Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: WOSG
Look, you can make up your own views of what NBC *should* mean, but nowhere in US law does this exist ... “Natural born citizens only belong to or have one country and have no other.”

You know WOSG, you just don't know or want to admit that you are wrong. I've showed a series of posting on this thread ...all slam dunks, but you just go right on and deny what your "lying eyes" see.

And this is obviously wrong... “The subject about natural born citizens as there is no required law to make them citizens” ...


No, I'm right. There is no laws that naturalizes natural born citizens. There is no need to as that would be silly.

since law DOES define who is a citizen at birth aka a natural born citizen. e.g. 14th amendment.

You can look at post 232 as there are 14th Amendment citizens and they are NOT natural born citizens. Kawakita was NOT a natural born citizen, but just only a jus soli birth that only made him a citizen based on the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision.

242 posted on 11/12/2010 8:13:40 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

You have shown not a single cite of US law or any US court ruling to back up the bizarre claim that there is some category of citizenship for those who are born US citizens but not natural-born citizens. None of your SCOTUS cites back up the claim, and mere silence in a court ruling about whether a case is or is not ‘natural-born’ doesnt count.

Such a category does not exist in US law, and it would be easy to show it if they did exist, as US law on citizenship is detailed. You cannot cite any law or ruling, because the two - citizen at birth and ‘natural-born citizen’ - are synonymous..

” There is no laws that naturalizes natural born citizens. There is no need to as that would be silly. “

Not naturalization, but definition. If you read earlier in the thread, there is US law that defines the cases where US citizenship is acquired at birth.
Of course, there is no ‘naturalization’, there is simply the definition of who has rights of citizenship at birth, and all such would be natural-born citizens.

This has been clear since the 1790 naturalization act, which has two paths for citizenship - citizens at birth aka ‘natural-born citizens’ and naturalization - and NOTE CLEARLY, they do define in law how citizenship at birth aka ‘natural-born citizenship’ is acquired:
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html


295 posted on 11/12/2010 9:23:41 PM PST by WOSG (OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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