Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LorenC
I've been saying this for ages. I even posited the hypothetical here a couple of weeks back. I got this as a response: "you chose to posit a ridiculous hypothetical. Let’s play....what are the odds that the UK will grant everyone born in the US dual citizenship?"

Well, it's your hypothetical, so flesh it out. How would citizenship claims be legally extended to individuals who do not yet exist? We're talking about citizenship status at birth, here.

How would Tonga, or North Korea, or whatever currently unpopular nation you choose to "posit" for reactionary reasons, plausibly claim jurisdiction under any recognized law?

How would such a claim be received by the United States? I strongly suggest it would not be recognized. There's a rather glaring, historic precedent for just this sort of thing.

Break it down for us, LorenC, since you see it as such a strong argument.

I'm going to posit that you know it's a silly, specious argument with no basis at all, which is why you just threw it out there without elaboration.

819 posted on 10/13/2009 6:04:49 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies ]


To: RegulatorCountry
How would Tonga, or North Korea, or whatever currently unpopular nation you choose to "posit" for reactionary reasons, plausibly claim jurisdiction under any recognized law?

That's not how citizenship law works. Britain can grant British citizenship to anyone they want to. They don't need any kind of 'jurisdiction' to grant citizenship under their own law. Countries just tend not to be overly generous with granting citizenship, because doing so isn't usually in their best interests.

How would such a claim be received by the United States? I strongly suggest it would not be recognized. There's a rather glaring, historic precedent for just this sort of thing.

Of course it wouldn't be recognized in the U.S. The United States doesn't really recognize dual citizenships. In the eyes of the U.S., a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen and only a U.S. citizen. To the U.S., Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen and whatever any foreign country considered him was irrelevant to the U.S. If the argument is that only dual citizenships that the U.S. government recognizes disqualifies a child from being a NBC, then it wouldn't disqualify Obama.

I'm going to posit that you know it's a silly, specious argument with no basis at all, which is why you just threw it out there without elaboration.

I elaborated on it the first time weeks ago. But for the heck of it, let's narrow the hypothetical in such a way to address your criticisms of the broad version.

Israel decides to declare that all Jewish children born in the U.S. are also citizens of Israel. Relatively conceivable, in a way that you can imagine the U.S. and the international community wouldn't have any overt objections to. It's a polite gesture, and offered in goodwill. Does this, then, disqualify all Jewish children from becoming President?

906 posted on 10/13/2009 8:16:50 PM PDT by LorenC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson