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.
No one has to think or interpret anything. Justice Gray made the ruling's intent and limitations abundantly clear:
Yes, he did. It didn't matter if the kid's parents weren't citizens. It didn't matter if the kid's parents were loyal to a foreign emperor. It didn't matter if the kid's parents didn't even live in the United States anymore. The kid was born in the United States. His parents weren't ambassadors or members of an invading army. Born in the United States = born a citizen.
Yes, he did. It didn't matter if the kid's parents weren't citizens.
But it DID matter that they were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.
Obama's father was only ever in the country by the U.S. Government's authorization of a "Temporary Stay." Note the TITLE of the U.S. DoJ legal form Obama's father signed and submitted in 1961...
But it DID matter that they were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.
Obama's father was only ever in the country by the U.S. Government's authorization of a "Temporary Stay." Note the TITLE of the U.S. DoJ legal form Obama's father signed and submitted in 1961...
"APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF "TEMPORARY STAY"
Back to that old nugget, eh?
So you can't win this argument, so you switch to another? And when this fails you, you'll switch again.
Old as in 1961? Yes. It's definitive proof that Obama's father was NOT permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth. Gray's SCOTUS ruling specifically requires permanently domiciled parents for the acquisition of citizenship at birth:
"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"
Question asked and answered, clearly communicated by Gray's explicit use of "the single question" and "namely" followed by the exact conditions considered by the Court in this case in the closing paragraph of the ruling.
According to the Constitution, only if one owes no allegiance to any other power/sovereign at birth.
According to SCOTUS, only if "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" - Direct quote from the closing paragraph of Gray's ruling.
If you disagree, you should have no problem quoting all the SCOTUS rulings stating that those born in the U.S. to non-permanently domiciled foreign citizens acquire citizenship at birth. Do it. We'll wait....
According to the Constitution, only if one owes no allegiance to any other power/sovereign at birth.
According to SCOTUS, only if "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" - Direct quote from the closing paragraph of Gray's ruling.
If you disagree, you should have no problem quoting all the SCOTUS rulings stating that those born in the U.S. to non-permanently domiciled foreign citizens acquire citizenship at birth. Do it. We'll wait....
Yes, those new-borns are such a bunch of potential traitors! Just wait until they learn to talk!
Yes, those new-borns are such a bunch of potential traitors!
Of course, being born with or otherwise automatically acquiring a foreign allegiance is a problem. To this day... the State Dept warns of problems facing foreign citizens/subjects in the U.S.
Foreign citizens/subjects owe allegiance to the respective foreign country. They are required to obey the foreign country's laws. The foreign country has the right to enforce its laws in regards to the foreign citizen/subject. And the claims of foreign countries on their citizens/subjects may conflict with U.S. law. US State Department
Is anyone really stupid enough to believe that the Framers of the Constitution intended POTUS to "owe allegiance to both the United States and a foreign country," be"required to obey the laws of both countries," or to obey a foreign country's laws that "conflict with U.S. law?"
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.
