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 04-10-2013, 08:46 AM
 
49,773 posts, read 20,891,100 times
Reputation: 5802

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
And if Wong is born a citizen
Ruled to be true because of his permanently domiciled parents and other named facts.
Quote:
and we only have two kinds of citizens
Doesn't eliminate the existence of a citizenship subset. For example, a born citizen can also be born a dual citizen. Not all born citizens are born dual citizens. Those born such are a subset of born citizens that have met an additional criterion. That additional criterion adds another discriptor to their citizenship status: born dual citizen. Exactly like 'natural born citizen' requires the meeting of an additional criterion to add the additional descriptor. If such wasn't required, the Constitution would merely have required 'born citizen' for POTUS eligibility. Note that it doesn't.

 
Old 04-10-2013, 08:53 AM
 
36,109 posts, read 19,735,085 times
Reputation: 10767
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Ruled to be true because of his permanently domiciled parents and other named facts. Doesn't eliminate the existence of a citizenship subset. For example, a born citizen can also be born a dual citizen. Not all born citizens are born dual citizens. Those born such are a subset of born citizens that have met an additional criterion.
Oh, that permanent domicile argument again. When you can explain how you pick and choose which named facts are pertinent and which aren't, said explanation going beyond your mere preference, then you can try to make that argument again.

In the meantime, the fact that the ruling doesn't eliminate the existence of a citizenship subset cannot be taken to mean that the ruling creates a citizenship subset. The ruling is what it is. Your inferences from those rulings are solely your inferences. The fact that the courts have subsequently not drawn the same inferences should tell you something.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 08:56 AM
 
49,773 posts, read 20,891,100 times
Reputation: 5802
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Oh, that permanent domicile argument again. When you can explain how you pick and choose which named facts are pertinent and which aren't, said explanation going beyond your mere preference, then you can try to make that argument again.
I didn't pick and choose. Gray himself did:
Quote:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
namely: explicitly; specifically
Namely | Define Namely at Dictionary.com

Question asked and answered.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,895 posts, read 11,441,061 times
Reputation: 3945
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Italy's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs contradicts you.
The Italian Constitution contradicts the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,895 posts, read 11,441,061 times
Reputation: 3945
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
More lack of knowledge coming from HD. No surprise there.
Not at all. Simply IC's compulsion to commit the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.

That's not a definition. That is a qualified label.

Learn the language.

Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-10-2013 at 10:08 AM..
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:02 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,895 posts, read 11,441,061 times
Reputation: 3945
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Translation: There is NOTHING HD can cite. There is NOTHING to support the assertion.
Why translate perfectly good English?

Your demand is simply, inexorably, and objectively stupid.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:05 AM
 
36,109 posts, read 19,735,085 times
Reputation: 10767
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I didn't pick and choose. Gray himself did:namely: explicitly; specifically
Namely | Define Namely at Dictionary.com

Question asked and answered.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
Yes, you did pick and choose. There are other "named facts" in that passage. Like Wong's parents being Chinese. You ignore that "named fact", while resting an entire argument on another "named fact". Because one "named fact" doesn't suit your agenda, but another does suit your agenda. That is picking-and-choosing in a nutshell.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:06 AM
 
49,773 posts, read 20,891,100 times
Reputation: 5802
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The Italian Constitution contradicts the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Where in the Italian Constitution is the supposed contradiction?
http://www.senato.it/documenti/repos...ne_inglese.pdf
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:08 AM
 
36,109 posts, read 19,735,085 times
Reputation: 10767
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Where in the Italian Constitution is the supposed contradiction?
http://www.senato.it/documenti/repos...ne_inglese.pdf
When you post these things, do you wonder to yourself why the Italian Constitution would even be pertinent to a discussion of American citizenship?
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:09 AM
 
49,773 posts, read 20,891,100 times
Reputation: 5802
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Not at all. Simply IC's compulsion to commit the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.

That' not a definition. That is a qualified label.
Again ...

"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."
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.


Closed Thread


Over $99,000 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.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top