Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Tublecane
‘He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,’

That's right. Kawikita's parents were foreign citizens just like Wong Ark's parents. Wong Ark was only affirmed by Gray as only a citizen.

“All natural born citizens are native born citizens but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.”

At long last, according to what?!?!

Again, the 1898 Wong Kim Ark opinion. He was a native - and NOT a natural born citizen as affirmed by justice Gray.

“And we see in Kawikita’s case, he was ONLY a native born citizen”

Nothing you quoted demonstrates such a claim. The best you can say is that they didn’t use the term natural born. Which in itself is evidence of nothing.


Nothing? Evidence of nothing? LoL! You guys are clowns. I'm in pretty good company. We see that Kawikita v. United States is cited in a brief for the Supreme Court.



Kawikita_Apuzzo_cite.SCOTUS

371 posted on 11/12/2010 11:23:07 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies ]


To: Red Steel

“Again, the 1898 Wong Kim Ark opinion. He was a native - and NOT a natural born citizen as affirmed by justice Gray”

Not what Ark says.

“Nothing? Evidence of nothing? LoL!”

Yes, nothing. Unless you can point to some document that explicitly says why they addressed the issue in Elg but not Ark. And if the explicit answer is that Ark was so obviously not natural born that we didn’t think of addressing it, you dummy.


407 posted on 11/13/2010 12:54:49 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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