Posted on 12/07/2008 11:14:58 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
How? I know lots of people that have married foreigners and didn't lose their US citizenship.
It’s not a matter a disagreement.....Many here have spent hours researching the area only to be given the same “same ol” talking points again and again.....We are at three levels....beginner, intermediate and expert EX: Polarik spent four months showing how the BC published was forged, and has published his 160 page findings here on FR.
He’s an expert in this area)
The are several thread that you may wish to read if you really want an education. My suggestion is if you don’t want to be considered a troll....Ask a lot of questions, and directions for information....Don’t make statements as if they are facts and you know what you’re talking about.
Calpernia has quite a collection in all facets and is always willing to share her library, if you have a apecific area of interest.
Lucy T has a ping list that will help you keep up with new material. Ask her to add your name.
'Nuff said...
IIRC It had to do with the laws of the police state Indonesia had at the time. All the paper work that each family and individual had to carry with them.
...I’m not an expert in the area, but one night someone who had done the research, posted the law there.....You are welcome to look it up for yourself.
As to the constitutional meaning of Article II, Section 1, your position unsubstantiated.
Vattel writes:
CHAP. XIX. OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
There is much more you can find on the constitutional definition of "natural born citizen" if you care to understand.
Start with John Jay's letter to George Washington dated July 25, 1787 which is widely understood to be the basis for the constitutional language, and go from there.
Let me know if you need any help. I'd be glad to point you to some references.
IIRC something similar to that happened during WWII....Even NYT cooperated.....This could be that level of national security.....
Those of you old enough to remember WWII (I'm not that old) can also remember (I've read of it) cities undergoing "blackouts" or "brownouts" of city lights, so as not to provide an attractive target to enemy bombers. Even railroads placed "shrouds" on their engines' headlamps.
Also, people of that time were admonished in various ways, through various media, that one should, in the interests of national security, CAREFULLY watch one's words.
World War II Posters - Careless Talk Kills
It is very possible that some sort of censorship (not only self-censorship) has been imposed on our media outlets.
IIRC something similar to that happened during WWII....Even NYT cooperated.....This could be that level of national security...
That would be the only scenario under which they could win back my trust. One of the problems, though, is that several of these high profile conservatives are already on record as saying they think it's a non-issue.
I would think that if your hypothetical scenario were true, then their statements on the matter would be more neutral, i.e., "There could be something to this, but let's just see what the courts have to say."
Given the negative statements I've already heard voiced by Hannity, Mark Davis, and apparently Michael Medved, I think they're all on the wrong frequency here. They really need to be tuned into FR.
Wise word.
i wish i was a fly on the wall for that conference, because i suspect it was a doozy.
Nominated for post of the day.
Yeah, we really need more people in here telling us to "forget it", "it's all over", "get used to it", "you guys are making us look bad", "this issue is a non-starter", etc.
More of that ought to help us sort this out. Yep.
And that is because we are the "natural born" successors of those who fought and died to create this nation in the first place.
I’m just waiting for the Valium Posters to show up on threads like this.
These are left wing sympathizers spreading calm through repeated mantras that all of these events will mean nothing.
Whether or not of the cases merit there is no doubt the abundant amount deems merit.
You get half a dozen people saying they saw a UFO then its easy to say it was nothing.
You get 5,000 saying they saw a UFO you get experts climbing out the woodwork with any reason to debunk everyone.
What do you do when 100,000,000 people see the UFO?
Wow, another super secret, super genius move by GW, this must be number 22,461.
“Well, best as I can figure out The Perkins v Elg case was a matter of citizenship and did not address “natural born” issue.”
In the decision Chief Justice Hughes referred to Miss Elg as a “natural born citizen”. Mr. Donofrio’s theory is logical, but does not seem to be supported by judicial precedent.
“The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.””
Where was that defined? Ambassadors and their children are immune to the juridiction of the USA; they cannot be arrested or taxed. The fact that they also owe allegiance to another country is not the point at all.
I have noticed that as well, but perhaps he is worn out and stressed out from the very scenario that FreeAmerica described... it would surely do the trick.
The condition of the founding fathers’ spirit and intention for America was eloquently stated by Samuel Adams:
“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”
I am most definitely bookmarking that! Thank You Sir!
That is not true and you know it. Anyway, the case at the Supreme Court which in my opinion they will ignore is about Obama’s mother status.
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.