GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-01-2012, 08:28   #41
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.
The baby is a citizen, because the constitution says so. The parent is not.

However, illegal aliens and their children are both subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Ask some of the illegal aliens currently in our prisons. Diplomats would be an exception under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.

The problem with Rubio isn't his eligibility - it is the fact that, when Republicans are already turning against Romney and preparing to let Obama win, Rubio would be the straw that broke the camel's back.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet, where you could pretend to be anything you want; so how come so many people on this forum pretend to be limpwristed sissies?
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 05-01-2012 at 08:30..
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 08:33   #42
porschedog
Senior Member
 
porschedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 814
I'd love to see the Democrats pick up this fight since it would open the gates to re-examine O'Bozo's roots.
__________________
That's Casey, my dachshund, in the avatar pic, making sure the Beneful bag is Really 100% empty.

NRA Life Member / Creepy-Ass Cracker
Florida Glockers #172126
porschedog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 09:09   #43
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razorsharp View Post
And your point is?? Does the fact that I omitted, "as distingushed from aliens or foreigners", have any effect on my contention?
Yes, because the opinion doesn't distinguish between "natural-born" and "regular" citizens. Only between citizens and foreigners. See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razorsharp View Post
"No one except a BIRD, or a ANIMAL of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Any animal could be President if alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. After that, only birds can be President.
Nope:

Animal = Natural born citizen (or simply citizen, the opinion doesn't distinguish)
Bird = Somebody born in the US (without regard to parent's citizenship)

"No one except an ANIMAL, or an ANIMAL of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Do you see now the relevance of the Happersett opinion not distinguishing between natural-born and regular citizens?

The bottom line is the Happersett opinion does not, in any way, define "naturally born citizen," any more than it defines what an "animal" is. All it does is state that in that case, my dog (mammal = born in US of US parents) is definitely an animal, and then specifically states that the question of why its an animal "doesn't need to be explored in any greater depth."

What it explicitly refuses to do, is explore the question of whether creatures who are not mammals are or are not animals. In other words, what it explicitly refuses to do, is explore the question of whether people who are not born in the US to US parents are or are not citizens (natural-born or otherwise).

When an opinion explicitly refuses to define something, it's pretty hard to argue that it defines something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Razorsharp View Post
The Court is not saying anything like that.
Exactly. That's why the Happersett opinion is 100% irrelevant here.

But it was a fun study in ornothology, zoology, logic and metaphors though, wasn't it?
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 09:17   #44
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Don't waste your time, gundude. Razorsharp's solipsist argument is tangential to the truth. We all see that. He's scrambling to justify his argument when it's obvious that the argument has no merit.

I'm still waiting for the citation from the M v. H case that shows where the court defined 'Natural Born Citizen." I won't get it, because it isn't there, no matter how desperately he wishes it were.

No offense, Razorsharp.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 09:20   #45
kirgi08
Silver Membership
Watcher.
 
kirgi08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Acme proving grounds.
Posts: 28,125
Blog Entries: 1


Heard something today.A guy I work with said "Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires that every citizen prove they are insured,but not everyone prove they are a citizen."

I don't know where he got it,but it's spot on.'08.
__________________
I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

If you look like food,You will be eaten.

Rip Chad.You will be missed.
kirgi08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 09:24   #46
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
I'm still waiting for the citation from the M v. H case that shows where the court defined 'Natural Born Citizen." I won't get it, because it isn't there, no matter how desperately he wishes it were.
czsmithGT posted it, above, along with a link to the case.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet, where you could pretend to be anything you want; so how come so many people on this forum pretend to be limpwristed sissies?
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 05-01-2012 at 09:25..
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 09:37   #47
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
czsmithGT posted it, above, along with a link to the case.
No one has posted a citation to anything in M v. H that defined NBC. Razorsharp uses M v. H as the basis for his argument.

The court (in that case) cited Common Law and the 14th Amendment and used them in a very narrow manner to validate their decision that in the particular case of the plaintiff she was indeed a citizen, and thus her citizenship was not a factor for dismissal.

Nothing in their decision addressed the definition of NBC, and in fact (as I cited earlier) they refused to address the issue beyond the scope of how the plaintiff's citizenship affected their decision.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks

Last edited by eracer; 05-01-2012 at 09:41..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:19   #48
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
No one has posted a citation to anything in M v. H that defined NBC. Razorsharp uses M v. H as the basis for his argument.
I think Bren simply confused the "M v. H" case with the "US v. WKA" case czsmithGT posted.

The M v. H case serves no purpose in this thread other than to confuse and misdirect, so its lifespan in this thread should probably, mercifully come to an end at this point.

The US v. WKA case czsmithGT referenced is actually relevant, unless one happens to believe that what applies to immigrants of Chinese ancestry is fundamentally different in the citizenship definition than what applies to immigrants of any other nationality.

Last edited by Gundude; 05-01-2012 at 11:25..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:22   #49
Hyksos
Senior Member
 
Hyksos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Jupiter/Miami, FL
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
The US v. WKA case czsmithGT referenced is actually relevant, unless one happens to believe that what applies to immigrants of Chinese ancestry is fundamentally different in the eyes of the law than what applies to immigrants of any other nationality.
The Court will just "distinguish" that case from one that doesn't have an immigrant of Chinese ancestry. They "distinguish" stuff all the time to get around stare decisis.
__________________
Spes mea in deo est
Hyksos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:31   #50
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyksos View Post
The Court will just "distinguish" that case from one that doesn't have an immigrant of Chinese ancestry. They "distinguish" stuff all the time to get around stare decisis.
I'm sure certain judges can attempt it, but it'd be a tough sell, given the more general language used throughout the opinion.

