Why don't Joe Arpaio, Orly Taitz, And Mike Zullo use the birther smoking gun?

[ShootSpeeders]

So the woman who edited very pamphlet you're citing indicates it was a fact checking error on her part and there was never any information given to the literary agency by Obama that suggests in anyway that he was born in Kenya

Hey einstein. Of course she says it was an "honest mistake" but that explanation makes no sense. You don't just assume all blacks are born in kenya!!! Obozo must have told them that and they checked (prolly contacted harvard) and got confirmation. THINK

 

[Vigilante]

So the woman who edited very pamphlet you're citing indicates it was a fact checking error on her part and there was never any information given to the literary agency by Obama that suggests in anyway that he was born in Kenya

Hey einstein. Of course she says it was an "honest mistake" but that explanation makes no sense. You don't just assume all blacks are born in kenya!!! Obozo must have told them that and they checked (prolly contacted harvard) and got confirmation. THINK

Rep Frog Boy II was never known for his brilliance, if he was, well, he can start all over again!

 

[Skylar]

You know what is really nice about being here?...We can watch a newbie OCD over minutia, such as you do, laugh at it, and let you rant all you want! But I'm glad to see we have a new subversive, because the way you morons are falling, we won't have anyone to entertain us!

BUT, you do sound suspiciously like Rep Frog Boy II sock!

Wow. An entire post dedicated to nothing but personal insults. And yet you fail utterly to tell us the relevance of your babble about Obama's yearbook. Or why any rational person would ignore Miriam Goderich , the woman who edited the very pamphlet you're citing....

....and instead believe you.

Can we take it from the complete abandonment of your every argument that you find your allegations as baseless as the rest of us do?

 

[Skylar]

Hey einstein. Of course she says it was an "honest mistake" but that explanation makes no sense. You don't just assume all blacks are born in kenya!!! Obozo must have told them that and they checked (prolly contacted harvard) and got confirmation. THINK

Miriam Goderich says otherwise. Think: why would any rational person ignore Miriam on her own work, and instead believe you pretending to speak for her? A woman you don't know, have never met, have never been in the same room with?

I can't think of a single reason.

Especially when an editing error is plausible, simple, and matches the evidence. While the fantastically elaborate and ludicrously elaborate birther conspiracy is utterly unlikely and lacking evidence.

Occam's Razor. Try it. Its actually quite helpful.

 

[Skylar]

Save for a few problems. First, the quote you're offering is from a proposed 1792 Naturalization Act....that was never passed. Second, it refers to children born *outside* the United States.

Those born within the United States are already natural born. Natural born status follows place of birth. Making Obama at least as eligible to be president that either John McCain or Ted Cruz. Both born outside the United States, the latter to a Canadian father.

[/QUOTE]

Take a look at Wong Kim Ark v. the United States. It establishes, unambiguously, that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth. Even if born to foreign parents. With the USSC citing the legal tradition of natural born status following place of birth. Even to foreign parents.

If you're born in the United States, you're a natural born citizen. There's only natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third type of citizen.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Hey einstein. Of course she says it was an "honest mistake" but that explanation makes no sense. You don't just assume all blacks are born in kenya!!! Obozo must have told them that and they checked (prolly contacted harvard) and got confirmation. THINK

Miriam Goderich says otherwise. Think: why would any rational person ignore Miriam on her own work, and instead believe you pretending to speak for her?

Because obozo paid her millions to say what she said. Next question.

 

[Toro]

birfers

lol

 

[Vigilante]

Save for a few problems. First, the quote you're offering is from a proposed 1792 Naturalization Act....that was never passed. Second, it refers to children born *outside* the United States.

Those born within the United States are already natural born. Natural born status follows place of birth. Making Obama at least as eligible to be president that either John McCain or Ted Cruz. Both born outside the United States, the latter to a Canadian father.

Take a look at Wong Kim Ark v. the United States. It establishes, unambiguously, that anyone born in the United States is a citizen at birth. Even if born to foreign parents. With the USSC citing the legal tradition of natural born status following place of birth. Even to foreign parents.

If you're born in the United States, you're a natural born citizen. There's only natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third type of citizen.[/QUOTE]


Yes, it was the original law passed....
The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.
Major changes to the definition of citizenship were ratified in the nineteenth century following the American Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 granted citizenship to people born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of their parents' race, citizenship, or place of birth, but it excluded untaxed Indians (those living on reservations). The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended "the naturalization laws" to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." In 1898 the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark granted citizenship to an American-born child of Chinese parents. All persons born in the United States since United States v. Wong Kim Ark have been granted citizenship although the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the matter.

 

[Skylar]

All persons born in the United States since United States v. Wong Kim Ark have been granted citizenship although the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the matter.

