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.
No. The 1779 Virginia law (among other instances I've already posted) clearly contradicts your utterly ridiculous claim that WKA defined Constitutional natural born citizen.
Nonsense.
It conforms to English common law perfectly. It is only your absurd interpretation that creates a contradiction. But Thomas Jefferson was smarter than you are. There is no actual contradiction in what he wrote.
They don't have to. Applying for a passport is optional. For those born British citizens via a British citizen parent, they do not require registration or certification of UK citizenship to apply for a passport.
Applying for a [UK|Polish] passport is not optional for someone who wishes to receive a [UK|Polish] passport.
Receiving a [UK|Polish] passport requires that the [UK|Polish] citizen send in proof of birth and does not require the [UK|Polish] citizen to register as a citizen to become a citizen. They are citizens before the fact.
"Registration", "certification" is part of the process of receiving a [UK|Polish] passport. They don't hand out passports willy-nilly.
Wow... you really do live in an alternate universe.
No, that would be you.
I've listed 3 very clear examples of how citizenship laws in the U.S. directly contradicted the English citizenship law cited in WKA. As such, WKA definitively DOES NOT define Constitutional natural born citizen. (It does, however, define natural-born English subject.) Citizenship laws in the U.S. up until 1924 simply were not interchangeable with the law regarding English subjects. Not every person born in the U.S. had birthright U.S. citizenship. Period.
I've listed 3 very clear examples of how citizenship laws in the U.S. directly contradicted the English citizenship law cited in WKA. As such, WKA definitively DOES NOT define Constitutional natural born citizen. (It does, however, define natural-born English subject.) Citizenship laws in the U.S. up until 1924 simply were not interchangeable with the law regarding English subjects. Not every person born in the U.S. had birthright U.S. citizenship. Period.
Odd... Birthers have lost 96 court cases and three ballot challenges. They have won none.
And I am the one in an alternate universe?
It must really be hard to be you. I mean, fighting gravity all day and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I've listed 3 very clear examples of how citizenship laws in the U.S. directly contradicted the English citizenship law cited in WKA.
You have done nothing but wave your hands, spin in place, misinterpret basic English, and chase your tail.
The precedent is still clear as proven by the courts that have explicitly followed it. Obama is still president, and you are still wrong.
Quote:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens†for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject†at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.â€
Ready over the last three pages I can tell you that "robbobobbo" has the best handle on the one parent citizen and one not a citizen. Here's why
I am a US citizen, born in the US, educated (first part) in the US, served in the military etc etc....the whole "shootin match".
My late wife was a Japanese national with no ties to the US at all.
My children were born in Spain. Upon the birth of each one of them I took their Spanish birth certificates, pictures and my wife's and my personal documents and passports. Before the waiting period was even up the kids had their US birth certificates, passports and SS numbers no questions asked.
At the same time they had the right to Spanish citizenship as well. Some have taken advantage of that right to dual nationality. And just in case you think that dual nationality is not a possible choice check with the State Department. It is legal and has been for some time..
Hey IC... lets talk about the three Alabama ballot challenges for a second.
I told you (after the first was denied) that res judicata would come to bear on the next two. You kept insisting that, no, "all the qualifications had not been met." of course, that was just before the second got tossed for... wait for it... res judicata. You've been kinda quite about Alabama since.
Well, the last of the three was decided today. You remember the one. It was the one filed by a guy names Sorenson who tried to get the judge to recuse herself for bias. Here's the report from the winning lawyer.
Quote:
The hearing was mostly a non-event. Sorensen filed a Motion to Dismiss his case (without prejudice) first thing this morning and was planning on skipping the hearing. Judge suggested he stick around. Judge Lee then announced that after reading all the motions, she was dismissing the case, not on Sorensen's motion, but on our motion under the "jurisdiction stripping statute." She indicated, however, that the dismissal would be WITH PREJUDICE and that she was awarding us all costs and attorney's fees to be paid within 45 days. I thought Sorensen was going to pass out and he was audibly distressed when she awarded us fees. I was actually afraid that he would have a stroke. Sorensen then told that Judge that he was "a retired senior citizen, who has no money." I then reminded the Judge that Mr. Sorensen had filed a Motion for Recusal which I thought needed to be addressed on the record. The Judge asked Sorensen to stand and explain his recusal motion. Sorensen said that he was "not feeling very well" so Judge let him speak seated at the table. Sorensen said that the recusal was "certainly not about race" but was based on his observation of Judge Lee during the Hendershot hearing. He said that after watching Judge Lee, he knew that he "didn't stand a chance" if she was the judge. He also said that he was just "an old man" who was tired of all of this and wanted to go home and never deal with this again. I then said a few things. I demanded that Sorensen apologize to Judge Lee for his recusal motion, which he did (albeit, accompanied by a short speech about why the citizenship of the President's father meant that the President was not a NBC). I also said that if Mr. Sorensen was truly sincere about quitting this nonsense, that we would forego attempting to recover fees and costs, but if he filed another case or even collaborated with the filing of another case, or even got on the internet and complained about Judge Lee or how she handled this case, then we would come after him for the full amount. Judge Lee will enter a formal order later today.
Barry A. Ragsdale
So again I ask you. Which if us is living in the alternative universe?
Counting each of the Alabama challenges as it's own, the ballot challenge score is now:
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.
