Replies

Playing the "Yes" or "No" game? Really?

Yes, really. I'm trying to bring things down to your level.

A "natural citizen" cannot lose his citizenship through neglect. Congress cannot describe requirements for him to be a citizen. Congress CAN set the requirements for statutory citizens.

In 1907, Congress pass an "Expatriation Act" which said that American women who married foreigners lost their United States citizenship.

Under this Act, a woman could be born in the little town of Lebanon, Kansas (recognized as the geographic center of the 48 States), to citizen parents whose parents were in turn US citizens. She could marry the Frenchman who had moved to Lebanon, never leave town in her life, and would have lost her natural born United States citizenship.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the law.

Now I agree that that decision was wrong.

But your claim, the entire point of this conversation, was that because the Supreme Court said that Congress could set conditions under which a person born a citizen abroad might lose his citizenship, "demonstrated conclusively" that citizenship at birth was not the same as natural born citizenship.

The claim, like virtually everything else you post, is bullsh*t.

Ergo... "Statutory" < "Natural."

40% of the Signers of the Constitution passed a law in which they stated that children born US citizens abroad were eligible to be President. So either your statement above is FALSE, or they were simply declaring what the law already was.

If your statement is FALSE, then by definition you are spinning bull****.

If they were simply declaring what the law already was, then "natural born citizen" always included the children born citizens abroad to US citizens, so your stupid definition is wrong.

Either way: 40% of the Signers of the Constitution say your words are bull****.

Yes, really. I'm trying to bring things down to your level.

You are upside down and looking up.

In 1907, Congress pass an "Expatriation Act" which said that American women who married foreigners lost their United States citizenship.

Under this Act, a woman could be born in the little town of Lebanon, Kansas (recognized as the geographic center of the 48 States), to citizen parents whose parents were in turn US citizens. She could marry the Frenchman who had moved to Lebanon, never leave town in her life, and would have lost her natural born United States citizenship.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the law.

Now I agree that that decision was wrong.

Don't know that it is. The Argument of the court in MacKenzie v. Hare is that the woman voluntarily married a foreign man, and Congress simply regarded such as an "affirmative act" of renunciation. Presumably if one Marries a foreign man, one is going to go live in the country from which he is a citizen. If not, then why shouldn't the foreign man become a US Citizen?

This is not the same thing as doing nothing. (which is what Bellei did.) Show me an example of someone deprived of citizenship who was born *IN* America (yes, i'll use YOUR definition for this one) and living in a foreign country for the rest of his life.

40% of the Signers of the Constitution passed a law in which they stated that children born US citizens abroad were eligible to be President. So either your statement above is FALSE, or they were simply declaring what the law already was.

They declared that they would be "considered as" "natural born citizens" As long as they didn't have a foreign father.

Get. It. Right.

Why on earth would you cite this act? It hurts you far more than it helps.

Either way: 40% of the Signers of the Constitution say your words are bull****.

No they don't, you are putting your own words in their mouths. Again, the straw man tactic, this time by proxy.

Though they be dead these many years, still they speak more intelligently and truthfully than you.