Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
What decisions?? You should know you obtuse clown. Remember, you think I repeat myself all time. For good reasons.
Or Elg, where it was not what’s plainly in the Constitution, but the extra-Constitutional fact that everyone and their mother knows there’s no doubt when you have citizen parents?
Oh, we see you really do know. Playing stupid as usual. You know why. And you do see the differences in conclusions that the Supreme Court said in the holdings between Ark and Elg.
And FR would be a better place for it. I've had you pegged as a troll for a very long time. Do us a favor and zot yourself.
You're here only because of the benevolence of the management of FR. It is possible that could change in the future. You argue that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, BUT we all know that is not the case, however, you troll away and away anyways. This website promotes conservatism and what you promote is not.
“You need to inform your faither brethern of this. They argue that parentage is not relevant to natural born status”
There are those who maintain that children born abroad to citizen parents aren’t NBCs. I’m not one.
By the way, it’s hilarious that you use “so-called” and scare quotes around birther, yet use faither freely. Especially funny as birther is a widely acceptable term, whereas birthers are the only ones who say faither (the rest of us call them normal human beings).
“He argues all the time that Gray concluded that Ark was an NBC at birth.”
Yes, but not explicitly. WOSG follows the line of reasoning and finds it leads ineluctably to NBC status. So do I. Neither of us, however, and no one on earth who’s familiar with the case, argues that it was affirmed.
Oh please you silly troll. You're here to help out Obama by stinking up these threads. You're about as AB-"normal" as the Obama administration.
“And you clowns take dicta or obiter dicta from Supreme Court opinions as the virtual truth while at the same time you ignore the conclusions or misconstrue their words.”
None of us can match your feat of taking words they don’t say as positive evidence of judgements they never made.
More rubbish. The troll is here to explicitly to say that Ark or Obama is a natural born citizen and misconstrue Supreme Court holdings. A survey of this thread from top to bottom would see what you say is BS.
So do I. Neither of us, however, and no one on earth who’s familiar with the case, argues that it was affirmed.
Yeah sure you do troll... If this was the case you wouldn't be here trolling away everyday on this thread.
“Then you must agree that Obama is not an NBC. Right?”
No. Just because the children of citizen parents are NBCs does not mean children of the soil aren’t.
“Oh really? Then you must also agree Obama is not a natural born citizen because of double allegiances and who had a British/Kenyan citizenship at birth, therefore, he was not a natural born citizen.”
No, I don’t. Double allegiances are allowed. Contrary to your delusions, the U.S. doesn’t care (when it comes to born citizens).
Also, if dual loyalties transgress the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, Obama is not just a non-NBC, he’s a non-citizen. But he is a citizen.
Sorry, but this is factually inaccurate. Minor did not cite English common law for definining natural born citizenship:
"all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens"
For comparison, Vattel's definition ... with matching phrases underlined: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
The 14th amendment was made necessary by Dred Scott, where citizenship was denied to blacks.
... because the English common law principle was not in effect in all states ... Thanks, W, you're making my argument for me.
The quotes birthers use from Minor were asking the question of whether women were citizens.
The answer, as has been shown, is based on Vattel's definition of natural born citizenship ... in rejection of the 14th amendment.
So women didn’t need the 14th amendment to be considered citizens.
No, not as a class, but the children of aliens, on the other hand (whether men or women), DID need the 14th amendment to be considered citizens.
The logical fallacy that birthers have is to conclude that ONLY THOSE WHO SATISFY REASON X can be natural-born citizens.
It's not a fallacy. Waite said those who were born in the country to parents who were citizens were natural born citizens ... (pay attention) as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The very definition here sets up a proposition that if you weren't born in the country of citizen parents, you were an alien or a foreigner. Waite addressed those who did not meet the definition of natural born citizenship by CREATING 14th amendment citizenship at birth. Again, if the English common law were accepted by the states as THE solitary principle of citizenship, there was no need for the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment.
That makes NO sense, that Gray would have to overturn ‘women are citizens” if he claimed that a child of aliens was natural-born!?!?
He would have had to overturn the principle that women born in the country to citizen parents are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. IOW, Gray was bound to accept this declaration and was forced to create a new way to define citizenship but without undermining the previous ruling. Harken back to your Liacakos court citation. The plaintiff called himself a natural-born citizen. That court accepted the claim at face value and used the same terminology. Yet Gray did NOT do this for WKA. He avoided saying anything about Ark being a natural born citizen and avoided saying that the lower court ruling was affirmed. If you look at the Minor decision, it says at the beginning "From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here." At end of the decision, "we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT."
By contrast, WKA says nothing about the lower court, but only that "The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties," none of which says anything about WKA being a natural-born citizen, but instead, a 'native-born citizen.'
