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

To: Jeff Winston
Make note. It not only prohibits them from being "Natural born citizens" it prohibits granting them ANY citizenship at all! They are not EVEN citizens.

You've taken it completely out of context.

The passage you cited DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF FOREIGN PARENTS. It applies to those born overseas of US parents.

Jeff, this sort of dishonest argument is exactly why people feel like wringing your neck. You are either obtuse, forgetful, or intentionally misleading, or all of the above. I have REPEATEDLY said that: NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE AN ARTICLE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. I have further said that the "Naturalization act of 1790" does not override the constitution, but it DOES show what the founders were thinking regarding "natural born citizen." It is readily apparent that they had an objection to a foreign father just for ordinary citizenship, let alone "Natural Born Citizen."

They wouldn't even ALLOW the child of a foreign father to have NATURALIZED citizenship. (by statute.) You are correct that the STATUTE only applies to those born over seas, but the MINDSET is to forbid ANY citizenship to those born of foreign fathers.

So it begs the question. If they wouldn't even ALLOW citizenship for the children of Foreign Fathers, why would they believe that the children of Foreign Fathers would be "Natural born citizens?"

By what stretch of logic can you argue that citizenship specifically banned by statute (because of a foreign father) is equivalent to our highest level of citizenship?

125 posted on 07/02/2011 9:24:13 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Jeff, this sort of dishonest argument is exactly why people feel like wringing your neck. You are either obtuse, forgetful, or intentionally misleading, or all of the above. I have REPEATEDLY said that: NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE AN ARTICLE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. I have further said that the "Naturalization act of 1790" does not override the constitution, but it DOES show what the founders were thinking regarding "natural born citizen." It is readily apparent that they had an objection to a foreign father just for ordinary citizenship, let alone "Natural Born Citizen."

They wouldn't even ALLOW the child of a foreign father to have NATURALIZED citizenship. (by statute.) You are correct that the STATUTE only applies to those born over seas, but the MINDSET is to forbid ANY citizenship to those born of foreign fathers.

So it begs the question. If they wouldn't even ALLOW citizenship for the children of Foreign Fathers, why would they believe that the children of Foreign Fathers would be "Natural born citizens?"

By what stretch of logic can you argue that citizenship specifically banned by statute (because of a foreign father) is equivalent to our highest level of citizenship?


Seem simple enough to understand, especially for some of these anti-Birthers who have been haunting these threads for a very long time.

134 posted on 07/02/2011 12:56:54 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | 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