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.
Ok, so some poor unfortunate woman who has a long family tree of American citizens, and has never stepped foot outside of the US, is violently raped by a man who is not a citizen of the US. She is pregnant as a result of the rape. She keeps her baby because she is firmly pro-life.
Some people are suggesting that her baby would not be a natural-born United States citizen? What if the rapist is never found? What then? Is her baby unclaimed by any country? Her child will never be president because she was raped?
What about an adopted child who was born in the US but has no information on his natural parents? He can never be president because his parent(s) chose to give him up for adoption?
What about a child whose mother dies in childbirth without naming the father?
The citizenship of the parents has never mattered, especially since the hospital birth certificate does not even require the name of the father in order to be filled.
Personally, I would like to see a law that says that at least one of a child's parents must be in the country legally in order for the child to be a natural-born citizen.
Wanting a legal question to be answered doesnt make me a birther, especially considering I dont care about your opinion at all
If you didn't care, you wouldn't whine.
And if you weren't a Birther, you'd have realized that this legal question has been settled for more than 500 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
FAILURE, thats your reply: The constitution doesnt simply say "born"..
Actually, in the 14th Amendment, that's exactly what it says. But that hardly matters if "born" and "natural born" are synonyms. And according to all the evidence of history and law... they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ignorance.. that sums up the only "evidence" you have..
Oh pulleeeze!! That dog wouldn't hunt in a room full of squirrels. I refer you again to the excellent and scholarly CRS report which is exhaustively referenced and footnoted. Anybody pretending that there is no evidence is an unrefined blowhard.
Where? I can find no such distinction in that link. Once again, you are shooting wildly into the air. A random link does not an argument make. Use your words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
"Not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" (rememer this phrase which you claimed doesnt exist?) WRONG AGAIN. The term has existed for ages.
Oh... I've never said the phrase doesn't exist. I've even offered to tell you where it comes from. First you said it was from the 14th Amendment, but that was a lie. You then said it came from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was another lie. You then said it came from the 1992 amendment of the Civil rights act... which was a third consecutive lie.
Your problem is that you have no idea where it comes from, and that is why you are using it fallaciously. There are few posters in this forum who understand their own arguments less than you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Both parents had to be US citizens, neither could be non-US citizen because then they would owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Again.... pay attention. The Constitution says nothing about the allegiance of parents. It says nothing about parents at all. The word is found nowhere in the entire document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
US Supreme Court Perkins vs Elg was declaired a natural born citizen because BOTH parents were US Citizens.
Even if we pretended that was true, it is a red herring. Wong Kim Ark (not Perkins v. Elg) is the precedential decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
There are numerous court rulings to show you wrong.
There are exactly none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
An idiotic lie.. See I can do it also
The difference is you can only say it. I can actually prove it.
1A) We have people who are born here with 2 parents
1B) People who are born here with 1 parent a citizen, (might legally be the same)
1C) People who are born here with 0 parents being citizens (i.e. illegal aliens)
2) People who married a citizen
3) People who become a citizen through the citizenship process.
Thats AT LEAST 3 possibly 5. The question remains if 1A-AC are THE SAME..
No such question remains. This is long settled in the law.
1A, 1B and 1C are all the same. They are all natural born citizens.
You can add to them 4) Children of citizens born overseas. They too are natural born citizens.
2 is not a citizen at all unless they independently naturalize.
3 are naturalized citizens.
QED: There are 2 categories and only 2. Natural-born and natural-ized.
Ok, so some poor unfortunate woman who has a long family tree of American citizens, and has never stepped foot outside of the US, is violently raped by a man who is not a citizen of the US. She is pregnant as a result of the rape. She keeps her baby because she is firmly pro-life.
Some people are suggesting that her baby would not be a natural-born United States citizen? What if the rapist is never found? What then? Is her baby unclaimed by any country? Her child will never be president because she was raped?
Thats a question that needs answered
Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrop101
What about an adopted child who was born in the US but has no information on his natural parents? He can never be president because his parent(s) chose to give him up for adoption?
Thats actually where my interest rests in the issue, since I'm adopted. If Im Chinese (i'm not but for the sake of argument), but adopted by us citizens, does this make me natural born? Maybe, since adoptive parents claim their adopted child is theirs, but who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrop101
What about a child whose mother dies in childbirth without naming the father?.
They would go into foster care and be covered under the adoption rules above
Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrop101
The citizenship of the parents has never mattered, especially since the hospital birth certificate does not even require the name of the father in order to be filled.
Hospital birth records are meaningless to the topic because they are locally controlled by counties, and one can be president without a birth certificate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raindrop101
Personally, I would like to see a law that says that at least one of a child's parents must be in the country legally in order for the child to be a natural-born citizen.
Which is why the issue continues to come up, despite everyones claim this is all about Obama.
Thats actually where my interest rests in the issue, since I'm adopted. If Im Chinese (i'm not but for the sake of argument), but adopted by us citizens, does this make me natural born? Maybe, since adoptive parents claim their adopted child is theirs, but who knows.
If you were born overseas and adopted by US parents, you are a naturalized citizen.
Says no one but your opinion, which as I said, is meaningless/
Wrong. The Supreme Court says so. The only distinction between these three scenarios is the citizenship of the parents. And the decision in Wong Kim Ark makes explicitly clear that such a distinction is irrelevant to natural born citizenship.
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.
