Posted on 03/29/2016 9:55:02 AM PDT by jstaff
When Sundance replaced Mark Levin in the hearts of so many Freepers, I should have taken the hint. The site has become almost totally partisan. That partisanship is leading to such incredible, slanderous commentary that you would have to look twice to see if you are at FR or DU. We talk about a circular firing squad, and here one pops up. We are destroying our chance to move the ultra left out of the White House by trying to destroy each other.
So finally, sadly, I think it is time for me to go, I don't want to be a part of it anymore. I have mostly enjoyed my time here, it used to be a great place, and I was happy to add what little support I could to keeping it up.
To Jim: please check your mail. I sent you a request to delete my account information, but I guess you haven't seen it yet. Good luck with FR and I hope it survives this election cycle without any real bloodshed.
Mods: Please delete my FR account.
Relying on “the 1868 Expatriation Act and the statutes of 8 USC that deny dual citizenship of any kind, at birth or naturalization” is an error (statutes, Acts, and laws are man-made - not natural) and is very dangerous ground in which liberals would love to corner you so they can pass a NEW meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”.
Natural means existing in nature and not made or caused by people, coming from nature. Any statute, legislation, or ammendment that attempts to redefine “Natural Born Citizen” fails by no longer meeting the definition of natural.
There is only one type of US citizenship, however, there are 2 paths in which to acquire that citizenship, birth or naturalization. One had allegiance to a foreign society at birth and the other did not, his exclusive allegiance was to the US at birth.
There, fixed it.
In addition, one must be able to define what Jus Soli + Jus Sanguinis means, something plus something equals something and that something hinges on the right of expatriation, the right to hold exclusive allegiance towards one nation and one nation only, at birth as it is for naturalization where they take an oath to forever renounce and abjure any & all foreign allegiances to become an exclusive member of the citizenry of the United States.
It took you 5 posts to get to your point that all previous court challenges failed and that you were trying to establish the only correct method that a challenge would succeed.
That is a legal arguement, so I presume that you are a lawyer. Perhaps your arguements will prevail at SCOTUS. I wish you much success.
I am not a lawyer and thus I use logic, common sense, and the ability to read our founding documents to state my opinion.
Sorry if that does not meet the Court approved, legal form requirements. That is why I do not practice law, relying on a licensed lawyer for any legal needs.
I have gone to great lengths to study and review various references for my own personal understanding and have concluded that for me, it all boils down to ‘original intent’ and references that point the Founding Fathers relied on Vattel.
How come you never mention the allegiance requirement? Why ignore the Elk v Wilkins case? Why omit the Expatriation Act of 1868?
And as far as WKA goes, that case so abused by both parties to this discussion because they fail to actually go and study the entire history of WKA who, upon the coming of age sought a visa to reenter the US after visiting China. Upon that request, he had to formally renounce his Chinese citizenship and because he had never resided anywhere else but the US, that meant he had already fulfilled all the other requirements for naturalization and therefore, he did not have to go through the formal naturalization process. But since most are too lazy to go and actually do a thorough study of the case, they come up with this ignorant meme that somehow WKA introduced a new class of citizenship.
I am here to simply dispel this ignorance and correct the record so that we might have some hope of restoring the Constitution & US citizenship so future generations will actually have a future as a free citizen of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
And I am not trying to diminish you in any way, I am simply trying to get you to see that US citizenship is based upon the right of expatriation and that no man should have to serve two masters at the same time, loving one and hating the other. Really, look at how our nation is divided now. Hyphenated this and hyphenated that, and all of them putting America second and the nation of their birth first.
Here is what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about hyphenated loyalties, and I remind you, this was well after WKA.
“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Have you read the Expatriation Act of 1868 that is the sister Act to the 14th Amendment and the statute that governs the oath of citizenship for all naturalized persons to this day and is codified in 8 USC?
See you jstaff in about a week or 2.(((((Hugs)))))
3. By Italian law, the plaintiff acquired Italian citizenship upon his birth in Italy. He retains that citizenship. He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev.Stat. § 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect. [Footnote 2] That version of the statute, as does the present one, contained a residence condition applicable to a child born abroad with one alien parent. ...
5. ... On the first two occasions, when the plaintiff was a boy of eight and 11, he entered the country with his mother on her United States passport. On the next two occasions, when he was 15 and just under 23, he entered on his own United States passport, and was admitted as a citizen of this country. His passport was first issued on June 27, 1952. His last application approval, in August, 1961, contains the notation “Warned abt. 301(b).” The plaintiff's United States passport was periodically approved to and including December 22, 1962, his 23d birthday. ...
7. The plaintiff was warned in writing by United States authorities of the impact of § 301(b) when he was in this country in January, 1963, and again in November of that year, when he was in Italy. Sometime after February 11, 1964, he was orally advised by the American Embassy at Rome that he had lost his United States citizenship pursuant to § 301(b). In November, 1966, he was so notified in writing by the American Consul in Rome when the plaintiff requested another American passport. ...
