Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can this child be POTUS?
Vanity ^ | 24 April 2011 | myself

Posted on 04/24/2011 8:22:20 PM PDT by impimp

A child was born in US after both parents commenced H1B VISA, but prior to receiving Green card, and prior to parents receiving citizenship. But citizenship and Green card are likely to be received within a few years.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 2disbarred0bamas2; bs; certifigate; cokeheadattorneys; constitutional; doitifiteelsgood; doitifitfeelsgood; lawyer; livingconstipation; nowheyhoser; situationallaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
Can this child be POTUS?
1 posted on 04/24/2011 8:22:21 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: impimp

No, Bobby Jindal is not eligible as per the Constitution.


2 posted on 04/24/2011 8:23:44 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Nope, fails both the natural born test and citizen test.

However it passes the anchor baby test.


3 posted on 04/24/2011 8:24:18 PM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

I don’t think he can, since none of the parents were US citizens at his birth.


4 posted on 04/24/2011 8:27:22 PM PDT by AnyStreetFL (www.AnyStreet.org - Conservative Community Organizing, ACORN without the evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Baby is citizen of US - that can’t be denied. So natural born child would only apply to children born after both parents receive their US citizenship?


5 posted on 04/24/2011 8:28:27 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: impimp

At this point, I believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger can be president.


6 posted on 04/24/2011 8:28:40 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Yes he can. Natural born only means born in the US. The constitution does not state that both parents must be citizens at time of birth. This is a widely held myth. I verified this with many constitutional lawyers.


7 posted on 04/24/2011 8:31:39 PM PDT by Maneesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AnyStreetFL
I don’t think he can.....

Why assume it's a male?

8 posted on 04/24/2011 8:31:57 PM PDT by hole_n_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: impimp

That would be for SCOTUS to decide because NBC definitions need to be clearly defined.


9 posted on 04/24/2011 8:32:20 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

We really need to have natural born citizen defined by the courts.

10 posted on 04/24/2011 8:32:58 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

Apparently I’m the odd man out here.

A child born in the United States to parents here legally, although not yet citizens?

Yes, I think that child is natural born, and can run for president.


11 posted on 04/24/2011 8:33:46 PM PDT by nyc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Well Jenny Granholm has said she was only 4 when she came here and that’s good enough for her. LOL


12 posted on 04/24/2011 8:34:02 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nyc1

I said exactly what you said earlier.


13 posted on 04/24/2011 8:34:49 PM PDT by Maneesh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
At this point, I believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger can be president.

At this point, I'm pretty sure my cat could be president. He leans pretty conservative on most issues.

14 posted on 04/24/2011 8:36:42 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: impimp
I think it depends on whether "natural born citizen" is ultimately held to be 1) someone who is born both of citizen parents and on US soil, or 2) someone who is born a United States citizen.

Viewed another way: Is Presidential eligibility determined by:

1) jus soli OR jus sanguinis?

or by

2) jus soli AND jus sanguinis?

A lot of folks around here preach the latter. It seems to me that there are arguments either way.

All the arguments are probably kind of theoretical until and unless the United States Supreme Court rules on the issue.

15 posted on 04/24/2011 8:36:49 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
-- At this point, I believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger can be president. --

Heck, Fidel Castro. "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States ..." doesn't specify which country one is a natural born citizen of. As long as one is born, then one is a natural born citizen somewhere, and hence eligible.

16 posted on 04/24/2011 8:39:10 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Since the USSC, so far, seems not to even want to touch such matters, then it does seem as if the aforementioned cat could be President.

If he can get the voters to vote him in.

Except, of course, for the fact that he’s reportedly conservative.


17 posted on 04/24/2011 8:40:16 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
That would be for SCOTUS to decide because NBC definitions need to be clearly defined.

Already well defined. I was born in Massachusetts in 1963, my father was a USAF Major at the time, and I am not eligible to be president.

18 posted on 04/24/2011 8:41:19 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Nooooo he cannot.


19 posted on 04/24/2011 8:41:47 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nyc1
A child born in the United States to parents here legally, although not yet citizens? Yes, I think that child is natural born, and can run for president.

What a load of crap.

Read the Constitution.

20 posted on 04/24/2011 8:43:45 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: impimp

aw sure, what the hell, that old piece of paper is just sort of a “guideline” anymore, dontcha know? /sarc


21 posted on 04/24/2011 8:44:39 PM PDT by bigbob (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

My son cannot be POTUS

His father was an American citizen when he was born

I was a Registered Alien, (Green Card) and did not become an American citizen until he was 8 months old...


22 posted on 04/24/2011 8:46:05 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp; Liz; AuntB; La Lydia

Baby is citizen of US - that can’t be denied.
__________________________________________________

Oh yes it can..

Both parents were only here on temp working vissas

they were not immigrants...no Green Card...no residency...no resgistration as Aliens...

They were equal to tourists...but with a longer visa and they could work...

They were not under the jurisdiction of the US government...

the child has no standing or right to US citizenship...


23 posted on 04/24/2011 8:50:16 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nyc1

That does not make sense that the founders would conclude that a British citizen could sail here and give birth, take the child back to England (or not), and then the child could be POTUS 35 years later.

