Obama should have been deported with Barak Sr.

700 f2d 1156 diaz-salazar v. immigration and naturalization service ^ | October 9, 2011 | edge919

[edge919]

It has been claimed by Obama apologists that in relatively recent cases, circuit courts have given their opinion on the term "natural-born citizen" as meaning nothing more than being born in the country. Supposably this would presume that Obama, if it can be legally proven that he was born in the United States, as he claims, is a natural-born citizen in spite of being born of a foreign national father and NOT being born to citizen parents, as the Supreme Court defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, etc.

One example of such a recent decision is Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), in which it says:

The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

But, there's a problem. Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.

In the case at hand, no special circumstances are presented sufficient to bring petitioner's situation within the extreme hardship standard. His children are still of pre-school age and thus less susceptible to the disruption of education and change of language involved in moving to Mexico. There are no unique reasons why petitioner, in comparison with the many other Mexicans in his situation now resident in the United States, will be unable to find employment upon returning to Mexico or why he or any member of his immediate family requires health care available only here. Thus, although we recognize the unhappy prospects which the petitioner faces, we cannot hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.

[edge919]

So what you're saying is you have no instances of the English phrase "natural born citizen" prior to 1787. You have a French phrase that you admit was translated as "indigenous." And you have the claim that because some Founders spoke French, they must've all personally translated the French phrase as "natural born citizen," even though none of them wrote it down that way.

The French word "naturel" was translated as "natural born" in 1781 in the Journals of the Continental Congress. Considering that Vattel's passage on citizenship was about natural citizenship, then it would have been natural for the Founders to consider natural-born citizens to be those persons born to citizen parents.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

As the purpose of the Second Amendment is to deter Federal Tyranny, and to enable people to protect themselves, the type of weapons used to accomplish this are irrelevant to the salient principal involved....By the same token, to suggest that an Anti-American Son of a Foreigner with multiple citizenships,

What you did there was to use general intent when discussing the Second, and a specific example when discussing the NBC clause. That muddies the principles involved. To illustrate, imagine if a liberal said "To suggest that they wanted ordinary citizens to be able to carry weapons capable of shooting 30 bullets as fast as they could pull the trigger is absurd." The scariest possible counterexample isn't the way to discuss principle.

So instead, look at the purpose of the presidential qualification clause, the way you did for the Second. As John Jay wrote, "it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government." The qualifications that we all agree on are that the president has to have been a citizen from birth and 14 years a resident of the country (and 35 years old). That's a "strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" right there. We now have a situation the Founders likely couldn't have anticipated, but they wrote what they wrote. Not liking a particular example isn't a valid approach to analyzing what they wrote--any more than it is for the Second.

[Squeeky]

You said:" Because if you look at it that way, you can see the intermediate step between what the court said and your conclusion, is your way of reading and understanding stuff.

There's no "intermediate step." The quote I provided is an exact quote. "

You are NOT reading what I wrote. You could teach a monkey to use the cut and paste function. The monkey would get the words right. They just wouldn't mean anything, Same with you.

You QUOTE the words but you BUTCHER the meaning. That is why people call you a QUOTE BUTCHER. Not because you get the words wrong, but you screw up the meaning. Your explanations are divorced from the reality of what is being said.

You do that by taking stuff of context, and by ignoring the parts of the case which contradict you (which is the whole case usually.) And by reading what you want to read into the words. More than one person here tries to help you, but you are either not able or not willing to understand.

And yes, I do think you may be part of a Obot punking plot, because I saw that at the old gretawire forum before greta had to shut it down. Teams of Obots came in to screw up the website, and then bragged about it after they shut it down. And, if you are not a Obot or agent of some other group, and really honestly are this OBTUSE (which means STUPID), then I feel sorry for you. You need brain help fast.

[Squeeky]

Another example of how messed up your thinking process is, if you honestly don't get this, is "You ignore that I showed several contradictions including the killer contradiction where the Hillbillies admit that WKA didn't declare WKA to be a natural-born citizen. Only Hillbilly Hoosiers ... and apparently people like you ... can be stupid enough to think a decision defines something it didn't do."

1. "apparently people like you ... can be stupid enough to think a decision defines something it didn't do." Look at yourself in the mirror next time you say Minor Happersett fully defines NBC.

2. The Indiana people DID define NBC. They said the WKA court not using the EXACT TERM natural born citizen was IMMATERIAL. Because as they explained in the rest of the case, which YOU ignore, how it was the same thing as what the 14th said--born in the United States, under the jurisdiction.

