Since when is an insect an animal and not simply a pest?

[Smilin]

PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly
Rights group seeks compassion for curious and ‘least sympathetic animals’

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.

"Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.

"Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."

Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.

Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."

Deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the White House has no comment on the matter.


What a bunch of fuck nuts.....

[curses]

I was going to answer your thread title and say "when they're ladybugs eating the aphids off of my plants", then I read the inside. Yeah. PETA = deep end.

[LadyShea]

Yeah, PETA is nuts.

[wei yau]

I can't even work up outrage or anything. PETA is so far gone, they've become self-parody.

As far as the question in the OP title, the transformation line is the confines of my home. Outside of the home, I'll leave them alone. Inside my house, they are trespassers and therefore fair game.

The only exception to that rule is if the wife instructs me to murder a pest anywhere. Or if I'm in a particular kill-y mood.

[LadyShea]

I kill mosquitoes, yellow flies*, house flies (in the house), fire ants regardless of location, other ants that are in or close to the house, and venomous spiders. All other critters inside get a lift outside, and those outside are left alone.

*These are pure evil. If you don't have them where you live, be thankful

[lisarea]

I wouldn't even call them off the deep end. Deep end sort of implies that they're at some extreme end of some spectrum of opinion that might include reasonable disagreement somewhere in the middle. They're not even that.

I wish people would just stop paying attention to them. They issue crazy press releases and do wacky publicity stunts solely for the purposes of getting media attention; and that media attention translates as something like legitimacy among children, celebrities, and other people with foggy and incomplete understandings of the world around them. And because of that, they end up getting donations and other support from people who have no idea what their actual positions and policies are.

They're not just extremist nutjobs. They're fraudsters, and by perpetuating their publicity materials, we're playing a vital role in their confidence game.

[seebs]

It's hard to guess whether they're serious or not. A fair bit of what they say is, though not a joke per se, certainly intended primarily to create awareness, which is to say, to get commented on.

Which they assume will be positive for them.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

“The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.”
— Michael W. Fox, Humane Society of the United States

[ChuckF]

blah blah blah PETA but I have to say that the Obama Flyslayer media narrative got old about 15 seconds after Obama swatted a fly on TV. Yes, it is vaguely ninja-like, and it is refreshing to see a president whose motor system and cognition haven't been dulled by whatever the fuck Bush was drinking for the first forty-some years of his life. But now it is time to move on. Did you see Sotomayor's pedicure? (Oh, sorry, that is last week's news.)

[Wonderbread Leotard]

PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly
Rights group seeks compassion for curious and ‘least sympathetic animals’

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.

"Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.

"Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."

Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.

Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."

Deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the White House has no comment on the matter.


What a bunch of fuck nuts.....A key intellectual progenitor of their philosophy is tenured at Princeton.

Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)

Published in 1975, Animal Liberation has been cited as a formative influence on leaders of the modern animal liberation movement. Although Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests, he accepts rights as derived from utilitarian principles, particularly the principle of minimizing suffering. Singer allows that animal rights are not the same as human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." He began his book by defending Mary Wollstonecraft's 18th-century critic Thomas Taylor, who argued that if Wollstonecraft's reasoning in defense of women's rights were correct, then "brutes" would have rights too. Taylor thought he had produced a reductio ad absurdum of Wollstonecraft's view; Singer regards it as a sound logical implication. ...

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" — and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

[Ari]

Yeah PETA is a scam that banks on any publicity they can get. I would assume most people who donate, don't have a clue what they do.

Pissed about swatting a fly? I doubt it.
"PETA has killed more than 10,000 animals from 1998 to 2003. "In 2003, PETA euthanized over 85 percent of the animals it took in,"
SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL)

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

It's hard to guess whether they're serious or not. A fair bit of what they say is, though not a joke per se, certainly intended primarily to create awareness, which is to say, to get commented on.

Which they assume will be positive for them.
You assume PETA has a sense of humor. Why?

[erimir]

A key intellectual progenitor of their philosophy is tenured at Princeton.

Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)

Published in 1975, Animal Liberation has been cited as a formative influence on leaders of the modern animal liberation movement. Although Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests, he accepts rights as derived from utilitarian principles, particularly the principle of minimizing suffering. Singer allows that animal rights are not the same as human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." He began his book by defending Mary Wollstonecraft's 18th-century critic Thomas Taylor, who argued that if Wollstonecraft's reasoning in defense of women's rights were correct, then "brutes" would have rights too. Taylor thought he had produced a reductio ad absurdum of Wollstonecraft's view; Singer regards it as a sound logical implication. ...

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness" — and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."Yes, and?

I agree with a lot of the stuff said there, at least the stuff about abortion anyway. I'm sure that he and I differ on what sort of moral considerations should be given to non-persons of various types, however.

[Dingfod]

That fly was probably some fly's mother. Have you no sympathy for the plight of the poor orphaned 445,000 flies Obama just created?

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Yes, and? I agree with a lot of the stuff said there, at least the stuff about abortion anyway.PETA is often seen as "fuck nuts" (as Smilin put it) and super-duper fringe extremists, but their worldview flows substantially from the works of an intellectually respectable, influential philosopher tenured at Princeton University. In fact, Singer has been described as the "father of the animal rights movement" and not without reason. My point is that PETA aren't necessarily dead-enders going nowhere. They have formidable intellectual backing. I'm sure that he and I differ on what sort of moral considerations should be given to non-persons of various types, however.I actually agree with much of what he says, but I do not accept some of his key premises, and even from shared premises we often arrive at radically different conclusions.

[Angakuk]

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.


The inconsiderate bastards! They are actively promoting homelessness for house flies. Have they no compassion for the poor house fly?

[Jerome]

In case anyone missed the pompous tool.

YouTube - Obama Swats Fly during CNBC Interview

The reporting crew clapped for him!!! :bow:

[BigBlue2]

PETA wishes Obama hadn't swatted that fly
Rights group seeks compassion for curious and ‘least sympathetic animals’

PETA is sending President Barack Obama a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a house fly and then release it outside.

"We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals," PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. "We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

During an interview for CNBC at the White House on Tuesday, a fly intruded on Obama's conversation with correspondent John Harwood.

"Get out of here," the president told the pesky insect. When it didn't, he waited for the fly to settle, put his hand up and then smacked it dead.

"Now, where were we?" Obama asked Harwood. Then he added: "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker."

Friedrich said that PETA was pleased with Obama's voting record in the Senate on behalf of animal rights and noted that he has been outspoken against animal abuses.

Still, "swatting a fly on TV indicates he's not perfect," Friedrich said, "and we're happy to say that we wish he hadn't."

Deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said the White House has no comment on the matter.


http://www.heldersanches.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/dogmatix.gif

[ChuckF]

The reporting crew clapped for him!!! :bow:
I want to see their birth certificates!

[Jerome]

The reporting crew clapped for him!!! :bow:
I want to see their birth certificates!

Where he was born is not relevant.

Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate)

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


He admits on his own web site that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

[ChuckF]

omg there it is right there in that part you imagined you read, why can't the world see that. Anyway, I know from life experience that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States AND a badass fly swatter, so just relax.

[sparks]

Goddamnit.

[sparks]

The reporting crew clapped for him!!! :bow:
I want to see their birth certificates!

Where he was born is not relevant.

Fight the Smears: The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate)

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


He admits on his own web site that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

Give it a rest Cunttard.

[Jerome]

omg there it is right there in that part you imagined you read, why can't the world see that. Anyway, I know from life experience that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States AND a badass fly swatter, so just relax.

Obama admits being born a British citizen.

Please explain how being born a citizen of the British Empire does not exclude one from being a natural born citizen of the United States.

[ChuckF]

Please lick my balls.

But no, seriously, I know from life experience.

(Can you tell it's been a while since we've had a birther on :ff:? It's good to have one again.)

[Stormlight]

Now all we need is a 9/11 conspiracy-tard and a flat-earther and the party can start! :dud:

[LadyShea]

I could call the geocentrists who just sent me that nice brochure.

[LadyShea]

their worldview flows substantially from the works of an intellectually respectable, influential philosopher tenured at Princeton University.

Um, utilitarian philosophy versus ideology. Compare and contrast please.

[Jerome]

His statement, not that it matters any, he is President. I do find it amusing that people pretend like it's not real.

[Angakuk]

Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html)

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct.

But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.

So, how is that Barack Obama "admits on his own web site that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States"?

[Joshua Adams]

Obama admits being born a British citizen.

Please explain how being born a citizen of the British Empire does not exclude one from being a natural born citizen of the United States.Uh, look a little closer at what you read, buddy.

If you're stuck, Jr =/= Sr

[Angakuk]

Please explain how being born a citizen of the British Empire does not exclude one from being a natural born citizen of the United States.

Seriously, have you never heard of dual citizenship (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html)? It is not a terribly uncommon occurance.

[Joshua Adams]

Yeahbut, Kenya doesn't allow dual citizenship, and as we all know, Kenya simply routed Kansas, so presumably it could take Hawaii too, meaning his American citizenship is negated!

Shorter:
HUSSEIN ES FOREIGN MUSLIN

[MonCapitan2002]

That fly was probably some fly's mother. Have you no sympathy for the plight of the poor orphaned 445,000 flies Obama just created?
Not in the slightest. My reaction to that quoted bit Smilin posted was to :facepalm:.

[LadyShea]

He was born in the US to an American Citizen mother. He is a natural born citizen both according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and USC Title 8 (section 1401).

His father's citizenship doesn't change anything, and according to the link Angakuk provided neither does any involuntary citizenship of another country due to their laws.

Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.

U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

[Adam]

My point is that PETA aren't necessarily dead-enders going nowhere. They have formidable intellectual backing.

OMG, just like Sovereignists!

[Smilin]

Jenny, Jenny,

Who can I turn to...

When I need someone to hold onto?

[Jerome]

You all are confusing citizen with natural born citizen.

He must assuredly is a citizen, just not a natural born citizen.

What do the Laws of Nations say about a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, Laws of Nations

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


President of the United States is the only office which has the requirement of being a natural born citizen. The place of birth is not relevant, the parentage is.

[Jerome]

So, how is that Barack Obama "admits on his own web site that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States"?

He admits being born a British subject. He was born a citizen of the US by his mother, just not a natural born citizen.

[Jerome]

Not that it matters, there are a thousand unconstitutional things I could list in which the Federal government is involved.

[Smilin]

GTFO....

This thread is about Peta.....

Start your own thread if you want....

[LadyShea]

The place of birth is not relevant, the parentage is.

Where in US law do you find that?

USC TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html)
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

The bolded clause excludes from natural born citizenship children born in the US to foreign diplomats, or to tourists or others here temporarily, as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Obama was born in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Subject to jurisdiction again excludes those born here to tourists or foreign diplomats.

[Jerome]

GTFO....

This thread is about Peta.....

Start your own thread if you want....

This is your third nonsense post to me this morning in different threads, are you stalking me?

:blush:

[Smilin]

:you:

[Jerome]

The place of birth is not relevant, the parentage is.

Where in US law do you find that?

USC TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html)
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

The bolded clause excludes from natural born citizenship children born in the US to foreign diplomats, or to tourists or others here temporarily, as they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Obama was born in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Subject to jurisdiction again excludes those born here to tourists or foreign diplomats.


You are confusing being born in the US conferring citizenship with being a natural born citizen.

Your argument would mean that a British general during the war of 1812 could rape an American women and that child would be a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS.

