Posted on 02/18/2016 9:58:26 PM PST by TigerClaws
No, it doesn't. I'm not naturalized by either the 14th Amend. or USC 8 Sec 1401. I was born in Texas of parents who were natural born citizens themselves and I'm one as well. My Father's side of the family has been in America since the early 1600's and my Mother's side has been here since the early 1800's.
You stick that pretentious BS sideways.
And neither are those belonging to native American Indian tribes who are born within the U.S., or anyone else -- including yourself and myself also (and pretty much all black people born in the U.S. --DUH!) who were born under that condition (born within the U.S.) that is the very FIRST category/classification of birth that was listed under heading of "naturalization" statute -- which heading has been changed since it initial adoption to read more clearly citizenship and naturalization, those two concepts not being identical.
Your argument here --- that all persons mentioned within the statute are all "naturalized" -- is all wet.
If you were not so stubbornly insistent upon clinging to the fundamental error you have made here, which I have explained now many times, then I wouldn't have to keep coming back in reply.
I'd tell you to cram your stupidity sideways, but on this point, you already have it well-ensconced up the the 'ol stern-tube --- where your head is at.
Come back when you can address the questions presented to you just previously.
Or keep anything else you may have to yourself ---until you do. Seriously.
Yes, exactly, I think the same thing. I think we've had an Indonesian citizen in the White House. His cool-in-school Commie Mommy brought him home to Hawaii but went back to Jakarta. (She got her Ph.D. later on and spent the rest of her life in Jakarta, doing social anthropology under her remarried name, which she spelled "Sutoro" -- Stanley Anne Sutoro -- until her death in the 90s, I think.)
Barry was supposed to renaturalize on his return, to nullify his adoptive father's naturalization of him in Jakarta as an Indonesian citizen. But if he'd done that, he'd have had to turn in his Indonesian passport, which he didn't but instead used in college to claim scholarships and student aid, and to travel to Pakistan when travel there was illegal for U.S. nationals.
My family has had some dealings with immigration law, and I'm pretty sure that keeping his foreign passport and using it, and representing himself as a foreign citizen while an adult, pretty much sealed the deal on his mom's trendy-Commie rejection of renaturalization and paid off Bammy's U.S. citizenship.
It would be an "election" of Indonesian citizenship for legal purposes. Bye-bye, eligibility to the Senate and the White House.
You're so full of BS on this point it isn't funny! USC 8, Chapter 12 has never had any heading other than IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY.
Your "citizenship and naturalization" comes from here...
Volume 12 - Citizenship & Naturalization
Yet what you read therein states this...
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Background
This volume of the USCIS Policy Manual explains the laws and policies that govern United States citizenship and naturalization.
Your dumb ass thinks the heading of a POLICY MANUAL is the heading of the law?
And I'm the one with their head up their ass? I don't think so.
I wasn't talking about chapter 12.
Your dumb ass thinks the heading of a POLICY MANUAL is the heading of the law?
Uh, I was never arguing that the heading of the policy manual was the law.
You though ---sure were. You haven't dealt with any of the questions.
Goodbye. I'm done dealing with your shit.
You expect answers to rhetorical questions? HA
I'm done dealing with your shit.
Good. I'm tired of exposing your BS.
You are truly delusional. You've not "exposed" anything I have said to be in error.
The last time you just claimed you did that --- it was your own bullshit that you'd shoveled onto me, as if you actually believed you're own bullshitting.
You took a side, made assertions based upon a particular reasoning. I saw what that was, having heard it all before.,p> It was where you'd begun to go wrong in your thinking, long before posting that backwardness error as among your own positions -- while cackling like a hyena.
Must I go back a read through your garbage comments in order to quote you "hint-hinting" about chapter titles?
I fought the position you had which was based on reasoning coming from those titles for many comments from on my end of things.
I simply cannot get over how rock hard stupid you are. Is your pride that valuable to you? So valuable you cannot allow yourself to admit you've been mistaken?
You're just trolling now. Go to hell, idiot birther troll.
Your questions were to assertions, not points.
You've not "exposed" anything I have said to be in error.
Right. Keep thinking that.
Must I go back a read through your garbage comments in order to quote you "hint-hinting" about chapter titles?
Go right ahead.
So valuable you cannot allow yourself to admit you've been mistaken?
Show me where, in your opinion, I'm mistaken.
Go to hell, idiot birther troll.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Have I somehow upset you?
You haven't dealt with any of the questions.
BS!
Where you born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Answered at 161. " I was born in Texas of parents who were natural born citizens themselves..."
That means that I gained my citizenship by natural law, not positive law (USC 8) like Cruz, Rubio and Obama did.
Were the children of slaves, "born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and perhaps even more importantly, more enduringly, those persons under that same condition born to FREED SLAVES ---born as citizens of the United States?
A rhetorical question!
Since I know the difference between positive law and natural law you're not accurately portraying my position.
I already did that, over and over and over.
Then you actually attempted to turn it around, trying to make out it be that it was myself who had been arguing principles of law ---from the wording of chapter headings --- when that was where you had been coming from ALL ALONG.
Stick with the thought you expressed that those who would do so have their head up their ass.
I'll not bother to reply to any of the rest of your assembled misrepresentations and confusions.
Well do it one more time then, just to amuse me.
And I take it from your nonresponse that you in fact don't know the difference between positive law and natural law.
No wonder you're so screwed up on this issue!
What do you expect to gain?
I want to gain an understanding of what you do and don't know.
At this point in time I know that you apparently don't know the difference between positive law and natural law.
You're just trying to recover your lost pride...
I've lost no pride, nor have I gained any.
It is a simple thing to answer the question and you refused to do so.
Is refusing to say whether or not you know the difference between positive law and natural law an instance of pride or saving face on your part?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.