Replies

Use your words. A huge cut and paste does not an argument make. Perhaps a comment regarding what point you were making?

Typical libby remark - when you CANNOT back up your deluded position ... attack the opposition

You want my own words ??? Here goes ...

You hang your hat on ONE SCOTUS decision (Ark) and claim that it is the be-all and end-all ...

People show you other SCOTUS decisions that contradict your position - you dismiss them and you keep going back to Ark.

So, I take you up on it and show you that Calvin's Case (which Ark cited as the relevant English Common Law) declared that a natural born subject is born both within the sovreign's dominion AND under a SINGLE SOLITARY allegiance to that sovreign AND THAT SOVREIGN ONLY. And I even give you the relevent text by cut nd paste ...

Not only that, but you "cherry pick" from Blackstone that children born to aliens in Britain are "natural born subjects" (with the exception of foreign ambassador's children) to support it.

However, Blackstone had much more to say about "natural born subjects" - specifically "denizens", which can be children aliens born within Britain but with MORE THAN ONE allegiance and who ARE NOT natural born subjects ...

You would NEVER make it onto even an elementary school debate squad ...

"That Wiggy ... What a Maroon !!!

"You hang your hat on ONE SCOTUS decision (Ark) and claim that it is the be-all and end-all ..."

Well, actually, no I don't. I hang my hat on 500 years of Anglo-American common law. Wong Kim Ark is only the most authoritative such decision when it comes to issues of American citizenship at birth.

"People show you other SCOTUS decisions that contradict your position - you dismiss them and you keep going back to Ark."

Again... no. There are no SCOTUS decisions that contradict Wong Kim Ark other than Dredd Scott, and as we all know that ruling was so spectacularly wrong that we amended the Constitution to fix it.

"So, I take you up on it and show you that Calvin's Case (which Ark cited as the relevant English Common Law) declared that a natural born subject is born both within the sovreign's dominion AND under a SINGLE SOLITARY allegiance to that sovreign AND THAT SOVREIGN ONLY. And I even give you the relevent text by cut nd paste ..."

It is hardly my fault that I cannot find a genuine argument in that act. After all, it is exactly the same thing that Wong Kim Ark says. That "single solitary allegiance" is a function of birthplace, not parental citizenship.

"Not only that, but you "cherry pick" from Blackstone that children born to aliens in Britain are "natural born subjects" (with the exception of foreign ambassador's children) to support it."

How else do you respond to somebody who insisted that Blackstone never said that other by showing them that, yes, he actually did? That's not "cherry picking" my friend. That's just answering the question.

"However, Blackstone had much more to say about "natural born subjects" - specifically "denizens", which can be children aliens born within Britain but with MORE THAN ONE allegiance and who ARE NOT natural born subjects ..."

Oh... that's part of your problem right there. Denizens and citizens are completely independent things. No wonder you are confused.

"You would NEVER make it onto even an elementary school debate squad ..."

So... you're saying I should give back all my college debating medals?