WKA continues, "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..." Notice it does not use the term natural-born citizen, but instead the term used in reference to eligibility for Congress - citizen of the United States.
The conclusion of the decision says, "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Again, it does not say that Ark was a natural born citizen. It does not talk about the lower court ruling or say that the judgment is affirmed; just that they answered the question in the affirmative.
I'm going to skip past your 'legal planets, out to lunch and fine fruit' blatherings.
The writing was subtle for reasons I mentioned prior. Gray answered the question he needed to answer and not more. He may have been restrained for political reasons, if there was in this case a tinge of ‘how can we let a chinaman become President?’
Under Gray's decision, that question CAN be answered ... by having the 'chinaman's' parent naturalized as U.S. citizens prior to birth on U.S. soil.
You can BS forever can't you. So who makes up your FR Obama troll schedule for these after-Birther threads? How about you tell us when you are due back to troll after this trolling stint? I promise, if you post it here, I won't tell.
“you are here to misconstrue that there’s some hidden meaning that Gray really meant he was also a natural born citizen. Go find a crystal ball and have a seance to hear Gray in the afterlife”
What was your position, again? Oh, yes, that not affirming he’s a NBC alongside affirming he’s a citizen is secretly (hush-hush) saying he’s ONLY a citizen.
Did I hurt your feelings or something?? Would you like some cheese to go with your whine??
“I’ve had you pegged as a troll for a very long time”
How long, praytell? When and why did I make your list?
“Oh, we see you really do know. Playing stupid as usual.”
It’s called rhetoric, you philistine. Asking and answering your own questions is an acceptable means of communication.
“And you do see the differences in conclusions that the Supreme Court said in the holdings between Ark and Elg.”
Yes, and those differences signify nothing of the sort you claim for them.
Gee Tub-stain, So you do agree Obama is a Usurper of presidential office? Jus soli children at birth who acquire foreign citizenship (double, triple allegiances) are definitely not natural born citizens.
No, I don’t. Double allegiances are allowed. Contrary to your delusions, the U.S. doesn’t care (when it comes to born citizens).
Yeah, they are allowed to be only CITIZENS...but you're deluded to think that they are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. The Supreme Court agrees. See the holding for US v. Wong Kim Ark.
“You’re here only because of the benevolence of the management of FR.”
So are you. Unless you are FR management, but you aren’t, because I haven’t been “zotted.”
“This website promotes conservatism and what you promote is not.”
I’d like to see the blacklist of formerly prominent conservative intellectuals and infotainers if promoting Obama as a NBC is not conservative. Or maybe it’d be easier to count the ones left over.
You said "everything English", no?? Is the term 'everything' not comprehensive or absolute?? Please decode.
Why did Englishmen assassinate Charles I and appoint Oliver Cromwell Lord Protector? If you asked them, they’d probably offer some mumbo-jumbo about asserting their sacred rights as Englishmen, as partly found in the common law, against a tyrant. But, clearly, these men were never governed by English law. Most likely they took their cue from international law scholars, Jesus, Plato, Aristotle, and Moses.
One certainly wouldn't accuse you of being consistent or logical.
Look closer. I’m not flapping my jaw for nothing. You think I like repeating painfully obvious, nigh-universally known historical facts? They started it.
Translated: I made a claim I can't support.
They do much more. Were you not around when they said Vattel has force of law because he appears in the Constitution, while common law is not law at all because we don’t have feudalism anymore?
Neither of those statements = "someone who wrote one of many books on international law is more important than the country that ruled them domestically, shaped their laws, and gave them their embryo of culture."
Once again, they started it. Look it up. I wouldn’t bother if no one made outrageous claims.
You haven't proven any of the claims are outrageous. You have, however, shown that you whine like a 2 year old.
“More rubbish. The troll is here to explicitly to say that Ark or Obama is a natural born citizen and misconstrue Supreme Court holdings. A survey of this thread from top to bottom would see what you say is BS.”
Red Steel is obviously tired, intellectually drained, and beaten. His posts have devolved to choruses of “Blah, blah, blah, troll, blah, Obama, blah, conservative, blah, zot, blah, blah...”
“Yeah sure you do troll... If this was the case you wouldn’t be here trolling away everyday on this thread.”
If you think realizing Ark was not affirmed as a NBC would cause everyone to join in on your side, you’re more obtuse than I thought.
Alas, you don’t really think that. You’re just out of things to say.
Nah, coming from you and other After-Birthers, it is definitely nonsense and a technique to troll.
Yes, and those differences signify nothing of the sort you claim for them.
Wrong again as usual drone. The Supreme Court noted the differences in their conclusions about their citizenships. Wong Ark was only a citizen and Marie Elg a natural born citizen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.