Who the hell is Trevor Loudon?
I’m looking for the most important line: “Born in US (Y/N)?”
I am starting to suspect that no weight of evidence, nor videos of Trump in his own words, will sway the one-reasonable people of FR that Trump is not the right candidate.
It is obvious to anyone still in retention of their faculties that Trump will go beyond mere disappointment to outright betrayal, worse that Boehner, Ryan, or McConnell.
But it doesn’t seem to matter. This is where we are.
Sad.
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by
federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it
may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that
someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”164 Justice
Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).165 The
Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,”166
and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and
jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could
not be considered to be “naturalized.”
............................................
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent
case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being
born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the
residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the
propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of
the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968
is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2)
born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met
certain residency requirements.167
.............................
Article II states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.” Article II left
to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers
v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828, 91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971). Many decades later, the
Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, overruled the Dred Scott decision, and
provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, were citizens by reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter). Id. at
829-30, 91 S.Ct. 1060.
At the time of Senator’s McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that
“[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose
father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States,
is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48
Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of
the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to
encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. [United
States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898) ....]
Under this view, Senator McCain was
a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s
circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that
persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby
retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.
This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that
Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of
success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks. 170
The federal court in Robinson v. Bowen thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural
born” citizen in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow
“common law” meaning (jus soli, being born geographically in the United States without
reference to parental citizenship, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment), but also the statutory
designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” even if born
abroad when such citizenship is transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Congressional Research Service Report
Ping
Wow! What a revelation! That means Trump did what the incumbent administration expected in order to allow his business to prosper. Too bad he did not stand on principle and allow his businesses to fail. Boo Hoo......
It's not personal, it's just business.
Good chart of comparison. However, it will make no difference to Trump supporters out there in the country. Trump will have to make some outrageous statement that is worse than his usual outrageous statements before those supporting him realize he has no core values. He goes with the wind, however it is blowing minute to minute - say whatever works that minute which may be different the next minute.
Is there a “Born in USA to Two Americans”?
Excellent!
When you’re through with this one, try the one at Conservative Review.
I’ve been here a long time
Top 15 percentile or so I’d guess
I see folks I respect on both sides of this
The Cruz folks who don’t fancy the possibility of Trump are especially hurt because Cruz got so close
Closer than any of us ever imagined
The Trump folks who can’t face Ted as an alternate are either not big on culture war or responding to ad hominum
In any event it’s inevitable here
I sure never thought I’d see Sarah Palin openly eviscerated like lately here
That was the bolt for sure 4 years ago
How many Trump folks today were Giuliani in 07/08?
Quite a few.....
But I also see a number of formerly banned folks from that era over amnesty that support Trump now....like me....I’ve been called racist a lot more than liberal in my tenure on FR
Which is a big reason for me....THE IMMIGRATION CRAP AND ISLAM
I could explain who cares...
I lean Trump over Cruz but could deal happy with Ted
Or Rubio except for GO8 misstep
Or a few of the others if in contention
If a bunch of Cruz or the highway sorts bolt after Trump clears the table it will hurt the forum bad
Amnesty wars and Mad Ivan and company’s fantasy diluted us bad
We’ve yet to recover
I hope y’all consider that cause you’re gonna be mad I know