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.
Well, you're the one arguing in favor of giving the UK authority to decide who's eligible for the US presidency, so...
Don't have to give them anything. They already have it. The U.S. State Department concurs:
Quote:
...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws
And yet John Jay explicitly suggests using the NBC requirement to specifically exclude foreigners in a letter to the President of the Constitutional Convention, and the requirement is added to the Constitution a short time later.
Um... the Wong Kim Ark Decision states the Minor v. Happersett definition of NBC. If you insist on continuing to refer to WKA as a reference, you'll have to concede to Minor v. Happersett's definition of NBC, cited in the WKA Decision.United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Another interesting statement in WKA Decision...We know Obama was NOT completely subject to the U.S.'s political jurisdiction, having ADMITTEDLY been born a foreign citizen, owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign/nation.
SCOTUS trumps state courts. NBC has already been defined in Minor v. Happersett, quoted in the WKA Decision, above.
John Jay could suggest anything he wanted. So could Benedict Arnold (to use a contemporary). That doesn't mean anyone had to agree with him.
It is a huge stretch to say that Obama was born with a foreign allegiance. Babies don't have allegiances. His American-born mother divorced his father when he was two years old; his father's influence was minimal on him from then on.
Oh! Another pathetic history fail on your part. Read Jay's letter again. It never mentions the Presidency once. It mentions only the Commander-in-chief of the Army, and at that point in the Constitutional debates, the President and the Commander-in-chief were not the same guy.
You forgot "administration." The Presidency IS an administrative office of our Federal Government.
Quote:
Howard: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
"foreigners" = "aliens" = those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States"
Nope. It lists foreigners, aliens, those who belong to the families of ambassadors, and foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States as separate cases and says OR.
It is a huge stretch to say that Obama was born with a foreign allegiance.
I don't have to say it. The U.S. State Department does.
Quote:
"Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.
...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws"
Fantastic. So if Syria passes a law giving everybody in Texas Syrian citizenship, Perry becomes ineligible overnight?
Why would Syria give citizenship to anyone abroad who isn't a child of a Syrian citizen?
That's GOT to be one of the lamest "so if" arguments I've ever heard.
Imagine... Country X suddenly declares everybody in the world country X's citizens and they now owe allegiance (and a myriad of other things, like taxes, military service, etc.) to country X. Who's not going to take that as grossly overstepping established international protocol, and an act of war?
In contrast, it's QUITE legitimate for any country to claim that its own citizens' children are also its citizens at birth.
Why would Syria give citizenship to anyone abroad who isn't a child of a Syrian citizen?
because, according to your theory, they could affectively control a presidential election. whatever candidate they didn't like....... they give syrian citizenship to.
No, they couldn't arbitrarily force their citizenship on anyone at random.
why not?
Quote:
In contrast, why would any of you think it's at all unusual for a parent to pass on their own citizenship to their children?
i don't. it's not uncommon at all, it's just not universal. not all countries recognize jus sanguinis ( most do but not all ). those that do may have restrictions on acknowledging citizenship ( father only, mother only, age of parent... ). so again, it puts restrictions on US presidential eligibility at the whims of a foreign government.
then we have the issue of countries that recognize citizenship of a child even if the parents have naturalized as US citizens or countries that recognize citizenship thru multiple generations. do you consider these children ineligible?
.... you would know where wreckedball is coming from, just as I do. We have known eachother long enough to know what our respective positions are.
yea but......... you got my response wrong.
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.