You are NOT analyzing the cases and the reasoning. You are too busy analyzing the GRAMMAR and looking for stupid ways to misinterpret the cases. Why???

[DiogenesLamp]

So what you're saying is you have no instances of the English phrase "natural born citizen" prior to 1787. You have a French phrase that you admit was translated as "indigenous." And you have the claim that because some Founders spoke French, they must've all personally translated the French phrase as "natural born citizen," even though none of them wrote it down that way.

If you believe that, then perhaps you can explain this? (From the Letters of James Madison)

"The first evidence to which I will refer on this point is a resolution reported to the Continental Congress in 1777, by a committee of which Thomas Jefferson was Chairman, and Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Reed and Mr. Williams were members. It is in these words:---
Resolved, that it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister, charg'e d'affaires, consul, or vice-consul or to any other civil department in a foreign country; and that a copy of this resolve be sent to Messrs. Adams, Franklin and Jay, Minsters of said states in Europe.

It is known that Jefferson Had a copy of "Droit des gens" in 1775, for he used it to write the Declaration of Independence. It is also known that Franklin had a copy because he kept one of the Three Dumas sent him in 1775. Now we also know that it is likely that Mr. Sherman, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Reed and Mr. Williams were clearly appraised as to the meaning by Franklin and Jefferson at the very least, if not through their own scholarship of the book.

That the book was well known at this time in history is likewise demonstrable by this page of the "North Carolina Magazine" in 1764:

And this statement by Samuel Adams in 1776:

"By the law of nations , we were discharged from our allegiance the moment the army was posted among us without our consent, or a single farthing taken from us in like manner; either of these being fundamental subversions of the constitutions. It remains entirely with ourselves to have ample justice done to us. We have nothing to do but declare off, and appeal to the droit des gens."

And here is a 1775 letter from Richard Henry Lee to George Washington referring to an interesting passage in "droit des gens."

"Without such a declaration, their friends, and especially their agents here, will be at the mercy of the most unprincipled Administration that ever disgraced humanity. Vattel, the most respected writer on the Laws of Nations, has this apposite observation: "Le Due d' Alva condamnoit à mort tous les prisonniers qu' il pouvoit faire sur les confédérés des Pays-Bas; ceux-ci userent de represailles, et les contraignirent enfin à respecter, à leur égard, le droit des gens, et les loix de la guerre."

Not only did Richard Henry Lee appear to speak and read "droit des gens" in it's original French, he seemed to believe that George Washington could do so as well. :) And this was 12 years PRIOR to the Constitutional convention!

The rest of your infantile nonsense is not worth a response. Once again you have been Pwned!

[edge919]

All you’re showing is your ignorance.

1. Minor gives a specific definition. Ankeny divines “guidance” from a case that doesn’t use that guidance to declare Wong Kim Ark to be an NBC and Ankeny admits it their own footnote. The Ankeny idiots even contradict themselves when referencing the Minor definition of NBC when they say it contemplates children of citizens and aliens and then that it leaves the question open of children of aliens. If they contemplated that scenario, then the question wasn’t left “open.” It’s just sloppy reading on the part of the Ankeny justices.

2. It wasn’t about NOT using the term natural-born citizen in WKA. Gray used NBC as it was defined by Minor. The defendant didn’t fit that definition. Ankeny’s reasoning for saying it was immaterial was that they thought it only mattered for the people elected as president. The Art II Sec I requirement is not there for the benefit of the president, but for the people to protect them from a leader with an inherent conflict of interest. Even YOU should be smart enough to understand this. Do you think the requirement is there only for the benefit of the president???

And sorry to spoil another one of your ridiculous talking points, but this is not a matter of grammar, but the entire context of Minor and WKA, which you’ve been shown in multiple citations.

[DiogenesLamp]

What you did there was to use general intent when discussing the Second, and a specific example when discussing the NBC clause.That muddies the principles involved.

Obama is salient specific example of the general class of violation. Would it make you feel better if rather than using Obama as the specific example, I simply said anyone born of questionable American Allegiance? (Of which he is a subcategory example.)

To illustrate, imagine if a liberal said "To suggest that they wanted ordinary citizens to be able to carry weapons capable of shooting 30 bullets as fast as they could pull the trigger is absurd." The scariest possible counterexample isn't the way to discuss principle.

