Replies

From the link provided by Seekandfind:

“Masin relied on the 1898 Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, in which the court applied the 14th Amendment and English common law to determine that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/n-j-court-declares-cruz-eligible-for-white-house/#2zo3buSSgkMG9u4o.99";

There are TWO, not three types of US citizens. Those that are naturalized and those that are NBC, with citizenship given at birth. There is no type that is citizen from birth but not NBC.

The “lots of people saying it” in my case are those tasked with the duty of ascertaining eligibility of a candidate, judges and the Harvard Law Review. Not, as Lincoln said, those that can be fooled either some of the time or all of the time.

I’ve read the federalist papers and the constitution too, and believe I understand their motivations on this issue.

But, as I said, nothing will change your mind as it is closed on the subject.

Sorry, but the courts do not agree with the three class of citizenship argument.

There are two:

“Natural” i.e. a citizen at the moment of birth,

“Naturalized,” a person citizen at some point later in life, by application of the person desiring to be a citizen or someone acting for them.

USC 1401 is the current law on this.

There are TWO, not three types of US citizens. Those that are naturalized and those that are NBC, with citizenship given at birth. There is no type that is citizen from birth but not NBC.

That is a non-sequitur. If congress declares the naturalization to occur at birth, then they are naturalized "at birth." Just because they become citizens "at birth" does not make them natural citizens.

Now you quoted "Wong Kim Ark" in your response. Let me point out to you something the court was quite clear about in that decision.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, ...

The “lots of people saying it” in my case are those tasked with the duty of ascertaining eligibility of a candidate, judges and the Harvard Law Review.

And making a total muck of it because they are all just one big echo-chamber of their own opinions. Not a single one of them has noticed that clause in the Wong Kim Ark decision, and they are all following the same dead-end logical rut that others in their ignorance, have laid down before them.

But, as I said, nothing will change your mind as it is closed on the subject.

Relevant facts, and not opinions from modern day ignorant people will change my opinion. When you produce some of those, I will listen.

The idea that you can pass a law in 1922 (*the Cable Act) to make someone into a "natural born citizen" who wasn't a natural born citizen in 1921 is just logically ridiculous.

Subsequent acts of law cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution.

* The Cable act of 1922 was the first US law to allow citizenship to be passed down by female citizens to children born in foreign countries. Prior to 1922, *ONLY* males could pass on citizenship to children born out of US Jurisdiction.