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.
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.
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.
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 partieswere 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.
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.
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.
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.
... 