GOP Rep Supports Passing A Bill To Investigate Obama's Birth Certificate (considered, United States)

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Retroit

It should be reiterated that this issue was first raised by a Hillary Clinton campaign worker, not by the TEA Party.

It should be reiterated that this assertion is a lie.

The issue was first raised by the right-wing web forum Free Republic. It was never raised by any CLinton campaign worker at all, let alone "first" by one.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

When the person received their birthright citizenship via jus soli.

So you finally admit that according to USCIS jus soli citizenship is native-born citizenship, not natural-born citizenship. Good!

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

If I were to cite examples of grand theft (and I can), that is not evidence that the law has ever allowed for grand theft.

You can cite confirmed examples of grand theft by the federal government? Please do so.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

But there is no implication that they are mutually exclusive.

The use of OR and WHICHEVER do indeed indicate that the two are not the same. According to USCIS, one CAN be a native-born citizen instead of a natural-born citizen:

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

EITHER status could be restored. One is eligible for EITHER one or the other. Read it again:

"restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."
Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship

OR

WHICHEVER EXISTED

Both options available. Only one applies.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

So, the State Department has no opinion on that issue.

The State Dept very clearly stated their opinion:

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

"In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

Statutory citizenship does not automatically render one Constitutionally eligible for POTUS.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

You are asking us here to find a judge that agrees with you.

Spoken like a true earth-is-flat believer.

Facts be damned. Judges have not found in favor of the facts. What does that say about our country?

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

And that is why the INS distinction is Constitutionally irrelevant. All native born citizens are also natural born citizens.

According to what? The tooth fairy?

USCIS explicitly states otherwise.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The use of OR and WHICHEVER do indeed indicate that the two are not the same. According to USCIS, one CAN be a native-born citizen instead of a natural-born citizen:

Since you found the need to UNDERLINE "instead of", and you say that that's according to USCIS, please point out those EXACT words in the USCIS citation. Where does the US government say this?

Hint: It doesn't.

Native-born is always natural-born, but natural-born isn't always native-born. Except in InformedConsent's fantasy world.

[Winter_Sucks]

Why are birthers too stupid to do a quick google search to see Obama was born in Hawaii?

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

The State Dept very clearly stated their opinion:
Statutory citizenship does not automatically render one Constitutionally eligible for POTUS.

It's not their opinion they are stating. In fact, they are categorically stating that their opinion has no bearing.