RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:44:30 AM)

I never said that was redacted, may want to learn how to comprehend what you read.



Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:46:40 AM)

sorry residency is off topic, it was all redacted.



mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:48:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the law is title 8 and the laws of hawaii in that time frame.
the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not.  mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.  there are several distinctions between citizen by birth and natural born citizen.  unfortunately it was redacted.  go fish


The residency requirement of a state has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship which is federal ...PERIOD.

Nothing on georgia, nothing on topic, nothing...derail, and pettifogging tinfoiling.

Title 8 was a republican law suspending chinese immigration for a period of 10 years signed by Arthur in the 1880s and running till 1943, missing the 10 year promise by several decades...



tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 9:51:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

sorry residency is off topic, it was all redacted.


quote:

the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not. mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.


The mother was. She gave birth at 18, and was back in college by 19 in the US. She never relinquished citizenship or residency.

And, no, both did not need to be citizens. I have posted that repeatedly from the US government web site.



mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:01:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

sorry residency is off topic, it was all redacted.


quote:

the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not. mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.


The mother was. She gave birth at 18, and was back in college by 19 in the US. She never relinquished citizenship or residency.

And, no, both did not need to be citizens. I have posted that repeatedly from the US government web site.


RE: The first quoted portion.

Tiger Woods isn't the goddamned President of the United States, Barak Obama is, and he has no Chinese ancestry in question.  And certainly not a law repealed 18 years before he was born ancestry in question. 

Off topic and derail.



tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:16:30 AM)

wtf?

Obviously you two are talking in code.

The complaint is that Obama's mother was not here for 19 years, which would have been the 5 years required by law after her 14th birthday. Considering she had him at 18, it was physically impossible for her to fulfill the 5 year requirement.

However, that does not take away from my question. And, as yet, for as long as I have been asking it, no one seems to be able to answer it.

At what point, if a US citizen, moves to another country, do they give up residency status?

How about we try this for an answer.

http://lcweb2.l.o.c.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227
(take out the periods inside the l.o.c)

Or this?

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#moveabroad




Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:16:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the law is title 8 and the laws of hawaii in that time frame.
the mother needed to be a resident for a consecutive 5 years, she was not.  mother and father needed to be lawful citizens of the us. papason was not and has never been.  there are several distinctions between citizen by birth and natural born citizen.  unfortunately it was redacted.  go fish


The residency requirement of a state has nothing whatsoever to do with citizenship which is federal ...PERIOD.

Nothing on georgia, nothing on topic, nothing...derail, and pettifogging tinfoiling.

Title 8 was a republican law suspending chinese immigration for a period of 10 years signed by Arthur in the 1880s and running till 1943, missing the 10 year promise by several decades...


it has to do with smuggling too, so what.



RacerJim -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:18:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States ......


The key word there, of course, is: "citizen".
There is no reference to, no mention of, no use of the term: "natural born citizen" anywhere in the decision.
The two terms are not interchangeable.
The case is not on point.

Your post is, of course, directly on point.
Although the U.S. Constitution does not define "natural born Citizen" it does in fact differentiate between "natural born Citizen" and "citizen" in that it states that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible to serve as POTUS while any "citizen" may serve as a member of Congress.
Minor v Happersett is on point.



RacerJim -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:21:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.


Do you happen to know the name of that case?
Other than commenting that, clearly, Indiana state courts have no authority to define Constitutional terms, I will let the thoughtless continue to crow.

Arkeny v. Governor

By basing his ruling on that Indiana Court of Appeals case Judge Malihi unilaterally over-ruled the United States Supreme Court.

Appeals no doubt will be filed.

Overturned which SCOTUS case? Or are you making stuff up again.

Minor v Happersett for one. Are you that ignorant?



tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:21:32 AM)

Oh really?

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president

Might want to read up on that and see the actual code. A link is provided at the site above.

R0, since you are so into ancient law, you might want to read that too.



Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:25:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Oh really?

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president

Might want to read up on that and see the actual code. A link is provided at the site above.

R0, since you are so into ancient law, you might want to read that too.


you seem to think the law of today changes the law as it was, it does not.



tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:28:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Oh really?

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html#president

Might want to read up on that and see the actual code. A link is provided at the site above.

R0, since you are so into ancient law, you might want to read that too.





You would prefer they stated children of a us citizen? Back in the 1700's no one would have said it in such a way. Are you suggesting that a child born out of wedlock is not eligible to be a US citizen?



tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 10:40:03 AM)

My position is well founded. How many men admitted to having a child out of wedlock back in the 1700's? I doubt you will convince anyone that if a man could get out of paternity now, he would do so gladly. Meaning, for your argument to hold weight, not a single child born out of wedlock would ever be a US citizen. That notion on face value is ridiculous. Digging deeper, its farcical.



DomKen -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 11:01:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.


Do you happen to know the name of that case?
Other than commenting that, clearly, Indiana state courts have no authority to define Constitutional terms, I will let the thoughtless continue to crow.

Arkeny v. Governor

By basing his ruling on that Indiana Court of Appeals case Judge Malihi unilaterally over-ruled the United States Supreme Court.

Appeals no doubt will be filed.

Overturned which SCOTUS case? Or are you making stuff up again.

Minor v Happersett for one. Are you that ignorant?


The rulling in question did not grant the right to vote to anyone, what Minor v Happersett is about, and does not change any of the associated citizenship discussion in the ruling.

You should really stop making stuff up.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162



mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 11:06:07 AM)

You  are laboring under the misapprehension that the United States did not break away from Britian by force and set up its own government.  I can assure you it did.

Having cracked many more history books than you have, We will allow you to explicate two non-weddings in which blunderbusses were absent, in fact the bastard was common.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings.  Ben Franklin and an unknown lady. 



tazzygirl -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 11:17:15 AM)

Try this excuse.

quote:



§ 1409. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

Children born out of wedlock obtain the mother's citizenship status.

Honestly, open a law book sometime. Does not say a thing about the father.



mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 11:20:58 AM)

It has been proven in law that there was no need for both parents to be citizens of America.

Several times, by Tazzy and others, your efforts to cntradict what is clearly the law of the land with some ancient dictum from cases having nothing to do with the actual law regarding citizenship are untutored, off topic and a waste of everyones oxygen.

So, anything on natural born that can be traced directly to a different meaning than that which has been found recorded in books since 1560 or less?  Anything new in law changing the meaning of American Citizen(ship) since August 4, 1961?

Any actual precedent in topical AMERICAN caselaw that could reverse the Georgia ruling?

If not,  your pidgeon toed usage of dicta mentioning  the Magna Carta is devoid of use and a waste of the common good.



mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 11:24:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:



§ 1409. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

Children born out of wedlock obtain the mother's citizenship status.

Honestly, open a law book sometime. Does not say a thing about the father.


Which is (as I have posited from day one) the founders intent.
We always know who the mother is.........



Real0ne -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 11:30:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Try this excuse.

quote:



§ 1409. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1409.html

Children born out of wedlock obtain the mother's citizenship status.

Honestly, open a law book sometime. Does not say a thing about the father.


so what?

try 1401 from 1960.

unless of course you think that laws created today are retroactive LOL


oh and you forgot this:

(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if— (1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence, (2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,



mnottertail -> RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling (2/9/2012 11:35:32 AM)

1401 reinforces her point and makes yours null and void.  CLEARLY. 



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875