exist in my second language.. then I would have to find another way to explain what a footprint is.... i.e I might have to explain the meaning of what a footprint is.. even if it meant using more words perhaps. Anyways just some thoughts thats all. I think translation between languages can often be interesting.. but sometimes perhaps a bit frustrating too at times? Just a thought Thanks
  12. Warrior.... I am so sorry brother.... (Amanda thanks for letting us know)
  13. hi If you are interested in asian news.. I am wondering if you have tried some other news channels too.. such as Channel News Asia? It is singaporean. But not sure if it is accessible in Usa though. Just a thought
  14. hi I have a question. Are you asking about a specific country such as the Usa.. Or are you asking about immigration in general i.e any country? Just wondering that's all. And thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...