However, I'd never put anything past any lawyer, judge, or court, so I wouldn't actually bet money on it...

Last edited by Gundude; 05-01-2012 at 11:32..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 11:48   #51
Hyksos
Senior Member
 
Hyksos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Jupiter/Miami, FL
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
I'm sure certain judges can attempt it, but it'd be a tough sell, given the more general language used throughout the opinion.

However, I'd never put anything past any lawyer, judge, or court, so I wouldn't actually bet money on it...
Seriously, stuff like that happens all the time. Dissenters either 1) frequently accuse the majority of failing to follow precedent; or 2) state why they think the case should be distinguished.

After all, where else do dissents come from? Judges disagree on how to interpret prior case law. Some may believe certain facts are spot on, while others may believe the proposed case law does not comport with the current facts. The result is a majority of the Court may feel that a somewhat similar case is good precedent, while the dissent feels that the case doesn't even apply to the set of facts in front of them.
__________________
Spes mea in deo est
Hyksos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 12:23   #52
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
No one has posted a citation to anything in M v. H that defined NBC. Razorsharp uses M v. H as the basis for his argument.
You are correct, I was looking at United States v. Wong Kim Ark. While Minor v. Happersett discusses who are citizens and says that "[s]ome authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents[,]" that is not the subject of the case - what they decided is whether being a citizen automatically includes the right to vote and they held that it does not, so we needed a constitutional amendment to guarantee that right. The case does discuss the history of citizenship, but doesn't directly answer the question of "natural born citizenship."
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet, where you could pretend to be anything you want; so how come so many people on this forum pretend to be limpwristed sissies?
- Me, 2014.
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 16:03   #53
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 7,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razorsharp View Post
The Framers of the Constitution saw a difference. That's why they made an exception for citizens, who were alive at the time of ratification, to be eligible for President. After that, one had to be a natural born citizen. So, there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
We have two forms of citizens in this country: natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth (gained by being born within the country or being born to American citizens abroad) and naturalized, those who attained citizenship after being born . There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.

The concept and definition of natural born citizenship is based in English common law and has been the same since colonial times.
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein
HarlDane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 16:21   #54
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
We have two forms of citizens in this country: natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth (gained by being born within the country or being born to American citizens abroad) and naturalized, those who attained citizenship after being born . There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.

The concept and definition of natural born citizenship is based in English common law and has been the same since colonial times.
Clear, concise and irrefutable.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 17:19   #55
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Really? Illegal aliens can't be arrested, tried, and jailed by US government entities? I wonder how all those defense lawyers missed that?
If they are citizens of another country, they are subject to that country's jurisdiction. YOu can be a violator of our laws without being one of our citizens.
G29Reload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 17:21   #56
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.
Correct. There is no third citizenship status because if you were born here to illegals, you are an ALIEN. NOT a citizen.
G29Reload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 18:11   #57
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 7,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
If they are citizens of another country, they are subject to that country's jurisdiction. YOu can be a violator of our laws without being one of our citizens.
As it's been pointed out in this thread previously, the U.S. government has jurisdiction over just about everyone within our borders. The only exception are foreign diplomats who are not subject to our jurisdiction and therefor can not be charged with crimes (or make their children eligible for citizenship). This has been hashed out in a number of court cases, some of which have been noted in previous posts of this thread.
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein

Last edited by HarlDane; 05-02-2012 at 07:41..
HarlDane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 18:27   #58
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlDane View Post
We have two forms of citizens in this country: natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth (gained by being born within the country or being born to American citizens abroad) and naturalized, those who attained citizenship after being born . There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.

The concept and definition of natural born citizenship is based in English common law and has been the same since colonial times.
Clear, concise, and not one hundred per cent correct. Being born in a foreign country, even to American citizens, does not keep you from being a citizen, but it does keep you from being defined as a natural born citizen.

Except for the fact that the Panama Canal Zone was American territory at the time, John McCain would have had this problem (and strangely enough, the media asked him a lot of questions about that).

But, as I said before, if there is one thing the Obama Presidency will stand for, it is that apparently, none of that pesky stuff about Constitutional qualifications matters any more.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 05-01-2012 at 18:30..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 18:45   #59
HarlDane
Senior Member
 
HarlDane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: San Joaquin Valley
Posts: 7,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Clear, concise, and not one hundred per cent correct. Being born in a foreign country, even to American citizens, does not keep you from being a citizen, but it does keep you from being defined as a natural born citizen.
This is simply not true.
__________________
-HarlDane-
"Son of the San Joaquin"
The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. A. Einstein
HarlDane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2012, 18:47   #60
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by series1811 View Post
Clear, concise, and not one hundred per cent correct. Being born in a foreign country, even to American citizens, does not keep you from being a citizen, but it does keep you from being defined as a natural born citizen.
Not correct.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
born, citizen, natural, rubio
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:07.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 592
144 Members
448 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31