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

To: Kansas58

under that misunderstanding the offspring of a diplomat in country x would be a citizen of country x. there are only a handful of countries that recognize birth right citizenship, Russia Zimbabwe Australia, all but the USA are dying to increase their population numbers.

PS what I wrote was the take on citizenship as understood at the time by European countries as written by Vattel in 1758. Read it for yourself.


135 posted on 02/11/2012 2:01:45 PM PST by waynesa98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: waynesa98
"under that misunderstanding the offspring of a diplomat in country x would be a citizen of country x."

That's what the "under the jurisdiction" qualification is about. Diplomats are an exception.

"there are only a handful of countries that recognize birth right citizenship, Russia Zimbabwe Australia, all but the USA are dying to increase their population numbers."

However many there might be, the USA is one of them.

"PS what I wrote was the take on citizenship as understood at the time by European countries as written by Vattel in 1758. Read it for yourself."

No, the european countries did not all go by the same rules, as Vattel himself noted. The passage birthers quote applied to most continental countries. He also observed that the rules in England were different.

Vattel was not dictating the rules to anyone. He was observing what the rules already were. We don't need Vattel to tell us this.

136 posted on 02/11/2012 2:34:18 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]

To: waynesa98

No, the children of diplomats are NOT “—subject to the jurisdiction thereof-—” and would not be citizens at birth, automatically.

The vast majority of conservatives disagree with bithers, on citizenship issues.

However, I have never heard a single of your opponents argue that a child of a diplomat would be a citizen. You are errected straw-man arguments.

Another point: the foreigner, Vattel, was never a citizen of this country, was never a voter in this country, was never a delegate to the Continental Congress, or the Constitutional Convention. The Foreigner, Vattel, was not a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and he never served in Congress.

Vattle is not a binding legal authority.

Vattle is mearly a legal reference and foot note in history, nothing more.

When Congress had no other guidlines, Courts looked to Common Law and Natural Law for instruction.

However, Congress has noe deifned Citizenship, and Acts of Congress trump Common Law and Vattel.


153 posted on 02/12/2012 9:18:15 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | 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