i was asked perhaps the dumbest question ever today...

[Mike70]

i went to the ohio BMV to renew my drivers license and the second question in this series qualifies as truly stupid.

BMV lady: where were you born?

me: Cincinnati, Ohio.

BMV lady: are you a US citizen?

me (with one of those looks on my face): um, yes i certainly hope so.


anyone else been asked something truly dumb by a govt. minion? i realize that they are just asking a series questions that they have to ask regardless but it seems idiotic anyway.

i also had it out with one of these govt. clerks when i was asked a few years years ago, "how long have you lived in ohio?" stupid me i just had to mention that i lived in new york for 3 years while in the army. this led to me explaining/arguing how no matter where i lived while in the army, i was always a citizen of ohio.

[capncnut]

anyone else been asked something truly dumb by a govt. minion? i realize that they are just asking a series questions that they have to ask regardless but it seems idiotic anyway.
Not personally.

But my mother told me the other day about a question she was asked by King's College Hospital when they telephoned her and said:

"We are telephoning you because we need you to come in for a check up. Are you still using this telephone number?"

Erm, she's talking to you on that number, isn't she? :rolleyes:

[kortick]

The regisitry is full of wonderful
charecters both in front of and behind the counter.

Years (many) ago I was there registering a car and i
was at the window where u pay sales taxes.
They have a form where u write down what u paid
or they go by book value to charge you.

well there was this mexican guy in front of me.
he had a bill of sales written on a mdonalds napkin.
The DMV (Dept of Motor Vechiles) employee and him had this
conversation:
this is it exactly word for word.

DMV: How much is the car worth?
man: No understand.
DMV: how much did u pay for the car?
man: no pay. Trade.
DMV: you traded some thing for the car?
man; yes.
DMV: what did you trade?
man: vcr.
DMV:you traded a vcr for the car?
man: yes.
DMV: how much did you pay for the vcr?
man: no pay. steal.
DMV: wait, u stole the vcr and then traded it for the car?
man: yes
DMV: how much was the vcr worth?
man: 50 dollar.
DMV: you write 50 dollar on that line and go to the next window.

A trip to the registry is always an adventure.

[MaximusIncredulous]

"man: no pay. steal."

:lol: I bet the DMV guy didn't even bat an eyelash.

[SymphonicX]

omg those are so funny...lol

Mine is this:

Phoned the TV licensing people about renewing my TV licence - if you don't you get banged up and fined...

after going through the motions he ended the phone call with: "and what was it that prompted you to call us today?".....I replied..."just the £1000 fine"....for fuck's sake I'm not phoning up for a chat am I?


Actually another one on a similar line happened the other week...I was driving up to work and when I pulled up, the security guard, in front of a huge fuckin' metal barrier put his arm out in a "stop" motion....I didn't say this but I was close to shouting comically "I'm not going to drive into the fucking barrier am I???!" I mean why put your arm up? Your feeble little matchsticks aren't gonna be a match for a 2 tonne fucking steel contraption that's designed to do exactly what you motioned me to do.....but without the need for a fucking jumped up officious little c**t standing there.

Anyway, rant over....mine weren't as good sorry

[MikePizzoff]

DMV: How much is the car worth?
man: No understand.
DMV: how much did u pay for the car?
man: no pay. Trade.
DMV: you traded some thing for the car?
man; yes.
DMV: what did you trade?
man: vcr.
DMV:you traded a vcr for the car?
man: yes.
DMV: how much did you pay for the vcr?
man: no pay. steal.
DMV: wait, u stole the vcr and then traded it for the car?
man: yes
DMV: how much was the vcr worth?
man: 50 dollar.
DMV: you write 50 dollar on that line and go to the next window.


:lol: That's fucking great. Should be in a movie.

[Tricky]

One of the questions in the army application security check forms i filled out a couple of months ago was-
"have you ever been involved in actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political,industrial or violent means"

ermm, well, let me think......even if i had (which i havent) would i really admit to it in a questionnaire??:rolleyes:

[Cody]

Lol @ korts story. ^^^ Tricky there are some not so smart people out there

[SRP76]

One of the questions in the army application security check forms i filled out a couple of months ago was-
"have you ever been involved in actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political,industrial or violent means"

ermm, well, let me think......even if i had (which i havent) would i really admit to it in a questionnaire??:rolleyes:

You should have said yes. That's how you you get picked for the better-paying black ops projects.

[FoodFight]

BMV lady: where were you born?

me: Cincinnati, Ohio.

BMV lady: are you a US citizen?

me (with one of those looks on my face): um, yes i certainly hope so.


