Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 12-17-2010, 02:34 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,884,155 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect, unless you're suggesting that non-citizen biological fathers have no rights in the U.S. Obama was born a Brit and therefore did not owe sole allegiance to the U.S. at birth. Obama is not a natural born citizen.
What rights of Obama senior would have been negated?

And again, while I'm sure you think your OPINION is the final word, you have no foundation for the OPINION that Obama's dual citizenship would somehoe negate his natural-born citizenship status. You don't have a law or a single case ruling for YOUR opinion. None of the birthers does. Which is part of the reason why none of their lawsuits have progressed. There's no legal foundation for their argument. It's all wishful thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:35 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13714
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Military action and troop deployment to foreign countries aren't responsibilities of the U.S. Government because Obama isn't the president.
The responsible party is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:38 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,840,107 times
Reputation: 13714
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
What rights of Obama senior would have been negated?
They haven't been. That's what makes Obama a born Brit, and not a natural born American citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:40 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,884,155 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. Read the British Nationality Act of 1948. There are some cases in which someone has to 'claim' British citizenship to have it. Obama is not one of them. He was born a Brit because his father was a Brit at the time of his birth.
And still it doesn't matter to the United States. It matters to Great Britain. It doesn't matter to the United States. The U.S. Government doesn't care what Great Britain does. Obama was born on US soil to an American mother. That makes him an AMERICAN citizen as far as AMERICAN laws are concerned. You have no AMERICAN laws that preclude natural-born status because one parent wasn't an AMERICAN. Don't offer up the Jay letter. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is the law as it was written in 2008. And you have no legal foundation for your argument. None.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:41 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The responsible party is?

You first.

Me, 100th - Monkey, that is!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:42 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,884,155 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
They haven't been. That's what makes Obama a born Brit, and not a natural born American citizen.
Because you say so?

And what authority do you have to make this assertion. Oh, that's right, none. You don't have any authority. You don't have any legal standing. You don't have any legal precedent. You don't have any law to reference. You don't have anything. You have nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:43 PM
 
26,578 posts, read 14,449,955 times
Reputation: 7435
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Obama was born a Brit and therefore did not owe sole allegiance to the U.S. at birth. Obama is not a natural born citizen.
but so was my daughter. she has the exact same allegiance to the UK that obama has but you declared her a NBC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,080,363 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. Read the British Nationality Act of 1948. There are some cases in which someone has to 'claim' British citizenship to have it. Obama is not one of them. He was born a Brit because his father was a Brit at the time of his birth.
The British Nationality Act is irrelevant to American citizenship. The United States is a sovereign nation. No other nation gets to tell us who is or is not a natural born US citizen under our law.

That said... even under the BNA, Obama absolutely would have to claim his British Citizenship for it to be in effect, since all jus sanguinis citizenships require an affirmative act to demonstrate one deserves the status. This is true 100% of the time for every nation that grants it. Even the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:44 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Because you say so?

And what authority do you have to make this assertion. Oh, that's right, none. You don't have any authority. You don't have any legal standing. You don't have any legal precedent. You don't have any law to reference. You don't have anything. You have nothing.
You talking about IC, or Obama?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2010, 02:54 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,884,155 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
You talking about IC, or Obama?
It would have to be IC, wouldn't it?

Obama actually has legal precedent if this were to ever get to a courtroom. Because previous Presidents have had similar situations where one of their parents was not an American citizen. If those Presidents served without challenge, then there was a presumption when they served that they were natural-born citizens despite their parents not BOTH being American citizens. That presumption would be legal precedent in any court hearing today, because the court today would be asked to define what a natural-born citizen is, and the only time natural-born citizenship is an issue is in regards to the Presidency. The historical record of how that status has been defined would have to examine previous Presidents and their birth situations. The court could not now arbitrarily re-define natural-born citizenship in such a way as to declare past Presidencies as illegitimate because so doing would put into question any treaties or agreements those Presidents entered into, or any laws that were signed into effect by those Presidents.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:52 AM.

© 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