U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2012, 04:49 PM
 
74,897 posts, read 35,018,057 times
Reputation: 10623

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
It never says "because... they were both permanently domiciled," That part you just made up.
Exhibiting your ignorance, again. Here it is, VERBATIM:
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 parties were 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."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In WKA, SCOTUS based their decision, in part, on the parents' domicile. And even then, he was ruled a citizen, NOT a natural born citizen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The definition it offers is this:
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.


III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
I've already proven U.S. citizenship law was NOT the same as the English law that applied to English subjects. Not every child born in the U.S. was even a citizen. Blacks were not provided birthright citizenship until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (and subsequently the 14th Amendment), and Native Americans were not provided birthright citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

You fail.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2012, 04:57 PM
 
74,897 posts, read 35,018,057 times
Reputation: 10623
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
D@mn... there went the last of my irony meters. I'm gonna hafta start buying the suckers wholesale.
What does the actual Congressional record have to do with your "irony meters?"

The Congressional record:
Quote:
"What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...3.db&recNum=14

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The Constitution tells us what a President must be, not what a President cannot be.
The President must be a natural born citizen. Obama is not one. The Democratic National Committee has already stated that Obama's citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 14,603,056 times
Reputation: 3952
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Exhibiting your ignorance, again. Here it is, VERBATIM:
And again, it does not say what you keep dishonestly asserting it says. It does not say that he was a citizen "because" his parents had permanent domicile. Look at the very passage you cited. It also says that they were "subjects of the Emperor of China."

For your incomprehensibly absurd reasoning to be true, you would have to agree that he was also declared a US citizen because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China. And while that would not be the most stupid assertion Birthers have made, it would have to be in the top ten.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
In WKA, SCOTUS based their decision, in part, on the parents' domicile. And even then, he was ruled a citizen, NOT a natural born citizen.
As the definition they provided makes clear, domicile had no more to so with it than being Chinese subjects.

And again, just to point out your continued unblemished hypocrisy, Minor was never ruled a natural born citizen either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I've already proven U.S. citizenship law was NOT the same as the English law that applied to English subjects.
And you may as well have been pointing to your navel, because they were in fact identical, just as the Supreme Court said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You fail.
I do? Then how do you explain this?

President Barack Obama | The White House

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 14,603,056 times
Reputation: 3952
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What does the actual Congressional record have to do with your "irony meters?"
You really need to refrain from responding to everything, because most of the time it just makes you look clueless.

Pick you battles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The President must be a natural born citizen. Obama is not one.
He was born on US soil, and is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation.

So yes, he is a natural born US citizen.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 14,603,056 times
Reputation: 3952
For the Orly Taitz admirer's among you:

BREAKING – Did Orly Taitz Commit Perjury in a Hawaiian Court Filing or Is She Just That Incompetent?

Has Orly Taitz Committed Perjury?

Enjoy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 05:15 PM
 
74,897 posts, read 35,018,057 times
Reputation: 10623
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And again, it does not say what you keep dishonestly asserting it says. It does not say that he was a citizen "because" his parents had permanent domicile. Look at the very passage you cited. It also says that they were "subjects of the Emperor of China."

For your incomprehensibly absurd reasoning to be true, you would have to agree that he was also declared a US citizen because his parents were subjects of the Emperor of China. And while that would not be the most stupid assertion Birthers have made, it would have to be in the top ten.
Reading is fundamental... :
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 parties were 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."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
As the definition they provided makes clear, domicile had no more to so with it than being Chinese subjects.
Gray defined "natural-born English subjects." U.S. citizenship law wasn't the same as English law. I've already proven that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 05:21 PM
 
74,897 posts, read 35,018,057 times
Reputation: 10623
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You really need to refrain from responding to everything, because most of the time it just makes you look clueless.
In other words, you're clueless, and are desperately projecting. But I'll be nice and help you out...

The actual Congressional record
:
Quote:
"What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means"
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

The Democratic National Committee has already stated that Obama's citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 05:25 PM
 
5,352 posts, read 6,511,302 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Reading is fundamental... :United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Gray defined "natural-born English subjects." U.S. citizenship law wasn't the same as English law. I've already proven that.
So one's parents have to be carrying on business in order for the child to be a natural-born citizen?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 14,603,056 times
Reputation: 3952
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Reading is fundamental...
Yep.

And it never says "because."

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Gray defined "natural-born English subjects." U.S. citizenship law wasn't the same as English law. I've already proven that.
And yet there does not exist a single real judge who agrees with you.

Instead, they say:

Quote:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
How is it that you can be right when every single person who has the training, experience and is professionally expected to understand the law says essentially that you are full of crap?



It's a pickle!

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,377 posts, read 109,228,784 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
In other words, you're clueless, and are desperately projecting. But I'll be nice and help you out...

The actual Congressional record
:A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

The Democratic National Committee has already stated that Obama's citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
Anyone can read anything they want into the Congressional Record. "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is probably in there somewhere.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top