They're clear enough;

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. 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. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
1898

As the court recognizes, English Common law is the lens through which the terms of the constitution must be understood. And 'natural born' status was well understood to follow place of birth. If you were born in England, you're a natural born subject of England.

The courts lay out, right there, what natural born means. And it has nothing to do with parentage, as you claim....but location of birth. As the court makes clear, even if both parents were aliens, the child still has natural born status.

That's why the provisions for those children born OUTSIDE the United States had to be written into our law. Natural born status was understood to be derived from place of birth. The founders sought to extend that status to those born outside the US, but to two US parents.

They explicitly included it in their naturalization act because this was not the case before the law. While those born within the US have always had natural born status.

Not only have you failed utterly to factually establish your claims, the USSC has explicitly contradicted you. There is only natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third type. And if you're born in the US, you're a citizen at birth.

 

[Skylar]

Hey einstein. Of course she says it was an "honest mistake" but that explanation makes no sense. You don't just assume all blacks are born in kenya!!! Obozo must have told them that and they checked (prolly contacted harvard) and got confirmation. THINK

Miriam Goderich says otherwise. Think: why would any rational person ignore Miriam on her own work, and instead believe you pretending to speak for her?

Because obozo paid her millions to say what she said. Next question.

No, a rational reason. Not whatever silly nonsense you can make up. If you believe that Miriam Goderich lied, prove it. If you believe she was paid millions of dollars by Obama, prove it. Otherwise she remains the very best source their is on the editing of that document, and her own actions.

Certainly better than you citing yourself, pretending to speak for a woman you don't know, have never met, nor have ever been in the same room with. Remember, your imagination isn't actually evidence.

 

[Vigilante]

All persons born in the United States since United States v. Wong Kim Ark have been granted citizenship although the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the matter.

They're clear enough;

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. 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. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
1898

As the court recognizes, English Common law is the lens through which the terms of the constitution must be understood. And 'natural born' status was well understood to follow place of birth. If you were born in England, you're a natural born subject of England.

The courts lay out, right there, what natural born means. And it has nothing to do with parentage, as you claim....but location of birth. As the court makes clear, even if both parents were aliens, the child still has natural born status.

That's why the provisions for those children born OUTSIDE the United States had to be written into our law. Natural born status was understood to be derived from place of birth. The founders sought to extend that status to those born outside the US, but to two US parents.

They explicitly included it in their naturalization act because this was not the case before the law. While those born within the US have always had natural born status.

Not only have you failed utterly to factually establish your claims, the USSC has explicitly contradicted you. There is only natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third type. And if you're born in the US, you're a citizen at birth.

Please show the SCOTUS decision that EXPLICITLY states what you have pondered!

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Dot Com]

 

[Skylar]

Do you deny the above citation as coming from the USSC majority ruling on the Wong Kim Ark decision?

If yes, then I'll gladly provide the link to the full decision....since you're obviously too lazy to take the 15 seconds to look it up.

If no, then the USSC's words stand. Uncontested.

 

[Vigilante]

Do you deny the above citation as coming from the USSC majority ruling on the Wong Kim Ark decision?

If yes, then I'll gladly provide the link to the full decision....since you're obviously too lazy to take the 15 seconds to look it up.

If no, then the USSC's words stand. Uncontested.

As with the Hobby Lobby decision, that was a narrow decision and has not been contested again... or perhaps you have those citations?

 

[Skylar]

It is rather telling that when the natural born status of republican Ted Cruz is brought up (who was actually born in a foreign country with a foreign father and is a natural born citizen of Canada) most birthers have nothing to say.

I wonder if our birthers will condemn any Presidential bid by Cruz as vehemently as they did Obama's. Or if they'll give the white guy a pass.

 

[Skylar]

Do you deny the above citation as coming from the USSC majority ruling on the Wong Kim Ark decision?

If yes, then I'll gladly provide the link to the full decision....since you're obviously too lazy to take the 15 seconds to look it up.

If no, then the USSC's words stand. Uncontested.

As with the Hobby Lobby decision, that was a narrow decision and has not been contested again... or perhaps you have those citations?

Do you deny the above citation regarding natural born status as coming from the USSC majority ruling on the Wong Kim Ark decision?

If no, then the issue is settled.

 

[Vigilante]

Do you deny the above citation as coming from the USSC majority ruling on the Wong Kim Ark decision?

If yes, then I'll gladly provide the link to the full decision....since you're obviously too lazy to take the 15 seconds to look it up.

If no, then the USSC's words stand. Uncontested.

As with the Hobby Lobby decision, that was a narrow decision and has not been contested again... or perhaps you have those citations?

Do you deny the above citation regarding natural born status as coming from the USSC majority ruling on the Wong Kim Ark decision?

If no, then the issue is settled.

See post #56!

 

[Vigilante]

IF he was a REAL AMERICAN, wouldn't any of you pond scum think he'd do something about this, after rescuing a traitor?