Court: Obama Must Be ‘Constitutionally’ Eligible. Judge Denies President's Motion To Dismiss Georgia Ballot Challenge (March, 9/11)
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've repeatedly posted the definition of a natural born subject of England.
And as anyone who has honestly read that passage from the Wong decision knows, it is also the definition of a natural born citizen of the United States. That is the sole and specific point of the passage.
No one is being punished. Obama's father's rights were recognized and upheld. Obama's own campaign admitted that Obama's citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
That's right. American law doesn't punish the child. But your argument is that the infant should be punished. Because degrading citizenship status is a harmful thing to do, a punishment, and the infant has no responsibility for the acts of a foreign government.
If it's "so bizarre," as you humorously claim, cite the U.S. law stating that foreign citizens are natural born U.S. citizens. We'll wait...
By the way, your quotation proves your position on this issue to be wrong. It specifically states: "all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."
Obama was born in the allegiance of the UK. Obama's campaign openly admitted that Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
If it's "so bizarre," as you humorously claim, cite the U.S. law stating that foreign citizens are natural born U.S. citizens. We'll wait...
That request is stupid. We're talking about common law not statutory law. Where have you been for the last three years? Do you honestly still not know the difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
By the way, your quotation proves your position on this issue to be wrong. It specifically states: "all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens."
And as the WKA decision explains, that would be anybody born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama was born in the allegiance of the UK.
Who cares? Under US law it doesn't matter how many other different countries claim his allegiance. As long as he is also born under the allegiance of the United States, he is a natural born US citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama's campaign openly admitted that Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948.
By their definition, Obama Sr. was domiciled in the US too.
No. Obama was in the U.S. on a student visa that precluded establishing domicile in the U.S. We know this because he had to apply to extend his temporary visa each year.
Quote:
"Obama was visiting the United States on a foreign student visa which required him to apply for an annual extension of his stay during the five years he was attending US colleges."
Father spoke of having Obama adopted - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-07/news/29747969_1_president-obama-ann-dunham-barack-h-obama - broken link)
That makes no sense. The parentage would be different in each case but any such condition of permanent domicile in the U.S. doesn't change.
Yeah, no surprise you don't get it.
"Permanent domicile" was a circumstance of the parents of the person in question, just as was their Chinese nationality, and neither are stated by the court to be necessary conditions of natural-born status. The court used the domicile of the parents in consideration of the child's citizenship, but nowhere does the court indicate that "permanent domicile" is a necessity in every determination of citizenship. The court stated it was a reason, it did not assert that it was a requirement.
But if you read the language of the attributes of the specific case to intend to convey a requirement for all cases, you should be claiming all the attributes of the specific case are general requirements.
In context? Is that a joke? Maskell completely changed the words in a dishonest attempt to change the meaning.
Quote:
Leo Donofrio's interpretation on the other hand? Well that just includes downright lies.
Maskell wrote the misrepresentation of SCOTUS, not Leo Donofrio. I provided the exact quotes and the links to both Maskell's mangling and SCOTUS's actual words.
Look at them again...
Maskell writes: “It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen....” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
SCOTUS's actual words:"It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country." FindLaw | Cases and Codes
I've posted links to both. Maskell deliberately misrepresents SCOTUS to try to prove his point. A such, his treatise is fatally flawed.
The very facts of the Wong case prove your claim here to be false.
In fact, no. Domicile was discussed in other cases as well, cited by SCOTUS in WKA.
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.
