Replies

The fact that you have to post a personal attack in the first place shows that you can’t win on the basis of the facts.

*YOU* cannot win on the basis of facts. Here's an example from some days earlier.

----------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Winston said:

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790,... "and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.

If you can shoot down my reasoning, you're certainly welcome to have a go at it. I doubt that you will, since you repeatedly completely refused, about half a dozen times, to respond at all to my analysis of Wong Kim Ark. But, there it is.

------------------------------------------------------- My response: Monday, June 27, 2011 8:29:13 AM

I am very glad that you quoted the Naturalization act of 1790. That means you accept it as part of your argument, therefore you will have to accept ALL of it! It goes on further to say:

"Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose FATHERS have never been resident in the United States:"

As you yourself point out, this act was produced a mere 3 years after the adoption of the constitution (actually just 1 year) , and the Members of Congress were pretty much the same people as the Original Delegates. This act gives a clear insight to what they were thinking regarding citizenship status of the children of Foreign Fathers.

Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

----------------------------------------------------------

And what did you do? Rather than addressing the point, you ran away and whined that I was uncivil towards you. After dealing with you a few times, it's a wonder that anyone IS civil towards you.

I do try to avoid dealing with you, and I'm also trying, literally, to get on the road. But here, what you're implying is a mangling of the law, so I'm going to respond.

Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

You've taken it completely out of context.

The passage you cited DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF FOREIGN PARENTS. It applies to those born overseas of US parents.

And it seems to be a good indication of the degree of scholarship on your side of the debate.

Here's the context.

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

Happy 4th!