Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth.
True, but not because of any statute, because being the child of two citizens of the same nation, the nature of citizenship compels that the natural consequence of the birth is that the child of the two citizens, is a citizen.
Then why did the Congress in 1790 fold in children born to US parents abroad as 'natural born citizens' if the ONLY way to be a natural born citizens was to be born to US parents?
Like you, I have no idea what you're talking about.... but unlike you, I possess the means to reason objectively...
You don't reason objectively. You offer us your opinion. And then insist it is objective truth. Take natural born status for example. The dictionary, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Wong Kim Ark decision all point in one direction: place of birth.
You ignore them all, cite your subjective opinoin....and then bizarrely claim to have 'reasoned objectively'. That's not objectivity. Objective reasoning would be to apply standards that aren't hopelessly dependant on your opinion.
For example, the Naturalition Act of 1790:
And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
naturalization laws 1790-1795
This is a source that isn't dependent on your personal opinion. Its an objective source that any of us can read. And it explicitly contradicts your narrative. Using place of birth and location of residency as the key components in establishing natural born status. Not the citizenship of the parents. With congress extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.
Something they would never do and never have to do if your narrative were valid.
How do you assimilate this objective information into your argument? You don't. You ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Literally arguing your own ignorance as an excuse for dismissing it entirely. And then stating your baseless and hopelessly subjective personal opinion again.
That's not objective reasoning. That's you ignoring objective evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. That's you placing your subjective opinion ABOVE objective evidence, clinging to what you want to be true rather than what the evidence actually indicates is true. You have no explanation for why this law would have been created if your narrative were valid. Your argument completely collapses.
And this is hardly the only example. There's also Wong Kim Ark, where the Supreme Court cite English Common law contradicting you:
United States v Wong Kim Ark said:The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.
With Wong Kim Ark describing a 'natural born' the exact same way I do:
United States v Wong Kim Ark said:"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth."
How do you deal with this pair of objective contradictions of your assertions? You again ignore the objective evidence and make up whatever you'd like. Citing yourself. And then laughably label your opinion 'objective reasoning'.
And you're still not done ignoring objective evidence and clinging to your personal opinion. Even the dictionary contradicts you.
And when you follow the link to the definition of 'native born'.....your argument implodes yet again.
Just like the founders in the 1st session of congress, English common law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, and the Supreme Court......the dictionary uses places of birth to determine natural born status.
And then there's you. Ignoring all objective evidence and insisting that you know better than all of them.....because you say you do.
Can you see why your claims are a little....underwhelming?
Based upon what?
Based on the child already being a natural born citizen if your interpretation was correct. Which the 1st session of congress demonstrated clearly isn't the case. As the founders found it necessary to extend natural born citizenship to children born to US citizens abroad. If the child already had natural born citizenship.....there would be no need to extend it.
How do you resolve this utter decimation of your entire argument? You ignore it. You ignore all objective evidence. And cling to your personal opinion.
Citing yourself. And you citing you isn't objective anything. Its just your subjective opinion.