What do you think the requirement for POTUS being natural born means, what was it's purpose?

[LadyShea]

You are confusing being born in the US conferring citizenship with being a natural born citizen.

I am not confusing anything, you are. It's spelled out pretty darn clearly in the US law I cited.

You have yet to cite US law that supports your interpretation

Your argument would mean that a British general during the war of 1812 could rape an American women and that child would be a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS.

Yes. According to the US Code, a child born in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US at the time of birth, is a "national at birth"

[Sock Puppet]

This derail and the thread title seem oddly well-suited to each other. Maybe it's not a derail at all.

[Smilin]

:glare: :hmph:

[ChuckF]

Not that it matters, there are a thousand unconstitutional things I could list in which the Federal government is involved.
I, for one, would like very much to hear your thoughts on the income tax. Preferably int his thread. :unallears:

[Ari]

This thread started with PETA, who kills animals, complaining about someone swatting a fly. I didn't think it could get more stupider, and then Jerome comes along and trolls for the Win.

[Ari]

For those still interested in PETA... no one? Ok I'll go on anyway.

"I went to the front office all the time, and I would say, "John is kicking the dogs and putting them into freezers." Or I would say, "They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care." In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right." -Ingrid founder of PETA

Ah yes, killing animals to prevent them from being killed by pretending you are animal messiah, awesome job there psychopath.

[ChuckF]

Now all we need is a 9/11 conspiracy-tard and a flat-earther and the party can start! :dud:

I could call the geocentrists who just sent me that nice brochure.
Sweet, let's rent some space from the Freemasons.

[Joshua Adams]

You are confusing being born in the US conferring citizenship with being a natural born citizen.When are you going to lay out the cards and actually say what you think natural born citizenship requires?

If being born in the United States to a United States citizen isn't it, the bar seems rather impossible to clear.

[lisarea]

I think what many people don't get about PeTA is that they're an animal liberation group, not an animal welfare group. They advocate the eventual extinction of all domestic animals. They're very explicit about the fact that they do not 'love' animals or feel any personal connection with them. (I'm talking about the policy making members of PeTA, not the hoodwinked supporters, obviously.) Their current arch-enemy is the No Kill movement, which pretty much speaks volumes about their real attitudes and motivations.

Newkirk has kind of halfassedly tried to explain their pet killing, but she doesn't make a whole lot of sense. As near as I can tell, her logic is that domestic animals are miserable, and will always be miserable based on the fact that they are domestic animals, doomed to a life of imprisonment and servitude. She pays lip service to animals that live as pets, probably just because she has to if PeTA wants to keep its head above water. But PeTA has absolutely no compunctions about killing a healthy, well-adjusted cat or dog simply because it's currently homeless. And again, her stated ultimate goal is to eliminate pets entirely, so people can "enjoy animals from a distance."

They're kind of like species separationists. They don't think people should be interacting with other species in any way. I do not know how they feel about other types of animals that interact outside of their species, like whether they would advocate the extinction of oxpecker birds because of their symbiotic relationship with hippos. I suspect, though, that they have different rules for humans vs. other types of animals because they're speciest.

[Ari]

I love the hypocrisy of assuming that they know animals are better off dead than being owned because they have decided it. PETA's idea of animal freedom is to force the animals to do what PETA wants them to do.

The fly was breathing polluted human air and thus Obama saved it by killing it himself instead of watching it suffer a slow fly asthma death from pollution. PETA should be proud of Obama's support for animals.

[Jerome]

You are confusing being born in the US conferring citizenship with being a natural born citizen.When are you going to lay out the cards and actually say what you think natural born citizenship requires?

If being born in the United States to a United States citizen isn't it, the bar seems rather impossible to clear.

It does not matter where one is born, it matters the nationality of the parents.

Being born in the US confers citizenship.

Being born in North Korea, England, or even the open seas to two American citizens confers natural born US citizenship.

The purpose of the requirement for the POTUS being natural born as opposed to just being a citizen; POTUS being the only office that has this requirement, is to protect the nation from being headed by one that has divergent allegiance.


I am not claiming that Obama is not an American citizen or that he has allegiance to any nation other than the US, just that he is not a natural born citizen. I am just stating the reality of the circumstance much in the same way I would state the reality of many unconstitutional actions of the Federal government. I don't really care one way or the other, what will be will be, and I have not the ability nor the inclination to do any thing about it. Although I am enamored with watching the reactions of people to these various reasoned realities. I do ever so enjoy the study of human sociology.


:didi:

[Jerome]

Not that it matters, there are a thousand unconstitutional things I could list in which the Federal government is involved.
I, for one, would like very much to hear your thoughts on the income tax. Preferably int his thread. :unallears:

Start a thread.

[Jerome]

This derail and the thread title seem oddly well-suited to each other. Maybe it's not a derail at all.

ChuckF was the culprit, I just followed his track.

:wink:

[Joshua Adams]

It does not matter where one is born, it matters the nationality of the parents.

Being born in the US confers citizenship.

Being born in North Korea, England, or even the open seas to two American citizens confers natural born US citizenship.

The purpose of the requirement for the POTUS being natural born as opposed to just being a citizen; POTUS being the only office that has this requirement, is to protect the nation from being headed by one that has divergent allegiance.


I am not claiming that Obama is not an American citizen or that he has allegiance to any nation other than the US, just that he is not a natural born citizen. I am just stating the reality of the circumstance much in the same way I would state the reality of many unconstitutional actions of the Federal government. I don't really care one way or the other, what will be will be, and I have not the ability nor the inclination to do any thing about it. Although I am enamored with watching the reactions of people to these various reasoned realities. I do ever so enjoy the study of human sociology.


:didi:You're basically making this stuff up, sorry. The definition of natural born citizen has never been explicated by the courts. There are different schools of thought about whether "natural born" means simply not-naturalized, or inheriting it from your parents, or born on American soil, or whatever. It seems pretty clear that if you are a citizen both by parentage and by place of birth, you're in, and if you have neither, you're not, but the in-between cases are ambiguous. But Obama's case isn't even really in the gray area because he was born in Hawaii to a US citizen.

At any rate, no one who matters has seen fit to challenge any President's eligibility, so the question hasn't been settled. To "state the reality" that Obama isn't natural born is just blowing hot air, and it's rather condescending to claim LadyShea is "confusing" natural born citizenship and being born a citizen since there may not be a difference anyway.

However, thanks for answering the question.

[Jerome]

Natural born citizen IS a defined term. Look to the definition of that term when the words were written in the constitution of the US.

You are essentially arguing that the writers of the document used a nebulous term. Is that a reasonable position?

[ChuckF]

This derail and the thread title seem oddly well-suited to each other. Maybe it's not a derail at all.

ChuckF was the culprit, I just followed his track.

:wink:
lol sheeple

[Adam]

Natural born citizen IS a defined term. Look to the definition of that term when the words were written in the constitution of the US.

You are essentially arguing that the writers of the document used a nebulous term. Is that a reasonable position?

:LOL:

Obviously, there is no vague language in the constitution. We probably don't even need courts, since it's so unambiguous.

[Jerome]

Natural born citizen IS a defined term. Look to the definition of that term when the words were written in the constitution of the US.

You are essentially arguing that the writers of the document used a nebulous term. Is that a reasonable position?

:LOL:

Obviously, there is no vague language in the constitution. We probably don't even need courts, since it's so unambiguous.

Learn a new word today?


If you think the court's purpose is to define the words written into law then...

Just WOW!

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/CynicalChick3125/Smileys/rollbarf1.gif

[Jerome]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v344/CynicalChick3125/Smileys/rollbarf1.gif

I guess you win by the reason and logic of your argument.

:jerkoff:

[Stephen Maturin]

At any rate, no one who matters has seen fit to challenge any President's eligibility, so the question hasn't been settled. To "state the reality" that Obama isn't natural born is just blowing hot air, and it's rather condescending to claim LadyShea is "confusing" natural born citizenship and being born a citizen since there may not be a difference anyway.

That sums things up pretty nicely. The simple truth of the matter is that no one knows exactly what "natural born Citizen" in Article II, Section 1 was supposed to convey. The Constitution doesn't define the term, the Federalist Papers don't discuss it, the written records of the Constitutional Convention and state ratifying conventions provide no clues, and the courts haven't resolved the issue. Anyone who claims the term "clearly includes" this or "clearly excludes" that is wholly fulla shit.

The sources that courts most commonly look to in interpreting the Constitution -- late 18th Century British common and statutory law, American colonial practice, acts of the First Congress -- suggest rather strongly that being born in the U.S. was sufficient in and of itself to confer "natural born Citizen" status. I think that's the most likely outcome if the courts ever rule on this issue, but that certainly doesn't mean there's a definitively "correct" answer.

At least the view that "natural born Citizen" excludes anyone who had a noncitizen parent has the virtue of rendering the location of Obama's birth irrelevant. I've seen enough of the term "vault copy" to last a thousand goddamn lifetimes. Wingnut Chic has worn mighty thin over the last decade.

[Jerome]

Good argument: No one knows so ... Fuck it!


Answer this question:

You are essentially arguing that the writers of the document used a nebulous term. Is that a reasonable position?

[Stephen Maturin]

Good argument: No one knows so ... Fuck it!

Blammo. Straw everywhere.

You are essentially arguing that the writers of the document used a nebulous term.

Nonsense. It's certainly reasonable to surmise that the person or persons responsible for inserting "natural born Citizen" into Art. II had some particular meaning in mind. However, unless you can establish what that meaning was, it's all just so much argumentum ad make-it-up-and-blow-it-out-your-shitter.

While you're at it, please establish that all the members of Congress and state legislators who voted to ratify the Constitution ascribed the same meaning to "natural born Citizen." That's pretty much essentially to conclusively proving the "objectively correct" understanding that you're after here.

[Jerome]

Read Vattel, whence doth definition arrives.

Emmerich de Vattel: The Law of Nations (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm)


The men that ratified the constitution were not as uneducated as you. Take this opportunity to educate yourself.

[D. Scarlatti]

lol@poast consisting entirely of link to ancient, 1,900-page treatise and the command, "Here, read this" (c/w some faggy Middle Englishe lisp). What did that one guy say earlier? "Give it a rest, cunttard"? Yeah, that guy. He was bang on.

Oh and that treatise? Translated from the fucking French and containing the expression "natural born" -- undefined -- exactly once. I bet Scalia keeps this volume handy at all times!

[Jerome]

lol@poast consisting entirely of link to ancient, 1,900-page treatise and the command, "Here, read this" (c/w some faggy Middle Englishe lisp). What did that one guy say earlier? "Give it a rest, cunttard"? Yeah, that guy. He was bang on.

Oh and that treatise? Translated from the fucking French and containing the expression "natural born" -- undefined -- exactly once. I bet Scalia keeps this volume handy at all times!


The men that ratified the constitution were not as uneducated as you. Take this opportunity to educate yourself.


...or the above quoted expression.

[D. Scarlatti]

It does not matter where one is born, it matters the nationality of the parents.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens."

Of course it "matters."

Unless you're a natural born idiot. Which you appear to be.

[Jerome]

It does not matter where one is born, it matters the nationality of the parents.

"All persons Born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens."

You're a natural born idiot.

You forgot that it does not say :"All persons Born or naturalized in the United States ... are natural born citizens."

Now if it had said that you would have a point.

Your problem is that you are having a hard time understanding that 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen' are two different things.

Why must senators be 'citizens' and the POTUS must be a 'natural born citizen' if the terms are equal?

