I didn't stand this sweetness
thing that was between us is revenge.
there aren't thing that we can be hidden in, hold me tight!
go away but not over window - over door,
you're wild animal that pretending the kitten.
i could do it, it was me. You don't believe your eyes - so don't believe.
noting matters now, I don't afraid anymore!
guide me by your hand,
cover midnight by yourself
I'm consent to be directed by you
the higher love the lower kisses.
For more infomation >> thing that was between us is revenge - Duration: 1:05.-------------------------------------------
Storm brings us a snow chance - Duration: 3:18.
-------------------------------------------
YTP: Lil Wayne gives us too much information - Duration: 0:57.
Uhh.. huh
Hollygrove, Hollywood, Hollygrove, Hollywood
Too Hollywood to go Hollygrove
What's in your pockets? What's in your pocketbook?
We think the Bible's a book
We think the Bible's not a book
We think the Bible's a comic book
I got penis, it's so good, need a name, call it cock
I just eat pussy and pussy and pussy all day
and I ain't even kinda full
Show me your tits, I'll show you my pussy
*bongo sounds*
Ooh!
OoOoH!
My vagina's kinda sore
I come from the streets but got cum all over my face...
Fall asleep to the gunshots,
wake up and smell the shit
Man, this place smells like shit!
Ohhhhh!
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
-------------------------------------------
[특강] "The US and North Korea: What Next?"(1) - Joseph Yun대사 (한글자막) - Duration: 26:30.
-------------------------------------------
Facial recognition comes to U.S. airports - Duration: 1:49.
-------------------------------------------
'We need them to protect us': Norfolk leaders, with power to stop pipeline, quiet in fight - Duration: 2:39.
-------------------------------------------
Border Brief: Will US troops deployed to border return before Christmas? - Duration: 1:03.
-------------------------------------------
Leading cannabis-edible provider in US launches IPO in Canada - Duration: 3:28.
-------------------------------------------
US Military, CIA & Hollywood Propaganda - Duration: 7:04.
-------------------------------------------
Stephen Biddle: What Resources Would the U.S. Need to "Win" in Syria and Afghanistan? - Duration: 1:21.
Well, the US military has doctrine that lays out guidelines for how many
soldiers do you need to stabilize a threatened country involved in a civil
war insurgency. And those guidelines tell you how many troops you need per
civilians in the country involved to provide them with the security they need
to defend themselves against insurgents and terrorists. If you apply that
standard rule of thumb to a place like either Afghanistan or Syria or Iraq you
end up with numbers well north of 200,000 trained, motivated security
providers which in most circumstances basically means Americans. And the whole
problem here is that these situations all matter to Americans but not that
much. I mean, nobody in the American political system at the moment
believes that it's commensurate with the scale of the U.S. stake in a place like
Afghanistan or Syria to send the hundreds of thousands of soldiers the
current U.S. military doctrine says you would need if you were actually going to
stabilize these places by force of arms without some sort of painful negotiated
settlement that gives up significant parts of the stake to an actor that we
dislike as much as, say, the Taliban.
-------------------------------------------
They don't care about us - salsa version by Zumba Delia - Duration: 3:45.
They don't care about us - salsa version
-------------------------------------------
Imran Khan's statement, The US and India issued a statement to Pakistan | M Starter Tv | Haqeeqat Tv - Duration: 3:56.
Imran Khan
-------------------------------------------
U.S. renews restrictions on N. Korea for lack of progress on eliminating human trafficking - Duration: 0:49.
The Trump administration has renewed a ban on funding to several countries, including
North Korea,... for failing to meet Washington's minimum standards on eliminating human trafficking.
According to a Presidential Determination issued by the White House,... the U.S. will
be prohibited from providing the North with non-humanitarian or non-trade related assistance
for another year,... until the regime makes significant progress on the issue.
It will also stop multilateral development banks and the IMF providing loans to the North.
The measures are seen as symbolic, as Washington has already cut off all funding to Pyeongyang.
It marks the 16th consecutive year for North Korea to be blacklisted for human trafficking.
-------------------------------------------
U.S. looking forward to more high-level talks with North Korea: State Dept. - Duration: 0:28.
the United States has reiterated that it is looking forward to having more
high-level talks with North Korea the State Department stressed on Thursday
that great progress was made at the Singapore summit in June but that
further talks are not going to be forced into artificial time constraints an
official hinted at possible working-level talks though saying that
future dialogue will take place led by Washington's special representative for
North Korea Stephen vegan
-------------------------------------------
U.S. Marshal killed in the line of duty in Tucson - Duration: 2:12.
