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.
Note the specific reference to "all children" that appears in the only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBCand SCOTUS's rationale for permitting the case to proceed.
How do you hallucinate that "specific reference" helps your absurd argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
SCOTUS established Minor as a Constitutional citizen by defining Constitutional NBC, the only SCOTUS case to define such.
Too bad for you it was only a partial definition and not an exclusive one... as explicitly acknowledged by the refusal of the Minor court to settle the status of children of aliens born on US soil.
This is another oblivious lie on your part. The section you linked to never mentions jurisdiction once.
Um... legally making someone a citizen at birth is precisely what jurisdiction IS.
Quote:
Since Obama's father was neither a foreign diplomat nor an alien soldier in hostile occupation, Obama was born entirely and exclusively subject the jurisdiction of the United States.
False. Obama was born a U.K. citizen because his father was a U.K. citizen. Why? Because Obama Sr's children were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.K. and its nationality law. The U.S. State Department makes it quite clear that a dual national must obey the laws of both countries. That means they are subject to both jurisdictions.
Quote:
Furthermore, only Obama's British citizenship status was governed by the British nationality Act of 1948. Not his natural born US citizenship. We are a sovereign nation, and no foreign government can tell us who is or is not our citizen.
Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen. See the only SCOTUS definition of Constitutional NBC in Minor v. Happersett.
Obama is, however, a natural born British subject.
Um... legally making someone a citizen at birth is precisely what jurisdiction IS.
Do I really need to quote the Wong Kim Ark decision again? I've quoted it scores of times, as recently as just a couple of posts ago.
Making someone a citizen at birth has nothing automatic to with jurisdiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
False. Obama was born a U.K. citizen because his father was a U.K. citizen. Why? Because Obama Sr's children were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.K. and its nationality law. The U.S. State Department makes it quite clear that a dual national must obey the laws of both countries. That means they are subject to both jurisdictions.
Okay.... again you are simply wrong and have been proven wrong scores of times. Here you are again:
Quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to confer United States citizenship automatically and retroactively on certain foreign-born children adopted by citizens of the United States.
The same is true when they retroactively made Panama Canal zone a us territory and its inhabitants citizens. (i.e. McCain)
The Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act is meant to streamline the naturalization process foreign children adopted by Americans. It does not make them citizens by birth.
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to confer United States citizenship automatically and retroactively on certain foreign-born children adopted by citizens of the United States.
The same is true when they retroactively made Panama Canal zone a us territory and its inhabitants citizens. (i.e. McCain)
The Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act is meant to streamline the naturalization process for foreign children adopted by Americans. It does not make them citizens by birth.
Do I really need to quote the Wong Kim Ark decision again? I've quoted it scores of times, as recently as just a couple of posts ago.
How does that change the fact that Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.K.?
It doesn't, as admitted to by Obama's own campaign.
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.
