I hope this amuses you too schoolmarm.
Posted on 02/05/2016 8:22:26 PM PST by kathsua
out of respect for JimRob’s rules, I didn’t type what I was thinking.
I hope you have a good day. Our exchange was amusing to me.
[[That label isn’t being attached to you by a child, but by a thoughtful, reasoning adult.]]
Yeah you keep believing that-
[[My posts have demonstrated the falsehood in your contentions,]]
No sir they did not
[[you are calling me a liar too.]]
No sir- unlike you I don’t call someone who believes something different than I do a liar- As I mentoned, there is
[[There are fewer that ten people on this board that I despise, and you are in the top five]]
Again, a childish position to take- You are asserting something that the SC does not agree with- You are asserting that anything that relies on a law of congress automatically makes it a process- that isn’t the case- 1409 only relates to a child born out of wedlock and only applies to the father it has nothing to do with a citizen mother having a child off soil
[[The statutory distinction relevant in this case, then, is that S:1409(a)(4) requires one of three affirmative steps to be taken if the citizen parent is the father, but not if the citizen parent is the mother: ]]
Again- If you wish to keep acting like a child- then I don’t really care to keep discussing the issue with you- You have FAILED to explain how 1409 applies to the mother who is a citizen who has the child off soil- and then turn around and accuse me of lying?
[[You are stupid, evil, or both]]
What are you? 12?
I hope this amuses you too schoolmarm.
[[It has been pointed out to you, using the exact words from the Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS decision, that this so-called equivalence depends on the statute for existence.]]
And it has been pointed out to you that a statute doesn’t automatically relate to a ‘process of naturalization’ when at birth and by birth do not fit the statute’s requirements for naturalization via process- You tried to wiggle out of it before by claiming ‘not all naturalizations require a process’ In the other thread- but again, it’s been pointed out that when a process is not needed it’s not an act of naturalization via process-
You are free to disagree with this- but again, it’s a solid grounds for disagreement- and resorting to name calling when someone doesn’t agree with your position when it’s a FACT that the courts aren’t even in agreement is again, uncalled for- As bleu dragon pointed out to you- there is disagreement over what the term naturalize means- and those arguing that jus soli is the ONLY criteria for NBC (provided parents are citizens) ignores the fact that the Nguyen case infers that jus sanguinis (at birth and by birth) is also a criteria to be taken into consideration-
Your resort to "absence of process" isn't quite as solid as you think it is. The applicant is required to submit his claim to an adjudicative body for approval. No submission, no citizenship.
Your claim that the Nguyen case infers that jus sanguinis is an avenue to NBC requires dishonesty to advance.
-- 1409 only relates to a child born out of wedlock and only applies to the father it has nothing to do with a citizen mother having a child off soil --
1409 applies to ALL out of wedlock births.
Children born out of wedlock8 USC 1409(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
The Nguyen case exists because the part (a) requirements don't apply when the citizen parent is the mother. The argument was that it was unconstitutional to apply those requirements when the citizen parent is the father.
-- unlike you I don't call someone who believes something different than I do a liar --
At this point, it isn't a question of belief. You have been caught misrepresenting what the cases say, after you have been shown what the cases say. You have NEVER rebutted my arguments, all you offer in return is persistent misrepresentation. I remind you that you have also deliberately misrepresented MY words. You are dishonest.
It does. The codicil that the event or fact is a guide or example is the part you have misconstrued. By your logic, no woman could ever be president. The same with hispanics. The same with any other group not previously represented.
You may not have meant to invoke the legal sense of the word, so I apologize if I mistakenly added that to the mix.
I really do hope you have a good day. I am off to take care of a few things in the real world.
The 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the country. That decision would be overturned within a day or two at most.
When the ideology was deemed more important than the law under liberal rule
Good point. I did the research and nothng against Cruz but you are 100 percent right.
[[The courts are all in agreement on this point. At least all the SCOTUS cases are.
Your resort to “absence of process” isn’t quite as solid as you think it is.]]
IF it isn’t as ‘solid as I think’ then obviously I misunderstand the issue- no? IF I misunderstand the point you are trying to make- then obviously I’m not intentionally lying- You have NOT made the case that 1409 has anything to do with at birth and by birth
[[I remind you that you have also deliberately misrepresented MY words.]]
Sigh! I explained ot you it was NOT a deliberate misrepresentation of your words- it APPEARED to me, mistakenly, that you were attacking me- you claimed you were not- I accepted that and apologized for misunderstanding you attack on those who don’t agree with you- Hold a grudge much?
[[You are dishonest.]]
