In other words, you’re advocating that the status of the parents of a native born child, who’s parents are Ambassadors for a foreign entity and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., is considered when determining the natural born citizenship status of the child.
Yet, the status of the Obama’s parents cannot be considered because he is native born.
This is an example of hypocrisy. According to OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers, SCOTUS is fine with considering the status of the parents on some occassions and ignoring the status of the parents on other occassions when it concerns natural born citizenship status.
SvenMagnussen,
You’re still calling FReepers who disagree with you “OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers.” In a previous post, you called me a liar. Well, let’s see if you man up to what you previously said and answer this post with no irrelevant legal answers.
What do you say to your last year’s claim that you’ll appear on TV in 10/2012 to parade your evidence?
Since I couldn’t get your original post where you posted that claim, but the mods could, I got the next best thing, you’re discussing that post. It happened that I also posted in the same conversation.
Here it is in a neat package:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2946139/replies?c=80
Are we going to get a direct answer from you, since your mouthpiece, Todd Rodriguez, was zotted?
Oh yes, if you’re in an answering mood, don’t forget to include answering what was posted to you below. (Edited for content.) Enough ducking and running.
“I DARE YOU TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, WHICH I COPIED FROM A PREVIOUS POST TO YOU:
Speaking of a TV soap opera, in the spring/summer of last year, you posted that your “precious” evidence will be unveiled on TV TALK SHOW APPEARENCE COME OCTOBER ‘12 and that your doubters and detractors would see you parading it on TV for all to see! You didn’t say a word then about the illegality of what you were about to do.
Snip......
Also, while you’re at it, what happened to your camarad-in-arms, Todd Rodriguez, Ret.? Do you have any explanation as to why would a FReeper in good standing (not a troll, God forbid!) such as yourself, resort to unacceptable behavior like that? Were you issued a warning instead of a ticket?
Who are the “OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers” [sic]? Care to name some of those faux Conservative FReeper trolls?
Snip....
Failure to answer ANY of the above questions, and I repeat myself, will speak volumes about what you’re doing here.
QUIT STALLING. I STILL DARE YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2995763/posts?page=97#97
No, it’s not hypocrisy. It is a clear and accurate explanation of the rules by which a person’s citizenship is determined.
The basic rule (and this rule has applied THROUGHOUT US history and even before, when we were English colonies, and even before that, in England, originated with the idea that God divided the world up into nations, and established authorities over those nations.
Those nations have geographical boundaries within them, and according to the ancient English idea of natural law, those geographical boundaries are part of the governmental realm.
And when a person is born within the geographical boundaries of that realm, he is born in relationship to and with a responsibility to adhere to, that particular realm and the governing authority over it.
That was the theory. That was the theory of natural law that established the original concept, and the original precedent. And it is derived from the writings of St. Paul.
But the English decided that that situation was not absolute. What if the child was born to, and raised by, a visiting queen from another country? Such a person was subject to the other realm, not this one. What if the child was born to the official ambassador of that queen? Such a child would always return to the other realm, and even here, by the rules of international relations, would always be subject to that realm and not this one. What if the child was born to an invading army? Similar situation.
Over time, the original reasoning of the rule was largely forgotten, but the descriptive name was retained: “Natural born subject.” When we changed “subject” to “citizen,” then “natural born subject” became “natural born citizen.” And both terms have the same basic rule and mean the same thing, except for the fact that a “natural born CITIZEN” is not subservient to a king or queen.
So I am not “advocating” anything. I am EXPLAINING to you the English-American rule of citizenship by birth within a realm AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
Again, this is not even QUESTIONED by any real legal authority. It’s not even controversial, except on the internet.