Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 2 months ago
    By the historic meaning, you're absolutely correct. When the United States was founded, national identity was completely based on the national identity of one's parents and NOT where that person happened to be born. This was the international standard. That changed in the United States with the Kim Wong Ark v US case when SCOTUS manufactured the notion of birthright citizenship - and our nation hasn't been the same since.

    To this day we are the ONLY country in the world which adheres to the notion of birthright citizenship - and it is to our discredit and dishonor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ 25n56il4 1 year, 2 months ago
      If you are referring to the 19th Amendment my friend, research will tell you it was put in place immediately following the Civil War to recognize the children of slaves who were born in this country. Not a baby dropped off when the illegal parents crossed our borders. My American Indian grandmother wasn't recognized as a citizen until 1914 and she was born in this country. My father was born in 1914. NB
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 1
        Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 2 months ago
        I think you may be referring to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and yes, they had the intent of enfranchising and officially granting citizenship (and all the rights entailed) to the slaves who were living in the United States but whom previously had been afforded no official rights or citizenship status.

        (The Nineteenth Amendment wasn't ratified until 1920 and dealt with granting women the right of suffrage.)

        The American Indian tribes are an interesting mishmash: they technically have citizenship in the United States but are recognized by law as being sovereign nations.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by mhubb 1 year, 2 months ago
      to be honest, this really has not been all the way through the courts
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 1
        Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 2 months ago
        It simply hasn't been challenged since the Kim Wong Ark case (1898). It was poor precedent but given the culture at the time and the need for immigrants, not wholly unanticipated. It should be reversed, however, as there are far more consistent ways to encourage immigration when necessary.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 2 months ago
    Such laws have been broken (reinterpreted against Americans) by the courts since the Civil War
    and as a result of the end of that war no one has tried to fight for freedom.
    America has been betrayed by D.C. for 163 years.
    NIFO
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dave42 1 year, 2 months ago
    I don't think "natural born citizen" is properly defined (other than that it means citizen at birth, not by a later act), so I'd think that Congress can establish the qualifications.

    "Both parents are citizens" is probably too strict given international marriages and father-not-present births, but I think "born in the country" is too loose, as it includes vacationers and short-term workers. And that's not even getting into those who overstayed their visa, or who entered the country illegally.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mhubb 1 year, 2 months ago
    ok
    if his parents were NOT citizens at the time of his birth, he is not a NBC

    but we know this ship sailed with the il-legal alien PUTS 0bama.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo