Posted on 06/15/2010 10:48:31 AM PDT by rxsid
A massive collection of literature and documents which were relevant to the early development of the Americas:
500 BC to 1800
Adjust your humor threshold...it’s way too high.
“Actually, by your argument, someone with a foreign citizen parent would have to be naturalized, which we know is not true.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They are CITIZENS at birth... but that doesn’t make them NATURAL BORN Citizens.
A NATURAL BORN citizen doesn’t have to be naturalized because they are BORN free of foreign entanglements.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Just because one has a theoretical right to assert citizenship in another country does not mean one’s U.S. citizenship is in any way affected.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are discussing NATURAL BORN citizens.
A NATURAL BORN citizen — FROM BIRTH — does not have to abjure a foreign allegiance.
It is not a matter of choosing to “assert citizenship in another country”
Asserting — choosing — citizenship somewhere else and being BORN with foreign ties are two different things.
STE=Q
He posted an anti-birther comment at Huffington Post...so?
I admit it, I’m not a birther but primarily I would just like to see the issue go away by being resolved one way or the other, once and for all via a criminal Grand Jury investigation, subpoenas of documents, expert testimony and either an indictment or a termination of the investigation.
Ah...you were being sardonic..
I never even implied it was the definitive source LOL. The term has been around since the days of the Roman senate. There HAD to be a way of determining which society a person belonged to, and that has always included parentage. When both parents we of that same society and the child born there, there is no question of divided societal loyalties. When a child is born on foreign soil, then divided loyalties do exist... how deeply depends on how long the child is raised in that society. When parents are of differing societies (Nationalities) by definition the child will be able to CHOOSE which to be loyal to. Granted, that loyalty may reside more with one than other, but how do you predict that?
The framers wanted to ensure loyalty to country. You do that by ensuring that the person in question only has loyalty to one from birth. How? Both parents being of that society, and being born on the soil of the society itself.
The only people arguing against this simple basic truth, do not want to face the consequences of that truth. Every damn thing this government has done since Jan 20, 2009 has been illegal. Thats a DAMN big consequence.
It was James777 that was doing some birther tweaking...not me.
Bad. It’s more avoidance behavior. These judges hope that history will not judge them truthfully.
When this stuff first began, I ran across this from justice.gov:
A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Going after a sitting President criminally seems to be an even higher legal hurdle....but good luck.
That's no more truthful than the counter that all birthers are racists.
It appears to be a simple, basic truth to you because you refuse to acknowledge that there is also a valid historical argument that reaches a different conclusion, one that is well-established in legal documentation. Perhaps the Supreme Court would side with your opinion, although I seriously doubt it. But if they don't it will not be because they are afraid of the truth; it will be because they find your select interpretation of the Constitutionally undefined phrase “natural born citizen” insufficiently compelling compared to well-understood alternatives.
Some of the founders spoke French. If they had wanted to follow Vattel, they would have used his words, or their English transliterations - ‘native’ or ‘indigenous’. They would NOT have created a new phrase to capture words that were already available in transliterated fashion.
OTOH, if they wanted it to cover the same meaning as “Natural Born Subject” - a phrase from English law - they would have needed to change the last word, since there was no King for an American to be a subject to - thus Natural Born Citizen. A phrase suiting a Republic.
Sorry, but your argument doesn’t hold up. There was a well known phrase in English law that met their needs, and they adapted it to a Republic.
The only reason birthers bring up Vattel is that when they first started quoting him, they didn’t realize that NBC wasn’t found in any translation of Vattel until after the Constitution. Rather than admit their error, they pretend the phrase WAS found in Vattel, and lie to those who don’t know the facts.
IMHO, his purported “grandfather”, Stanley Armour Dunham, is his father, and his mother a Kenyan native woman.
Ahh, but you see there's the rub. The US Government (i.e. The Executive Branch via the State Department) "recognizes" dual citizenship, but I do not think that the law explicitly does. Dual citizenship exists through a combination of judicial fiat (that says the US government cannot strip dual citizens of US citizenship in most circumstances) and an executive branch usurpation of legislative authority to authorize the recognition of dual citizenship has made it a reality....it may not exist in the letter of the law but it certainly exists in practice now. The US State Department teamed up with SCOTUS to bring this misguided policy into being. Great job team. /s
You know Mr. Rodgers, you are absolutely uneducated.
Have you read the letters of Ben Franklin? Have you read the Federalist papers? ALL OF THEM?
You don’t have a CLUE what you are talking about and it’s so obvious to someone who HAS.
Do us all a favor, write your “bye FR” paper now and spare us your insanity. There is no currency that you can offer that will buy it back for you.
Ahh...so unable to argue facts, you’ve resorted to name calling. Impressive.
“I’m simply pointing out that the analogy you are trying to make with the Naturalization oath of Allegiance doesn’t’t work.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One born from one American citizen parent and one foreign national parent are not required to take an oath of allegiance.
That does not mean they would not be held to the same standard — per the oath of allegiance — as a naturalized citizen.
In the case of a Natural Born citizen the question of “HOLDING” allegiance does NOT even arise as they are born — FROM BIRTH!— free of any foreign entanglements.
The key words are FROM BIRTH!
I don’t know how long I can respond as I keep getting knocked off-line and then the forum is slow and it takes me 20 minutes or more to just to get back on.
Frustrating!
Thanks anyway for your impute.
STE=Q
Dear sir,
You are in for a surprise.
Uneducated and willfully obtuse. Can you read Rogers??
Here it is spelled out who are natural born citizens:
Alexander Porter Morse of Washington DC probably forgot more about citizenship in one nights sleep than what you completely know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.