Birther brigade going after Rubio now (Congress, enemy, legal, Obama)
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.
Yes. He was one of many, many British citizens in Hawaii and elsewhere in the US who, while present on our soil, are under the exclusive and absoluter jurisdiction of the United States.
And likewise, his son was born under the exclusive and absolute jurisdiction of the United States.
If that were true, the British Nationality Act of 1948 wouldn't apply to Obama. Alas for you, it does. The DNC already publicly admitted such. You can't lie and try to walk it back now.
Those born in the U.S. to alien fathers even AFTER the 14th Amendment were determined by Secretaries of State according to law to NOT be U.S. citizens, except for certain cases involving those of Chinese descent whose parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S.
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.
And likewise, his son was born under the exclusive and absolute jurisdiction of the United States.
Have you even thought through what you're trying to claim here? If that obiter dictum were to actually be legal precedent (it ISN'T), every child born abroad to even two U.S. citizen parents would NOT be U.S. citizens unless they went through the immigration and naturalization process.
We already know such is NOT the case.
It is in fact true that the U.S. has jurisdiction over those born abroad to U.S. citizens. Likewise, the U.K. had jurisdiction over Obama at the time of his birth.
Exactly my point. Slavery wouldn't be possible if the U.S. did in fact observe and practice English common law in regards to birthright citizenship. If English common law had actually been practiced in the U.S. as you so erroneously claim , everyone born in the U.S. including the children of slaves would be U.S. citizens. It's quite clear that such was NOT the case. Both with slaves AND freemen. The U.S. clearly DIDN'T observe English common law in regards to birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship didn't even exist at the federal level until 1866, at which time one was required to be born in the U.S. and not subject to any foreign power in order to be a U.S. citizen at birth.
You're being silly, now. Numerous British holdings had slaves, and didn't afford them citizenship status. Jamaica, for instance. If Great Britain itself had slaves that existed outside citizenship laws, then British colonies that separated from Great Britain could certainly have legally separated slaves from citizenship.
Have you even thought through what you're trying to claim here?
Of course I have. That's why I'm not as confused as you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
If that obiter dictum were to actually be legal precedent (it ISN'T), every child born abroad to even two U.S. citizen parents would NOT be U.S. citizens unless they went through the immigration and naturalization process.
We can grant citizenship to anybody we want, regardless of whether we have jurisdiction over them or not.
In the same way you have no idea what "permanent domicile" means, you have no idea what "jurisdiction" means. That's no surprise, since the terms are very, very closely related.
No, I am not. If you disagree, cite a federal law that specifically indicates that the State Dept can ignore U.S. law in regards to citizenship.
Quote:
Lyman Trumbull says you are wrong.
Lynn Trumbull has this to say after the statement to which you refer:
Quote:
"We both agreed that after the abolition of slavery everybody born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States was a citizen of the United States."
Last edited by InformedConsent; 04-10-2013 at 04:15 PM..
You're claiming only the U.S. had jurisdiction. If that were true, Obama's status wouldn't have been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 - a LAW. Obama WAS, in fact, governed by that LAW. Foreign jurisdiction. Plain and simple.
Quote:
The DNC said exactly nothing about the jurisdiction under which Obama was born.
They admitted such when they stated Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
If that were true, Obama's status wouldn't have been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 - a LAW.
Sure it would. The UK is a sovereign nation. They can grant their citizenship to anybody they want, regardless of whose jurisdiction they are under.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama WAS, in fact, governed by that LAW.
Only his British citizenship was governed under that law. Who else's law would govern British citizenship but Britain's? Burkina Faso?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Foreign jurisdiction. Plain and simple.
Like I said... you have no idea what jurisdiction means. Plain and simple.
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.