[D. Scarlatti]

Jesus. Because Senators may be naturalized citizens. And you're telling me to get educated?

[Petra]

LOL, apparently PETA also want Phish to change their name to The Sea Kittens. No joke.

Phish Asked To Become Sea Kittens | CHARTattack (http://www.chartattack.com/news/71225/phish-to-become-sea-kittens)

lol.


I wonder what they think of such bands as "Deerhunter", "Headless Chickens", "Skinny Puppy", "The Revolting Cocks" etc. :laugh:

[Stephen Maturin]

Read Vattel, whence doth definition arrives.

Sure thing, Jerome. Which translation of Le Droit des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliques a la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains should I read, the ones extant when the Constitution was written and ratified, none of which contain the phrase "natural born Citizen," or the ones that do contain the phrase, which didn't exist until after the relevant time frame?

Don't get me wrong. I'm open to the possibility that whoever incorporated the phrase at issue into the Constitution and all those who voted for ratification cast aside the familiar and longstanding British conception of "natural born" in favor of an as-yet-nonexistent rendition of the work of a Swiss natural law philosopher, but it'll take some convincing.

On the other hand, given your apparent reluctance to provide any actual evidence on the issue, maybe we should just submit the dispute to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

[Jerome]

Here is some English for you.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n035.htm


Natives(people born on American soil) who are not citizens are, first, the children of ambassadors, or other foreign ministers, who, although born here, are subjects or citizens of the government of their respective fathers.

Now, by Obama's own web site he was born subject to the British crown thus not a natural born US citizen.

[Stephen Maturin]

Here is some English for you.

:laugh:

This gets funnier all the time. I suppose I should thank you for the tacit admission that your reliance on Le Droit des Gens was entirely bogus, so thank you!

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n035.htm

:laugh:

So now you've moved on to a law dictionary that first appeared in 1839 and doesn't even purport to define "natural born Citizen" eh? You've not even trying anymore.

Now, by Obama's own web site he was born subject to the British crown thus not a natural born US citizen.

You've yet to provide any legitimate support for your assumption that the framers used "natural born Citizen" in Article II, Section 1 to exclude those with one noncitizen parent, but you're certainly welcome to give it another go.

[LadyShea]

I already showed the exclusion clause in codified law for the children of diplomats or tourists or otherwise not subject to US jurisdiction.

The simplest interpretation of "natural born citizen" seems to me to be a citizen at birth- meaning one meets the requirements that are laid out in the USC and Constitution, at the time of birth, rather than being required to undergo some kind of naturalization process.

Can you provide a compelling reason to define it differently?

The state department clarifies further

Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

So, even if Kenya or the UK or whatever you are claiming considered Obama a citizen automatically through his father, the US also considered him a citizen, at birth, as he met the requirements.

[Jerome]

You both are still confusing citizenship status with being a natural born citizen.

Do you really think that the founders meant that a British general could rape an American woman, bring up the child in England, and that child would be eligible for the office of POTUS after moving to the US at the age of 21 and living there for 14 years? Because this is a circumstance you are laying out here.

What do you think the purpose of the requirement that the POTUS be natural born is?

[D. Scarlatti]

It was to prevent Alexander Hamilton from ascending to the presidency, obviously.

Where are his citizenship papers, by the way?

[livius drusus]

Do you really think that the founders meant that a British general could rape an American woman, bring up the child in England, and that child would be eligible for the office of POTUS after moving to the US at the age of 21 and living there for 14 years? Because this is a circumstance you are laying out here.
Actually, setting aside the rape thing, this isn't far from my own circumstances. My parents are both American but I was conceived and raised in Italy. They flew to the States a month before I was due to ensure that I would be born in America explicitly so that I could be president when I grew up. We returned to Italy when I was 3 weeks old and I lived there until college.

Are you suggesting that if one my parents had been Italian, I would be ineligible for the presidency despite my citizenship via parent and via birth? From an ex-pat perspective -- and I knew tons of kids with one American parent and one non-American parent -- being born on US soil is the clincher for the presidency.

[LadyShea]

The rape scenario doesn't apply, how about a more contemporary and plausible one?

[Jerome]

Do you really think that the founders meant that a British general could rape an American woman, bring up the child in England, and that child would be eligible for the office of POTUS after moving to the US at the age of 21 and living there for 14 years? Because this is a circumstance you are laying out here.
Actually, setting aside the rape thing, this isn't far from my own circumstances. My parents are both American but I was conceived and raised in Italy. They flew to the States a month before I was due to ensure that I would be born in America explicitly so that I could be president when I grew up. We returned to Italy when I was 3 weeks old and I lived there until college.

Are you suggesting that if one my parents had been Italian, I would be ineligible for the presidency despite my citizenship via parent and via birth? From an ex-pat perspective -- and I knew tons of kids with one American parent and one non-American parent -- being born on US soil is the clincher for the presidency.


Your parents being both American, it did not matter where you were born, you would have been a natural born citizen of the US had you been born in Italy.

Your parents took an unneeded trip.

Citizenship is not relevant, natural born citizenship is. Yes, they are ineligible, they were mistaken. Sometimes parents tell their children things that are incorrect.

[Kael]

So where do you find the law stating that if only one parent is a US citizen you have to also be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen? Besides straight out of your ass, I mean.

[Jerome]

The rape scenario doesn't apply, how about a more contemporary and plausible one?

It is not plausible that a British general would rape an American woman? Of course it is.

The purpose of the requirement is at question here, not the time frame of it's application.

[Jerome]

So where do you find the law stating that if only one parent is a US citizen you have to also be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen? Besides straight out of your ass, I mean.

They are confusing the fact that being born on American soil denotes citizenship, which it does, with natural born citizenship which does not require a location application.

[Kael]

Ok, so location is irrelevant to being a natural born citizen. That's great. Where again does it say having one citizen parent doesn't count, but having two does?

Or better yet, quit hedging and say straight out what you think is required for natural born citizenship.

[Ari]

I hear being black also makes you ineligible for being a natural born citizen.

[Jerome]

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...

Rep. John Bingham advocating for the fourteenth amendment.

[Jerome]

Or better yet, quit hedging and say straight out what you think is required for natural born citizenship.

Two parents that hold allegiance to the United States, or whatever nation we could be taking about is, and has been, the standard for centuries for holding natural born citizen status.

[Jerome]

I hear being black also makes you ineligible for being a natural born citizen.

No, but being born a subject of the British crown does.

[livius drusus]

Your parents being both American, it did not matter where you were born, you would have been a natural born citizen of the US had you been born in Italy.

Your parents took an unneeded trip.
Not really -- there would have been repercussions wrt Italian citizenship had I been born in Italy, namely compulsory military service -- but even if it's true that I could have been born in Italy and still be eligible for the presidency via my parents, it's certainly not a given. In the expatriate community where these issues are obviously front and center in a way they are not for Americans living in America, giving birth on American territory (including embassies and military bases) to ensure eligibility for the presidency is a standard fail safe measure.

Citizenship is not relevant, natural born citizenship is. Yes, they are ineligible, they were mistaken.
Who is ineligible? I don't understand the antecedents of your pronouns here. My question was if all the other circumstances I described above were the same, only my mother, say, had been Italian instead of American, would I be ineligible for the presidency? If so, why would my mother's putative Italian citizenship alter the nature of mine?

Refer to something specific please, in the Constitution or the legal record, rather than just reiterating your claimed distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". As I said, it's not a distinction the people most directly affected by the issue make, so I'm going to need some evidence beyond your simply stating it.

Sometimes parents tell their children things that are incorrect.
Really J, patronize much?

[Ari]

I know very little about this subject, and frankly you have not convinced me at all, I would like some evidence that the definition is what you say it is, preferably in rulings stating someone is or isn't a natural born citizen. Opinions are great but they are really only that until it's brought into practice.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

So, how is that Barack Obama "admits on his own web site that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States"?

He admits being born a British subject.You think that is the big problem? Even the FIRST president of the United States was born a British subject! The whole shebang has been a fuckin' fraud all along.

[Kael]

No, but being born a subject of the British crown does.So it is your claim that having citizenship, even automatically conveyed at birth, in any other nation is what makes you not a natural born citizen?

So, then, you would say that someone born to two American citizens in a foreign country (who are there on military service) but born in a foreign hospital, which conveys automatic citizenship in said foreign country, would be ineligible to run for the office of President on the grounds of not being a natural born citizen? Even though their American citizen parents finished their military service there and moved back to the states before they were two years old and they have no ties whatsoever to that country?

[Joshua Adams]

@ Wonderbread

Uh, the constitution specifically says anyone who was a citizen at the time of its adoption was considered eligible, to cover those early few cases...

[Stephen Maturin]

You both are still confusing citizenship status with being a natural born citizen.

That's false and, as always, you goddamn well know it.

Let's consider: (1) a person born of two citizen parents regardless of where the birth occurred; and (2) a person born in-country having at least one parent who is a citizen of a different country.

Under the age-old British practice, in full force and effect at the time of founding, both people were "natural born". What you want us to believe -- based on absolutely nothing, apparently -- is that the framers and ratifiers universally agreed to use the exact term, shitcan its extant meaning, and redefine the term to mean (1) only.

Okay, fine. You're free to believe whatever you want in this regard. Just don't expect anyone else to buy into such an extraordinary proposition based on the piffle and flotsam you've presented here.

By now you've probably figured out that argumentum ad just-keep-saying-it-over-and-over along the lines of . . .

Two parents that hold allegiance to the United States, or whatever nation we could be taking about is, and has been, the standard for centuries for holding natural born citizen status.

. . . isn't flying very high. "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires" indeed.

[Jerome]

So, how is that Barack Obama "admits on his own web site that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States"?

He admits being born a British subject.You think that is the big problem? Even the FIRST president of the United States was born a British subject! The whole shebang has been a fuckin' fraud all along.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;...

Problem solved.

[Jerome]

Not really -- there would have been repercussions wrt Italian citizenship had I been born in Italy, namely compulsory military service -- but even if it's true that I could have been born in Italy and still be eligible for the presidency via my parents, it's certainly not a given. In the expatriate community where these issues are obviously front and center in a way they are not for Americans living in America, giving birth on American territory (including embassies and military bases) to ensure eligibility for the presidency is a standard fail safe measure.

The holding of Italian citizenship, that is a different purpose which did make the trip needed. Just because a particular community has ingrained an idea does not make it valid.


Who is ineligible? I don't understand the antecedents of your pronouns here. My question was if all the other circumstances I described above were the same, only my mother, say, had been Italian instead of American, would I be ineligible for the presidency? If so, why would my mother's putative Italian citizenship alter the nature of mine?

Yes, because your mother's allegiance to Italy would preclude you from being a natural born citizen.


Refer to something specific please, in the Constitution or the legal record, rather than just reiterating your claimed distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". As I said, it's not a distinction the people most directly affected by the issue make, so I'm going to need some evidence beyond your simply stating it.

I did post http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm, which has been cited by the SCOTUS, thus it is a valid document to look at in relation to this question. I have also posted the words of the "father" of the 14th amendment.


Really J, patronize much?


As the mood strikes. :yup:

[D. Scarlatti]

[Vattel, who] has been cited by the SCOTUS ...

For what proposition(s)? Any source is "valid," depending on its purpose.

SCOTUS may have cited Mein Kampf at some point, for all you know.

[LadyShea]

The rape scenario doesn't apply, how about a more contemporary and plausible one?

It is not plausible that a British general would rape an American woman? Of course it is.

Yes, but by itself it doesn't tell us anything. Was the kid born in the US? Why would rape by a British general affect his natural born citizenship status? Under what law.

The purpose of the requirement is at question here, not the time frame of it's application.

The time frame is meaningful. What was the status of bastards at the time (being illegitimate led to a lesser legal status' for much of history)? How did most rape victims respond (did they hide the rape and maybe marry someone else?)? Women weren't eligible, neither were blacks so that is significantly different wrt to the current issue.

[Jerome]

Naturalization Act of 1790

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226

Continued:

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227

It denotes natural born citizenship upon those born to parents, plural, of citizens.

As one can clearly see, it was and has always been the citizenship of the parentage that defines one as a natural born citizen.

[LadyShea]

It spells out that citizenship does not descend to those whose fathers have never resided in the US, it does not say "aren't naturalized citizens". So, that could theoretically be read that resident alien fathers are okay.

Also, as I already said, the legal status of bastards may have been such at the time that illegitimacy in and of itself was enough to preclude eligibility. Perhaps "natural born" meant "Not a bastard".

[Jerome]

[Vattel, who] has been cited by the SCOTUS ...

For what proposition(s)? Any source is "valid," depending on its purpose.

SCOTUS may have cited Mein Kampf at some point, for all you know.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles
of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of
rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict
care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear
swords”)

[Jerome]

The rape scenario doesn't apply, how about a more contemporary and plausible one?

It is not plausible that a British general would rape an American woman? Of course it is.

Yes, but by itself it doesn't tell us anything. Was the kid born in the US? Why would rape by a British general affect his natural born citizenship status? Under what law.

The purpose of the requirement is at question here, not the time frame of it's application.

The time frame is meaningful. What was the status of bastards at the time (being illegitimate led to a lesser legal status' for much of history)? How did most rape victims respond (did they hide the rape and maybe marry someone else?)? Women weren't eligible, neither were blacks so that is significantly different wrt to the current issue.


I think I may have taken down the wrong path with my example. Sorry for that.

My intention was to get you thinking about the purpose of the natural born requirement for POTUS.

[Jerome]

It spells out that citizenship does not descend to those whose fathers have never resided in the US, it does not say "aren't naturalized citizens". So, that could theoretically be read that resident alien fathers are okay.

The thing you are missing is that natural born citizenship had always been understood to mean the progeny of citizens, plural, of a nation.

[Ari]

Understood by which judgment?

[Jerome]

Understood by which judgment?

The exact question has not been adjudicated in a court.

This is because it has been understood for centuries what the term means.

Do you not believe the dictionary unless a court has made a judgment of the meaning of a word?

[Ari]

Well there's a couple problems with that,

A. Terms, especially vague terms seem to have no solid footing until it is run through the court. People can assume they know what it means, but the judicial system is the final interpreter of those terms, so without someone like SCOTUS consistently ruling in one direction, it's all just personal opinion.

B. If it has been "understood for centuries" then I would have expected Obama to be ineligible to run. That the courts had no problem with him running seems to suggest they don't hold to the same definition as you. Which brings into question just how "understood" the term really is.

[Jerome]

Well there's a couple problems with that,

A. Terms, especially vague terms seem to have no solid footing until it is run through the court. People can assume they know what it means, but the judicial system is the final interpreter of those terms, so without someone like SCOTUS consistently ruling in one direction, it's all just personal opinion.

B. If it has been "understood for centuries" then I would have expected Obama to be ineligible to run. That the courts had no problem with him running seems to suggest they don't hold to the same definition as you. Which brings into question just how "understood" the term really is.


What are you talking about?

What percentage of laws do you think are "run through the court"?

Do you really think that prior to running a law through the courts that the law is just "personal opinion"?


BTW, no court has ruled that Obama is eligible to be POTUS.

[Ari]

We aren't talking about a law but a definition of a term. A term that has never been defined by the courts to mean what you think it means.

Yes the constitution is up to interpretation, and unless something has changed your interpretation is not the deciding one. I wanted you to provide one that was, so far, nothing.

Your arguments are interesting, but that's about it.

I do find it interesting that people against Obama can't accept that he won. I wonder if the "natural born citizen" group will be the rights version of "Bush didn't really win florida" and will be complaining about it long after Obama has left office.

[Jerome]

We aren't talking about a law but a definition of a term.

???

The US Constitution is law.

[Jerome]

I do find it interesting that people against Obama can't accept that he won. I wonder if the "natural born citizen" group will be the rights version of "Bush didn't really win florida" and will be complaining about it long after Obama has left office.

Now where did that come from?

I have stated that Obama is the POTUS and it matters not to me. McCain would have been the same shit in a different bowl.



FYI: I have never voted for the winner of a national election, and I have voted in every one since I turned 18.

[Jerome]

You may be arguing from the stand point of the conclusion mattering.

Would you be disappointed in yourself if you did vote for someone not eligible?

[Watser?]

no court has ruled that Obama is eligible to be POTUS.

And that doesn't tell you something? None of his opponents have challenged his natural born citizenship? I wonder why...

[Jerome]

no court has ruled that Obama is eligible to be POTUS.

And that doesn't tell you something? None of his opponents have challenged his natural born citizenship? I wonder why...

Not true, a candidate for POTUS has challenged in the courts.

[Watser?]

And what became of it, pray tell?

[Ari]

We aren't talking about a law but a definition of a term.

???

The US Constitution is law.

As interpreted by the supreme court.

Nope it wouldn't bother me since I voted for a candidate I was sure wouldn't win.

[Jerome]

And what became of it, pray tell?

Still sitting in court, the court is trying to decide if the case can go forth because Obama is already President therefore there may not be recourse. The prior hold up before Obama became POTUS was the court deciding whether there was any damage done as Obama was not yet POTUS.

Catch 22 and no rulling on Obama's eligibility.

[Jerome]

We aren't talking about a law but a definition of a term.

???

The US Constitution is law.

As interpreted by the supreme court.




Then your argument has become that the US constitution is "personal opinion" until the SCOTUS rules on a particular aspect.

This is a silly position.

[Angakuk]

It spells out that citizenship does not descend to those whose fathers have never resided in the US, it does not say "aren't naturalized citizens". So, that could theoretically be read that resident alien fathers are okay.

The thing you are missing is that natural born citizenship had always been understood to mean the progeny of citizens, plural, of a nation.

I think that several of your links have adequately demonstrated that "natural born citizen" has been understood to mean the offspring of two citizens. What you have failed to demonstrate is that this is the exclusive meaning of the term. You have provided no justification for the claim that "natural born" applies only to citizenship by way of the principle of jus sanguinis and not also by way of jus soli.

[Angakuk]

The meaning of a word, as a matter of law, is defined by the courts and not by the dictionaries.

[ChuckF]

And what became of it, pray tell?

Still sitting in court, the court is trying to decide if the case can go forth because Obama is already President therefore there may not be recourse. The prior hold up before Obama became POTUS was the court deciding whether there was any damage done as Obama was not yet POTUS.

Catch 22 and no rulling on Obama's eligibility.
Aw, that's a shame.

[D. Scarlatti]

What you have failed to demonstrate is that this is the exclusive meaning of the term.

Boing.

[LadyShea]

[Vattel, who] has been cited by the SCOTUS ...

For what proposition(s)? Any source is "valid," depending on its purpose.

SCOTUS may have cited Mein Kampf at some point, for all you know.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime
to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of
handguns...

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles
of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of
rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict
care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear
swords”)

You just proved Scarlatti's point. They also cited The Quakers in Peace and War 336–339 (1923) and The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780) in that decision. Does that mean any of these citations have legal weight?

I understand that contemporary writings of the time inform interpretation of the language used (exactly the context for this citation;trying to interpret the term "bear arms"), but Maturin pointed out that the translation available to the founding fathers did not use the term "natural born citizen". So why is it relevant here?

[Jerome]

I understand that contemporary writings of the time inform interpretation of the language used (exactly the context for this citation;trying to interpret the term "bear arms"), but Maturin pointed out that the translation available to the founding fathers did not use the term "natural born citizen". So why is it relevant here?

It was available, he pointed out no such thing.

[Jerome]

The meaning of a word, as a matter of law, is defined by the courts and not by the dictionaries.

Let me know of a court case that defines each and every word of US code.

Your statement is ridiculous.

[Jerome]

I think that several of your links have adequately demonstrated that "natural born citizen" has been understood to mean the offspring of two citizens. What you have failed to demonstrate is that this is the exclusive meaning of the term. You have provided no justification for the claim that "natural born" applies only to citizenship by way of the principle of jus sanguinis and not also by way of jus soli.


So you now agree on the definition of natural born citizen, good.

You just think it means more than it's understood meaning.

[ceptimus]

I understood Angakuk's post as saying that a 'natural born citizen' [of the USA] is either:
Someone born anywhere on earth, with both parents being U.S. citizens.
Someone born in the USA.

(I'm not sure in the second case if it's necessary for at least one of the parents to be a U.S. citizen.)

Do you have any cites that show that the second category above does not qualify as a 'natural born citizen'?

[D. Scarlatti]

It was available, he pointed out no such thing.

Yes he did (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=718916&postcount=76). Don't lie.

[D. Scarlatti]

Let me know of a court case that defines each and every word of US code.

Your statement is ridiculous.

Because he didn't say what you're trying to making him say. Nobody has ever challenged the "US code."

Weasel much?

[LadyShea]

I understood Angakuk's post as saying that a 'natural born citizen' [of the USA] is either:
Someone born anywhere on earth, with both parents being U.S. citizens.
Someone born in the USA.

(I'm not sure in the second case if it's necessary for at least one of the parents to be a U.S. citizen.)

Do you have any cites that show that the second category above does not qualify as a 'natural born citizen'?

I do. The US Code excludes those born in the US, but not "under the jurisdiction of the US". This would exclude the children born here to foreign diplomats for example. It probably excludes those born while their parents are here as tourists as well.

Alien residents, however, are under US jurisdiction. My friend was born here, but lived for many years in Europe. She married a Brit. They moved here and had kids. He is a legal resident but not a citizen, she is a citizen. According to Jerome their kids will not be eligible to be President, that makes zero sense.

Again, as far as I can tell, "natural born citizen" is widely understood and interpreted rather simply as someone who is/was a citizen at birth, rather than one who is/was naturalized.

[Kael]

Again, as far as I can tell, "natural born citizen" is widely understood and interpreted rather simply as someone who is/was a citizen at birth, rather than one who is/was naturalized.
This. I've yet to see any compelling evidence that it means or was meant as anything else.

[D. Scarlatti]

Again, as far as I can tell, "natural born citizen" is widely understood and interpreted rather simply as someone who is/was a citizen at birth, rather than one who is/was naturalized.

And the 14th Amendment supports that reading, so it's incongruous to discover Jerome Da Gnome quoting from Rep. John Bingham, its principal framer. There are two categories of persons in the 14th Amendment: "born or naturalized." "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a qualifier that applies to both categories. There is no third, distinct category for "natural born."

[LadyShea]

Maybe I am wrong, but it also seems to me that if it was way more complicated than born vs. naturalized, it would be clarified in subsequent US Code.

[D. Scarlatti]

Or else the U.K. could assert a claim of jurisdiction over Obama's status as a British subject.

[Jerome]

It was available, he pointed out no such thing.

Yes he did (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=718916&postcount=76). Don't lie.

Her made an assertion, nothing more. Pointing out something would be presenting a fact.

[Jerome]

I understood Angakuk's post as saying that a 'natural born citizen' [of the USA] is either:
Someone born anywhere on earth, with both parents being U.S. citizens.
Someone born in the USA.

(I'm not sure in the second case if it's necessary for at least one of the parents to be a U.S. citizen.)

Do you have any cites that show that the second category above does not qualify as a 'natural born citizen'?

Do you have anything that cites that the second category does qualify?

Reason why that is the logical question.

[D. Scarlatti]

Her made an assertion, nothing more. Pointing out something would be presenting a fact.

I suspect your next embarrassment is imminent, in attempting to draw this distinction.

[Jerome]

Alien residents, however, are under US jurisdiction. My friend was born here, but lived for many years in Europe. She married a Brit. They moved here and had kids. He is a legal resident but not a citizen, she is a citizen. According to Jerome their kids will not be eligible to be President, that makes zero sense.

Again, as far as I can tell, "natural born citizen" is widely understood and interpreted rather simply as someone who is/was a citizen at birth, rather than one who is/was naturalized.

Sure it does make sense if those children were British subjects. Are they?

The purpose of the qualification was to prevent anyone that was a subject to another nation being the leader of the nation.

[Jerome]

Let me know of a court case that defines each and every word of US code.

Your statement is ridiculous.

Because he didn't say what you're trying to making him say. Nobody has ever challenged the "US code."

Weasel much?

You have not been following the conversation, that is exactly what he was saying.

Go back and read, please.

[Jerome]

Her made an assertion, nothing more. Pointing out something would be presenting a fact.

I suspect your next embarrassment is imminent, in attempting to draw this distinction.

You really need this one explained?

So, if I were to post that D. Scalatti is an alien from Mars, this would equal a pointed out fact.

:eek:

[Jerome]

Naturalized citizen = made citizen by law

Natural born citizen = made citizen by nature of birth

[JamesBannon]

I thought this thread was about PeTA

[Kael]

Naturalized citizen = made citizen by law

Natural born citizen = made citizen by nature of birth
Perfect. That's what everyone's been saying all along. Now kindly explain how you think someone with citizenship in the US by nature of birth somehow loses that quality by virtue of having citizenship in some other nation by nature of birth.

[Jerome]

Naturalized citizen = made citizen by law

Natural born citizen = made citizen by nature of birth
Perfect. That's what everyone's been saying all along. Now kindly explain how you think someone with citizenship in the US by nature of birth somehow loses that quality by virtue of having citizenship in some other nation by nature of birth.

Because naturalized being citizenship by law, making a law which gives citizenship based upon place of birth is a naturalized citizen.

On the other hand, a natural born citizen is a citizen, not by act of law, rather the natural consequence of lineage at birth.

[LadyShea]

Alien residents, however, are under US jurisdiction. My friend was born here, but lived for many years in Europe. She married a Brit. They moved here and had kids. He is a legal resident but not a citizen, she is a citizen. According to Jerome their kids will not be eligible to be President, that makes zero sense.

Again, as far as I can tell, "natural born citizen" is widely understood and interpreted rather simply as someone who is/was a citizen at birth, rather than one who is/was naturalized.

Sure it does make sense if those children were British subjects. Are they?

No idea if the UK counts them as subjects. If they have dual nationalities not by conscious choice, the US doesn't care. They are still American citizens at birth.

[livius drusus]

Italy considers everyone born on Italian soil Italian. They're not fooling around either. A friend of my parents' who was born in Italy of American parents and moved to the US as an infant was arrested on his honeymoon in Rome for evading the draft.

So if the standard is whether another country considers you a citizen, then double US parentage is no guarantee of eligibility either.

[Leesifer]

Greece is the same. Somebody I work with cannot go to Greece to see his family because he was born there but his parents moved here when he was around 2 years old. If he goes back to Greece he could be arrested for not doing his National Service in Greece.

[Kael]

Because naturalized being citizenship by law, making a law which gives citizenship based upon place of birth is a naturalized citizen.

On the other hand, a natural born citizen is a citizen, not by act of law, rather the natural consequence of lineage at birth.
This is quite the convoluted line of thought here. I'm not quite sure what distinction you think you're making, but no one becomes a citizen of anywhere except by law. The only distinction I see are those that have citizenship bestowed at birth (according to a law) and those that acquire it later (according to a law). Perhaps you'd care to rephrase what you said above in a way that makes a modicum of sense?

[MonCapitan2002]

Italy considers everyone born on Italian soil Italian. They're not fooling around either. A friend of my parents' who was born in Italy of American parents and moved to the US as an infant was arrested on his honeymoon in Rome for evading the draft.

So if the standard is whether another country considers you a citizen, then double US parentage is no guarantee of eligibility either.
What about people who aren't ethnically Italian? Say, for instance you had two American citizens of Hispanic descent who had two children while living there and moved back to the US? Would their children be conferred Italian citizenship anyway in spite of not being of Italian descent?

[livius drusus]

Sure. If you're born on Italian soil you're an Italian citizen and subject to all the privileges and responsibilities therein. Ethnicity is not a factor. I'm of German Irish descent myself.

[MonCapitan2002]

Whoa. Well, at least the dual citizenship would be useful when visiting EU countries assuming the US and Italian citizenship can both be kept without rescinding one or the other.

[Kael]

From what I've heard, a number of European countries operate that way. Anyone born on their soil is a citizen.

[Jerome]

Alien residents, however, are under US jurisdiction. My friend was born here, but lived for many years in Europe. She married a Brit. They moved here and had kids. He is a legal resident but not a citizen, she is a citizen. According to Jerome their kids will not be eligible to be President, that makes zero sense.

Again, as far as I can tell, "natural born citizen" is widely understood and interpreted rather simply as someone who is/was a citizen at birth, rather than one who is/was naturalized.

Sure it does make sense if those children were British subjects. Are they?

No idea if the UK counts them as subjects. If they have dual nationalities not by conscious choice, the US doesn't care. They are still American citizens at birth.

By law, not by nature, thus naturalized, not natural born.

[Jerome]

Italy considers everyone born on Italian soil Italian. They're not fooling around either. A friend of my parents' who was born in Italy of American parents and moved to the US as an infant was arrested on his honeymoon in Rome for evading the draft.

So if the standard is whether another country considers you a citizen, then double US parentage is no guarantee of eligibility either.

By law, thus naturalized Italian citizen.

[Jerome]

Because naturalized being citizenship by law, making a law which gives citizenship based upon place of birth is a naturalized citizen.

On the other hand, a natural born citizen is a citizen, not by act of law, rather the natural consequence of lineage at birth.
This is quite the convoluted line of thought here. I'm not quite sure what distinction you think you're making, but no one becomes a citizen of anywhere except by law. The only distinction I see are those that have citizenship bestowed at birth (according to a law) and those that acquire it later (according to a law). Perhaps you'd care to rephrase what you said above in a way that makes a modicum of sense?


You are not understanding how the nation State has evolved.

Being born of citizens of a nation has always denoted natural born citizenship status. This is and always has been understood, no need to codify it. It is the of the law of nations understood by all.

Does the meaning of sovereignty need to be codified?

[Jerome]

Italy considers everyone born on Italian soil Italian. They're not fooling around either. A friend of my parents' who was born in Italy of American parents and moved to the US as an infant was arrested on his honeymoon in Rome for evading the draft.

So if the standard is whether another country considers you a citizen, then double US parentage is no guarantee of eligibility either.

A natural born US citizen and thus able to be POTUS.

A citizen of Italy by law, a naturalized Italian citizen.

[chunksmediocrites]

What about natural born killers vs. naturalized killers vs. dual-citizenship killers vs. born-again killers vs. caesarian-birth Panama Canal but with one-half of their body born in international waters and one parent is dual U.S. and Latvian citizenship, and the other one was born in the United States but then had her citizenship revoked but then saved Barbara Bush's Rhodesian Ridgeback from certain death and gained honorary citizenship to the United States, along with her Uruguayan citizenship, but always considered herself a 'citizen of the world'-er, killers?

Extra credit if we run the last scenario but the baby is born in space.

[Jerome]

Bastard citizenship is also an option.

:P

[chunksmediocrites]

Ha! I'll believe it when I hear it from de Vattel, vato!

[ceptimus]

Say, for instance you had two American citizens of Hispanic descent...
Why are you bringing Spain into it?

[Angakuk]

The meaning of a word, as a matter of law, is defined by the courts and not by the dictionaries.

Let me know of a court case that defines each and every word of US code.

Your statement is ridiculous.

That would, indeed, be ridiculous. Fortunately, that is not my claim. When, in the course of a legal process, the meaning of a particular word is in dispute, then the court may exercise its prerogative of defining what that word means, as a matter of law. Apparently, no court has yet exercised that prerogative with regard to the meaning of "natural born citizen". That being the case, until it is so adjudicated, the meaning of the word is defined by its common and historical usage. Evidence indicates that the phrase "natural born citizen" has been applied to both those who are born of citizen parents (jus sanguinis), without regard to the place of birth and those who are born in and/or under the jurisdiction of a particular country (jus solis), without regard to the citizenship status of the parents. British common law, at the time of the American Revolution, recognized the principle of jus solis. That being the case, there is no compelling reason to believe that the framers of the Constitution did not also recognize the same principle. That there may have been other interpretations in play at that same time does not demonstrate that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, represents the adoption, either explicitly or implicitly, of some other interpretation.

You have failed to demonstrate that the phrase, "natural born citizen", as used in the Constitution, does not incorporate both the principle of jus sanguinis and the principle of jus soli. Unless, and until, a court with the authority to interpret the Constitution defines that phrase, as a matter of law, it is reasonable to assume that both principles apply.

As for why the Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen and only requires that Senators and Representatives be citizens, the answer is quite simple. It was to limit eligibility for the office of President and Commander in Chief to someone who is a citizen by right of birth and to exclude from that same office anyone who is a naturalized citizen. The offices of Senator and Representative exercising, individually, less power and authority were not seen as being in need of quite the same degree of protection.

It is my personal opinion* that at least one of the purposes behind the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen, was to exclude the possibility of some party importing foreign royalty for the purpose of establishing a monarchy in the United States. Imagine, if Britain had had such a law governing eligibility for the throne. There would have been no George I and no house of Hanover. There were, if I am not mistaken, some few Jacobites among the revolutionaries who would have liked nothing more than to offer the throne of America to the Stewart pretender. I don't know that there was ever any real threat of this, but it could certainly have been something against which the framers of the Constitution might have wanted to guard.

(Note: I make no claim for the truth of this theory nor do I cite any authority for it. It is pure speculation on my part.)

[Master Taran]

I can't believe you guys are still feeding that troll.

[Jerome]

Jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the constitution of the US.

Your entire argument is null.

[Angakuk]

The US Constitution is law.

Indeed it is. Therefore, by your reasoning (if it can be dignified as such) a natural born citizen, being a member of a category of citizenship established by law (i.e. the Constitution) is a naturalized citizen. That is, obviously, absurd.

Unless and until Congress passes a law, or a court with the authority to interpret the Constitution rules otherwise, a natural born citizen and a citizen by right of birth mean the same thing. U.S. law recognizes two distinct categories of citizen by right of birth. Those who are born to citizen parents (or a citizen parent and parent who is a resident of the U.S.) and those who are born on U.S. soil or under the jurisdiction of the U.S. This includes children of tourists and illegal immigrants (otherwise there would be no such thing as "anchor babies" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby) and excludes the children of foreign diplomats and others who, by treaty, are not subject to U.S. legal jurisdiction while they are present in the country.

[Angakuk]

Jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the constitution of the US.


You can, of course, prove that claim.

[Jerome]

Jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the constitution of the US.


You can, of course, prove that claim.

When did jus soli become a question on the world scale?

The answer is the proof.

[Jerome]

Unless and until Congress passes a law, or a court with the authority to interpret the Constitution rules otherwise, a natural born citizen and a citizen by right of birth mean the same thing.

You have nothing but your wanting here.

I am sorry that you are unable to understand that a law giving citizenship is a naturalization, even if the condition of birth is a part of the requirement, and the long understood citizenship by linage is not given by law.

[ChuckF]

I can't believe you guys are still feeding that troll.
omgus how can you say no to that face?

[Leesifer]

Say, for instance you had two American citizens of Hispanic descent...
Why are you bringing Spain into it?

It's about time somebody did. It can't always be me.

[Kael]

I am sorry that you are unable to understand that a law giving citizenship is a naturalization, even if the condition of birth is a part of the requirement, and the long understood citizenship by linage is not given by law.
This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I gotta admit, though, this has been a refreshing new take on the matter, quite a pleasant departure from the typical whinging about the birth certificate. Kudos on the effort and originality.

[Angakuk]

Jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the constitution of the US.


You can, of course, prove that claim.

When did jus soli become a question on the world scale?

The answer is the proof.

It has been a recognized principle, in U.S. jurisprudence, since at least 1857, and, if one is willing to believe Justice Curtis and Attorney-General Bates, it was a recognized principle at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, in his 1857 dissenting opinion (http://books.google.com/books?id=2LoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA581&output=text#c_top) in the Dred Scott case, wrote:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free" persons born within either of the colonies were subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of Independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, except so far as some of them were disfranchised by the legislative power of the States, or availed themselves, seasonably, of the right to adhere to the British Crown in the civil contest, and thus to continue British subjects.

An opinion (http://books.google.com/books?id=zo5EJE0sorgC&pg=PA12) published by Edward Bates, United States Attorney-General, 1862.

As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than "the accident of birth"—the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima fade a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the '' natural born'' right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.

I post these opinions, not as evidence that the meaning of "natural born citizen" has been defined, as a matter of law, but as evidence that it was the opinion of both of these legal authorities that the principle of jus soli (i.e., right of citizenship by place of birth) was an established and recognized principle of common law at the time that the Constitution was written. This is the context for jus soli. The context that you claim does not exist.

[D. Scarlatti]

You really need this one explained?

No, I understand. It's you that doesn't know who you're accusing of making shit up.

[D. Scarlatti]

You have not been following the conversation, that is exactly what he was saying.

No, it isn't. As Angakuk explained above. What's amazing is that he needed to explain it -- to you.

You're on a collision course with fail; that is, if you haven't already collided.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

Insect? Yea. Pest? Nay.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Inachis_io_on_Rhododendron.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Tagpfauenauge_(Inachis_io).jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Peacockbutterfly.JPG

[Jerome]

Jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the constitution of the US.


You can, of course, prove that claim.

When did jus soli become a question on the world scale?

The answer is the proof.

It has been a recognized principle, in U.S. jurisprudence, since at least 1857...


Good one, how many years after the writing of the constitution is 1857?

As you can read above, jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the constitution of the US.

[Kael]

And of course, you've mountains of evidence to support this supposition that you're not showing us because...

[Jerome]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162)

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Yep, according to the Supreme court, it is understood, not codified, what natural born citizen means. That being one born of two citizens. Now, the question of being born of one citizen is in doubt as regards the status of natural born.

Thus Obama's eligibility is in doubt as he was born a subject of the British crown.

[chunksmediocrites]

Jerome, have you actually read your signature?

[D. Scarlatti]

It has been a recognized principle, in U.S. jurisprudence, since at least 1857...

Good one, how many years after the writing of the constitution is 1857?

... and, if one is willing to believe Justice Curtis and Attorney-General Bates, it was a recognized principle at the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution.

What a ridiculous, quote-mining weasel you are, Jerome.

[D. Scarlatti]

Minor v. Happersett

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

Exactly as I said (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=719305&postcount=135). It's a wonder that Obama ever obtained a passport, let alone the presidency.

[D. Scarlatti]

Further to Angakuk and original understanding:

Anglo-American nationality law is fundamentally based on the jus soli, although both principles have played a role in the transmission of United States citizenship ever since the first nationality statute was passed. Act of March 26, 1790, Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103. -- Aleinikoff et al, Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy, 5th ed., p. 15.

Look it up.

[Jerome]

I notice you just run around the point and hand wave.

I wonder why?

[Jerome]

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.



Everyone complaining about needing court opinion on the term, I have given you a SCOTUS opinion.

[D. Scarlatti]

I have given you a SCOTUS opinion.

Which provides no support whatsoever for your "point" (such as it is), other than referencing some nebulous, unspecified "doubt" and expressly declining from even addressing it. Every alleged claim you've made thus far has been pretty much definitively debunked. Not that anybody expects you to notice. Keep on trollin'.

[Jerome]

I have given you a SCOTUS opinion.

Which provides no support whatsoever for your "point" (such as it is), other than referencing some nebulous, unspecified "doubt" and expressly declining from even addressing it. Every alleged claim you've made thus far has been pretty much definitively debunked. Not that anybody expects you to notice. Keep on trollin'.


The SCOTUS confirmed that natural born citizen is a term which has long been understood as the children of parents, plural, that are citizens of a nation.

The SCOTUS confirmed that there is no provision for natural born citizenship status to one born under the jurisdiction of another nation.

[Smilin]

I thought this thread was about PeTA


It was and still is....

[D. Scarlatti]

The SCOTUS confirmed that natural born citizen is a term which has long been understood as the children of parents, plural, that are citizens of a nation.

We know that, Einstein. Yet this proposition does not support your "point" (such as it is).

The SCOTUS confirmed that there is no provision for natural born citizenship status to one born under the jurisdiction of another nation.

Dead wrong. Yes, there is. The children of U.S. citizens born beyond the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. (i.e., under the jurisdiction of another nation) are natural born U.S. citizens. You don't even read the shit you're citing, let alone the debunking material that's been provided to you. Keep on trollin'.

[Watser?]

I notice you just run around the point and hand wave.

I wonder why?

:potkettleblack:

(I sure got a lot of use out of this one since you came around)

[D. Scarlatti]

SCOTUS has held that "pot" refers to a kitchen utensil of varying capacity. Therefore it cannot possibly mean marijuana.

[Jerome]

The SCOTUS confirmed that natural born citizen is a term which has long been understood as the children of parents, plural, that are citizens of a nation.

We know that, Einstein. Yet this proposition does not support your "point" (such as it is).

The SCOTUS confirmed that there is no provision for natural born citizenship status to one born under the jurisdiction of another nation.

Dead wrong. Yes, there is. The children of U.S. citizens born beyond the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. (i.e., under the jurisdiction of another nation) are natural born U.S. citizens. You don't even read the shit you're citing, let alone the debunking material that's been provided to you. Keep on trollin'.



Holy cow! No wonder you are having such a hard time understanding. You do not seem to understand that words have different meanings in different contexts.

'Under the jurisdiction of' denotes that the parents or parent are citizen/s of that nation, not that they have to follow the laws of the nation they are visiting.

[D. Scarlatti]

Jesus H. Suffering Rehnquist, I know what jurisdiction means. If you don't, then stop using the word.

The SCOTUS confirmed that there is no provision for natural born citizenship status to one born under the jurisdiction of another nation.

This is false. Yes, there is.

Even children born outside the jurisdiction of the United States* may be natural born citizens. Of the United States.

* You know, under the jurisdiction of another nation.

[D. Scarlatti]

For good measure:

Jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the Constitution of the US.

This claim shown to be false.

Your entire argument is null.

Talk about your fucking handwaving. This is a definitive example.

[Jerome]

For good measure:

Jus soli is an argument that has no context during the writing of the Constitution of the US.

This claim shown to be false.

By citing a reference from 1857?

Are you unaware of when the constitution was written? Here is a hint, it was before 1857.

[D. Scarlatti]

That, which took judicial notice of the original understanding, and by citing an Act of Congress from 1790.

And yes, I know when the fucking Constitution was drafted.

You are hopeless. Goodbye.

[Smilin]

You are hopeless. Goodbye.

Gerome seems hell bent on making every thread a discussion on Obama or that abiogenisis isn't REALLY science.....

Just as Sovereign/Wonderbread wants to turn every thread into a discussion on Sovereignism.

Just making an observation....

[Watser?]

Oh no, he has many more Paulist talking points that he has no evidence to support.

[Master Taran]

You are hopeless. Goodbye.

Gerome seems hell bent on making every thread a discussion on Obama or that abiogenisis isn't REALLY science.....

Just as Sovereign/Wonderbread wants to turn every thread into a discussion on Sovereignism.

Just making an observation....Looks like a spamming troll. :glare:

[erimir]

Unless and until Congress passes a law, or a court with the authority to interpret the Constitution rules otherwise, a natural born citizen and a citizen by right of birth mean the same thing. U.S. law recognizes two distinct categories of citizen by right of birth. Those who are born to citizen parents (or a citizen parent and parent who is a resident of the U.S.) and those who are born on U.S. soil or under the jurisdiction of the U.S.My father is a US citizen, and my mother is a Swedish citizen; I was born in the US. I have dual citizenship.

Are you saying that had I been born in Sweden or somewhere else not in the US (and my mom was not at the time a permanent resident of the US), I would not have American citizenship, and would need to be naturalized?

According to Jerome I'm not eligible to run for president, apparently...

[Angakuk]

Are you saying that had I been born in Sweden or somewhere else not in the US (and my mom was not at the time a permanent resident of the US), I would not have American citizenship, and would need to be naturalized?

That could depend upon a number of factors. Such as, what year you were born, how many years, after the age of 14, your father was resident in the U.S. and whether your parents were married, to each other. The law has varied, over time.

U.S. State Dept. (http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html)
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

According to Jerome I'm not eligible to run for president, apparently...
Jerome is just plain wrong. If you are a citizen, by right of birth, then you are a natural born citizen. He has provided no compelling evidence to the contrary.

[erimir]

Oh, I think Jerome's wrong too.

Just sayin'.

[Jerome]

Are you saying that had I been born in Sweden or somewhere else not in the US (and my mom was not at the time a permanent resident of the US), I would not have American citizenship, and would need to be naturalized?

According to Jerome I'm not eligible to run for president, apparently...

You would be a naturalized citizen, a citizen by law through your father's citizenship status, no process needed. You would not be able to be POTUS.

[Angakuk]

FindLaw | Cases and Codes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162)

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Yep, according to the Supreme court, it is understood, not codified, what natural born citizen means. That being one born of two citizens. Now, the question of being born of one citizen is in doubt as regards the status of natural born.


Good one, how many years after the writing of the constitution is 1872?

Gee, my citation from a Justice of the Supreme Court is nearer in time to the writing of the Constitution than is your citation. I guess that means that I win.

In any case, your quote from Minor v. Happersett, while acknowledging that
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.", does not assert this as the exclusive definition of 'natural born citizen'. Indeed it rather explicitly states that there exists at least one additional interpretation of the meaning of 'natural born citizen' (for an example of such see my previous citation (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=719521&postcount=174) from Justice Curtis' opinion in the Dred Scott case) and declines to comment on the merits of that definition.

Two other points to consider:

1. If we are to treat "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens" as the exclusive definition of 'natural born citizen" this would deny that status to children born in any other country, whether or not their parents were citizens of the United States.

2. The passage you have cited treats 'native' and 'natural born' as equivalent terms.

[Jerome]

Jerome is just plain wrong. If you are a citizen, by right of birth, then you are a natural born citizen. He has provided no compelling evidence to the contrary.

I am to prove a negative, is that how this works? I need to show you a law which says what natural born citizen is not. Your logic is backwards.

No, you need to prove that natural born citizen means something extra beyond that which the SCOTUS and previous common law says it does mean.

[Crumb]

According to Jerome I'm not eligible to run for president, apparently...
Gay people can't be President! :copno:

[Watser?]

A gay or black person can never be a Natural Born Citizen™

[Jerome]

Unless and until Congress passes a law, or a court with the authority to interpret the Constitution rules otherwise, a natural born citizen and a citizen by right of birth mean the same thing.

By your logic here, if a law were written that a person born in Cuba is an American citizen that would be equal to natural born citizen.

Just because a law gives citizenship based upon birth place circumstances does not mean that it is natural born citizen status.

Just because 'birth' is present in both circumstances does not equate the terms. I think this is your confusion.

[Jerome]

According to Jerome I'm not eligible to run for president, apparently...
Gay people can't be President! :copno:

FAIL!!11!!!11!!

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/civil/jb_civil_lincoln2_1_e.jpg

[Jerome]

That could depend upon a number of factors. Such as, what year you were born, how many years, after the age of 14, your father was resident in the U.S. and whether your parents were married, to each other. The law has varied, over time.

Here we are!

Natural born citizenship status is not dependent on law.

[Angakuk]

Jerome is just plain wrong. If you are a citizen, by right of birth, then you are a natural born citizen. He has provided no compelling evidence to the contrary.

I am to prove a negative, is that how this works? I need to show you a law which says what natural born citizen is not. Your logic is backwards.

No, you need to prove that natural born citizen means something extra beyond that which the SCOTUS and previous common law says it does mean.

No, you need to prove that the definition you are using is an exclusive definition and does not allow for additional interpretations of the meaning of the phrase, 'natural born citizen'. I have provided you with legal opinions (both of which predate your citation from the Supreme Court) that support a definition of 'natural born citizen' which incorporates the principle of jus solis. For that matter, your citation, from an 1872 opinion of the Supreme Court, incorporates both jus solis and jus sanquinis, a fact that you are apparently too dense to have noticed before you cited it.

[Angakuk]

Unless and until Congress passes a law, or a court with the authority to interpret the Constitution rules otherwise, a natural born citizen and a citizen by right of birth mean the same thing.

By your logic here, if a law were written that a person born in Cuba is an American citizen that would be equal to natural born citizen.

Just because a law gives citizenship based upon birth place circumstances does not mean that it is natural born citizen status.

Just because 'birth' is present in both circumstances does not equate the terms. I think this is your confusion.

Yes, if the United States Congress passed a law declaring that all persons born in Cuba are, at birth, automatically considered to be citizens of the United States, then such persons would be, so long as the law was not ruled unconstitutional, citizens at birth and natural born citizens. Until such time as a court, with the authority to rule on the question, defines 'natural born citizen' in some other manner, 'natural born citizen' and 'citizen at birth' are equivalent terms. The confusion is entirely your own.

[Angakuk]

That could depend upon a number of factors. Such as, what year you were born, how many years, after the age of 14, your father was resident in the U.S. and whether your parents were married, to each other. The law has varied, over time.

Here we are!

Natural born citizenship status is not dependent on law.

Of course it is. When it comes to defining citizenship there is no authority higher than the state. Citizenship status is entirely dependent upon law. The state defines, as a matter of law, who is and who is not a citizen and whether or not that citizenship is by right of birth (i.e. natural born) or by right of naturalization.

[Jerome]

Unless and until Congress passes a law, or a court with the authority to interpret the Constitution rules otherwise, a natural born citizen and a citizen by right of birth mean the same thing.

By your logic here, if a law were written that a person born in Cuba is an American citizen that would be equal to natural born citizen.

Just because a law gives citizenship based upon birth place circumstances does not mean that it is natural born citizen status.

Just because 'birth' is present in both circumstances does not equate the terms. I think this is your confusion.

Yes, if the United States Congress passed a law declaring that all persons born in Cuba are, at birth, automatically considered to be citizens of the United States, then such persons would be, so long as the law was not ruled unconstitutional, citizens at birth and natural born citizens. Until such time as a court, with the authority to rule on the question, defines 'natural born citizen' in some other manner, 'natural born citizen' and 'citizen at birth' are equivalent terms. The confusion is entirely your own.


I will let your words here simmer.








So, if North Korea passed a law that Pres. Obama was a natural born citizen of their nation, then he is?

Can you not see how silly this is?

Natural born citizenship is a long time understood idea not subject to whims.

[The Lone Ranger]

The philosopher/biologist Massimo Pigliucci has pointed out that smart, well-educated and rational people often commit what he calls the "Rationialistic Fallacy." The rationalistic fallacy is when you assume that other people are smart-enough to understand what you mean when, in fact, they aren't.


I'd be willing to bet that it simply never occurred to the writers of the Constitution that anyone would ever interpret the term "natural born citizen" as meaning anything other than what any intelligent and rational person of the time -- anyone conversant with the terminology of the time -- would interpret it as meaning: "someone who was born a citizen of the United States."


Smart people often make the mistake of assuming that other people are as smart as they are. Sometimes, they're wrong.

Cheers,

Michael

[Jerome]

I'd be willing to bet that it simply never occurred to the writers of the Constitution that anyone would ever interpret the term "natural born citizen" as meaning anything other than what any intelligent and rational person of the time -- anyone conversant with the terminology of the time -- would interpret it as meaning: "someone who was born a citizen of the United States."

Interestingly the term "natural born citizen" has little to do with location of birth, rather it concerns the lineage of the person birthed as the crux.

[erimir]

You would be a naturalized citizen, a citizen by law through your father's citizenship status, no process needed. You would not be able to be POTUS.And given that I was born in the US, but my mother is not a US citizen, I can't?

That can't be right tho, cuz I'm not black nor a crypto-Muslim.
So, if North Korea passed a law that Pres. Obama was a natural born citizen of their nation, then he is?

Can you not see how silly this is?

Natural born citizenship is a long time understood idea not subject to whims.According to North Korean law, yes, he would be a natural born citizen of North Korea. Pres. Obama would not likely consider himself to be a citizen of North Korea, and other countries would not consider him a North Korean national, and as far as the US gov't is concerned, Obama would still be a (natural born) US citizen and not a North Korean citizen. But if, say, Obama decided to move to North Korea and did consider himself an NK citizen, got an NK passport, etc., other countries would recognize him as a North Korean citizen. They would most likely not take a position on whether he was a "natural born" citizen of North Korea, since I can't see what possible reason other countries would have to be concerned with the natural born status of citizens of other countries.

But according to North Korean law (the only law that would matter if, say, determining whether Obama was eligible for some benefit or position that required natural born NK citizenship under NK law) he would be.

You are aware, I'm sure, that sometimes different countries have competing claims to a person's citizenship status, yes? Some countries do not allow you to renounce your citizenship in that country, and automatically confer citizenship on people born in the appropriate circumstances. If you immigrate to the US from one of those countries, renounce your original citizenship and become a naturalized citizen of the US, then the US gov't will consider you to only be a citizen of the US. Your original country will still consider you to only be one of their citizens, and not a US citizen. That fact will be irrelevant to the US gov't tho.

In the case of US law and Constitution, the only thing that matters for whether Obama is eligible to be the president of the US is whether US law considers him to be a natural born citizen. It doesn't matter what other countries think he is.

If the US passed a law that said anyone born in London was a US citizen, then anyone born there (at least after the law went into effect, anyway) would be a natural born US citizen according to US law. Now, the fact is that the US would not pass such a law because the UK would have a problem with it, and we probably have treaties with the UK that this would violate, but if we did pass such a law, then according to US law, someone born in London would be eligible to run for president if they matched the other requirements.

[Angakuk]

Interestingly the term "natural born citizen" has little to do with location of birth, rather it concerns the lineage of the person birthed as the crux.

As you choose to define the term, yes, that is what it means. However, it is not self-evident that your definition is the only possible, correct or operative definition. So, you can repeat the claim as often and loudly as you like, but that does not make it true.

[ChuckF]

eh n/m

[Jerome]

Interestingly the term "natural born citizen" has little to do with location of birth, rather it concerns the lineage of the person birthed as the crux.

As you choose to define the term, yes, that is what it means. However, it is not self-evident that your definition is the only possible, correct or operative definition. So, you can repeat the claim as often and loudly as you like, but that does not make it true.


I have provided the historical evidence that the definition I have presented is the understood definition.

You have provided nothing that establishes the definition as including anything other than the historically evidenced definition.

[Jerome]

According to North Korean law, yes, he would be a natural born citizen of North Korea. Pres. Obama would not likely consider himself to be a citizen of North Korea...

Again, the whims of law do not define 'natural born citizen'.

[Jerome]

In the case of US law and Constitution, the only thing that matters for whether Obama is eligible to be the president of the US is whether US law considers him to be a natural born citizen. It doesn't matter what other countries think he is.


O.K., what is the law that defines a born British subject of an American citizen as "natural born"?

[Kael]

Again, the whims of law do not define 'natural born citizen'.
That's a pure, steaming pile of bullshit, Jerome. Nothing defines citizenship in any legal context outside of laws. Since this whole thing is about the legal requirements for a position within a nation-state only a law-based interpretation and definition of citizenship, natural born or otherwise, is relevant. Any other use or definition of the term is entirely outside the question.

There is no legal, logical, or compelling reason to believe the term 'natural born citizen' means anything different from 'citizen at birth'. Certainly not in anything you've presented. I should also add that this is the first time I have ever heard someone claim that a child granted citizenship at birth, whatever the reason, is a naturalized citizen. I invite you to provide evidence or precedent for that little gem.

[Jerome]

Again, the whims of law do not define 'natural born citizen'.
That's a pure, steaming pile of bullshit, Jerome. Nothing defines citizenship in any legal context outside of laws. Since this whole thing is about the legal requirements for a position within a nation-state only a law-based interpretation and definition of citizenship, natural born or otherwise, is relevant. Any other use or definition of the term is entirely outside the question.

There is no legal, logical, or compelling reason to believe the term 'natural born citizen' means anything different from 'citizen at birth'. Certainly not in anything you've presented. I should also add that this is the first time I have ever heard someone claim that a child granted citizenship at birth, whatever the reason, is a naturalized citizen. I certainly invite you to provide evidence or precedent for that little gem.


O.K., what is the law that defines a born British subject of an American citizen as "natural born"?

[Angakuk]

Interestingly the term "natural born citizen" has little to do with location of birth, rather it concerns the lineage of the person birthed as the crux.

As you choose to define the term, yes, that is what it means. However, it is not self-evident that your definition is the only possible, correct or operative definition. So, you can repeat the claim as often and loudly as you like, but that does not make it true.


I have provided the historical evidence that the definition I have presented is the understood definition.

You have provided nothing that establishes the definition as including anything other than the historically evidenced definition.

