And that birth certificate -- the one showing BHO as father and S.A. as mother with a birth at Kapiolani on August 4, 1961 -- was a replacement for one saying . . . what? Onaka verified that the information on the WH LFBC copy "matched" the information on the "original record on file." The WH LFBC gives signature and registrar dates of Aug 7 and Aug 8, 1961. You're lacking a theory as to how or why there would be a replacement as of that date. Speculation that Lolo adopted him would mean only that the "original" with BHO as father was replaced at a later date. But that still leaves the "original" with BHO as father, SA as mother and a birth at Kapiolani on 8/4/61.
Is that a "No"
Is what a 'no?' My parents were citizens at my birth; their parents were each citizens at their births. My critique of your "out in the looney fringe, "2-citizen parent" theory is purely historical and legal.
there seems to be no objective explanation for your determination to remain misinformed on the topic.
And on what point am I misinformed? I'm calling your bluff again. You can't name a point I haven't already demolished.
Citizenship being a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law? I've killed you on that one.
Gray being wrong about the legislative history of the 14th Amendment? I've killed you on that one, too.
Your supposed "authorities" not saying what you claim? Ditto.
The "grandfather clause" being for Hamilton and other foreign born, not the native born like Washington, etc.,? I've given multiple historical and legal commentaries all to that effect. On your contrary view you offer squat, just your usual "it's is axiomatic." The only thing axiomatic is you're consistently in error.
That you lack any coherent explanation for how Bingham was supposedly (in your view) at odds with his "learned friend" Wilson, yet neither they nor anyone gave the slightest indication of disagreement? Call me an historical babe in the woods if you wish. You're good at calling names; you're inept at giving explanations to the problems I point out in your positions.
And this is just a sampling of the errors I've found in your "6 years of historical research." You're a poseur. An idiot. It's too easy to expose your fakery.
Why would it not match if Granny Dunham put down that information on an at home birth affidavit?
Is what a 'no?' My parents were citizens at my birth; their parents were each citizens at their births.
And your children? The most obvious answer appears to be conspicuously absent from your response.
My critique of your "out in the looney fringe, "2-citizen parent" theory is purely historical and legal.
Except that it isn't. It explains history far better than your theory ever did. Your theory has so many exceptions that it might as well be the rule. British Loyalists (of which William Rawle was) was an exception. Indians were an Exception. Slaves were an exception.
There are many millions of exceptions to your theory right there.
Citizenship being a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law? I've killed you on that one.
While it made me laugh pretty hard, I don't think it reaches the level of "killed". It's not the funniest thing you ever said, but it is in the top ten. Citizenship only exists because there are other nations. Were there no other nations, there would be no need for this thing called "citizenship" because all would be members of the same nation anyway.
The very concept of "citizen" requires other Nations, and therefore is not a consequence of "domestic law", but of International law; That is the legal recognition of the sovereignty over citizens of those other nations.
Gray being wrong about the legislative history of the 14th Amendment? I've killed you on that one, too.
I do have to admit that claim was pretty funny. You are arguing that our citizenship law is jus soli and has always been jus soli, so we have to pass a jus soli law because we don't need one. It's even funnier when you take umbrage at supporting "anchor babies" which is a direct consequence of your claim.
The "grandfather clause" being for Hamilton and other foreign born, not the native born like Washington, etc.,? I've given multiple historical and legal commentaries all to that effect.
If you've given any from a contemporary delegate, I haven't noticed, and I put no credibility into the commentary of people long afterward and who were not there.
That you lack any coherent explanation for how Bingham was supposedly (in your view) at odds with his "learned friend" Wilson, yet neither they nor anyone gave the slightest indication of disagreement?
Given the utter botch that the 14th has subsequently turned out to be, I should not find it at all surprising that the various proponents did not know what the other guys believed, but thought themselves in agreement.
It's axiomatic that they intended to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves, but I very much doubt that most of them had any intentions of creating "anchor babies" when they wrote it. That is just a result of the "law of unintended consequences."
You're good at calling names; you're inept at giving explanations to the problems I point out in your positions.
No one cares what a fool thinks. You may be a legend in your own mind, but here in the world of objective reality you are just a willfully ignorant loud mouth that makes up for in vehemence what he lacks in clarity of understanding.
And this is just a sampling of the errors I've found in your "6 years of historical research."M
This line also makes it into your top ten funniest prattlings.