Posted on 01/06/2016 3:58:46 PM PST by sunrise_sunset
Tuan Anh Nguyen vs IRS (No 99-2071)
Transcript at the Oral Argument pop-up
Justice Scalia: I mean, isn't it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England ?
They did not want that.
Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Scalia: That is jus soli, isn't it ?
Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can't apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Scalia: Well, maybe.
I'm just referring the the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don't think you're disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn't it ?
Right. Jews get quite a bit of expedited help when immigrating. Such help is generally not available to non-Jews, although that is politically determined, not religiously determined.
All Jews in the world can move to Israel and then become citizens, or "make aliyah" as it is called.
“The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel.”
It’s not automatic as implied from my previous post, but seems pretty ipso facto.
“The meaning of “natural born” is not so clear.”
Why?
We know they had more in mind than just “citizen” because that term was used elsewhere.
Again, the Naturalization Act of 1790 defines it as being born of citizen parents. Also, the same Act stipulated that citizenship could not descend from a father who was not a citizen and citizenship depended on the father’s status at the time.
Yes, yes, the Act is no longer the law, but it clearly demonstrates original intent of the Constitution, which is supposed to be valued by conservatives.
Millions of us were taught in American history classes that “natural born” meant being born of citizen parents.
Right. It is not automatic. Jews have been denied citizenship and even refuge in Israel (see Mayer Lansky).
Jew-hate sites claim all Jews are citizens of Israel, which they take to mean Jews shouldn’t be allowed to hold office in the US.
Oh how condescending of you; but then, YOU are just a baby.
No marriage after 1922 conferred citizenship upon a woman marrying an American citizen. So Trump’s mother had to renounce her UK citizenship and become naturalized by taking and passing the test.Ergo....you are damned dead WRONG!
And yes, I just looked this up. :-)
********************************************************************************
Well, if you looked “it” up (remember, “it” is the subject of dual citizenship for Trump’s mother, however in hell she gained US citizenship) then you’ll be able to provide a link to that information for us. The only thing I have read about Trump’s Scottish mother and American citizenship was that she was naturalized about 4 years before Trump’s birth. Whether that was by passing an exam, having Congress pass a special law for her (yes, I believe Congress has done that for some folks) or some other way -— I DON’T CARE & IT DOESN’T MATTER. What we had been discussing was DID SHE RETAIN HER BRITISH CITIZENSHIP? So if you have a link to something authoritative about that, please post it and shed some light.
You claimed that Mrs. Trump gained American citizenship status when she married Mr. Fred Trump! That is what I looked up and since I don't do links, I suggest that you go look up when THAT became obsolete...it was in 1922. So YOU were damned dead wrong about that!
Ergo, Donald's mother didn't have dual citizen and therefore couldn't make ANY of her children dual citizens.
Countries have different rules/laws about citizenship; however, people from South Africa, who have a close re3lative ( parent or grandparent, I think it is ) who was originally from the UK, have an easier time in getting into the UK, than say someone from a family background of Boers and/or French Huguenots, even though RSA was once part of the British Empire.
During the time that the USSR flourished, any male whose ancestors came from that area, caught in the USSR, was legally ( for them ) conscripted into their military. No, I do not know if that is still true, but I doubt that it is.
OTOH, Obama had a BRIT citizenship, because his purported father was was a British citizen. He also had Indonesian citizenship through his stepfather. AFAIK, Obama NEVER renounced either and nobody questioned him about it.
My grandmother was a British citizen who married an American and had to apply for and get approved to become a US citizen in 1947. In order to do this, she had to surrender her British passport and sign documents that said she was no longer a British citizen, and could no longer get any benefits from being a British citizen. Those documents were sent through the British embassy and if she went to the UK and pretended she was still a British citizen, there would be a record of her renouncing he citizenship.
That was how it worked.
In 1998, a Swedish friend of mine did something similar; after eight years in the US, he was allowed to get his US citizenship, and had to surrender his Swedish passport and sign that he was no longer a Swedish citizen. These documents went to the Swedish embassy and it was recorded that he no longer was a Swedish citizen.
FYI: I even called the British consulate some years ago to see if I could get UK birthright citizenship since my grandma was born there and the answer was 100% no, since she renounced her citizenship.
I am sure you can find plenty of Freepers who became naturalized US citizens who can back up what I am saying.
There are questions about Obama claiming that he was a "foreign student" to get into the colleges he attended. There are also many questions about HOW he traveled to countries that NO American were allowed to go to, when he was at Columbia. People have assumed that he had an Indonesian passport as well as an American one.
And since Trump NEVER has had dual citizenship, he doesn't have to renounce anyhthing.
Wish, wish, wish, won’t make your newest Trump nemesis go away.
Marrying a USA citizen only entitles the spouse to a permanent visa and a path to Naturalization.
‘Back in the day’, some people were smart as a rutabaga.
That was not a SCOTUS decision. You are not doing yourself or Trump any favors.
These days yeah, but not in the early 20th century.
It’s from from a supreme court opinion.
You’re not doing any favors helping Cruz out.
I know you seem to think that is relevant to this discussion. Please explain how.
Plaaaseees! No one born in the first half of the 20th Century is running for POTUS.
Now, go read Post 69.
Do you actually understand what a Supreme Court OPINION is? Obviously not.
Scalia was discussing this with the attorney, it was his conjecture, and it may have been HIS opinion, but not AN OPINION of the Court. Sorry to have to inform you “one’s opinion” is far different that “SCOTUS Opinion”. Yeah I know its confusing, try to keep up best you can.
Cruz is doing just fine, my help is not needed. Why do you think Trump does need your help against Cruz?
Yeah it makes sense don’t know what your beef is.
And when someone takes the oath of US naturalization to become a US citizen, they renounce all foreign citizenships, titles, potentates, and allegiances.
Cruz has a problem that could be detrimental in this election.
See Post 5.
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.