It is ridiculous enough that a pregnant woman can place one toe across the US border while giving birth and the resultant child is then declared a US citizen. Being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN takes more than that, thank goodness.


24 posted on 04/24/2011 8:58:50 PM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

An H1B is considered a “dual intent” VISA - the holder can say that it is temporary if he wants to or he can count it toward permanent residency and citizenship. The 5 years of permanent residency required to apply for citizenship is considered to commence when the H1B VISA started, and NOT when the green card is given. So there is a “backdating” of sorts that takes place.


25 posted on 04/24/2011 8:59:07 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Maneesh

Bullsheet!

Nope, the child is a US Citizen, not a natural born citizen. Both parents must be US citizens even if naturalized before the child is born.

You verified this with many constitutional lawyers! I call your bluff or I call they were liberal marxist lawyers.


26 posted on 04/24/2011 9:00:44 PM PDT by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: impimp

Interesting

You do have a source for your thoery of course ???


27 posted on 04/24/2011 9:02:25 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: impimp
Can this child be POTUS?

As long as the child is a red-diapered, radical marxist demokrat who eats cheeseburgers the Constitution is meaningless. And better yet.."as long as he's a mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

28 posted on 04/24/2011 9:11:27 PM PDT by RoadKingSE (How do you know that the light at the end of the tunnel isn't a muzzle flash ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

I am no constitutional scholar......but it aseems to me that since both: "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States" are used in the same sentence then the terms cannot have the same meaning. Otherwise why use both?

29 posted on 04/24/2011 9:11:47 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000 (The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Google “H1B dual intent” and click on Wiki page. It is different than most other VISAs because of the dual intent concept.

I have seen this many times so if you don’t like Wiki I am sure there are many other sources.


30 posted on 04/24/2011 9:16:08 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: impimp

AH

Whats wrong with the US Immgration laws ???


31 posted on 04/24/2011 9:17:51 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Maneesh
You are wrong. You obviously are new to this issue or you would know better.

Born on U.S. soil (one of the 57 states) Not in a foreign U.S.embassy, not on a U.S. ship, not just because your parents are in the military overseas.

And BOTH parents U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Oh, and the constitution doesn't say what the meaning of is,is either.

[Territories and possessions get complicated, some you aren't even a U.S. citizen if born there. Not worth the trouble to understand at this point. If it ever comes up, we'll look into it then.]

32 posted on 04/24/2011 9:21:51 PM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

So we have a case where parents could have retroactive naturalization status such that they would appear to be naturalized at the time of the child’s birth. One question then is parental retroactive naturalization sufficient to give the child “natural born” status, or is citizenship at the time of the child’s birth required.


33 posted on 04/24/2011 9:24:14 PM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
They were not under the jurisdiction of the US government...

Bull crap. Let them commit a crime, and see how fast the US government takes them into custody.

The "jurisdiction" part pertains only to foreign diplomats who hold diplomatic immunity. They cannot be arrested, only expelled.

34 posted on 04/24/2011 9:24:51 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reddy

“That does not make sense that the founders would conclude that a British citizen could sail here and give birth, take the child back to England (or not), and then the child could be POTUS 35 years later.”

That part’s covered in the “fourteen years a resident” clause. A child born on US soil of any parentage, who reaches the age of 35, and has spent 14 years within the US, is qualified for the Presidency.

The morons who claim the parents have to be citizens also are reading Mexico’s constitution, not ours.


35 posted on 04/24/2011 9:28:21 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
I am no constitutional scholar......but it seems to me that since both: “natural born citizen” and “citizen of the United States” are used in the same sentence then the terms cannot have the same meaning. Otherwise why use both?

EXCELLENT point. because

“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”, which was added so as to not exclude themselves from the office, because they knew they were not natural born citizens and did not refer to themselves as such, rather as “citizens”only.

36 posted on 04/24/2011 9:29:04 PM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Maneesh
Yes he can. Natural born only means born in the US. The constitution does not state that both parents must be citizens at time of birth. This is a widely held myth. I verified this with many constitutional lawyers.

The Constitution does not define many of it's terms. One must look to the generally understood definition at the time. Basically it was the the parents be citizens and the child be born subject to the authority of the US. For example a child born to diplomats serving overseas would be considered born in the country.

Both "Law of Nations", by de Vattel, in the original French, and a translations of a treaty with the French from that era, indicate that the parents, or at least the father (women became citizens upon marrying a citizen anyway, so if the husband/father was a citizen, so was the wife/mother. Not true later of course) needed to be citizens at the time of birth for a child born in this country to be considered "Natural Born".

37 posted on 04/24/2011 9:34:13 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

The citizens are the members of the civil society bound to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.

