Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-07-2008, 07:47 PM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,463 posts, read 7,281,702 times
Reputation: 871

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Yes, my friend! That is what the law says! It's been quoted over and over again.
Katriana - I would say "Prove it!", but that would sound just like you and your friend pirategirl.

What you "think" is not correct. Being born on American soil isn't all it takes or else all those Mexicans coming over the border, and those Cubans landing on our shores, would be giving birth to potential future Presidents.

There are 3 types of citizenships. Only one type is eligible for POTUS.

1. Citizen: Someone not born on U.S. soil, but has become a U.S. citizen through naturalization. (Not eligible for POTUS)

2. Born Citizen: Born on U.S. soil, but one or both parents were not U.S. citizens. (Not eligible for POTUS) [This is Obama]

3. Natural-Born-Citizen: Born on U.S. soil and both parents are at the very least Born Citizens. (Eligible for POTUS)

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2008, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Here is the proof. Please read the whole article. Nothing, I repeat nothing, is said about the citizenship of a person's parents.
Nothing, I repeat nothing, is said about the citizenship of a person's parents.
Nothing, I repeat nothing, is said about the citizenship of a person's parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
From your own link:

"Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Plus others in list.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
"
Donofiro is wrong. Donofiro is wrong. Donofiro is wrong.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Read it. Read it. Read it.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-07-2008 at 07:55 PM.. Reason: add link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 07:57 PM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,463 posts, read 7,281,702 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Here is the proof. Please read the whole article. Nothing, I repeat nothing, is said about the citizenship of a person's parents.
Nothing, I repeat nothing, is said about the citizenship of a person's parents.
Nothing, I repeat nothing, is said about the citizenship of a person's parents.


Donofiro is wrong. Donofiro is wrong. Donofiro is wrong.
Katiana - Read what you have posted! It says "citizens of the U.S". You can be a U.S. Citizen, but not a "Natural Born Citizen". There is a difference! The POTUS must be a NBC. This is what you fail to accept...

Unless a child is Born on U.S. soil and both parents are at the very least Born Citizens the child cannot be a "naturally born" U.S. citizen because their citizenship and allegiance are not owed naturally and solely to the United States.

Read United States v. Won Ark Kim - This will get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...._Wong_Kim_Ark

Last edited by Kootr; 12-07-2008 at 08:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
It also says: Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.

It does not say anything about a person's parents. Nowhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 08:29 PM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,463 posts, read 7,281,702 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
It also says: Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.

It does not say anything about a person's parents. Nowhere.
Sure it does! You may want to broaden your scope to include "U.S.-born children of foreigners" and other such wording...

"It has also been suggested by some that Wong Kim Ark supports the view that non-U.S.-born children of American parentage are not natural-born citizens of the United States and that such an individual may therefore not legally become President or Vice-President, even though Congress has enacted laws providing that foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are (in many cases) U.S. citizens by birth via jus sanguinis. Proponents of this view sometimes point to the passage from the Supreme Court's minority opinion about U.S.-born children of foreigners being eligible for the Presidency, but not foreign-born children of U.S. citizens; note, though, that this statement, being part of the minority opinion, is not in any way legally binding as a precedent."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Obama's mother was NOT a foreigner. She was born in Kansas. Nothing, not her age, her 'marriage' to a non-American, nothing negates that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 08:59 PM
 
Location: West, Southwest, East & Northeast
3,463 posts, read 7,281,702 times
Reputation: 871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Obama's mother was NOT a foreigner. She was born in Kansas. Nothing, not her age, her 'marriage' to a non-American, nothing negates that.
No one said Obama's mother was a foreigner. But Obama's father was a Kenyan who owed his allegiance to Britain, which this allegiance was automatically passed on to his son (Obama, Jr.). Thus Obama, Jr. had dual citizenship at birth and was not a "Natural Born Citizen", which is a requirement to be POTUS. In addition, no one can be granted NBC status if such status was not naturally bestowed at birth. As such, when Obama's dual citizenship expired it does not mean that he gained NBC status. If a person did not have NBC status at birth, the person can never have NBC status. This does not mean the person is not a U.S. citizen, because he most certainly is. However, there IS a difference between a U.S. citizen and a Natural Born Citizen, the latter being a requirement to be President of the United States............
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 09:06 PM
 
1,830 posts, read 5,331,498 times
Reputation: 1991
Lmao @ Kootr. Wong Kim Ark case does not help your argument.

Quote:
Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
You are also misinterpreting the wiki text you quoted @ 6:29. It's telling you that proponents of your view on citizenship use the minority opinion (the dissent) for support, but minority or dissenting opinions are not binding precedent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 09:26 PM
 
Location: The Coldest Place
998 posts, read 1,506,953 times
Reputation: 203
I dunno why you guys continue to try and convince him

He is a textbook case of what that Salon article was talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2008, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guero View Post
I dunno why you guys continue to try and convince him

He is a textbook case of what that Salon article was talking about.
Sadly, I think you're right. Especially the part about disregarding evidence that doesn't fit the conspiracy, like the constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top