So how long will Ben last this time?

[Ben Kenobi]

As for Cruz would we be having this discussion if his family stayed in Calgary?

[Kidlicious]

His mother's birth certificate has been publicised. The only birther left is BK and Trump.

[Aeson]

And that's my point, Aeson. Natural Born citizenship cannot be lost this way.

No. Your claim that they could lose their citizenship was simply wrong. Either they meet the requirements for citizenship at birth, or they don't. Those that meet the requirements are US citizens at birth, and can only lose it if they renounce it. Those who are not US citizens at birth cannot lose their citizenship because they don't have it to lose.

This was your "point":

"Citizenship through parents is not Natural Born citizenship, because it is possible for it to be lost depending on the status of the parents at the time, and whether the mother had resided in the US for at least a year."

It is simply wrong. It is not possible for it to be lost. Either you have it, or you don't.

[Kidlicious]

BK hates the Constitution. This is why only natural born citizens should be president.

[Aeson]

There was nothing the child did to change their circumstances, but due to the actions of others changes their status. It suggests to me that this form of citizenship is more ephemeral.

This is another ridiculous attempt to define a delineation which is not used to determine anything legally. It's even more ridiculous because it doesn't delineate between anything if it were to be used. The simple fact is that EVERY PERSON BORN A US CITIZEN could have had their citizenship affected this way. My parents could have renounced their citizenship and gave birth to me in a different country. Not only doesn't it delineate between US citizens, it doesn't delineate between anyone, anywhere, at any time in history. Your mom could have snuck into the US to give birth to you, thus affecting your citizenship status. It's completely meaningless.

What matters is what did happen. Not what could have happened.

[C0ckney]

IMO, he's the best. Cruz is second. Both are great candidates, I just wish Cruz were not a Canadian citizen. Then I'd probably be working for his campaign. I have a copy of a letter I wrote him in 2010, and he actually had the courtesy to reply to me. I have nothing against Cruz the man, it's just the constitution (which I have to teach), is pretty clear on this.

he's polling at about 1% nationally, stuck in the 'undercard' debates, and has to compete with a much more popular candidate for the hardcore religious vote. it doesn't look very good for him. who will you back, considering that you think cruz shouldn't be running, once he drops out?

[Aeson]

What false dichotomy?

"Naturalized!=Natural born."

You've used this (and similar phrasing) several times when presented with the possibility that someone born outside the US is a natural born citizen. By conflating "naturalized" and "citizen by birth" you have created a false dichotomy.

I've been using three terms. You've been using two.

You are lying. I have used the terms "naturalized", "natural born citizens", and "citizens by birth".

The three terms I've been using are:

1. Natural born citizen = someone born in their country.
2. Naturalized citizen = someone who acquires their citizenship through the process of naturalization.
3. Born citizens = someone who is born a citizen of the US outside of the country.

You only accepted 3 after I proved it, but have not yet recanted your positions you had taken previous to that proof which were promoting a false dichotomy of 1 and 2 by ignoring (and implicitly denying the existence of) 3.

[Aeson]

No, I'm relying on examples of what other people, including the people who wrote the constitution at the time and what they had to say about this question.

Maybe you should actually look at the laws that were enacted. If you want look at what was originally intended ... the first US Congress of 1790 passed applicable laws:

http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf

FIRST CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 4. 1790.

... And the children of such persons so
naturalized, dwelling- within the United States, being under the age of
twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered
as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of
the United States, that mayibe 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: Provided also, That no
person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as
aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such
person was proscribed ...

The simple fact is that "natural born citizens" was used in US legislation ... Yet you have claimed the exact opposite of what they legislated, while claiming you are speaking for the original intent.

It's ridiculously stupid on your part.

I like the concept of a republic, but I've always been a monarchist.

... again, ridiculously stupid on your part.

[Kidlicious]

Trump is attacking Cruz, but Cruz isn't attacking back. Meanwhile Huckabee and Santorum are attacking him from the right. You would think they would be attacking Trump or Clinton.

[Aeson]

I just want to clarify that I don't think we should use the intent of the law in 1790, as it was clearly misogynist and racist.

[SlowwHand]

Oh, bull****.

[Aeson]

You don't think slavery was racist? Or that treating women as second class citizens was misogynist?

[Kidlicious]

You don't think slavery was racist? Or that treating women as second class citizens was misogynist?

Most women liked being second class citizens so it's a bit of a stretch to call that misogyny. What were they suppose to do, force them to be equal?

[Aeson]

Most women liked being second class citizens so it's a bit of a stretch to call that misogyny. What were they suppose to do, force them to be equal?

BK, you're going to have to really up your game if you want to reclaim "stupidest post" honors in this thread ...

[Kidlicious]

It's not misogyny if you're giving women what they want Aeson. So if you don't want to defend your claim, that's fine.