Not such a stupid question. You could have renounced your citizenship.

[Cody]

can you really officially renounce your citizenship to your country? where would you live if you didnt have any citizenship in any other country if you did

[shootemindehead]

BMV lady: where were you born?

me: Cincinnati, Ohio.

BMV lady: are you a US citizen?

me (with one of those looks on my face): um, yes i certainly hope so.


Not such a stupid question. You could have renounced your citizenship.

True, this question may sound silly at first. But you could be born in Ohio, bugger off when you're 3 to London. Be registered as an English citizen and then return to Ohio years later, without gaining US citizenship.

Or can you? :eek:


can you really officially renounce your citizenship to your country? where would you live if you didnt have any citizenship in any other country if you did

Hey Cody, what's your avitar pic of Sabrina doing something very suggestive from?

[Publius]

True, this question may sound silly at first. But you could be born in Ohio, bugger off when you're 3 to London. Be registered as an English citizen and then return to Ohio years later, without gaining US citizenship.

Anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, except for children of foreign diplomats etc. I guess that exception could plausibly justify the BMV lady's question to Mike70.

[strayrider]

Anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, except for children of foreign diplomats etc. I guess that exception could plausibly justify the BMV lady's question to Mike70.

I was under the impression that children of illegal aliens were excluded as well, according to the 14th Amendment, as the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Aren't children of illegal aliens considered foreign nationals who happened to have been born on US soil due to the illegal activities of their parents?

:D

-stray-

[Publius]

I was under the impression that children of illegal aliens were excluded as well, according to the 14th Amendment, as the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Aren't children of illegal aliens considered foreign nationals who happened to have been born on US soil due to the illegal activities of their parents?

:D

-stray-

Not so, at present children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are automatically citizens, due to the longstanding U.S. rule of birthright citizenship. Hence the term "anchor baby." It hasn't actually been tested in the courts as far as I know, but I don't think it's very controversial that that is the present state of the law. Now, many people have advocated changing the law to exclude children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship. The question of whether that would require a constitutional amendment or not has been fiercely debated.

[FoodFight]

Cody said:
can you really officially renounce your citizenship to your country? where would you live if you didnt have any citizenship in any other country if you did

To the best of my knowledge the U.S. won't allow renouncement of citizenship unless the person in question has or is seeking citizenship elsewhere in order to avoid being 'stateless'. Those with dual citizenship can renounce for a variety of reasons.

[strayrider]

Not so, at present children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are automatically citizens, due to the longstanding U.S. rule of birthright citizenship. Hence the term "anchor baby." It hasn't actually been tested in the courts as far as I know, but I don't think it's very controversial that that is the present state of the law. Now, many people have advocated changing the law to exclude children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship. The question of whether that would require a constitutional amendment or not has been fiercely debated.

While I'm certainly no expert on law in general, nor Constitutional law specifically, I do remember a thing or two from high school (when I wasn't snoring, that is ;) )

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm

Of particular interest are the comments by Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio:

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. And “jurisdiction” did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, “jurisdiction” meant exclusive “allegiance” to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of “jurisdiction,” understood in the sense of “allegiance,” “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” (Bold emphasis mine.)

How is this interpreted?

Does it mean that foreign aliens who are born to ambassadors or foreign ministers are excluded?

Or does it mean that the following are excluded:

1. foreigners
2. aliens
3. families of ambassadors
4. families of foreign ministers

I also looked up the actual text of the 14th.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14

Section One, of particular importance in this discussion, reads (again bold emphasis mine):

All persons 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As mentioned in the first block above, "jurisdiction" should be interpreted as meaning "allegiance" to the United States. From my very basic understanding, a person who is an illegal alien cannot be considered to have allegiance to the United States simply because they are not citizens and their allegiance would still lie with whatever country they came from, thus, their children should not be considered "automatic" citizens.

I could, of course, be quite in error.

:D

-stray-

[Publius]

I typed up a long response and then the power went out, so I'll sum up: one interpretation to "subject to the jurisdiction" relates to who U.S. law applies to. Diplomats and their families have diplomatic immunity, they can do whatever they want and U.S. law can't touch them. Other foreigners in the U.S. (tourists, legal and illegal immigrants), however, subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the U.S. by entering the country. If they do anything while here that violates U.S. law, the U.S. will assert that jurisdiction and prosecute them for it. If illegal immigrants were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could not be brought before U.S. courts and charged with U.S. crimes. I think there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the 14th Amendment. This is the one behind current policy (as I understand it), but some members of Congress etc. propose changing that policy and agree more with the Heritage Foundation article you cite.