Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
But you’re forgetting about *really* dangerous foreigners who aren’t really loyal to the U.S., such as Chester Arthur, Charles Evans Hughes, George Romney, John McCain ....
Claiming that, because someone is eligible for citizenship of a foreign country pursuant to such country’s laws, it should trump the fact that such person is a U.S. citizen at birth *pursuant to U.S. law*, is to make U.S. law subservient to foreign law. Talk about standing the Supremacy Clause on its head! I believe that Germany grants German citizenship at birth to all grandchildren of Germans; my reaction to that is “who give’s a rat’s ass?” If U.S. law says that a certain person is a citizen at birth, then that’s that, irrespective of some other country also conferring citizenship to such person.
Not a single state denied electoral votes to Chester Arthur, Charles Evans Hughes or John McCain because they were eligible at birth for some foreign citizenship pursuant to foreign law, and Congress counted every single electoral vote given to them.
This is a non-issue. Let’s select our 2016 presidential nominee based on who would become the best president (and can get elected, of course), not on irrelevant factors pertaining to foreign law.
Constitutionalists
How about "deniers" would you like that instead?
Really, I just want a one or two word name that isn't considered a pejorative.
Article II Constitutionalists
Get stuffed, obamaroid. You are the filth that settles at the bottom of a dirty pond. Your little bastard boy lies as easily as you do. You twist material and make things up that sound plausible, to the uninitiated in your deceits. Mister Robinson tolerates and protects your ilk for his own reasons. It is his site you're smelling up though.
Sorry, but that was 30 some years before, and sailing is generally for young bucks.
However, that they WERE impressing Americans into their navy, and the reason IS because they were treating them as subjects, but it was also because they refused to recognize a new country, AND it was because they could get away with it.
Arthur, way back when I remember some freepers actually bashing the poor guy. At the time attacks on his citizenship went over like a lead balloon.
All this because of that damn Obama, a bad guy with a foreign dad is elected so some people (95% of whom had no previous opinion on the matter) wanna decide that anyone with a foreign dad is not eligible, that’s just silly. I don’t like Bill Clinton or Gerald Ford, 2 men who changed their names. Anyone who changes their name is not eligible, I so declare!
If it’s the “born in Canada” part that bothers you more Razz Barry, I’m sorry, none you guys agree with each other so I can’t keep track.
Some say you need 2 American citizen parents (so no Rubs or Jindal, who’s parents were legal residents and not yet citizens), 2 natural born American parents (no children of naturalized citizen or legal immigrant non-citizen fathers, we’ve already had 2 with Irish dads, Buchanan and Arthur, I don’t know if either dad had been naturalized yet at the time of birth), 2 American parents who were born in the US (meaning no Mitt Romney, dad was born in Mexico). Made up garbage, with every dime store “scholar” having his own version.
Another point I could make in the vain of Razz Berry’s hypotheticals.
2 Americans have a baby in America, they soon leave and raise him in Red China to be a Maoist. He comes back here as a young adult and runs for President 20 years later after spending his time as a community activist spreading communism and speaking Mandarin half the time. Do I like him? No. Do I consider him American? No. Is he eligible in spite of this because he was a natural born citizen? Yes.
And if we get to the point where some Azlatan Mexican-”American” can be elected President then we are screwed anyway. Ted Cruz is one of the best equipped guys to keep us from ever reaching that point. Quite the opposite of Razz’s suggestion that the election Cruz would make this more likely! The election Jeb Bush would make it more likely.
“Article II Constitutionalists”
That would be a nice change of pace. I’ve yet to meet a birther who actually accepts Article II for what it says.
“Claiming that, because someone is eligible for citizenship of a foreign country pursuant to such country’s laws, it should trump the fact that such person is a U.S. citizen at birth *pursuant to U.S. law*, is to make U.S. law subservient to foreign law. Talk about standing the Supremacy Clause on its head! I believe that Germany grants German citizenship at birth to all grandchildren of Germans; my reaction to that is “who give’s a rat’s ass?” If U.S. law says that a certain person is a citizen at birth, then that’s that, irrespective of some other country also conferring citizenship to such person.”
This point cannot be repeated enough. Largely because it illustrates how shallow and short-sighted birtherism actually is.
Ireland also grants citizenship to anyone with an Irish grandparent, but that eligibility doesn’t automatically make the sons and grandsons of Irish immigrants not natural born citizens.
