Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56
Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.
The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
...you post this reference...
You said it was your reference...Here is my reference to my post 292:
I just pointed to an additional page of your reference.
and claim it affects me.
No, you claimed it effects you. You gave it as your reference, not me.
You take my reference which pertains to me (a U.S. citizen) and direct it over to a non-citizen section of the law that requires processing (naturalization).
My children are NBC because I meet the requirements.
I guess you missed this...
Members of the U.S. armed forces and their dependents (spouses and children) may be eligible for citizenship, to include expedited and overseas processing, under special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The law pertains to your wife (English) and children (born in England). It doesn't apply to you.
My children are NBC because I meet the requirements.
The only requirement that I see that you meet is that you were a member of the U.S. armed forces.
The law indirectly concerns you. It clearly states (spouses and children) and the INA governs them.
You did claim to have 2 children born overseas, didn't you? No statute from your reference can make them natural born citizens.
I guess you're only now realizing the hole you've dug.
Rule #1...Stop digging.
By the way, did you serve in the military?
Yes, I did. What does that have to do with anything?
I was smart enough not to have any kids born anywhere while in the military.
It happens to be true that almost all of my own personal ancestry is early colonial dating from Pre-Columbian Amerindian, Jamestown Colony 1609, Massachusetts Bay Colony 1630, and Maryland Colony before 1650 to a couple of early 19th Century branches. However, the latest generations of the family have added into their own recent branches a multitude o ethnic additions ranging from black Americans with their own ancestry going back into early Colonial American bondsmen and slaves to the later Italian, Mexican, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Brazilian, and Filipino members.
Some of these family members and many of our family's friends come from a life in the Communist societies, and they are very concerned about the way in which race is being used as an improper excuse to inflict the very horrors they came to this nation tio escape. Many of them have agreed with the viewpoint that it is most certainly not too much to ask of a U.S. Citizen to recognize eligibility only for those generations who have no other society but the United States to call their own or demand their loyalty.
Your ignorance of naturalization laws, the natural born citizen clause, and naked racial prejudice is nothing short of despicable.
...that you detest...
He's a Progressive ideologue! How could any conservative not detest that?!
I'm so going to enjoy the response from WhiskeyX when it's given.
Yes, that “is what Liberals do”
Do you think that our founders thought women were equal to men under natural law?
Should we go with the understanding of natural law at the time of our foundation as it pertains to equality of women?
Do you think the natural state of women is to be subservient and inferior to men and that this should be reflected in natural law?
“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”
According to Vattel the children of citizen parents born overseas would have the same conditions of birth than if the child had not been born overseas.
That is why claiming the children of U.S. citizens born overseas to U.S. troops (like McCain) are not natural born IS abandoning Vattel.
And the children of foreign parents born in our nation would not be citizens at all if we followed Vattel. Vattel did not think granting them citizenship of a different type at birth was the proper answer under natural law - he opined that they shouldn't be granted citizenship AT ALL.
You claim to follow Vattel but either ignore him or are ignorant of what he actually says when you deem the children of soldiers born overseas to not be natural born.
And Vattel would not give citizenship of a different kind at birth to the children of foreign parents - he would not grant them citizenship AT ALL.
So how can it be said that U.S. law at any point follows Vattel?
How could anyone claiming to follow Vattel also claim that the children of soldiers are not natural born into the allegiance of their soldier parent?
Did Vattel envision the man bringing his citizen wife and children with him or him marrying and having children in the country wherein he was stationed?
Perhaps you need to do a little more contextual reading instead of confining your reading...
THE LAW OF NATIONS BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.
Context, context, context. You're trying to pigeon hole things again.
Well there you go! The truth is out for all to see. Enjoy the pride you must have. Leave the rest of us working stiffs who protected that elitest pride alone from now on and don’t darken my door any more you racist....and that goes for your buddy philman. I’ll not waste my time on people like you. After all your crap you’re still just pissin in the wind because the law and tradition just are not on your side. Live in your fairy land. People like you, I guess, never learn. I pity you.
I was smart enough not to have any kids born anywhere while in the military.
Yeah, I’m sure that was the reason!
For Vattel it didn't matter where the wife was from because according to HIS view of natural law - children would follow the condition of their father.
Nothing in the context you provided changes either.
If one follows Vattel then McCain is certainly eligible.
You rail against me as a racist yet you offer no evidence thereof.
You get your ass handed to you in debate and all you have is lashing out and making unfounded accusations...just like a liberal.
Your own replies, more than anything else, show you for what you truly are. You're a liberal who has posed as a conservative and nothing more.
I’ll not waste my time on people like you.
And when you do it's obvious how you'll do it.
You say: “You get your ass handed to you in debate and all you have is lashing out and making unfounded accusations...just like a liberal.”
Yeah, I’m sure that was the reason!
I was warned by my parents before going in about coming home with a foreign bride and/or child.
Though they didn't go into specific details, but they knew far more than I did about many things and I simply trusted their judgement.
Would that your parents had advised you so.
Under what particular interpretation of what particular passage of Vattel would, in your opinion, render McCain ineligible?
And how do you address that if the USA followed Vattel - the children born in the USA of foreign parents wouldn't be citizens of the USA at all?
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.