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

To: MamaTexan

Would you think this definition to be a peculiar Canadian one that they have adopted by statute - or are they referring to Vattel?

And if this Canadian definition is worth quoting, would not it also be worth adopting?

i.e. “Persons considered to be natural-born United States citizens can be born either in the United States (with exceptions for foreign diplomatic personnel), or outside the United States if, at the time of birth, one parent is a United States citizen.”

?????


52 posted on 01/24/2016 3:28:46 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: John Valentine
If you want to know the intricacies of Canadian law, you need to go discover them for yourself.

Canada has its roots in British law, it was illogical of you to assume they had no such concept as natural born.

---

And if this Canadian definition is worth quoting, would not it also be worth adopting?

Oh, please. Your conversational tactics are exceedingly foul. You have the arrogance to call someone a dumbass over something you obviously have NO CLUE over, don't have enough humility to even admit you were wrong, then want to imply the my posting of the quote in order to disprove your ignorance has something to do with a desire to adopt Canadian law.

The Founders fought a war to rid themselves of British rule, and anyone who wants to give the federal government the prerogatives of a King can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.

61 posted on 01/24/2016 3:53:57 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a person as created by the Law of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | 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