Posted on 10/22/2023 11:18:56 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
You have obama, how did that work out for you? Look at all the "immigrants" in power in our government, do you actually think they give a crap about you? Get a clue light bright.
What does being born under a king have to do with it ? England was at least technically a Constitutional Monarchy for over a century at the time of the adaption of the constitution. You may have a case under the circumstances Chester Arthur was born into in 1829 since the concept of American citizen or jus soli didn’t exist as we know it and since citizenship was passed down through the father but the recent cases are not even up for review.
Obama has come out in support of Israel but that doesn’t make him eligible to be president.
“The birthplace concept is something from a different era in which people were subjects to kings.”
Too late for that. The “birthplace concept” is in the Constitution and there were no kings.
A poster jumped all over me about that, then he submitted a letter, that proved my point, from John Jay to George Washington requesting that no one but a “natural born citizen” be placed in charge of the American army.
They’re not running
No, not nonsense. As I have vainly stated many times, and people read it and dismiss it, the Naturalization Act of 1790 directly defines that a natural born citizen is a person born of citizen parents.
You can quote the 14th amendment to you are blue in the face, but an act of Congress alone cannot not amend the Constitution of the United States, nor can a Federal judge amend the Constitution.
The term “natural born citizen” was current in the speech of that time and it meant more than just “citizen.”
Back to that letter of John Jay to George Washington, stipulating that a “natural born citizen” only should be in charge of the American army.
Nonsense. A natural born citizen is born of parents who either are U.S. citizens or were under the jurisdiction of and present in the U.S.
ANNNND.... another Republican shiney object dims as the sun sets...
You’re not just wrong....but 100% clueless kinda like a low IQ leftist who makes up their own reality
Right. I've been a Freeper for 25 years, a conservative activist for much of that, and a licensed attorney for (only) the last 5 of my 71 years. I try to avoid choosing to interpret law only on the basis of how it supports my political preferences. May you someday be blessed with such discernment.
Fascinating. The admission suggests VR knows that he is out of the running for POTUS, VPOTUS. His shifting positions, many not in American interests and insalubrious modus operandi make that a very good thing.
Then you are not thinking clearly. No one, no prohibition can prevent someone who is the the pay of, or loyal to a conflicting interest, from running from or obtaining the Presidency. One door that can, was and should be closed is that of allowing someone with a known basic loyalty to a foreign power to run for President.
Rather than old fashioned that stricture is simply clear thinking on reducing risk to America.
Mohammed’s horse has already left the barn on this one.
Sorry, you have not read enough. There is a clear difference which has been supported in court rulings. The statute that allows people like VR, NH to be counted as citizens is not a law. It is the current regulation of the INS. People have incorrectly interpreted the 14th amendment for their own purposes. It was intended for former slaves who otherwise had no Country. While there may be an uproar that situation should be regularized and no birth citizenship for children of foreign citizens should be granted. There is no legal underpinning for the notion in the 14th, just an internal decision by the INS. Such decisions are regularly refined & altered by the agency.
I know it doesn’t help the “natural-born citizen” requirement but Vivek is most certainly not an Indian citizen, as India requires loss of their citizenship upon gaining any other. Virtually all Indians who have been born or naturalized in the US have only one citizenship, their US citizenship.
Stop pushing Chester Arthur. You obviously do not know the history.
Arthur was born in Fairfield, Vermont, grew up in upstate New York and practiced law in New York City. He served as quartermaster general of the New York Militia during the American Civil War. Some people tried to suggest he was born a few miles north in Canada.
If in 1881 the American public was fairly well informed about Chester A. Arthur’s earliest years, it was because of an interesting hoax. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, startled the voters of the country shortly after the election of 1880 by interviews in which he accused General Arthur of being a British subject. To support the claim, he presented an elaborate story of Arthur’s birth, purporting to show that he had been born in Canada, of a British father and an American mother. The enterprising New York Sun investigated Hinman’s tale and published a complete refutation the day after Arthur took the oath as President. His origins were widely understood when he became the twenty-first President of the United States.
https://npg.si.edu/blog/chester-arthur-birthplace-controversy-1880
If the child applies for a US passport whether as a minor or adult, he/she will lose the ability to retain an Indian passport, and further, will cease to be a citizen of India by descent if within six months of attaining full age the child does not renounce the citizenship of the United States.
https://ilw.com/articles/2004,1217-mehta.shtm#:~:text=If%20the%20child%20applies%20for,citizenship%20of%20the%20United%20States.
Your statement is incorrect.
If the child opts for the US passport, he/she will need to apply for Overseas Citizenship pursuant to the Citizenship Act of 2003, which was passed by the Indian Parliament on December 22, 2003, to grant dual citizenship (a.k.a. Overseas Citizenship) to persons of Indian origin who are citizens of certain countries. The legislation will also grant Overseas Citizenship to Indian citizens who may take up the citizenship of these countries in the future. At present, this benefit is being extended to persons of Indian origin of the following 16 specified countries: Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Republic of Cyprus, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States of America.
“They’re not running”
Never said they were, but Don, Jr., has been mentioned here on FR from time to time. I think he’d be good. Sad that the people who thought it was OK for Obama to run would be on Don, Jr., like white on rice if his name came up seriously.
Good point, however, despite the name, I don’t think you can legitimately call their “Overseas Citizenship” an actual citizenship in the usual sense. Holders of this status cannot vote, hold public office (or even employment) and cannot be issued an Indian passport. It’s sort of like a special status that allows them to go back to India easily, but with a pretty name.
Agreed. It is a specialized status but is a form of modified citizenship as you note.
https://www.cgisf.gov.in/page/general-information-on-oci-card/
AOC is completely American. Her parents were born in Puerto Rico which means american born.
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.