Replies

**Uhh, lets pretend that some other country decides to usurp the citizenship of our country by suddenly declaring all US citizens to now be the citizens of country X. Then lets ask if any of those “former” US citizens can be qualified under the Constitution because they are no longer US citizens by virtue of country X laying claim to them**

Ah. I’m glad you recognize that your position leads to an absurdity. “

That was YOUR absurdity. You want to play the lets pretend game along with Rodgers. I was pointing out that it has no place in this discussion.

You can’t help but get flustered and begin insults. It’s because you cannot produce any sources for the claims you make. I keep trying to steer you back, and you go all rant on topics you don’t seem to have a meaningful grasp of.

Like saying, “No. It’s obvious that dual citizenship EXISTED, whether we passed a law “recognizing” it or not. “

The point was that it is not OFFICIALLY recognized by any US *LAW* and never has been. Simple.

It follows that if it was not an officially sanctioned type of citizenship, it would not have been addressed in 1787 at the time the Article ll restrictions of eligibility were being decided. Simple.

And since it was not a legally recognized type of citizenship then or now, it stands to reason that it would disqualify a person from meeting any other type of standard citizenship which was ( in 1787) and is still legally recognized to this day.

A natural born citizen has a legal status, a naturalized citizen has a legal status, a 14th amendment citizen has legal status, but strictly speaking dual citizens do not in the same sense. Our own government admits to that, and says while it’s not officially recognized it is tolerated.

Your argument is just nonsense.

So tell me.

Billy and Bob live in Peoria. Both were born in Peoria. Billy is a US citizen. Bob is a US citizen. Billy has no other citizenship. Bob had an Hessian grandmother, and the government of Hessia says that any grandchild of a Hessian is a Hessian natural born citizen.

So Billy is not a dual citizen, but Bob is.

You say that Bob, as a "dual citizen," has "no legal status." What does this mean? Does this mean he can't get a driver's license? How is Bob's US citizenship any different from Billy's?

Ah, you say. But Bob can't run for President. Why not? Where is the rule that says he can't? You can produce no such rule, because it doesn't exist.

But you say his dual citizenship stops him, because he "has no legal status." That's nonsense. THERE IS NO LAW ANYWHERE ON THE BOOKS IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM THAT SPECIFIES THAT BOB'S US CITIZENSHIP IS IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT FROM BILLY'S, OR THAT HE IS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN ANY WAY.

In fact, as far as the US government is concerned, it's his Hessian citizenship that might as well not exist.

So your argument is completely, absolutely, totally absurd. But you will never give up the absurd argument, because you like it.

And that's what it is to be a birther.