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

To: Uncle Sham
It is what it is.

....until it was repealed in 1795.

What you don't get is that a child born to two citizen parents on the soil is unquestionable.

Any other scenario is.

What do you think the founders had in mind, seriously?

3 posted on 01/08/2016 6:57:00 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Medicine is the keystone in the arch of Socialism" Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Las Vegas Ron

It is the 1795 repeal, along with the original, that gives us the definition. Two citizen parents and born under the jurisdiction of the United States. What are you arguing about?


15 posted on 01/08/2016 7:03:40 PM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Las Vegas Ron
"What do you think the founders had in mind, seriously? "

Hornswaggling, commie adherents to Mohammadism?

27 posted on 01/08/2016 7:13:05 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Las Vegas Ron

I guess I look at this in a simple way. To me natural born citizen means that a person can be nothing but a citizen of the U.S. If someone has a parent who is from another country then that person could claim dual citizenship to the parent’s nation. That also applies to someone born in another country; they could claim dual citizenship for the country they were born in. A natural born citizen cannot claim any other citizenship except for the country he is born in and that his parents are citizens of. The founders wanted to be sure that the President had no possibility of being influenced by any other country.


170 posted on 01/10/2016 2:59:25 PM PST by joliecajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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