The only one being dishonest here is you accusing me of lying when it’s clear from my posts that you have not made your case well enough for me to agree with it, and for accusing me, even AFTER I explained to you I Mistook your words to be an attack against me when they weren’t- I shouldn’t even have to be explaining this again at this point- I assumed it was understood back In the other thread that I was sorry for mistaking your comments for something else-
[[1409 applies to ALL out of wedlock births.]]
There is no dispute about that - Again, there seems to be a profound misunderstanding here- and your knee jerk reaction is to assume I am intentionally lying about the issue simply because I do not see you link to 1401- what you just posted just further seems to solidify that a citizen mother having a child off soil has a NBC by descent
[[a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth,]]
Ted’s mother certainly met that requirement-
[[Your claim that the Nguyen case infers that jus sanguinis is an avenue to NBC requires dishonesty to advance.]]
Or a lack of understanding- again- you immediately jump to the knee jerk reaction that anyone who doesn’t agree with your position is ‘being dishonest’- and you want people to trust what you have to say when you make these kind of false accusations?
You have not explained 1409 and it’s relevance to 1401 and to the claim that a mother citizen who has a child off soil is not due passing along NBC via jus sanguinis- AT BEST- all you’ve managed to do is provide the case of Bellei which is based on a congressional law which defines naturalization as someone who doesn’t meet requirements for NBC which is passed to them ‘at birth’- Your argument ‘seems to be’ because NBC can’t be taken via a law, that the bellei case can’t be about NBC and must be about a naturalization process because that would mean there are requirements for acquiring NBC- (there actually are requirements for NBC ie common law, natural law)- and it simply seems to me, from everything I’ve read so far on the issue, that IF the requirements for natural law (which is based also on evolving and on refined laws of nations), that one can forfeit NBC IF the common law refinements, and acts of congress, that have been adopted down through the ages haven’t been met- You position seems to be that any refinement and act of congress is the equivalent of a naturalization process- (apparently whether a process takes place or not- your position ‘seems to be’ that it’s always a process if it lies outside of ‘original intent’ of natural law’ as interpreted by the founding fathers
It also seems to me that the courts have been back and forth on this issue and that nothing has been settled yet definitively- and that there is, as bluedragon stated, solid grounds for disagreement o n this issue at present- and it does no good for you, who hasn’t made you case very clear to me, to keep resorting to name calling and false accusations- You are apparently bent out of shape over a misunderstanding for which I apologized long ago- and unfortunately that seems to season all of your current responses to me- and quite frankly it’s just petty-
IF you wish to make your case clearer about 1409, then ok- I admit I don’t see the relevance for what you are trying to claim- you just keep pointing to it and claiming it invalidates the idea that the courts have indicated their is no difference in citizenship of a child born to a citizen mother, who has the child born on soil or off- but I’d certainly appreciate it if you would do so without the petty name calling and false accusations
(Note- You ‘Seem to’ be making the case that because 1409 is added as an exception to 1401, that this makes 1401 cases acts/processes of naturalization on par with ‘after birth’ naturalization process of a child born to non citizen parents- I’m not seeing your connection- this isn’t a ‘deliberate misrepresentation’ or ‘intentional deceit’ on my part of any of your points- I simply am not seeing the connection- I shoulda thought that would have been obvious from our discussions together over this issue- but you seem determined to paint me as ‘deceitful’ for some reason-)
No. For the same reason McCain had no problems with his run.
And no, Ted is not a “naturalized” citizen.
Absolutely correct.
He is completely eligible to be POTUS.
These birther folks need to move on... Defeat the man on his conservative record and policy stances if you disagree, not on this nonsense.
Of course, they can’t, and the chief birther himself is nothing more than a liberal hack lying his face off, which of course is why they attack Cruz on idioms which are irrelevant.
_________________________________________________________
Interesting..Do you also believe Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to assume the Presidency?
You are just a ball of confusion. Good luck to you.
Marco Rubio is an anchor baby.
Just in
Alabamians sue Ted Cruz, say he can’t run for president
I still want to know what document Ted used to get into school, Harvard etc...a Canadian BC??
Oh, I will continue to call you out when you post falsehood and I see it.
Sorry, but the first 7 Presidents were not born on US soil, they were born within the British commonwealth. In fact, they were citizens of Britain.
Yet somehow they were “natural born citizensâ€...
I wonder why... Maybe because they were citizens from the start of the country, and we’re not immigrants to said country.
Cruz is the same, he was and is a citizen from birth.
Deal. With. It.
_________________________________________________________
We did not have “US soil” when the first 7 Presidents were born. Our country did not exist. That is why the statement, and I paraphrase, “At the signing of...”, which means subsequent to. Raphael is not in the same category..he is a “Citizen”..but that is where it ends.
Marco Rubio is an anchor baby.
Concur...I’m interested in Plewis1250’s response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.