Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Tublecane
Exactly, but to be fair to the Birthers, they’re not interested in what other nations can claim, either. They’re concerned about split loyalites. The idea is that if you are not born to two citizen parents, your love of country is questionable.

That’s stupid, but at least it’s logical. Problem is, the Constitution doesn’t speak to the issue, so bad luck for them.

I would argue it's not even logical! Your loyalty is not dependent upon another person's statements or loyalties! Essentially what those folks pressing the point would be saying that a man has no control over his loyalty; it is set for him before he is even born, by the acts of the parents.

In which case if I could get Sarah Palin's parents to state that she was to be a citizen of Canada on birth, she is disqualified. Her actual desires are immaterial, it is what her parents desired before she was actually born!

It's not logical or intelligent. But I guess it keeps many up late at night working on websites...

46 posted on 12/14/2009 8:22:05 AM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: PugetSoundSoldier

“Your loyalty is not dependent upon another person’s statements or loyalties!”

Actually, it does, and not just in the sense that parents have a big impact on their kids. Under U.S. law and the law of most countries children born not on soil under their jurisdiction yet still born to citizens themselves have the right to be citizens. And the further you go back in time, the more importance is given to the child/parent relationship in determining the child’s legal status. This is one of those principles that’s slowly fading away but still possesses some import. It’s not all about the freely-chosen actions of self-contained individuals. If it were, naturalized citizens would be eligible.

“Essentially what those folks pressing the point would be saying that a man has no control over his loyalty; it is set for him before he is even born, by the acts of the parents.”

There is no way around the acts of your parents impacting your citizenship status at birth. That will never change. For everything you’re saying, the exact same thing could be said of naturalized citizens, I hope you realize. Blood is not destiny, but the law cannot sift through all candidates, reading their minds as to whether they’re loyal or not. So we set standards, just like we do with the drinking age.

As it is, the threshold is set at people who are citizens from birth. Birthers think it is (and should be) set at people who have two citizen parents. If you think there ought to be no threshold at all, that’s fine. Let the electorate sort it out. But so long as we’re going to make sweeping judgements as to who should be president based on how they were born, it is inevitable that the parents’ status will affect the child’s.


68 posted on 12/14/2009 9:04:43 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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