You - "Wrong."
Why you are an obtuse after-Birther.
From the New Englander and Yale Law Review.
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.
“Did I hurt your feelings or something?? Would you like some cheese to go with your whine??”
LOL. I didn’t say so-called faither, did I? I didn’t put it in scare quotes. The wider world doesn’t refer to me as a faither, like they do birthers birthers. Unlike them, I am not embarrassed by a bad (and accurate) connotive nickname.
Also, I wasn’t whining. I said I found it funny, and I meant it.
“So you do agree Obama is a Usurper of presidential office?”
No. Nothing I’ve said implied that.
“Jus soli children at birth who acquire foreign citizenship (double, triple allegiances) are definitely not natural born citizens.”
Wrong.
“Yeah, they are allowed to be only CITIZENS”
Citizens at birth are nothing but natural born citizens. There is nothing else for them to be.
“The Supreme Court agrees. See the holding for US v. Wong Kim Ark.”
Ha! There’s the secret reading again.
Only tired of your nonsense since you are so full of BS. That's a good description of your sophistry - "blah, troll, blah,...blah, zot, blah, blah...”
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.
Gee Tubstain, It's because Gray thought Ark was not a natural born citizen, and is why he only "affirmed" him to be a citizen.
Alas, you don’t really think that. You’re just out of things to say.
Yeah, you do beat me in making up imaginative BS.
So you do think Obama is legally qualified for presidential office even after you admitted he needs citizen parents to be qualified.
Wrong.
Right. Obama cannot be Constitutionally qualified and he is a usurper.
Citizens at birth are nothing but natural born citizens. There is nothing else for them to be.
The Supreme Court does not agree with you in their conclusions, and based on the facts of the cases of Elg and Ark, which are the reasons they concluded such.
Ha! There’s the secret reading again.
No troll, it is you and the udder after-Birthers who put false words in mouth's of Supreme Court opinions.
“You said ‘everything English’, no?? Is the term ‘everything’ not comprehensive or absolute?? Please decode.”
Work on your reading comprehension. I assume you’re referencing this quote: “check out the gymnastics routines birthers engage in to discredit the influence of everything English...” By which I meant they were discrediting English influence of all varieties.
In no way does that sentence imply I think the American legal system—or the American-anything—is absolutely English, nor that everything about the English is stuffed somewhere in America, nor whatever else it is you read into it.
“One certainly wouldn’t accuse you of being consistent or logical.”
Actually, that’s perfectly logical and consistent. You asked how Americans could do this or that un-English thing. Namely, be citizens and have a president. I pointed out that the English themselves did even less English things: such as, kill their king and replace him with a quasi-dictator. If the English can be un-English, certainly the English-influenced Americans can.
“Translated: I made a claim I can’t support.”
I’d like to see you support that statement. Go back and read the posts yourself. Heck, you don’t have to go far in Red Steel’s case. My case is eminently supportable.
“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.’”
If not equal, they strongly imply. He’s saying Vattel has force of law, which is a lie, and implying that American common law is sui generis, as we broke free from feudalism when we ditched the British Empire. That type of language has actually been used. English common law is for kings and subjects. English common law doesn’t apply since we’re not under monarchy anymore. American common law refers ONLY to American common law and nothing else. And so on.
“You haven’t proven any of the claims are outrageous. You have, however, shown that you whine like a 2 year old”
Whine, schmine. It’s not any different than your complaints.
“Nah, coming from you and other After-Birthers, it is definitely nonsense and a technique to troll.”
What’s more trollish: asking and answering your own questions as a rhetorical device or all but dropping the subject and talking, post after post, about trolls?
“Wong Ark was only a citizen and Marie Elg a natural born citizen. “
They did not say Ark was “only a citizen,” and you know it.
“Only tired of your nonsense since you are so full of BS. That’s a good description of your sophistry - ‘blah, troll, blah,...blah, zot, blah, blah...’”
Let the record show that you first brought up the subjects of trolling and zotting in our exchanges, and that I never unilaterally brought them up thereafter except in response to others.
“Gee Tubstain, It’s because Gray thought Ark was not a natural born citizen, and is why he only ‘affirmed’ him to be a citizen.”
No, it isn’t. it’s because it wasn’t at issue. Roe v Wade didn’t explicitly define NBCs, either.
You - "Wrong."
Why you are an obtuse after-Birther.
From the New Englander and Yale Law Review.
“So you do think Obama is legally qualified for presidential office even after you admitted he needs citizen parents to be qualified.”
I did not admit that.
“The Supreme Court does not agree with you in their conclusions”
No SCOTUS decision provides for a “native born” citizen who isn’t a NBC, nor a citizen “naturalized at birth,” nor anything else in that manner.
“No troll, it is you and the udder after-Birthers who put false words in mouth’s of Supreme Court opinions.”
What words would those be, praytell?
Let the record show that Tubstain is an obtuse troll who employs rat techniques and was called on it. See post 1209 as one example.
No, it isn’t. it’s because it wasn’t at issue. Roe v Wade didn’t explicitly define NBCs, either.
Roe v. Wade now? LoL. And oh, yes it is. We have the two Supreme Court opinions holdings/conclusions, and according to the facts in both cases, that Ark was affirmed a citizen and Elg was affirmed a natural born citizen.
That article is simply wrong. There never was a third class of citizen in U.S. Since people born as dual citizens (like Ark) exist, they must be NBCs. If dual citizens violated the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, they wouldn’t be citizens.
You are either natural born, naturalized, or not a citizen.
“Let the record show that Tubstain is an obtuse troll who employs rat techniques and was called on it. See post 1209 as one example.”
It’s a “rat technique” to admit dual citizenship at birth exists?
“according to the facts in both cases, that Ark was affirmed a citizen and Elg was affirmed a natural born citizen.”
You keep pretending that’s meaningful, but it isn’t. Not in the way you want.
This is an incorrect statement. I recommend you consult the standard reference text, Vattel's "The Law of Nations," which discusses the concept of being naturalized at birth.
Now that you know this claim is incorrect, I'm sure you won't be repeating it, since that would make you not just woefully ignorant, but rather a mendacious liar.
Hope this helps.
Yes, but the emphasis of the post is that you really are a troll. Trolls are highly likely here to get the zot than conservatives.
It is simply right and you are wrong as usual.
Again from the New Englander and Yale Law Review -
"Qualification..for the President. In the latter, the term 'natural born citizen' is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiances BY BIRTH to foreign states;"
So do we believe an Obot like you or the Law Review which states the reason why the Natural Born Citizen clause is in the US Constitution? The answer is obvious, and it is obvious why Article 2, Clause 5 exists.
Also, I wasn’t whining. I said I found it funny, and I meant it.
That's an awful lot of whining for one who claims not to be whining.
“Qualification..for the President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiances BY BIRTH to foreign states;”
So do we believe an Obot like you or the Law Review which states the reason why the Natural Born Citizen clause is in the US Constitution?
——————————————————————————————Quite a rhetorical flourish ... for a “Philistine,” that is!
Poor Tublecane.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/palooka.htm
STE=Q
“ALL the Justices on both sides agreed to the basic point that English common law definition of citizenship was what drove the definition of citizenship prior to the 14th. vattel is besides the point.
Sorry, but this is factually inaccurate. Minor did not cite English common law for definining natural born citizenship: “
OH YES IT DID!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,...”
THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN MINOR WAS SAYING THAT NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS WERE A CREATURE OF COMMON LAW, AND THE NOMENCLATURE WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE FRAMERS.
Moreover, in saying “Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” HE CONFIRMS THE STANDARD UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY CITIZEN IS EITHER A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OR A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.
“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.”
Wow, that is stunningly ignorant of what the real problems and consequences of Dred Scott was. The court declared that not only was Dred Scott not a citizen, but no law had the power to MAKE blacks, whether slave or free, citizens. “Negroes, whether slaves or free, that is, men of the African race, are not citizens of the United States by the Constitution.” It disenfranchised free blacks. Did that come from the revered Vattel? In substance, it undermines and is against any claim that citizenship is based on ‘natural law’ that applies to all. Stunningly ignorant of you to think it hung on English common law or against same, for it was on far different ground. Just read the ruling - and the dissent - and get educated ...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
“This is an incorrect statement. I recommend you consult the standard reference text, Vattel’s ‘The Law of Nations,’ which discusses the concept of being naturalized at birth.”
When I say it always has since the beginning of time meant gaining citizenship after birth, I of course am aware that the concept of “naturalization at birth” actually exists. Otherwise, why would it be thrown around so much?
It is an insane concept, and I assume nothing but a clumsy rationalization. One cannot be made natural at the instance of birth. It makes no sense. Birth citizens are not naturalized, never will be, and never have been.
“rather a mendacious liar”
Liar schmiar. I disagree with the concept. I’m not ignorant of its existence in people’s heads. I happen to know that it has no basis in U.S. law, and I assume it never actually existed anywhere in practice.
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.