Replies

"Why I have already proven my point."

Oh? You have? You're gonna stop playing now? Because you miss all the fun of carefully getting to the truth by doing so. Well okay, since you have declared victory and gone home, let's cut to the chase.

First and foremost, Wong Kim Ark is not "trumped" by the Constitution or any Statutes because the former doesn't disagree with WKLA and the latter do not exist.

Oh, you say? The 1790 Naturalization Act contradicts it? Well sadly that presents you with two problems:

The first problem is that it doesn't exist. It did briefly, but it was repealed. Apparently Congress had second thoughts on the "definition" you are fond of and got rid of it. Quickly. But that's not the worst of your problems. Your worst problem is the definition itself.

Here it is" "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

Darn. If (as you insist) this is the definition of natural born citizen, then children born in the United States are excluded. Because the definition specifies only children "that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States." If that is your position (i.e. that children born in the United States cannot be natural born citizens) then we got nothing to talk about, because you just crossed over in the bizarro universe.

YOU to Cobra: Oh, you say? The 1790 Naturalization Act contradicts it? Well sadly that presents you with two problems:

I don't think Cobra said that.

YOU : Here it is" "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

LoL...They shouldn't be giving you any pay raises.

However the 1795 Naturalization Act 5 years later repealed and superceded the 1790 Act. And guess what? No more 'natural born citizen' declaration in the new naturalization law, which was replaced by only saying that "foreign-born children of American parents "shall be considered as citizens of the United States.""

Do you know why Congress removed the words 'natural born' from the previous statute? I'll let you guess.

To say that the Founding Fathers never defined what a Natural Born Citizen is, is a blatant lie.

Clearly they did and they wrote it into law with the very first Congress....

That trumps any translation of Vattel you want to talk about.

They defined by law what a Natural Born citizen is.

Cut and dry, a Natural Born Citizen is the offspring of TWO US CITIZENS.

And it doesn’t have to appear in the law that congress wrote after that under the Naturalization act.

Once Defined it takes a similar act of Congress written into law to redefine it.

Which by the way has been tried many time over the years with no success.

The fact that it was dropped from subsequent versions of the Naturalization act means nothing, nada, zip, zelch, zed.

It was defined once and it is that definition that stands even to this day.