I don't see your point. As the purpose is to strike fear into the heart of a Federal Tyranny, it requires whatever weapons which are necessary to do so. This fear of the citizenry using Military grade weapons has worked in two specific examples of which I am aware. Here is an example of one of them.

So instead, look at the purpose of the presidential qualification clause, the way you did for the Second. As John Jay wrote, "it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government." The qualifications that we all agree on are that the president has to have been a citizen from birth and 14 years a resident of the country (and 35 years old). That's a "strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" right there.

No it isn't. At this time in History it was not uncommon for European Royalty to send members of their household to live with their foreign Brethren serving as both hostages and potential heirs. Because their loyalty was always assumed to be to that of the Family and Nation that sent them, rather than the one they lived in, it is easy to see why the Ruling families which hosted these people would regard them with distrust. The Founders were more than familiar with this custom of European Royals, and wanted no part of it. If I remember correctly, the Federalist papers even speak of this exact thing.

We now have a situation the Founders likely couldn't have anticipated, but they wrote what they wrote. Not liking a particular example isn't a valid approach to analyzing what they wrote--any more than it is for the Second.

I suggest you do more analyzing. The Founders were definitely aware of a "Manchurian candidate" issue with the Presidency. They warned of it in their debates.

[Squeeky]

Here's some more of you insanity:

Sorry, but this is an ignorant strawman. Nobody said the 14th amendment does NOT apply to most of the nation. You're overreacting. I've only pointed out that Waite rejected the citizen clause for NBCs. The rest of the 14th amendment is still applicable. Citizenship is NOT the only thing the 14th amendment deals with.

Uh. . .dude. . .YOU'RE saying it. How in the world can part of the 14th Amendment NOT apply to probably 250 million plus Americans, and not hardly anybody know it??? Except for you and a few other people in your cult. See, this is where a reasonable person would start to question their thinking process. Not you!

You just make up some more imaginary law and NOW, we learn from you that the rest of the 14th Amendment applies to all of us, just not the citizenship part. But you don't have any cases that say it. Because if the 14th Amendment does not apply to most Americans, I kind of think somebody besides you would have noticed it.

Where are the cases that quote Minor Happersett to prove that the 14th Amendment does not apply to most Americans??? I haven't seen any. And just out of curiosity, where do the rest of us Americans get our citizenship??? I want an answer to this. What is next? Will you start telling people here they don't have to pay taxes??? Or to put commas in their name.

[ydoucare]

Are you now claiming that ALL the Congressman, Senators and
State Legislators just listened and read speeches regarding the 14th Amendment and did not bother to read the text of the Amendment before voting to ratify it? This is a Constitutional Amendment that is 1-2 pages in length !!! Just as I suspected, your mindset is that of a liberal.

The language of the 14th Amendment is straight forward and not ambiguous and there is no need for legislative history to interpret the language. Your problem is not that the 14th Amendment is ambiguous, but rather that you do not agree with the language in the text of the document. The authors did not put any language in the text of the amendment regarding your so-called purpose. Instead the language is 180 degrees different and encompasses ‘all persons” with no limitation, rather just applying the amendment to slaves.

I can see from your comments that you do not agree with the majority opinion in the WKA case. I hope you realize that WKA has been favorable and approving cited in thousands of case in the past 113 years. It has never been questioned by a single court nor overruled. Every Circuit Court of Appeals in the past 113 years agrees with WKA’s definition of nbc and have used it in their rulings, none have used the Vattel theory or the Minor dicta in their rulings. The US Congress has incorporated the WKA definition into the United States Code.

Finally, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, and former Republican President, in 1927 called the WKA decision a “very learned and useful opinion.” I believe Taft, considered one of the greatest Chief Justices in the history of this country, has much more credibility in the Constitutional legal community than anyone you have named.

Has it ever occurred to you to ask why conservative, Constitutionalist lawyers constantly attack Obama (ie: Obamacare) yet have shown NO support for Vattel birthers? The reason for that is the discredited Vattel birther theory has ZERO legal merit.

[edge919]

Uh. . .dude. . .YOU'RE saying it. How in the world can part of the 14th Amendment NOT apply to probably 250 million plus Americans, and not hardly anybody know it???

Take it up with the Supreme Court:

There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.

Do you understand?? This is where you nod your head up and down. Women did not need the 14th amendment to given them citizenship because there was another way to determine citizenship: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.

Where are the cases that quote Minor Happersett to prove that the 14th Amendment does not apply to most Americans???

