Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $23,486
26%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $300 to reach 27%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Behind the Blue Wall

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/18/2019 11:19:16 AM PDT · 218 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    You misunderstood my “simple” question: if a child born in the United States to two United States citizens, neither of whom is a dual citizen, and the child subsequently (presumably as an adult) acquires dual citizenship, would that person when they attained the age of 35 be eligible to run for President?

    For the record, I’m not trying to argue that my son is not a natural born citizen. He was born a citizen, thus he’s a natural born citizen. My argument is that by complicating the question with whether or not his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, you accomplish very little in terms of protecting the Presidency against foreign allegiances and you sacrifice quite a bit in terms of maintaining a bright line rule that can withstand the left’s assault against the Constitution and national sovereignty.

    That said, I do think that the 14th Amendment should not be interpreted to grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who is born here, as has been the interpretation. We know it doesn’t grant citizenship to the children of diplomats because they have not subjected themselves to our jurisdiction, I would say the same should apply to illegal aliens and/or probably temporary non-immigrant visa holders as well. That’s a tangent, but it impacts the question of who would be a “citizen at birth” so it’s relevant.

  • 'I am legally married to one and culturally to another': How Ilhan Omar desperately (trunc)

    07/18/2019 9:36:44 AM PDT · 43 of 135
    Behind the Blue Wall to RummyChick

    Sounds like the Democrats’ dream Presidential candidate . . .

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/18/2019 9:28:31 AM PDT · 216 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    You’re constructing a theoretical fiction in order to make what is in reality a messy situation “simple”. At the “moment” of my wife taking her oath, the reality was (and is) that Canada still recognized (and recognizes) her as a citizen. The intent of the NBC clause has to be to eliminate the possibility of a foreign allegiance that existed in fact as of the person’s birth. Otherwise, why use the words, “natural born”? If the interpretation is simply that dual citizens cannot run for President, then that would be far better achieved by just saying exactly that: at the time of a person’s entering office, they must renounce any other citizenship. There are plenty of ways to acquire dual citizenship other than via birth. I wouldn’t in fact be surprised if we actually face that question at some point down the road, as plenty of American Jews for example have been acquiring Israeli citizenship, without giving up their American citizenship. Would an American born in the United States to two U.S. citizens who had at some point in their life acquired Israeli citizenship be eligible for the Presidency? I don’t think the NBC clause as currently understood would prevent it.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/18/2019 4:16:13 AM PDT · 214 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    You’re missing that in 2019 neither Canada nor the U.S. requires any exclusive allegiance. It’s a good question as to why they continue to include the language of exclusivity in the Oath, but practically that’s not the impact. My wife doesn’t have to do anything one way or the other, and yet she and my son both have a theretical allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Do you want to make it a question of fact, like in each case we’ll have to find out exactly what the naturalized dual citizen parent did or did not do, and those actions will determine (retroactively?) the natural born citizenship status of the child? That seems even less workable than having a foreign government’s action being determinative.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/16/2019 11:25:33 PM PDT · 208 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    The church analogy has nothing to do with this. There isn’t a consitutional provision requiring that someone be born a certain religion. I will say however that Chritianity is somewhat unique in that lineage doesn’t determine religious identity. For Jews and Muslims, if you are born a Muslim, you will die a Muslim, it doesn’t matter what you do in the interim, and any children born to either the father (Islam) or the mother (Judaism) is Muslim or Jewish respectively, again, regardless of what the parent may or may not have done before or after the child was born.

    But back to the point, according to your theory it does matter how Canada treats my wife’s U.S. citizenship, because if Canada continues to recognize her as a citizen, and thus my son also as a citizen, then he would not be eligible, but if they don’t recognize her as a citizen, and thus not my son either, then he would have been born owing no foreign allegiance, and would be eligible. This is why that can’t be the rule, otherwise Canada gets to determine who’s eligible to be President of the U.S.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/16/2019 3:59:57 PM PDT · 206 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    If at first it seems so simple, then all of the sudden it is not:

    “Under the right circumstances, you are allowed to become a citizen of both Canada and the United States, simultaneously. Many people enjoy the benefits of dual citizenship, allowing them to to travel back and forth freely, vote, and otherwise take advantage of the rights of citizens in both countries.