-------------------------------------------
Jesuits Admit They Are Helping Illegal Aliens Enter The US Criminally - Duration: 5:37.
-------------------------------------------
Why Does the U.S. Have Birthright Citizenship? | United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Duration: 5:22.
Mr. Beat presents
Supreme Court Briefs
1868, or 1871...or perhaps 1873
Wong Kim Ark is born.
His parents are Wong Si Ping and Wee Lee, both immigrants from China and not United States citizens.
According to the Naturalization Law of 1802, the two could never become citizens because they weren't "white."
Whatever the heck that means.
Due to the Chinese Exclusion Act discriminating against them, the Wongs moved back to China, when Kim Ark was 9.
But a few years later, Kim Ark came right back to California because he wanted to make much more money.
This was not a problem for Kim Ark because, since he was born in San Francisco, he was automatically an American citizen thanks to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In 1890, Wong went to China to visit his parents, and he came back home to the United States with no problem.
However, four years later when he went back to China to visit them, he was denied re-entry upon his return.
He was like "dude, I live here." They were like, "nope, not anymore. You're not a citizen."
During the five months when Wong fought for re-entry into the country, U.S. Customs kept him confined on different ships just off the coast of San Francisco.
Fortunately for Wong, he got support from an organization called the Chinese Six Companies to help him fight for his citizenship.
He went to federal district court.
So let's break out that 14th Amendment, shall we?
So there's the Citizenship Clause of it, and what they focused on the most was different interpretations of this phrase here: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Does that cover when a child is born in the U.S. to parents who both are not citizens?
Wong's lawyers argued yes.
The United States had been waiting to test out the Citizenship Clause for awhile, and here was their chance.
Henry Foote, a former Confederate soldier, represented the United States, calling Wong a "accidental citizen," not the term you usually hear today, which is "anchor baby."
On January 3, 1896, the district judge sided with Wong, declaring him a citizen since he was born in the USA.
The U.S. government appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court because...well...they could, and the Court heard oral arguments on March 5, 1897.
Soooo, COULD the government deny citizenship to people born in the United States in any circumstance?
The Court said "no."
In a 6-2 decision, they ruled in favor of Wong, declaring that any child born in the country to parents of a foreign country is automatically a citizen.
UNLESS...the parents are foreign diplomats, or the person is born on a public ship, or the parents are nationals of a foreign enemy country that is trying to take over the United States.
But yeah, you're born here? You a citizen, buddy!
The Court relied on English common law tradition just as much as they relied on the 14th Amendment for this one.
Leading the dissent was Chief Justice Melville Fuller, joined by justice John Harlan.
They both argued that the history of American citizenship broke with the tradition of English common law after it declared independence in 1776.
In particular, they wondered about the part of the citizenship clause that said "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Wouldn't that also mean not subject to any foreign power?
They argued Wong was still under the control of China due to his parents being under their control.
Of all Supreme Court decisions in history, United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the strongest at protecting that Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, no matter what the situation is with their parents.
Over the years, millions of Americans have owed their citizenship to this case.
So how did the story end for Wong Kim Ark?
Well, back when Wong was fighting for citizenship in the courts, he had started a family back in China.
He had a wife and kids back there.
After the Supreme Court decision, Wong still went back and forth, and for the rest of his life, Wong never got to fully enjoy the benefits of citizenship.
Every time he went home to China and came back he got hounded by Customs, always having to show extra documentation like the signatures of white Americans vouching for him.
Wong's oldest son tried to move to the United States and they wouldn't let him.
However, his youngest three sons were able to move to the United States as citizens, although it was far from easy.
One of those sons later served in World War II.
But Kim Ark? He eventually stopped trying to be an American.
In the 1930s, at the age of 62, he went to China and decided to never come back.
I'll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!
President Trump would definitely disagree with this case, but what do YOU think about the Court's decision in this one?
Please let me know in the comments below.
Well the next Supreme Court Briefs episode will feature the most important Supreme Court decision in American history.
Just trying to build up the hype here, let's get that hype train going, eh?
Thanks for watching.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét