Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, great...point out that Miss Informed is demanding that a personal letter be interpreted as if it had the legal authority of the Constitution and she starts shrieking again....
. According to British Nationality Law at the time Trump was born, British citizenship could only descend to a child born outside the UK via a British mother
Talk about ignorant,you clip the part off my sentence where I specifically said ......."I don't really believe that " and then act like I believe it and call me ignorant....of course I can edit your posts in a quote too.Look Informed Consent just said Donald Trump isn't Qualified!!!!He got British citizenship through his mother!!!My post proves it.......as long as no one goes back and sees what you actually wrote.
"Back in September, my friend Donald said he had his lawyers look at this from every which way and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this birther issue," Cruz said. "Now since September, the Constitution hasn't changed. But the poll numbers have. And I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa."
Let me ask YOU a question... Do you think the US citizens born in the US to (naturalized at Independence) US citizen parents who were impressed into service in the British Royal Navy in the late 18th and early 19th centuries thought they were anything other than totally loyal to the US?
It's not about "feelings." It's about well-established, centuries old international LAW.
Impressment of American sailors wasn't accepted under international law.It really wasn't even supposed to happen under British law.The British Navy would board US ships looking for British deserters,sometimes they took American sailors too.The US protested,it was one of the causes of the War of 1812.The president didn't just shrug his shoulders and tell the people,"there is nothing we can do,its legal under international law".The British Navy was powerful and pretty much did whatever it wanted.It wasn't like we could go to the UN or the Hague in those days.It really has no relevance to this topic regardless of how many times you cite it..
When the state dept warns of possible difficulties inherent in dual citizenship situations it is simply stating common sense.If a US citizen gets into trouble in another country there are limits to what they can do and if that country also considers you one of their citizens there is even less they can do.It does't mean that if Cuba decided to draft Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio because they have Cuban born fathers that it would be legal and enforcible under 'international law'.
My post was not directed to you. It was directed at someone else. I have already REPEALED your opinion and superseded it with my own.
Good one.
I have already shown that there exists replacement legislation for the 1790 statute.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but I'm not giving my "opinion." I'm stating historical facts. 
