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.
You're being especially dense. All native-born citizens are natural-born citizens.
If that were true, there would never be any need for the USCIS to restore a status of native-born citizen instead of natural-born citizen, and the following would not be necessary:
However, the above exists in current USCIS publications. This is how we know the assertion that "all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens" is false.
If that were true, there would never be any need for the USCIS to restore a status of native-born citizen instead of natural-born citizen, and the following would not be necessary:
However, the above exists in current USCIS publications. This is how we know the assertion that "all native-born citizens are natural-born citizens" is false.
If that were true....
Your logic doesn't follow.
If it is ever necessary to restore a citizen's citizenship status, then it necessary to do so acknowledging the situation by which their citizenship was acquired. They aren't restoring the status of a native-born citizen INSTEAD OF a natural-born citizen, they are restoring citizenship to someone who acquired it at birth, either by being born in the US (native-born), or by being born abroad to American parents according to US laws which make them natural-born citizens.
If it is ever necessary to restore a citizen's citizenship status, then it necessary to do so acknowledging the situation by which their citizenship was acquired.
Correct, so far.
Quote:
They aren't restoring the status of a native-born citizen INSTEAD OF a natural-born citizen
Not quite. 22 courts reiterated the same mistake one court made in interpreting Wong Kim Ark.
I'm curious, IC. Are you a lawyer? A judge? A constitutional scholar? I'm just wondering what authority you posses that would allow you to make a claim like this and expect anyone to assign any credibility to it. Or is this just your own, uninformed, uneducated opinion?
I'm curious, IC. Are you a lawyer? A judge? A constitutional scholar? I'm just wondering what authority you posses that would allow you to make a claim like this and expect anyone to assign any credibility to it. Or is this just your own, uninformed, uneducated opinion?
An uneducated opinion is suspected when someone posts what they think without backing it up with facts. I've posted the truth, backed up by facts with links. It is quite true that the Wong Kim Ark passage in which Obama sycophants are so desperate to believe in is inaccurate.
"The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
A very cursory examination proves that passage to be false. One can easily cite (and I've done so, several times and in several threads on this forum) U.S. Secretary of State decisions, federal law, and state laws prior to federal nationality law to disprove it.
Those words should clue you in... there are birth circumstances under which one is a native-born citizen but not a natural-born citizen.
If I tell you to add oranges or citrus fruit to your fruit salad, whichever you have on hand, there is no "instead of" implied in any way shape or fashion. There is no "instead of" in the passage you've described. There are NO birth circumstances under which one is a native-born citizen, but not a natural-born citizen. Just as there are NO circumstances under which an orange is not a citrus fruit. But there are circumstances where a natural-born citizen is not native-born. Just as there are circumstances where a citrus fruit is not an orange.
An uneducated opinion is suspected when someone posts what they think without backing it up with facts. I've posted the truth, backed up by facts with links. It is quite true that the Wong Kim Ark passage in which Obama sycophants are so desperate to believe in is inaccurate.
"The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
A very cursory examination proves that passage to be false. One can easily cite (and I've done so, several times and in several threads on this forum) U.S. Secretary of State decisions, federal law, and state laws prior to federal nationality law to disprove it.
Blah, blah, blah, and yet you manage to not answer the actual question I asked. But from your evasion it's clear that the answer is no, you have no actual authority to claim that 22 courts were wrong and you are right. It's your opinion.
If I tell you to add oranges or citrus fruit to your fruit salad, whichever you have on hand, there is no implied in any way shape or fashion.
Thank you for exhibiting exactly where your logic fails.
When there IS an option of either because either are available as the circumstances fit, there IS an implied "instead of." EITHER status could be restored. One is eligible for EITHER one or the other. Read it again:
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.
