Replies

You were the one that brought the statute which talked about children born out of wedlock, pointing to that as if it was germane to the rest of the conversation.

I simply brought the definition of "child" to the conversation to disprove your assertion which you never even bothered to rebut.
You were the one who then went into a left field diatribe about children born out of wedlock as if it were relevant when it wasn't.

And then you went further into your fantastical voyage.

Sorry about proving you wrong, but your antics have brought us to where we are.

I simply brought the definition of "child" to the conversation to disprove your assertion which you never even bothered to rebut. You were the one who then went into a left field diatribe about children born out of wedlock as if it were relevant when it wasn't.

You're an idiot. For this particular subject matter, anyway. (in other subjects, and within your own life, I'll assume you're not so die-hard stupid).

That's what has brought us this far.

What has been brought to light though, and not for the first time on this forum, is that portion of law does plainly enough show that illegitimate children of citizens born abroad ----were not born as citizens thus WOULD require form of naturalization sometime after birth.

You tried to apply that requirement to Cruz, having directed me to the title headings of sub-section of that portion of law in attempt to support the [invalid] assertion that Cruz had to have undergone "naturalization".

This is one of the more painful exchanges I've had around here. There ain't quite a bern-ing stoopidity like "Birther" stoopidity. It's embarrassing.