    Before thinking about citizenship, however, you must find out whether you qualify to immigrate to either the United States or Canada in the first place. (We’re assuming that you’re already a citizen of one of these countries.) Citizenship is the highest immigration benefit you can obtain in either country, and getting to that point involves many steps.

    There is no separate application procedure to apply for dual citizenship. If you’re already a citizen of one of these countries and become a citizen of the other without taking active steps to renounce your original citizenship, you are a dual citizen. It’s as simple as that.

    (Note that taking the “oath of allegiance” to the United States, as described below, is not considered a renunciation of your Canadian or other citizenship.)”

    https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/dual-citizenship-united-states-canada.html

    So dual citizenship is possible between the U.S. and Canada, and Canada grants citizenship to the children of Canadian citizens wherever they may be born. And U.S. grants citizenship to kids born in the U.S. with regard to the citizenship of their parents (even illegal aliens, as we unfortunately know).

    Whether a person is a Canadian citizen by descent depends on the legislation at the time of birth. Generally speaking, any person who was born to a parent born or naturalized in Canada who has not actively renounced their Canadian citizenship is a Canadian citizen by descent (known as first generations born abroad), regardless of the time of birth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law#Canadian_citizenship_by_descent

  • With Latest Nativist Rhetoric, Trump Takes America Back To Where It Came From (NPR)

    07/16/2019 1:48:42 PM PDT · 52 of 79
    Behind the Blue Wall to dfwgator

    Right.

  • With Latest Nativist Rhetoric, Trump Takes America Back To Where It Came From (NPR)

    07/16/2019 12:53:11 PM PDT · 47 of 79
    Behind the Blue Wall to Drango

    I think “nativist” is at least a little closer to the mark. Trump is about America First, and he cares more about CITIZENS of the United States of America than he does about the citizens of foreign nations. If that is “nativist” than so be it.

  • I stand with President Trump! Bump if you agree.

    07/16/2019 12:50:27 PM PDT · 253 of 497
    Behind the Blue Wall to Jim Robinson

    Aye aye sir!

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/16/2019 12:42:05 PM PDT · 203 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    The “foreign allegiance” standard would in theory grant to foreign governments the right to determine eligibility for the U.S. Presidency. So if a foreign government grants citizenship rights to children of those who have ancestry in that country or who allow for dual citizenship, they can exclude those U.S. born children from eligibility, whereas if they changed their laws, and limited citizenship only to those exclusively owing allegiance to them, they could thereby make those children eligible?

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/16/2019 12:38:18 PM PDT · 202 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    But my son was born owing allegiance to Canada, was he not? How else is he a citizen of Canada, with a Canadian passport, never having lived a day of his life there?

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/15/2019 4:12:18 PM PDT · 200 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    Defending the border or the very concept of citizenship, both under direct and relentless threat from the globalist threat, are in my opinion very different questions than an obscure 19th century interpretation of a little used constitutional phrase. I was among those who considently advocated for and demanded proof that Barack Obama was born in the United States, and we also know that according to the laws in place at the time of his birth, had he not been born in the United States, he would not have been born a citizen.

    So, yeah, because of Trump he was forced to release a fraudulently produced birth certificate, but at least we were able to reinforce the rule that the President of the United States must have been born a citizen to be eligible. I’m sure you would agree that had we just let that question slide, sometime about right now, the traitorous left would be arguing that the precedent set by Obama had essentially negated that requirement.

    But if you’re going to go to the mat for something like this, it has to be a bright line. Taking it to analyzing the citizenship of the parents of kids who were without question born in the United States would blur the distinction between who is eligible and who is not to the point that the end result would probably be to weaken that requirement.

    In theory the requirement of both citizens is based on the idea that the purpose of the provision was to mitigate against dual loyalties, like if you were born to a foreign citizen, you would have acquired some citizenship rights in the country of your foreign parent(s) that could in theory be exercised at any time, thus placing your loyalty in question. It was of course a real live concern at the time of the founding, as the British Crown recognize citizenship via lineage wherever the child might be born

    But in the modern era, requiring two citizen parents does not accomplish that objective. If you take my son for example, he was born in the United States to two U.S. citizens. No problem right? But he has Canadian citizenship and a Canadian passport. How? Because the United States no longer requires renunciation of foreign allegiances upon naturalization, and his mother is a naturalized citizen of Canadian birth.

