Rep Ted Yoho Dances Around Birtherism (India, important, Congress, border)
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.
I posted links to both Maskell's report and the Supreme Court case.
Maskell LIED. Easily proven.
Truth will out.
If I say the sky is azure today. And tomorrow I tell someone I said the sky is blue. That's not a lie. Because azure and blue are the same.
The same think with Maskell. I still haven't figured out what you think permanent domicile IS. I know what you think it ISN'T, because of your repetitious displays of a TEMPORARY visa. But I don't know what you think it IS. Legally, if you establish an address where you get your mail, that generally is a permanent domicile. At least I think that's what permanent domicile means. But what you think it means eludes me. It's not PERMANENT, because people move. In the WONG case, the parents had moved back to China. So clearly PERMANENT in this case doesn't mean PERMANENT as in never-changing. But what, exactly, do YOU mean by PERMANENT domicile?
If I say the sky is azure today. And tomorrow I tell someone I said the sky is blue. That's not a lie. Because azure and blue are the same.
No wiggle room on this. Maskell very clearly lied about what SCOTUS said.
Maskell:
"In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “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
(page 51)
Here's what SCOTUS actually said in that case:
"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. Verify them. There are significant differences in what Maskell wrote and what were SCOTUS's actual words:
"Physically in" is nowhere near the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." They simply are NOT interchangeable.
Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require citizenship." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.
Maskell changed SCOTUS's words to try to prove his point. He was dishonest. His report is dishonest.
No wiggle room on this. Maskell very clearly lied about what SCOTUS said.
Maskell:
"In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “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
(page 51)
Here's what SCOTUS actually said in that case:
"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. Verify them. There are significant differences in what Maskell wrote and what were SCOTUS's actual words:
"Physically in" is nowhere near the same thing as "permanently domiciled in." They simply are NOT interchangeable.
Neither is "natural born citizen" and "citizen." If those were the same, Constitutional eligibility would only require citizenship." It does not. It requires natural born citizenship.
Maskell changed SCOTUS's words to try to prove his point. He was dishonest. His report is dishonest.
Truth will out.
I don't think Maskell changed SCOTUS's words materially. You disagree. But the crux of the matter is if Maskell thought the changes were material. You can't prove that he intended to mislead anyone. Just because Maskell's position doesn't agree with your position does not mean that he intentionally misled anyone or that his report was dishonest. Again, though, that you issue your indictments with such sweeping finality is charming.
It's not facts. It's your conviction that you own the facts, and the facts say what you think they say. The utter conviction that you have that you cannot be wrong, that's hubris.
On the contrary, you've called the use of bolding and underlining to be shrieking.
That's what you have told me when I started following your lead in creative use of font-types on an earlier thread - that I was 'shrieking'.
It's why in this thread I've stayed away from such usage unless absolutely necessary.
Quote:
I'm posting known facts. Some of them contradict what some of you thought you knew. Sorry about that but... truth will out.
See, it's like this, Informed Consent. I don't have your magic spectacles that allow you to see only those passages that conform to your obsession. And when I ask questions about those omissions, you start "shrieking".
That's not truth, that's you picking and choosing those parts of a passage that support your beliefs, while discarding those parts of the exact same passage that undermine your beliefs.
That's faith, not fact.
And there are those of us who don't follow your faith.
HistorianDude is under the deluded impression that one does not have to APPLY for Italian jus sanguinis citizenship, the 4 APPLICATION forms I posted notwithstanding.
Again... even a US citizen born on US soil to two US Citizen parents must apply to access the benefits of that citizenship.
Here for example is an application for a US passport.
Try and get one without proving you are a citizen in the exact same way an Italian has to prove their citizenship to get an Italian one.
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.
