Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 03-17-2017, 03:30 PM
 
Location: My House
34,937 posts, read 36,163,891 times
Reputation: 26547

Advertisements

He's a citizen. Good grief, this is ridiculous.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2017, 03:34 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,791 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
He's a citizen. Good grief, this is ridiculous.
The requirement for POTUS is NBC. Not just "citizen." Good grief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 03:34 PM
 
Location: FL
20,702 posts, read 12,497,754 times
Reputation: 5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
It just eats you up inside that a black man was elected--and then reelected--president, doesn't it?

You fool no one with your blather. We know what really drives birthers, and it has nothing to do with birth certificates...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 03:37 PM
 
18,986 posts, read 9,041,195 times
Reputation: 14688
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The requirement for POTUS is NBC. Not just "citizen." Good grief.
Born in Hawaii, to an American mother. Which makes him an NBC.

Check.

Game over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 03:40 PM
 
Location: FL
20,702 posts, read 12,497,754 times
Reputation: 5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Actually, it was. Why do you think Cruz didn't win the GOP Primary even though he was the closest competitor, and originally FAR more popular with the evangelicals?

Facts are nonsense to you? That explains a lot.
No one likes him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 03:49 PM
 
Location: FL
20,702 posts, read 12,497,754 times
Reputation: 5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The requirement for POTUS is NBC. Not just "citizen." Good grief.
Hawaii was part of the US when he was born.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 04:16 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,791 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
Born in Hawaii, to an American mother. Which makes him an NBC.
Obama acquired foreign citizenship at birth. Fly in the ointment.

According to US Nationality Law, only those born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are US Citizens. The only exception to that requirement is US-born members of US Native American Tribes. They're currently legally the only people who can acquire a foreign citizenship at birth and still be simultaneously considered a US Citizen at birth.

Here's how we know...

Read US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

And note how "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is omitted in subsection (b). Why? Because as citizens of their respective Indian Nations, they're subject to the those Nation's jurisdiction and do not meet the requirement in the clause in subsection (a).

Since Obama was neither born a member of a US Native American Tribe, nor was a legislative exception made for anyone (other than Native Americans) who acquired a conflicting foreign citizenship at birth, Obama is not a NBC. He was born a Brit via his father.

His mother did have the ability to have him naturalized as a close relative. At best, Obama is a naturalized US Citizen.

If you think you can poke holes in that, explain why subsection (b) of the US Nationality Law is still applicable to those born in the US to this day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 04:31 PM
 
Location: In The Thin Air
12,566 posts, read 10,587,989 times
Reputation: 9247
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Obama acquired foreign citizenship at birth. Fly in the ointment.

According to US Nationality Law, only those born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are US Citizens. The only exception to that requirement is US-born members of US Native American Tribes. They're currently legally the only people who can acquire a foreign citizenship at birth and still be simultaneously considered a US Citizen at birth.

Here's how we know...

Read US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

And note how "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is omitted in subsection (b). Why? Because as citizens of their respective Indian Nations, they're subject to the those Nation's jurisdiction and do not meet the requirement in the clause in subsection (a).

Since Obama was neither born a member of a US Native American Tribe, nor was a legislative exception made for anyone (other than Native Americans) who acquired a conflicting foreign citizenship at birth, Obama is not a NBC. He was born a Brit via his father.

His mother did have the ability to have him naturalized as a close relative. At best, Obama is a naturalized US Citizen.

If you think you can poke holes in that, explain why subsection (b) of the US Nationality Law is still applicable to those born in the US to this day.
He was born in Hawaii.

Hawaii was already a state at the time of his birth.

Therefore he is a natural born citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 04:35 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,791 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyy View Post
He was born in Hawaii.

Hawaii was already a state at the time of his birth.

Therefore he is a natural born citizen.
You didn't comprehend anything I posted. Explain why subsection (b) of the US Nationality Law is still included and still applies to those born in the US to this day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2017, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
18,058 posts, read 10,285,869 times
Reputation: 8828
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Obama acquired foreign citizenship at birth. Fly in the ointment.

According to US Nationality Law, only those born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are US Citizens. The only exception to that requirement is US-born members of US Native American Tribes. They're currently legally the only people who can acquire a foreign citizenship at birth and still be simultaneously considered a US Citizen at birth.

Here's how we know...

Read US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

And note how "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is omitted in subsection (b). Why? Because as citizens of their respective Indian Nations, they're subject to the those Nation's jurisdiction and do not meet the requirement in the clause in subsection (a).

Since Obama was neither born a member of a US Native American Tribe, nor was a legislative exception made for anyone (other than Native Americans) who acquired a conflicting foreign citizenship at birth, Obama is not a NBC. He was born a Brit via his father.

His mother did have the ability to have him naturalized as a close relative. At best, Obama is a naturalized US Citizen.

If you think you can poke holes in that, explain why subsection (b) of the US Nationality Law is still applicable to those born in the US to this day.
Your post are in the running for the most obsessive dead horse beating theme of the year.

Whack, Whack Whack...but it is dead and not going to get up.

And even after the whole thing has totally lost any relevance.

But whack whack whack...Be funny if not so sad.
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. The time now is 01:01 PM.

© 2005-2024, 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