In Wong Kim Ark. This has been shown.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Read the part underlines. It cuts to the chase. It is supported by the context of both the WKA and Minor decisions. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.

[DiogenesLamp]

On second thought, I will address the rest of your points.

It doesn't hold a candle to the Birther/Truther/Moon Hoaxer world of bizarre conspiracies. Have you seen your fellow Birthers claiming that Obama's baby photos have been altered to make him look different from a baby in a photo from a Malcolm X rally that must really be baby Obama and that he's secretly the son of Malcolm X?

Yes, I consider that to be verging on nuts. Too much conclusion from too little/flimsy proof. Some of it contradicted by better evidence.

And that because the woman in the photo has short hair then that means that the photos of Ann Dunham must have been Photoshopped to give her long hair?

Again, I fail to see the point of the claims and regard efforts to paint conclusions from such weak proof as a bridge too far.

Of course not. Moon hoaxers say the same thing about all the photos that prove them wrong too.

Had NASA been hesitant about providing photos right away, and dragged the process out for some weeks, even going so far as to redacting portions of the photographs, I might conclude that something indeed was peculiar. As NASA released everything immediately, it does not even rise to the level of curiosity for me. Besides, very good proof exists in the form of Mirrors placed on the moon's surface which have reflected laser light from dozens of countries for longer than the last 4 decades.

I don't believe for a second that you had heard for years that Obama was from Kenya, and had never heard otherwise.

Oh, I heard otherwise, but only after Obama started campaigning for President. Then everyone insisted he was from Hawaii or Indonesia or something.

You do know the whole 'Born in Kenya' rumor was started by a guy here at FreeRepublic, right? In 2008?

I know very well that it was not. The first I heard of Barack Obama was when he addressed the Democrat National Convention, (Collection of evil losers and successful kooks) and at the time everyone said he was from Kenya.

I'd point out all the books and news stories that referred to Obama's Hawaiian birth, but you'd probably just claim they've all been faked too.

And I already HAVE pointed out to you all of the examples which have not yet been scrubbed off of the net showing he was insinuating he was from Kenya. (or in Stupid Chris Matthews case, Dec 17, 2007 "Indonesia.")

Yep. A short-form birth certificate,

Which had to be dragged out of him kicking and screaming months after it was asked for, and even then with the birth certificate number blacked out so no one could see what it was. Red flags and Alarm bells went off because no reasonable person would have made such a show of resistance.

a long-form birth certificate,

Yes, with eight independent layers, the characteristics of which makes it looks like it was made by an idiot child on a mac with access to Hawaii's birth records. (incidentally, this is completely consistent with my suspicion that it is a replacement birth certificate created after Obama's original was sealed due to his 1964 or 1971 adoption.)

two official statements from Hawaii,

Who are barred by law from admitting to any adoptions which occurred in their state.

various references in FOIA documents,

That he was born. Hearsay evidence that he was actually born in Hawaii. (How would these people know?)

multiple news stories.

Oh, well the people who shoved this guy down our throats? Of course if THEY say something, it must be true, right? Didn't they say he was a moderate?

All "nothing."

Correct, as illustrated above. Let Orly Taitz or some non Obamatron see and copy the original, and if it looks like what he has released, then you will have "SOMETHING", that at least proves he actually WAS born in Hawaii. It doesn't prove who his father was, but it would at least grant him 14th Amendment citizenship under the bogus ruling of Wong Kim Ark.

Meanwhile, Birthers have rumors and ambiguous comments and a handful of foreign news stories. And a reputation that makes 9/11 Truthers look like critical-thinkers by comparison.

We have a LOT of circumstantial evidence. Obama misled people regarding his nationality for years, he acted like someone with something to hide when called to show proof of birth, he continued to obfuscate for years, even going so far as to let an Army doctor go to Prison, and leave many in the armed forces questioning his legitimacy as well as the nation at large. When finally, people begin to notice that he is awful dodgy about the issue, when people started to make fun of him, he finally releases what looks like a childish (or Hawaiian bureaucrat) version of a pasted up document which is supposedly his original birth certificate.

He ACTS, and has always acted like a guilty crook! One would have to be OBTUSE not to realize he acts like a guilty crook. Talk about guilible? Thy name is Vickery2010!

[Squeeky]

There you go, pretending to be a lawyer again, and cutting and pasting like a monkey. You have just cut and pasted some more gibberish that does NOT have anything to do with you goofy theory that the 14th Amendment does not apply to most Americans.