Wrong, again. You have provided historical evidence that Vattel makes use of a particular definition of the term. You have failed to demonstrate that Vattel's usage governed all uses of the term during the time that the Constitution was being written. You have most definitely failed to demonstrate that the term was exclusively understood, by the authors of the Constitution, in the sense in which Vattel uses it.

In response I have provided citations from two legal authorities, one a Supreme Court justice and one an Attorney-General of the United States, to the effect that the term, 'natural born citizen, was commonly understood, during the period in question, to apply to those who were born in the country, without regard to the citizenship of their parents. That just is a part of the "historically evidenced definition". That you want the facts to be otherwise is irrelevant.

If you want to demonstrate that Vattel's usage was the only operative definition intended by the authors of the Constitution, you are going to have to present testimony, from those same authors, to the effect that they intended to adopt that usage, exclusively, and that they explicitly rejected any other contemporary understanding of the meaning of the term.

[Angakuk]

O.K., what is the law that defines a born British subject of an American citizen as "natural born"?

Say what? That sentence isn't even coherent. What, exactly, is the phrase, "British subject of an American citizen", supposed to mean?

[LadyShea]

We adopted our son. His original birth certificate and parentage is sealed. We were issued a replacement birth certificate with our names on it. His legal status is the same as if he were born to us. This is true for the majority of adoptees (including those adopted Internationally in many instances).

So, can those who were adopted not be POTUS as their "lineage" cannot be ascertained most of the time? Or does the adoptive parents lineage take precedence?

What about those born to single mothers who choose not to name the father, or don't know who the father is? What about those who lie about the father of their children, saying it was their husband when the pregnancy was due to an affair?

Does "lineage" as you are using it mean biological, or legal?

[Jerome]

O.K., what is the law that defines a born British subject of an American citizen as "natural born"?

Say what? That sentence isn't even coherent. What, exactly, is the phrase, "British subject of an American citizen", supposed to mean?

Really?

What law states that a person born a subject of the British crown of an American citizen denotes 'natural born citizenship'?


Obama as an example: he was born a British subject by his father, of; his mother, an American citizen.

[Jerome]

We adopted our son. His original birth certificate and parentage is sealed. We were issued a replacement birth certificate with our names on it. His legal status is the same as if he were born to us. This is true for the majority of adoptees (including those adopted Internationally in many instances).

So, can those who were adopted not be POTUS as their "lineage" cannot be ascertained in many instances? Or does the adoptive parents lineage take precedence?

What about those born to single mothers who choose not to name the father, or don't know who the father is? What about those who lie about the father of their children, saying it was their husband when the pregnancy was due to an affair?

Does "lineage" as you are using it mean biological, or legal?


A person of unknown lineage would not be of natural born status.


Keep in mind that these are not my rules, these are the rules of the establishment.

[LadyShea]

US Code states such a person is a citizen at birth if born here in the US, or if born outside the US if certain criteria are met. But you seem to think citizen at birth does not mean natural born citizen.

[Jerome]

US Code states such a person is a citizen at birth if born here in the US, or if born outside the US if certain criteria are met. But you seem to think citizen at birth does not mean natural born citizen.

Yes, by law, hence a naturalized citizen.

Just because the word 'birth/born' are present does not make the circumstances equal.

[Kael]

As I said, a steaming pile of unsubstantiated bullshit.

[Jerome]

If the US wrote a law which stated that every person born on the Earth is a citizen of the US, would that make everyone in the world a 'natural born' US citizen?

[LadyShea]

Does "lineage" as you are using it mean biological, or legal?

A person of unknown lineage would not be of natural born status.

Keep in mind that these are not my rules, these are the rules of the establishment.

So in your opinion, lineage is biological?

In the case of adoption, it is not "unknown", but the records are sealed and therefore not accessible.

Also, without DNA testing, paternity cannot be demonstrated definitively...why do you think illegitimacy was such a big deal for most of history? It was because the woman's husband was always assumed to be the father....doesn't mean he actually was.

[Jerome]

So in your opinion, lineage is biological?

Not opinion.

lineage: a group of individuals tracing descent from a common ancestor

[LadyShea]

Well, how do you suppose we prove every Presidential candidates "natural born citizen" status? DNA testing?

You have to be trolling. Nobody who was adopted can be POTUS according to you, and anyone can easily challenge any other person's paternity, and they would have to go to extraordinary measures to prove themselves natural born.

I doubt the founding fathers were thinking along those lines.

[Jerome]

Well, how do you suppose we prove every Presidential candidates "natural born citizen" status? DNA testing?

Lineage.


In the circumstance of the current President, he admits to not being a natural born citizen. That seems good enough.

[LadyShea]

Well, how do you suppose we prove every Presidential candidates "natural born citizen" status? DNA testing?

Lineage.


Prove you are your dad's biological son. If you voted for someone in the election, prove he is not the product of an affair with the illegal immigrant gardener.

[Jerome]

Well, how do you suppose we prove every Presidential candidates "natural born citizen" status? DNA testing?

You have to be trolling. Nobody who was adopted can be POTUS according to you, and anyone can easily challenge any other person's paternity, and they would have to go to extraordinary measures to prove themselves natural born.

I doubt the founding fathers were thinking along those lines.


Do you really think the founding father meant for there to be a clause that allows those of unknown status to become POTUS?


So, a Prince of England could be 'adopted' by US citizens and then become the POTUS?

[Jerome]

Well, how do you suppose we prove every Presidential candidates "natural born citizen" status? DNA testing?

Lineage.


Prove you are your dad's biological son. If you voted for someone in the election, prove he is not the product of an affair with the illegal immigrant gardener.

I don't have to, it is not in question.

[LadyShea]

Do you really think the founding father meant for there to be a clause that allows those of unknown status to become POTUS?


So, a Prince of England could be 'adopted' by US citizens and then become the POTUS?

Blood lineage obsession is the stuff of monarchies, which is against everything the founding fathers were for. They wanted a government of the people and by the people and for the people...not inherited through lineage.

George Washington himself adopted a son, do you really think he fought for Independence, and helped form a government that was anti-monarchy, and yet didn't want his son to have a chance at being President?

[Jerome]

Blood lineage obsession is the stuff of monarchies, which is against everything the founding fathers were for.

John Adams advocated for a sort of monarchy, so, no, monarchy was not against everything the founding fathers were for.

[Jerome]

George Washington himself adopted a son, do you really think he fought for Independence, and helped form a government that was anti-monarchy, and yet didn't want his son to have a chance at being President?


You must realize that the great people in history, and today, are the ones that set aside their "wants" for a larger precedent.

[erimir]

What law states that a person born a subject of the British crown of an American citizen denotes 'natural born citizenship'?None.

However, Obama was born an American citizen of a mother with American citizenship on American soil. Those are the relevant facts.

What law states that if a person who would otherwise be a natural born citizen of the United States is not considered a natural born citizen if another country also considers him to be a citizen at his birth?

Good luck finding that one.

[Angakuk]

O.K., what is the law that defines a born British subject of an American citizen as "natural born"?

Say what? That sentence isn't even coherent. What, exactly, is the phrase, "British subject of an American citizen", supposed to mean?

Really?

What law states that a person born a subject of the British crown of an American citizen denotes 'natural born citizenship'?

Well, that is better. The sentence, as revised, at least has the virtue of making sense.

Personally, I know of no law that directly addresses the question, on either side of the issue.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

1. Is it, or is it not, the current practice, in the United States, to grant citizenship, at birth, to children born in the U.S., without regard to the citizenship status of their parents, with the exception of those whose parents enjoy diplomatic immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. laws?

2. Do you know of any law that specifically states that the term 'natural born citizen' means anything other than citizen by right of birth?

Introduction to American Government (1922) (http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=citizenship+by+right+of+birth&sig=ka7lLP9iAKBlvjtU1YarrWXXyk0&ei=HWVASsOKM5fKMtGM8Fk&ct=result&id=pm4pAAAAYAAJ&ots=yBfYzAkkQw&output=text)

Historically, the acquisition of citizenship by birth has been determined according to two different principles, both of which find recognition in the present practice of the United States. One of these principles is the jus sanguinis, under which the nationality of the child is construed to be the same as that of the parents or one of them, regardless of the place of birth. The other is the jus soli, according to which nationality is determined by the place of birth, irrespective of the citizenship of the parents. The jus sanguinis, which was commonly followed in antiquity, passed into the Roman law and also the law of the early Germans. Under the influence of feudal ideas, which stressed the relation of the individual to land, the jus soli for a time supplanted the rule of blood-relationship. But the revival of Roman law in the later Middle Ages brought the latter again into general favor; and jus sanguinis is today the principle according to which citizenship is determined in practically all of continental Europe, and also throughout Latin America.

On the other hand, the jus soli, first introduced in England at the time of the Norman Conquest, has continued to prevail there; and from England it was brought, as a part of the common law, to English-speaking America. The Supreme Court early declared that citizenship by birth was to be determined according to this principle;1 and by stipulating that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof should be considered citizens, the Fourteenth Amendment re-enacted the common-law rule and incorporated it in the constitution. The rule has been held to be no less applicable to children born of alien parents who are ineligible for naturalization than to the offspring of parents who are eligible. Thus in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark,2 decided in 1898, the Supreme Court declared that a child born of Chinese parents in the United States is a citizen, notwithstanding that Chinese, under United States laws, are incapable of being naturalized.

The doctrine of jus soli is, however, not followed completely or exclusively. In the first place, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" sets up a qualification. Thus, children born to foreign diplomatic representatives in the United States are not citizens, because even though born on American soil they are considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of the state which the minister or ambassador represents, and not to the jurisdiction of the United States. But children born in the United States to foreign consuls or to other foreign citizens or subjects residing or temporarily sojourning here are held to be natural-born citizens, for the reason that, being covered by no diplomatic immunity, they are subject to American jurisdiction. In the second place, an Indian whose parents at the time of his birth were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribe is not a citizen, and he can become such only by naturalization, even though he was born within the limits of the United States.

The exception with regard to American Indians was removed with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

[Watser?]

Again, the whims of law do not define 'natural born citizen'.
That's a pure, steaming pile of bullshit, Jerome. Nothing defines citizenship in any legal context outside of laws. Since this whole thing is about the legal requirements for a position within a nation-state only a law-based interpretation and definition of citizenship, natural born or otherwise, is relevant. Any other use or definition of the term is entirely outside the question.

Ah, but here we come to the sacred libertarian woo-woo territory of 'natural rights' You can't argue with a person's deeply held religious beliefs. You can mock them though :taunt:

[Smilin]

Ah, but here we come to the sacred libertarian woo-woo territory of 'natural rights' You can't argue with a person's deeply held religious beliefs. You can mock them though :taunt:

You mean how Abiogenisis isn't REAL science...yet Creationism IS?:chin::giggle:

[D. Scarlatti]

Just checking in for laughs. So, Jerome Da Gnome, quote-mining weasel and pompous "u r ignant" troll, has abandoned his quest at locating his definition in the law, has since condemned the law's uselessness for locating the definition he insists upon (whatever the hell it is), and has now taken to insisting that he gets it from table-tapping with Shirley MacLaine. Figures.

[wei yau]

Sure. If you're born on Italian soil you're an Italian citizen and subject to all the privileges and responsibilities therein. Ethnicity is not a factor. I'm of German Irish descent myself.

Listen here my kraut-mick friend, tell your boss I'm no band leader.