Page 401 U. S. 821
... The dissent (Mr. Justice Clark, joined by JUSTICES HARLAN and WHITE) based its position on what it regarded as the long acceptance of expatriating naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to residence in their native lands; possible international complications; past decisions approving the power of Congress to enact statutes of that type; and the Constitution's distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens. ...
Page 401 U. S. 824
4. The Act of March 2, 1907, § 6, 34 Stat. 1229, provided that all children born abroad who were citizens under Rev.Stat. § 1993 and who continued to reside elsewhere, in order to receive governmental protection, were to record at age 18 their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States, and were to take the oath of allegiance upon attaining their majority. [Footnote 4]
5. The change in § 1993 effected by the Act of May 24, 1934, is reflected in n 2 supra. This eliminated the theretofore imposed restriction to the paternal parent and prospectively granted citizenship, subject to a five-year continuous residence requirement and an oath, to the foreign-born child of either a citizen father or a citizen mother. This was the form of the statute at the time of plaintiff's birth on December 22, 1939. ...
Page 401 U. S. 827
... V
It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born, and, at the same time, to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship. Of course, Congress obviously felt that way, too, about the two expatriation provisions invalidated by the decisions in Schneider and Afroyim.
We look again, then, at the Constitution, and further indulge in history's assistance:
...
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The central fact in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a “Fourteenth Amendment first sentence” citizen. His posture contrasts with that of Mr. Afroyim, who was naturalized in the United States, and with that of Mrs. Schneider, whose citizenship was derivative by her presence here and by her mother's naturalization here. ...
Page 401 U. S. 835
7. Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with “second-class citizenship.” That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light
Page 401 U. S. 836
of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not “second-class.”
8. The plaintiff is not stateless. His Italian citizenship remains.
A natural born citizen can expatriate himself, however, the US government cannot expatriate him as he was never a citizen of any other country. The US government, on the other hand, can expatriate a naturalized citizen by stripping him of his US citizenship, thereby leaving him to return to the country of his birth because he could never be left stateless. Exclusive allegiance, at birth or naturalization.
Supporting FR and Supporting a candidate of choice? Well you are posting, and the site is still up, and the majority here who participate in the caucus support Trump, so there is that.
1. I am not the one that introduced the ‘Citizenship at Birth’ class. You did by your reference to “Rogers v. Bellei”, and then you argued against your own points.
2. You insult me by insinuating that I don’t know the meaning of my own tag-line. Then you redefine it to explicitly require “the right of expatriation, the right to hold exclusive allegiance towards one nation and one nation only, at birth...”. Natural Born Citizenship implies that right and exclusive allegiance. To require it to be stated is redundant.
3. John Jay’s letter to Washington recommends that the requirement for being POTUS should exclude any foreign influence by requiring exclusive allegiance to the U.S. as indicated in the following excerpt:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
It was after receiving this letter that the term “Natural Born Citizen” was inserted into the Constitution.
4. I have studied and read all of WKA and the quote was from a citation in the Court’s Opinion. Again, you insult me by implying that I am “too lazy to go and actually do a thorough study of the case” as well as “ignorant” because you think I claimed that “WKA introduced a new class of citizenship which I did not.
However, the citation does include this: “Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (that ‘class’ being citizen-at-birth, NOT “Natural Born Citizen”)
5. “Natural Born Citizen” was defined in the works of Vattel’s “Law of Nations...” in 1958, well before the Revolution and well established as an important legal reference in the Colonies and abroad.
6. The Declaration of Independence contains an oblique reference to the full title of Vattel’s book in using the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. So you see, the Constitution and other Founding documents along with Vattel’s “Law of Nations...” and reasonable logic and common sense is all that is required to determine the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”. No need to resort to laws, Acts, legislation, or amendments as ALL of those are man-made “naturalized citizens”.
7. No Court is likely to grant standing to anyone on this matter, regardless of your reasoning; thus it is up to massive popular demand that the proper meaning as originally intended be always applied to POTUS and electing ONLY members of Congress that will apply that meaning and deny the certification of POTUS to anyone not meeting that definition.
I agree.
Perfect - for the whambulance opus.
...”What ever happened to “Sticks and stones may break my bones?”....
They became Nuclear Bombs to blow up threads.
....”the amount of venom and hatred spewed ...is eroding the quality of this site”.....
Yes.
Noted....I doubt you’re alone in what you’ve stated. Even taking some breathers from the site now and then doesn’t help much as it’s like stepping back into a mud no matter how civil you try to be, the vile spews until that’s all there is from one post to another.
I said early on that it was “something else” spewing over the threads than simply name calling....and it is.
LOL!
Never go full LibbyLu.
Not prudent.
....”Little doubt FR has turned into Trump Headquarters”....
I don’t have a problem when the majority favors one candidate over another....that’s bound to happen along the way. What I have issues, outside the vileness, is when ‘posters’ tell ‘Freepers’ to leave this site, a site they have enjoyed and been members here for years... That’s NOT their call and demanding so of Freepers just because they don’t agree with you is way beyond rude......Neither is it helpful when “gangs” over run the moderaters complaining.
Publix: best customer service experience in the US of A!
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.