If you just cut and paste stuff, that you have misinterpreted, it does not provide "proof" to rational people who do not share YOUR delusions. I have no doubt your mouse works, and you can cut and paste as long as you can move your hands. But, that doesn't mean that anything you cut and paste has any relationship to REALITY.

Which, you still have not answered my question. If you say the 14th Amendment does NOT provide citizenship to people in America who are born of citizen parents, then what is the source of out citizenship???

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

At this time in History it was not uncommon for European Royalty to send members of their household to live with their foreign Brethren serving as both hostages and potential heirs. Because their loyalty was always assumed to be to that of the Family and Nation that sent them, rather than the one they lived in, it is easy to see why the Ruling families which hosted these people would regard them with distrust

Those people weren't "citizens from birth" of the nation they lived in. No one is arguing that people who weren't born citizens are eligible for the presidency.

The Founders were definitely aware of a "Manchurian candidate" issue with the Presidency.

The Manchurian Candidate was a natural born citizen by even the strictest definition.

[DiogenesLamp]

Are you now claiming that ALL the Congressman, Senators and State Legislators just listened and read speeches regarding the 14th Amendment and did not bother to read the text of the Amendment before voting to ratify it?

Probably just as much as Nancy Pelosi read her healthcare bill before voting to pass it. You intentionally misunderstand the point. The wording IS ambiguous. "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof" is not defined in the text. (Isn't that one of YOUR arguments regarding the meaning of the term "natural born citizen"? My answer is the same to both questions. Read what they WROTE elsewhere!)

This is a Constitutional Amendment that is 1-2 pages in length !!! Just as I suspected, your mindset is that of a liberal.

And your LOGIC is that of a liberal. The fact that an Amendment is two pages long does not prove that my mindset is that of a liberal. That is what knowledgeable people refer to as a "non sequitur." I will point out the Amendments written by the Founders, (who were brilliant) were NOT 1-2 pages long. ("Brevity is the soul of wit.") Neither were their Amendments passed with dire threats and consequences to those states which did not vote for them, nor did their Amendments make such a horrid mess of the subsequent legal system.

The language of the 14th Amendment is straight forward and not ambiguous and there is no need for legislative history to interpret the language.

Apparently you didn't read either of the links I gave regarding George Will OR Ann Coulter. Yeah, the Amendment that Gave us ABORTION is not ambiguous on the point, eh? Why it should be obvious to anyone that the Congress and States voted to authorize Abortion in 1868 before they even gave women the right to vote! Yeah, it's not ambiguous at all!

Your problem is not that the 14th Amendment is ambiguous, but rather that you do not agree with the language in the text of the document. The authors did not put any language in the text of the amendment regarding your so-called purpose.

Yes they did. "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof". The problem is they didn't make it clearer as to what that meant, and the Judges refused to take into account of what they explained it to mean during the ratifying debate. Sort of the same problem that your type has with the "natural born citizen" clause.

Instead the language is 180 degrees different and encompasses ‘all persons” with no limitation, rather just applying the amendment to slaves.

Senator Howard would vehemently disagree with you, as would the rest of the Congress. It explicitly excludes INDIANS. That this is true is undeniable, And that fact alone blows your stupid theory to h3ll. Strangely enough, you seemingly cannot grasp this fact. You have a paradox whether you realize it or not. Indians are born within the borders of the United States, but were not citizens until the Indian citizenship act of 1924. They do not get the same treatment as other foreign nationals under the 14th amendment, and because of this inconsistency, this interpretation of the 14th amendment is simply wrong. (Or worse, ridiculous.)

I can see from your comments that you do not agree with the majority opinion in the WKA case. I hope you realize that WKA has been favorable and approving cited in thousands of case in the past 113 years. It has never been questioned by a single court nor overruled. Every Circuit Court of Appeals in the past 113 years agrees with WKA’s definition of nbc and have used it in their rulings, none have used the Vattel theory or the Minor dicta in their rulings. The US Congress has incorporated the WKA definition into the United States Code.

You may worship the god of "precedent" but I do not. I believe in "first principles" and regard reliance on precedent as a fallacy of methodology. That an entire body of people can be wrong has been demonstrated throughout history so many times it is no longer noteworthy to those who have studied History. Your mindset belongs in the time of a "flat earth", or a Geocentric society.

