Replies

Yup. Every time I argue with you.

ba-da-BING!

Don't quit your day job. :-)

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt regarding the children of people who have come here legally, and who had stated their intention to become citizens. I find pieces of support for this methodology in the historical record. This is why I don't really have any issues with Marco Rubio. It is my understanding that his mother had become an American before his birth, and his Father had started the process. The rest is just a minor technicality at worst.

Really?

Now this is astonishing.

You preach that "natural born citizen" requires two US citizen parents at birth.

And not even YOU believe it.

But what of Barack Obama Sr? Was Barack Obama's father a legal immigrant? Seems to me he was a transitory Alien.

I actually think there's a valid argument that Obama's father was a transitory alien. And if both of Obama's parents had been transitory aliens, I think there might even be grounds for a court case.

I actually doubt the courts would rule, even in that instance, that such a person is not a natural born citizen. But it would be worth a shot.

But since Obama's mother was a US citizen, I don't think there's even a case there. And oddly enough, what I think on these issues seems to be repeatedly exactly what real courts have thought and said. There have been at least half a dozen or so cases in which the question of Obama's natural born citizenship was put before the court, and he was ruled eligible.

Which of course puts me in an uncomfortable situation. It allows people like you to falsely paint me as an "Obot."

In any event, Obama's case is settled. There are MULTIPLE court precedents finding him to be a natural born citizen. There is no way on earth that you or anyone else could possibly overturn that precedent now.

Which makes your labeling me and others who represent the law accurately as "Obots" rather silly, since there's not the slightest need for anyone to make the case in regard to Obama any more. If there ever was.

But Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal... those are the people you stand to harm now.

Really?

Now this is astonishing.

You preach that "natural born citizen" requires two US citizen parents at birth.

That is the technical requirement, and after all, this is a discussion regarding a technicality. In practice, they accepted people who had stated or demonstrated an intention to remain here and be citizens. George Washington himself demonstrates this mindset in some of his letters.

“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.

Washington’s General Orders of July 7, 1775 given at Head Quarters, Cambridge by Horatio Gates, Adj. General to Parole-Dorchester, Countersign-Exeter:

“The General has great Reason; and is highly displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers, who have placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not acquainted. He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country, or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached. This Order is to be consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril.”

Thomas Jefferson's Bill regarding who shall be deemed citizens of the Commonwealth.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth;

Such people are not the same thing as an illegal or transitory Alien. These people intend to BE Americans and are in compliance with our laws. Anchor Babies and Birth Tourism are the result of people exploiting technicalities which were falsely created (by the Wong court) in our laws.

And not even YOU believe it.

I believe it completely as regards legal theory. In practice, I am willing to give people the benefit of the Doubt. As the Bible says regarding people who marry after they have become pregnant: "Let nothing more be said of it", So do I feel this is a reasonable way to deal with such circumstances as Marco Rubio's father who has become an American citizen later than he should have. He may not have met the letter of the law, but he met the spirit of the law.

That there are many, does not make them correct. I regard such courts as just another symptom of the Societal decline under which the nation is currently suffering. They are a symptom of the disease afflicting the nation.

I do not think I have referred to you as an "Obot." Though you side with them, and consult their websites often, I have mostly regarded you as a severely misguided conservative. (Like Mr. Rogers.) I have looked at your commentary on other issues, and I find it unlikely that a Liberal, or a Democrat operative would advance such opinions.

As for Obama, yes there was. Getting the issue out there lent support to the calls for a law in one (or more) of the states requiring Office seekers for the Presidency to present original proof of their Natural Born citizenship status. Arizona passed such a law, but the Idiot Governor vetoed it.

There is something on Obama's birth certificate that will either hurt him politically, or will disqualify him all together, and he doesn't want people to know what it is. Had a single state simply demanded to see his original document, he might have never become President, and might not have gotten re-elected.

But Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal... those are the people you stand to harm now.

Marco Rubio could be finessed. Bobby Jindal, less likely, and Ted Cruz? Completely implausible. I like Ted Cruz. I like him far better than most of the rest, but it is simply not possible to stretch the definition so far as to include him. Not that it makes much difference anymore anyway.