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

To: DiogenesLamp

“but I have not bothered to find it.”

You will have to try a little harder then that - hand waving is not a legal argument.

It allows split citizenship because if an American women married a foreign national, she doesn’t lose her citizenship like the 1907 bill required. Nothing you have posted challenges this.


319 posted on 02/20/2012 12:18:38 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies ]


To: Harlan1196
You will have to try a little harder then that - hand waving is not a legal argument.

It's what your side has been using from the beginning, so I am surprised to see you objecting to it now. :)

Your argument is Any person born here is a "natural born citizen" just because. (English Law says so or something.)

It allows split citizenship because if an American women married a foreign national, she doesn’t lose her citizenship like the 1907 bill required. Nothing you have posted challenges this.

Mackenzie v Hare, posted previously. Prior to that, it was a mixed bag. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. In any case, it was an unusual circumstance.

328 posted on 02/20/2012 2:00:08 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | 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