Not to mention that every Jew is eligible for Israeli citizenship. Are we to exclude them all as well? Where was the birther outrage when Joe Lieberman was running?
Then you haven’t met any birthers —
Mr. Barry,
Often, one identifies an issue, then he comes up with the solution ... when others object to his solution, he accuses the others of not seeing that there is an issue.
As for myself, my objection is to the solution, the approach, the strategy, the agenda. The Birth Certificate-NBC issue with Obama did not get too far. And, therefore, the next attempt to engage the matter is to get into the middle of the career of TED CRUZ? Is that logical? What was so constructive with Obama ... let’s now try it on CRUZ and see where it goes?
Why not contact Martha Coakley, the communist AG of MA and have her sue to keep Cruz et al off the MA primary ballot in MA in March ‘16? Why not?
If there is sincerity behind this, the proponents would be working in the Georgia state house to pass a STATUTE regarding NBC and birth certificates. Can they get a committee hearing? If they are not trying to do so, what does that SAY ABOUT THEM???? DOES IT indicate that they are not genuinely sincere about the issue? Perhaps they just want a fight, want a controversy, want some publicity.
That is usually how our system works in this country. Private citizens can go to the state house, and attempt to have a bill introduced ... and maybe if you work hard you can get a hearing.
But, 99% of the proponents seem to do NONE of that. Their behavior is more like cultists ... it is a subculture movement, similar to the UFO truthers. It really has nothing to do with Presidential politics.
Unless some of them are trying to sabotage Cruz to clear the road for Rand Paul. Maybe.
why would the founders even bring up the topic of split allegiances?
why did they decide on the wording ‘natural born citizen’?
how does the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ insure against split allegiances at birth?
if you’re born with multiple choices of citizenship... wouldn’t that be the split allegiance the founders were talking about?
I’ve met all too many. Every single one of them tried to pretend that in order to “understand” Article II you have to look to Vattel or some other nonsense.
There are two kinds of citizens contemplated in Article II (excepting the grandfather clause, which as an ongoing concern died with the last American born before the Constitution). We have natural born and naturalized. Cruz is natural born. His eligibility is unquestioned by the letter of the law.
Good point about all Jews being entitled to Israeli citizenship at birth. But the “Ted Cruz is Ineligible” crowd would say that Lieberman would not be ineligible, since he was born in 1942, 6 years before Israel became a sovereign nation. But as for Jewish-Americans born after 1948, watch out, the NBC Redefiners will be out to get you.
Palin / Cruz 2016!
Excellent points.
Using this against our enemy has failed so let’s use it on one of our own? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Last month freshman Rep. Markwayne Mullin told some lady that he didn’t give a (bowel movement) about the Obama BC issue because it got us nowhere and he was reelected.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3052996/posts
Hard to disagree with Mullin, he has better things to do than fantasize about ways to remove Obama that will never happen.
A few people seem to hold out unrealistic hope that Sheiff Joe will be removing Obama (in favor of Biden? big whoop) any day now. Better chance I win the lotto, score a date with a super model and discover I can throw a baseball 97 MPH.
So in the meantime, lets go after one our own best conservative candidates! Perfect.
Maybe not. He wasn't born in the U.S., was he?
But neither were John McCain and the hundreds of thousands of military and commercial children who, over the years, were born overseas.
If they had a citizen parent or two, every single one of them was born an American citizen.
.
Can you stop being so obnoxious? You aren’t going to convince anyone to join this revolution by bludgeoning them with your smartaleck rhetoric.
When you insist that your target has only one of two choices, which you designate omitting all other possibilities, you instantly marginalize yourself as a credible discussion participant. You’re becoming so obnoxious you’re not even registering the subtle changes in posts! Sheesh!
When you spit at posters with such crap as this, you marginalize yourself, not the one you’re spitting at: “If you can’t accept that then vote for Christie or Hillary.”
It may not have registered yet in your brain but you cannot bully someone on the Internet. They just tend to put you on ignore. I’m putting you on ignore hereafter, so spittle away. Your foaming at the mouth insults might bolster your fragile ego, but they just come across as you’re being obnoxious trying to bully posters.
Oh yes yet another wrinkle I neglected to address, the dual citizen thing.
Some people seem to believe that ANY dual citizen is not eligible. Sorry folks, foreign law = irrelevant.
You're wrong.
And I don’t mean that flippantly.
Flippant your are not being.
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.