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

To: omegadawn

I suggest you read the dissent in WKA, that recognized they were giving the right to be President to the child of tourists passing thru the USA.

They used his qualifying as a natural born subject to justify calling him a citizen without regard for the allegiance of his parents. The dissent recognized the natural implications of their thought.


162 posted on 06/23/2010 2:31:34 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

“In the view of the minority, excessive reliance on birthplace as the principal determiner of citizenship would lead to an untenable state of affairs in which “...the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country”

The minority believed that allowing Kim to have citizenship could someday lead to the U.S. to allowing citizens of people with no allegiance to gain citizenship. Guess they were right. That was not the intent of the majority opinion, but as the minority opinion stated it could lead to that some day. liberals have misread the Ark case to accomplished this.


167 posted on 06/23/2010 3:20:39 PM PDT by omegadawn (qualified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | 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