    Maybe you could enunciate a rule that said that nobody with any possible claim to foreign citizenship can become President of the United States, but that is not the text of the provision, so now you have a conflict between “textualism” and “original intent”, which would then potentially split the conservative justices, paving the way for the liberal justices to form a plurality, or a majority with Roberts, for a decision doing away with the provision altogether, which we both know they’d gladly do.

    So if you’re interested in defending the general principle that there should be a natural born citizenship requirement in the Constitution, you are best served by settling on an interpretation that is defensible. The simplest, clearest, most broadly understood interpretation of the provision is that one is either a citizen at birth (natural born) or a citizen by immigration (naturalized), and only the former may be President. In other words, immigrants are disqualified from running for President. Only their children may run.

    We might be able to defend that over the course of the next few decades. You can bet that there are powerful forces on the left plotting to get rid of it, and open the Presidency to immigrants, but that is our best chance. Trying to talk about which native born citizens can or cannot run only takes us backwards.

  • BREAKING: Joe Biden Planning To Drop Out Of 2020 Presidential Race (Video)

    07/14/2019 4:00:51 PM PDT · 98 of 153
    Behind the Blue Wall to hapnHal

    Yeah, I’m sure his first call would be the Infowars.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/14/2019 1:15:02 PM PDT · 180 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    The point made above that I was sort of responding to was that sure, do both, but it could be at cross-purposes. If the average swing voter sees it as just trying to find ways to exclude someone from an opportunity based on a different background, or if it just takes energy that could be better spent elsewhere, well, then it might not be a good idea to spend too much time titling at those particular windmills.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/13/2019 8:48:29 PM PDT · 168 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    Or alternatively, you can stop tilting at windmills, and join the fight to defeat the Democrat Presidential candidate whatever that candidate’s parents’ immigration status was when they were born and reelect Trump, thereby saving the Republic from the certain doom that will occur otherwise.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/13/2019 6:55:03 PM PDT · 158 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    If you ask me what I “want to see”, I’d like to see us return to our Constitution being interpreted strictly according to the original intent of those who wrote it (and those who wrote the various subsequent Amendments).

    But I’m just stating a fact, which is that if a principle of law hasn’t been confirmed in the last fifty years, you can bet that the current SCOTUS will largely take a free hand in elucidating it however they see fit. And were they by some miracle to actually take a case challenging the eligibility of a Presidential nominee (extremely unlikely given how far the courts stayed away from the questions about Obama), they will not DQ an otherwise qualified candidate based on what their parents’ citizenship status was at the time of their birth. It’s just not going to happen.

    There’s nothing you or I or anyone else can do about that.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/13/2019 2:37:24 PM PDT · 129 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to so_real

    Unless you have a SCOTUS decision less than 50 years old to that effect, than everything else is meaningless. If it ever comes to SCOTUS, which it likely never will, they are not going to go into the citizenship records of the parents of a person who was born in the United States and never went through naturalization. It’s just not going to happen. Citing cases from 100 years ago will not change that.

  • Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

    07/13/2019 10:38:45 AM PDT · 35 of 218
    Behind the Blue Wall to Chicory

    Exactly. For all intents and purposes, you are either a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen. If you’re an American citizen and you’ve never been through the naturalization process, then you are a natural born citizen.

  • Romney Opposes Trump Yet Again, Goes to Bat for Paul Ryan

    07/13/2019 10:34:39 AM PDT · 64 of 64
    Behind the Blue Wall to Richard Kimball

    It would’ve worked had Trump not jumped in.

  • Romney Opposes Trump Yet Again, Goes to Bat for Paul Ryan

    07/12/2019 9:01:54 PM PDT · 51 of 64
    Behind the Blue Wall to Hojczyk

    It’s just amazing how bad the Republican tickets in 2008 and 2012 were. You gotta think the Democrats somehow had a hand in that.