“How does this contradict my position? If you look at the first clause “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” it describes two, and only two types of citizen: born or naturalized. Where is this apocryphal ‘born a citizen but not natural born’ type? Where is the redefinition of ‘natural born’ that means something other than ‘having [that] attribute from birth’? Regarding the second clause,”
I’m not going to do your research for you. Go read what our founding fathers had to say about this clause and then get back to me. You obviously are having trouble figuring out the meaning by reading the Constitution itself. I can’t help you, or should I say I won’t help you. Now don’t be lazy about doing the research. You asked the question, you research it to figure out the answer if you need more proof. Will be looking forward to hearing the results of your research.
“I’m not going to do your research for you. Go read what our founding fathers had to say about this clause and then get back to me. You obviously are having trouble figuring out the meaning by reading the Constitution itself. I can’t help you, or should I say I won’t help you. Now don’t be lazy about doing the research. You asked the question, you research it to figure out the answer if you need more proof. Will be looking forward to hearing the results of your research.”
He’s meticulously and comprehensively done just that—repeatedly. His question was rhetorical—such a distinction doesn’t exist as those selfsame founding fathers clarified in their very first Act of Congress.
What’s missing is the evidence that contradicts that, which is what you were asked for, but naturally you cannot provide it—being as it doesn’t exist and all.
Firstly, if you know so much more than the rest of us, you should share your knowledge, and perhaps state your credentials, if you want your ASSERTIONS to go unchallenged. Don't call me lazy when you are the one WHO CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION. If your view is that it is not your job to 'school' me then don't respond to my posts.
As for what the FFs had to say on the matter, I once again cite the 1790 statute which was passed by a Congress that contained a number of them and signed by some guy named George Washington who, I was taught in grade school, used to hang around with them.
Now, if you can respond with something more substantial than an anonymous opinion and a refusal to actually substantiate it, please do.