Primary Thread IV: Texas Black Gold or Pennsylvania Coal for Clinton?

[EPW]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I read it. The argument that you have to be physically born in the US and being born to US citizen parents isn't good enough is utterly ridiculous, as I pointed out.

It may not be good enough, that is the point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Says was superceeded, but that specific part never overturned. It seems that it was continued in practice. In 1934 it was extended to children of American citizen mothers as well.

Hell, the link in wikipedia which says that some people argue against it leads to an article which just says it is generally accepted that children of citizens are natural born, but not set in stone and a Senator wants to set it in stone.

[DinoDoc]

Stupid arguement:

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

[EPW]

This isn't about being a citizen at birth, it's about being a "Natural born citizen"

[Admiral]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898): according to the 14th amendment, an citizen "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization."

8 U.S.C. section 1403(a)

"Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, ... whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."

And ftr, this is a really stupid argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by EPW
This isn't about being a citizen at birth, it's about being a "Natural born citizen"

Half dozen one way, 6 of 12 another. Its saying the same thing.

Unless you consider "natural born citizen" to mean something entirely different.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by EPW
This isn't about being a citizen at birth, it's about being a "Natural born citizen"

Think about that statement for a moment and you come to see it as being as stupid as I do.

[EPW]

No, there is a legal distinction.

Edit: That is, if the 1790 naturalization act does not currently apply.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by EPW
No, there is a legal distinction.

No, there isn't. This is why you shouldn't use wiki as a source if you want to be taken seriously. It gives you bad info.

[EPW]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, there isn't. This is why you shouldn't use wiki as a source if you want to be taken seriously. It gives you bad info.

I've lurked the off-topic(and internet forums in general) long enough to know that you aren't going to be taken seriously no matter the source if the posters have already made up their minds. It is difficult to convince anyone of anything on a forum, especially about politics.

I find it unlikely that this issue will come of anything, and I don't think it should. If there is a legal problem I think congress should pass a law, or if necessary a constitutional amendment to clarify the meaning.

[Kuciwalker]

In this case no one's going to take you seriously because what you said is nonsense and what Imran and DD said is obviously true.

edit: just saw your post above, about how Hillary isn't eligible... okay, you're just an idiot. Next?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by EPW
I've lurked the off-topic(and internet forums in general) long enough to know that you aren't going to be taken seriously no matter the source if the posters have already made up their minds. It is difficult to convince anyone of anything on a forum, especially about politics.

To elaborate:

You are trying to discredit attacks against yourself as "no one will listen to me anyway even though I'm right." I think the situation is analagous enough to fit this Sagan quote:

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Guess which one you are?

[EPW]

A bill was introduced into congress in 2003 to address this issue, but expired when the session ended:

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
2/25/2004--Introduced.
Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President, as: (1) any person born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States; and (2) any person born outside the United States who derives citizenship at birth from U.S. citizen parents, or who is adopted by the age of 18 by U.S. citizen parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=s108-2128

[Kuciwalker]

Hm, what are the odds that out of over 400 people - mostly lawyers - who were in Congress at the time, one of them would share your particular fantasy?

[EPW]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You are trying to discredit attacks against yourself as "no one will listen to me anyway even though I'm right."

I do not know if I am right, and it is irrelevant in any case. The constitution was written in 1770s, it is not surprising that it contains sexist and xenophobic language. Whether they have any legal bearing
is up to the congress or the supreme court to decide.