Amusingly enough, the courts provide the evidence of their foolishness by the facts of so many reversals in history. First we are to believe one thing... then after some judge says so, we are now expected to believe another. The truth did not change, only the opinions of Judges.

Finally, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, and former Republican President, in 1927 called the WKA decision a “very learned and useful opinion.” I believe Taft, considered one of the greatest Chief Justices in the history of this country, has much more credibility in the Constitutional legal community than anyone you have named.

And if the opinion of the exalted counted for more than that of those who are correct, we would have the Wisdom of the Pharisees in the bible, rather than Jesus. :)

All the world thought Sir Isaac Newton was correct until along came Einstein.

Has it ever occurred to you to ask why conservative, Constitutionalist lawyers constantly attack Obama (ie: Obamacare) yet have shown NO support for Vattel birthers?

Yeah, several years ago it made no sense. Now it does. Here is an elegant article that might explain it to those with the wit to comprehend it. I am showing it to you anyway.

The reason for that is the discredited Vattel birther theory has ZERO legal merit.

Saying it has no legal merit is not proof that it has no merit. Given that the legal system is such a screwed up mess nowadays, saying something has no "legal merit" is virtually a compliment. Too many things with "legal merit" are abominations against nature and civilization. It dissuades me not at all to discover that idiots disdain something. In fact, it encourages me all the more.

"Anchor babies" have legal merit. Enough said.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those people weren't "citizens from birth" of the nation they lived in. No one is arguing that people who weren't born citizens are eligible for the presidency.

No, you are arguing the converse; That someone born in a nation, yet raised in another nation will still have loyalty to the nation he was born in rather than the nation he was raised in. In either case, the loyalty is suspect. Not so for people born and raised by loyal parents in their own country. Can you not see why you wouldn't want such a situation? So did the founders.

The Manchurian Candidate was a natural born citizen by even the strictest definition.

Technically perhaps, but not in spirit. The notion of a disloyal fraud is still apt.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are NOT reading what I wrote.

Exactly right!

[edge919]

You have just cut and pasted some more gibberish that does NOT have anything to do with you goofy theory that the 14th Amendment does not apply to most Americans.

What does it mean then when Minor says it does not need this amendment to give women the position of being citizens???

If you say the 14th Amendment does NOT provide citizenship to people in America who are born of citizen parents, then what is the source of out citizenship???

The same source that existed PRIOR to the 14th amendment: natural law. That's what the law of nations describes.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

No, you are arguing the converse; That someone born in a nation, yet raised in another nation will still have loyalty to the nation he was born in rather than the nation he was raised in. In either case, the loyalty is suspect. Not so for people born and raised by loyal parents in their own country. Can you not see why you wouldn't want such a situation? So did the founders.

So wait: now you're arguing that a president has to not only be born in the US, and not only be born of citizen parents, but also raised in the US? Are you claiming that opinion was expressed by the Founders somewhere?

Besides, the part where you say "you are arguing the converse; That someone born in a nation, yet raised in another nation will still have loyalty to the nation he was born in rather than the nation he was raised in"--that was your argument! You wrote, of your hostage royalty example, "their loyalty was always assumed to be to that of the Family and Nation that sent them, rather than the one they lived in"! Are you now disavowing that argument? I can't keep track.

[Squeeky]

You answered:

Squeeky: If you say the 14th Amendment does NOT provide citizenship to people in America who are born of citizen parents, then what is the source of out citizenship???

Edge919: The same source that existed PRIOR to the 14th amendment: natural law. That's what the law of nations describes.

Now, prove that was the source of the law by showing what cases your theory was in. Also, explain what YOUR favorite case, Minor Happersett, said, about looking to common law, and why those judges never mentioned natural law or Vattel.:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

[DiogenesLamp]

So wait: now you're arguing that a president has to not only be born in the US, and not only be born of citizen parents, but also raised in the US? Are you claiming that opinion was expressed by the Founders somewhere?

I take it you have not actually READ the Federalist Papers and the notes on the convention? (dryly)

Besides, the part where you say "you are arguing the converse; That someone born in a nation, yet raised in another nation will still have loyalty to the nation he was born in rather than the nation he was raised in"--that was your argument! You wrote, of your hostage royalty example, "their loyalty was always assumed to be to that of the Family and Nation that sent them, rather than the one they lived in"! Are you now disavowing that argument?

I am pointing out that the founders had no faith in either aspect of that example. With such an individual, the loyalty is never certain.

I can't keep track.

As Lex Luthor said in Superman I, "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe. "