United States Supreme Court reports, Volume 15
By United States. Supreme Court, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company
http://books.google.com/books?id=x4MYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA730&lpg=PA730&dq=The+citizens+are+the+members+of+the+civil+society+bound+to+this+society+by+certain+duties+and+subject+to+its+authority&source=bl&ots=5UqJ9Ck69s&sig=G1ML2Svrius6S6fTPyk_DVB93dY&hl=en&ei=Ufe0Tc3VLsvciAKb4cGwBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20citizens%20are%20the%20members%20of%20the%20civil%20society%20bound%20to%20this%20society%20by%20certain%20duties%20and%20subject%20to%20its%20authority&f=false


38 posted on 04/24/2011 9:48:03 PM PDT by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Maneesh
Yes he can. Natural born only means born in the US. The constitution does not state that both parents must be citizens at time of birth. This is a widely held myth. I verified this with many constitutional lawyers.

Having the clause for natural born citizenship in the U.S. Constitution would obviously have been entirely unnecessary and superfluous if a child was born in the United States with one or two foreign citizen parents at birth or naturalized after birth. Alexander Hamilton wrote the earlier draft of the U.S. Constitution with the clause saying it was necessary to be a U.S. citizen. John Jay asked for the wording to be changed so that no person born with or currently having fealty to a foreign sovereign could serve in the Office of the President or as Commander of the American Army. There is no logical reasonn whatsoever for having a special clause exempting themselves from the natural born citizen clause if any native born citizen were meant to be an eligible natural born citizen. In other words, there is no possible way to construe and misrepresent the intent of John Jay and the Constitutional Convention to make it possible for a person born owing fealty and allegiance to a forreign sovereign at birth or after birth to be eligible to the Office of the President. Your claims are the myth and the abominable lie.

39 posted on 04/24/2011 9:51:02 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nyc1
Apparently I’m the odd man out here. A child born in the United States to parents here legally, although not yet citizens? Yes, I think that child is natural born, and can run for president.

Then you are clueless about the wording, intent, and purpose of the clause in the Constitution. John Jay and the Constitutional Convention put the clause into the Constitution to guarantee the only person eligible to the Office of the President and serve as the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army hen born after the adoption of the Constitution would be a person who owed no allegiance at birth or after birth to any foreign sovereign. It so happens they used the terminology of a natural born citizen as described in Vattel's Law of Nations. No matter what is used to try and dispute the meaning of natural born citizen and miisrepresent its purpose and origin, the intent of John Jay, the later first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, cannot be disregarded, ignored, or denied without committing a gross deceit.

Any child born in the United States whose parents a foreign citizens is a natural born citizen of the foreign nation and owes allegiance to the foreign sovereign at birth. The moment the child is born owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign, that person can no longer be eligible to the Office of the President. The Office of the President was restricted by the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution, to only those persons never owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth or after birth.

40 posted on 04/24/2011 10:05:56 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
I believe it was because there were many who were born elsewhere when the Constitution was adopted. And prior to gaining our independence, they were British citizens. A natural born citizen could be construed to mean one who gained that status thru jus solis. We still have birthright citizenship in this country.
41 posted on 04/24/2011 10:06:26 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: impimp

I know its Easter,but seriously? All of the arguments are well-reasoned, but seriously, stop giving this troll fodder/ammunition.


42 posted on 04/24/2011 10:09:57 PM PDT by sjneuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm

An erroneous decision by a majority of the court with only a one vote majority, in contradicton to ealrier and later Supreme Court and District Court decisions, and a justice/s illegally appointed by Chester Arthur who was himself ineligible to serve as President.


43 posted on 04/24/2011 10:12:01 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: impimp
Can this child be POTUS?

BUT here is the real question - WHO CAN CHALLENGE HIS RUN AS A CANDIDATE?
44 posted on 04/24/2011 10:17:46 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp
A child was born in US

Yes, unless the parents were diplomats or members of an occupying military force.

45 posted on 04/24/2011 10:21:59 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad"

Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock

A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:

A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence; The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth;

The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.

The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and While the person is under the age of 18 years -- the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile, the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “Old” Section 309(a) of the INA-

A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:

A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.

46 posted on 04/24/2011 10:22:17 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ccmay
"The morons who claim the parents have to be citizens also are reading Mexico’s constitution, not ours."

Baloney, hogwash and poppycock!

Don't start pushing that nonsense. The Constitution is clear. Nothing has yet been written to remove the natural born citizen qualification for president found in the Constitution. The founders did not want someone with any allegiance to a foreign country stepping in and becoming president, period.

If what you say is correct, why is it that every candidate that has this concern in their background wants to hide this fact? Plus, Chester A. Arthur, the only person other than Obama ever to become president with this problem, hid the fact and did all he could to keep people from discovering it. There is a reason for this and your erroneous belief does nothing to explain it.

47 posted on 04/24/2011 10:22:47 PM PDT by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Well Jenny Granholm has said she was only 4 when she came here and that’s good enough for her. LOL

Good enough to be a failed governor of Michigan.

48 posted on 04/24/2011 10:25:16 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
At this point, I believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger can be president.

Even with all his now evident faults, would Arnold not be an improvement on the incumbent?

49 posted on 04/24/2011 10:26:40 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I should have finished the statement:

Again, I say to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

To be natural born is to be born of 2 US citizens (plural) owing allegiance only to this country. Otherwise your allegiance is divided.


50 posted on 04/24/2011 10:27:17 PM PDT by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson