So how long will Ben last this time?

[Ben Kenobi]

Back at yer!

If there's nothing in the constitution supporting you, I rest my case.

[Dauphin]

So, if there's nothing in the constitution supporting you, I rest my case.

You said you only teach what's in the constitution. I challenged. You failed to support. I have nothing to prove. You do.

[Ben Kenobi]

You said you only teach what's in the constitution, I challenged. You failed to support. I have nothing to prove.

I did support. You've conceded that your argument has no constitutional support. I've read the arguments, and remain unconvinced by their provenance.

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

Rep John Bingham of Ohio. March 9th 1866. My bolds.

Cruz was born in Canada and so is a natural born Canadian citizen, and a subject of the Queen.

[Dauphin]

I did support. You've conceded that your argument has no constitutional support. I've read the arguments, and remain unconvinced by their provenance.

I conceded nothing. Liar.

My constitutional support is that there is no reference to "soil" anywhere in it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, then. Have at it. Show me the constitutionality of your position.

My constitutional support is that there is no reference to "soil" anywhere in it.

And I've provided a quote from the congressional debate over the 14th amendment indicating that Natural Born Citizenship excluded those subject to foreign sovereignty, which automatically excludes 'dual citizens' born outside of the US, like Ted Cruz.

I have yet to find a single citation concerning natural born citizenship prior to 2005 advocating your position.

[Aeson]

Not at all. As you stated, "the only natural born citizens at that point would be children". And why? because you had to be born in the territory of the United States to be considered to be natural born citizens.

That is not my answer. My answer was that there was no US to be born a citizen to for anyone older than the US. This is true regardless of how you define "natural born citizen" as long as "born a citizen" is required.

If it were possible to become a natural born citizen through the process of naturalization, this clause would be wholly unnecessary.

Strawman. No naturalization needed.

Which the constitution does not say. Can you see anywhere where this is stated, within the constitution of the United States?

Hypocrisy. "Soil" isn't mentioned anywhere either.

[Aeson]

No one is questioning that all of those categories are those who would be considered citizens of the united states at birth.

Stop lying. You claimed with a blanket statement that all such births not on American soil were "naturalization". They are not, they are actually US citizens by birth.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is not my answer. My answer was that there was no US to be born a citizen to for anyone older than the US. This is true regardless of how you define "natural born citizen" as long as "born a citizen" is required.

If it were possible to acquire natural born citizenship through naturalization, this process would be unnecessary. That is my point. It was grandfathered because the understanding of natural born citizenship at the time required one to be born within the country.

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. And even that is contingent on being born post 1952.

The mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year.

https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

So, again. I'm not seeing the whole natural born citizenship argument here for Cruz.

[Ben Kenobi]

Stop lying. You claimed with a blanket statement that all such births not on American soil were "naturalization". They are not, they are actually US citizens by birth.

Then feel free to quote me where I said this. I did not.

[Aeson]

If it were possible to acquire natural born citizenship through naturalization, this process would be unnecessary.

No it wouldn't. You're just ignoring the reality that there are other ways that "natural born citizen" can be defined that also require the clause.

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 not possible to "lose" citizenship that way. What you are describing is a situation where someone NEVER HAD US CITIZENSHIP due to not meeting the requirements for citizenship. You cannot lose something you never had.

Someone who was born a US citizen in this way can only "lose" it in the same way that every other US citizen can lose it ... by renouncing it. So if we're going to use "can lose US citizenship" as a litmus test, there are no natural born citizens of the US!

And even that is contingent on being born post 1952.

That is only for case G. There are several other cases.

Then feel free to quote me where I said this. I did not.

"*sigh*. Naturalized!=Natural born."
"You cannot be a natural born American if you have to be naturalized."
"If it were possible to acquire natural born citizenship through naturalization, this process would be unnecessary."
"If it were possible to become a natural born citizen through the process of naturalization, this clause would be wholly unnecessary."

The reason why these fit is because you were using "naturalization" as the only possible alternative to being born on US soil. You still are promoting that false dichotomy. Thus all your statements were denying the obvious reality that citizenship by birth is possible for those born outside the US.

[ricketyclik]

Are people here suggesting Ben is a maladjusted, misanthropic, dissimulating, racist sh!t? Say it ain't so!

[Ben Kenobi]

Are people here suggesting Ben is a maladjusted, misanthropic, dissimulating, racist sh!t? Say it ain't so!

Because I'm prejudiced against Canadians? I'm not sure what race has to do with it? I like Jindal very much.

[Ben Kenobi]

No it wouldn't. You're just ignoring the reality that there are other ways that "natural born citizen" can be defined that also require the clause.

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. They continued to assert the issues with a monarchy when the monarchy was governed by Germans and foreigners from outside the country, who did not speak the language of the people they claimed to govern. They contrasted this with a republic which would be governed by a citizen born within the country and the ideal of responsible representation. For them it was an issue of representation, they believed that only those who spoke their language and shared their heritage could adequately govern their republic.

Personally, I sympathise with their issues, but consider their issues self-inflicted due to their own prejudice. They had a dynasty that they deliberately brought in foreign influence, and later complain about unintended consequences after specifically choosing Sophia.

I am not a republican. I like the concept of a republic, but I've always been a monarchist. I'm not so much defending my own principles, but the principles that the founders themselves articulated. It makes sense to me why they wanted this even if I disagree with the justifications and how they arrived at this answer.

It is not possible to "lose" citizenship that way. What you are describing is a situation where someone NEVER HAD US CITIZENSHIP

And that's my point, Aeson. Natural Born citizenship cannot be lost this way. If some people can 'lose' their claim to citizenship through their parents because their parents never resided in the country for more than a year, then that suggests to me that there is a significant difference between citizenship acquired abroad through ones parents and natural born citizenship.

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.

Someone who was born a US citizen in this way can only "lose" it in the same way that every other US citizen can lose it ... by renouncing it. So if we're going to use "can lose US citizenship" as a litmus test, there are no natural born citizens of the US!

One, losing your citizenship is not the same as renouncing your citizenship. You don't lose what you don't want.

Two, not all countries even permit you to renounce and in the UK, you can choose to restore your citizenship. Reason being that your natural born status within the country does not really change.

That is only for case G. There are several other cases.

Indeed, and all of them have contingencies, etc. It's a much different relationship.

Naturalized!=Natural born."

Yes, and? This is entirely true.

"You cannot be a natural born American if you have to be naturalized."

Same as this.

"If it were possible to acquire natural born citizenship through naturalization, this process would be unnecessary."

Again, this is true.

The reason why these fit is because you were using "naturalization" as the only possible alternative to being born on US soil.

Where did I say that? I've been using three terms. You've been using two.

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.

These are similar things but not the same and I've been discussing the differences between all three.

You still are promoting that false dichotomy.

What false dichotomy? The laws are different for those born abroad from those born in the United States. Ergo, I conclude that they are different because the laws for them are different.

Thus all your statements were denying the obvious reality that citizenship by birth is possible for those born outside the US.

I never said that. I said that one cannot be a natural born citizen if one is born outside of the united states.

[ricketyclik]

Because I'm prejudiced against Canadians?

Jeez, I don't know why they're suggesting it. Hell, I'm prejudiced against prejudice, so who am I to judge?

[Ben Kenobi]

I like Cruz. I would totally be his favoritist fan forever if he were running for our Prime Minister. I really, really want to be able to take the Kidicious argument and just 'handwave' things away for expediency.

But, I'm not Kid and I'm not Cruz. Constitution comes first, even when it would benefit myself that it would not.