Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: bushpilot1; DiogenesLamp

Excellent research, Diogenes, and thanks for the ping, bp. It is fascinating to read the reference, which makes perfect sense in the context of natural-born citizenship. My angle is that I find it unimaginable that Founders meant, by ‘natural born citizen’, ‘the spawn of foreign/enemy nationals’. It’s absurd to think that was their idea. They were not, iow, codifying the King of England’s right to sire future POTUSs. Those who argue otherwise are beyond the realm of my comprehension. I think like a patriot, and no patriot I know wants a half-foreigner to lord it over us. The odds of half-foreigners hating the US and/or lacking allegiance to it are much greater than for natural born citizens.


386 posted on 10/26/2011 4:17:59 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies ]


To: Fantasywriter

Countless obots told us..the Framers merely changed the wording natural born subject to natural born citizen.

The spin cometh....


388 posted on 10/26/2011 4:28:03 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies ]

To: Fantasywriter
Excellent research, Diogenes, and thanks for the ping, bp.

Thanks, I got lucky. Sorry I forgot to add your name to the initial message, but I was hoping the ones I pinged would get the message out to everyone else. :)

It is fascinating to read the reference, which makes perfect sense in the context of natural-born citizenship. My angle is that I find it unimaginable that Founders meant, by ‘natural born citizen’, ‘the spawn of foreign/enemy nationals’. It’s absurd to think that was their idea. They were not, iow, codifying the King of England’s right to sire future POTUSs. Those who argue otherwise are beyond the realm of my comprehension. I think like a patriot, and no patriot I know wants a half-foreigner to lord it over us. The odds of half-foreigners hating the US and/or lacking allegiance to it are much greater than for natural born citizens.

As I have pointed out repetitively, prior to 1922 (cable act) and 1934 (Women's citizenship act) it was not even possible to have a split nationality child. In most of this countries history, the nationality of the child followed the father. Upon marriage, a woman became the same nationality as her husband, so any children were automatically of the same nationality as whatever the father was. We are dealing with a circumstance of which the founders had likely never conceived.

421 posted on 10/28/2011 6:27:31 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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