If two Americans move to, say, Australia with the intent of becoming Australians, and the US government treats them and their offspring as escaped slaves SUBJECT TO American law, e.g. they draft their son into the US Army, they are SUBJECTS, not citizens.
That whole 225 year old comment was assinine, and I felt it needed to be responded to in kind.
Agreed. I thought so when you first brought it up, and you apparently think so too. If you'll agree to drop trying to shore up your side of the argument with a passage that was clearly indented to be a temporary bridge for the time needed for natural born Americans to have lived long enough to be 35 and eligible to hold the Office, I'll drop it too.
America is NOT the name of any country.
Mind boggling. Hello????? There is exactly one country on earth that has the word America in it's name. The citizens of that country call themselves... wait for it... place your bets... AMERICANS
As in?
The dictionary. YOU LOSE. I defined 'is' without using the word 'is' exactly unlike you defined 'natural born'.
I this point I believe meaningful discussion is impossible. You are incapable of staying on track, nor can you recognize even the most glaring truth.
*sigh* But I'll at least finish this response.
Hardly. A naturalized citizen immigrant from anywhere else does not.
Bloody well does. Otherwise they wouldn't be Americans would they?
Unless you insist that someone who has taken all the efforts of learning more about America (May I call America America? Pretty please?) than 90 out of 100 high school graduates and has satisfied all the legal requirements, and unlike a 'natural born' American has taken a loyalty oath to America is a lower, second class, not as good person the someone who is here by accident of birth.
In which case I am certain meaningful conversation is impossible. You look down your nose at far to many of my friends and colleagues for me to wish to talk to you. May I suggest you will find abundant like-minded people at your local KKK or Aryan Brotherhood meetings?
I said we DEFINE it (because we NEED to).
Amen to that!!!
So tell me, without parroting a passage from the Constitution that contains those words, what is the definition of 'natural born'? Deadly serious question. And one that needs to be answered before the general election.
It's somewhere between 'any offspring of any American' and 'any offspring of TWO American citizens, delivered vaginally, within the territorial limits of the 50 United States or the District of Columbia'
Note that those are not circular definitions, they define the words 'natural born' without requiring the use of the words 'natural born'.
Now you try.
Sure you could.
I sincerely doubt it.
Unless of course you have a spotless record of always supporting the Constitution.
That only disqualifies democrats.
“If two Americans move to, say, Australia with the intent of becoming Australians, and the US government treats them and their offspring as escaped slaves SUBJECT TO American law, e.g. they draft their son into the US Army, they are SUBJECTS, not citizens.”
So in your example, defining citizen then defines them as subjects. Huh...
“Agreed. I thought so when you first brought it up, and you apparently think so too. If you’ll agree to drop trying to shore up your side of the argument with a passage that was clearly indented to be a temporary bridge for the time needed for natural born Americans to have lived long enough to be 35 and eligible to hold the Office, I’ll drop it too. “
Yo jackass. I brought it up to point it out to the other person to show it was such as bridge. The fact that YOU didn’t read my earlier post, and then posted the 225 year old comment displays YOUR lack of comprehension. I used it to explain AWAY the stand-alone term of “citizen” in said passage because some tried to stop reading the same passage at that word. Amazing you’ve survived so long.
“Mind boggling. Hello????? There is exactly one country on earth that has the word America in it’s name. The citizens of that country call themselves... wait for it... place your bets... AMERICANS”
Mind boggling? Not really. Not for those that actually pay attention when it was pointed out that “America” is NOT the name of a COUNTRY. Using it as such for shorthand doesn’t make it so, and your continued insistence that it’s the “only blah blah that uses it” still doesn’t make it so.
Now, if you’ll pay attention, you will note that the Constitution (the specific passage we are talking about, and since you’ve finally realized that you caught up to me on ignoring the “bridge”) doesn’t say citizen of “America” is says citizen of the United States.
If all of the countries of Europe decided to start calling themselves the “United States of Europe” (not losing their national sovereignty) would they ALL be citizens of the country of Europe?
When Russian formed the Soviet Union, were Ukranians U.S.S.R.ers or were they Ukranians? Simply because the Socialists demanded they be called Soviets, or citizens of the U.S.S.R. that didn’t make it so. Simply because you call all Americans citizens, it shows you might be wanting to follow BHO’s example of being a “citizen of the world”.
“As in?
The dictionary. YOU LOSE. I defined ‘is’ without using the word ‘is’ exactly unlike you defined ‘natural born’. “
I wanted you to do what the dictionary often does, give an example. It was meant to be a joke, but your apparent lack of humor, and self perceived status of greatness forbids that.
When I said that “natural born citizen” needed to be defined, you misrepresented what I said, and attempted another pointless jab.
I recognize the truth all the time, but you want to “loosely” define something that can only be well-defined.
The fact that you sprinkle off-topic comments about and then claim I can’t stay on track when I reply to them is indeed worth a smile.
The fact that you claim I said that you had to be 225 years old to run as President, shows your dishonesty.
You’re right.
Conversation with you IS pointless.
Go ahead and dazzle us with another reply. I await with bated breath.
That's a good summary!