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

To: Cboldt

Those are current laws. I linked to them. They operate today, under the language of the law.

Yes, some of the people naturalized were already alive. But a child born today in the Virgin Islands or Guam is a citizen of the US at birth. IMMEDIATELY UPON THEIR BIRTH.

Your reading comprehension appears to be impaired. If you are not rational or capable of reasoned thought, it would be a waste of my time, and only cause you irritation, if we were to continue our correspondence.
************************************************************************
Wow, no need to be that touchy. We both agree that folks RETROACTIVELY made citizens from the time of their births are NOT natural born citizens because they were not citizens immediately upon their birth. Now, you’ve somewhat veered from that discussion to something else. So let me ask you something.

In YOUR opinion, is a child born today in Guam (who you say is an American citizen at birth) to two parents who are from Guam but are American citizens. Is THAT CHILD who was born in Guam a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN for purposes of eligibility for the Presidency?


266 posted on 01/17/2016 6:27:39 PM PST by House Atreides (Cruzin' [BUT NO LONGER Trumping'] or losin'!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies ]


To: House Atreides
-- In YOUR opinion, is a child born today in Guam (who you say is an American citizen at birth) to two parents who are from Guam but are American citizens. Is THAT CHILD who was born in Guam a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN for purposes of eligibility for the Presidency? --

No. But you misstate the statute. It is along these lines, using your sentence structure:

a child born today in Guam to two parents who are citizens of any country in the world are citizens of the US immediately upon their birth.

You said they were NBC. "The ONLY damn thing 'natural born citizen' means is that the person is an American citizen immediately upon their birth" @ 50

272 posted on 01/17/2016 6:34:37 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides
Here's another one, a tour de force in "legal fiction" ...

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.
8 USC 1405

This was passed in 1952.

So here is an act of congress that, as of 1952, makes a person born in Hawaii in 1920 (Hawaii wasn't even a state) a citizen of the US at birth. The person goes 32 years not at American, then poof, in 1952 he's been an American citizen his whole life!

Law is like magic. It can do anything. FWIW, this law is PERFECTLY constitutional. I leave it to the reader to state why, and what power of Congress is being exercised.

284 posted on 01/17/2016 6:52:19 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

To: House Atreides

How could a child born of two American citizens living in Guam, which is an American territory, American soil, not be constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President, provided he is 35 years old and has lived 14 years in the United States? So the only question would be, it seems to me, would be living in Guam be considered as living in the US?


348 posted on 01/17/2016 8:27:30 PM PST by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | 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