Politico Drops Race Card on Donald Trump

rofllol rofllol :woo hoo:

Nmysys wrote: LJ:

That happens to be my new signature line. I posted it about two hours ago and as far as I know NeptuneChimney hasn't unless he was referring to my signature line. It doesn't say if you voted for Obama for any reason that we want to know what that reason is. Just pointing it out. No need to be so damn defensive!!!

I don't need your f**king permission to post about anything I like... But thanks anyway... I don't care if you want to know my reason or not..You post a cheap-shot sig-line, I post a response...That's how it works.

outdoor338 wrote: so, you're saying, that the blacks that voted for obama messiah are racists, interesting!

So, you're saying that only blacks are racists? Interesting!



(Two can play the "put words in the other poster's mouth game.")

LadyJazzer wrote: [.You post a cheap-shot sig-line, .

rofllol

Yeah, I thought he'd appreciate that... And people have taken shots at my sig-lines...and they're still there, aren't they?

AspenValley wrote: But I just can't quite buy that some citizens who were born citizens, ie, born to one or both parents who are citizens, should have some kind of caste system whereas they might not all be quite "equally" citizens. Just can't stomach it, as an American. To me, you were either born an American citizen or you weren't and if you were you are just as good as any other citizen, yes, even for the office of President, and I don't much like the idea of some being born somehow"more" American than others.

You can split hairs all you want, it won't change my gut feeling that that is the kind of thing we got rid of (or should have) when we tossed the British royalists the heck out of here.

There is already a caste system with regards to citizenship AV. The question is whether or not we are going to keep it. I would be all for refining the terms, but I think the terms themselves are relevant and important distinctions.

The child of two foreign nationals, regardless of their residency status, should not be endowed with citizenship simply because they emerged from the womb on this nation's soil. They are properly foreign nationals themselves and should have to go through the immigration process to become naturalized citizens. The child of a foreign national and a citizen is more properly a US national, not a US citizen. When they reach the age of majority, they should be granted citizenship if they petition to become one and in the interim their status as a US national should include them in the social welfare programs and extend to them all the benefits which would otherwise be extended to a citizen. The child of two citizens is a natural born citizen and the only group which should enjoy the privilege of birthright citizenship. This is in keeping with the principles espoused by Vattel, which was the basis for the distinction drawn in the Constitution between a natural born citizen and all other citizens.

A child born to a citizen and a non-citizen falls within the distinction drawn by Vattel in The Laws of Nations, from which the concept of natural born citizen was taken. While we have expanded from the original thought that paternal lineage alone dictates and included maternal, the concept expressed is still a valid one when applied to who among all the populace is eligible to be the executive of the federated government of the United States of America.

Of course, if the qualifications for President were as PS and others here so desired, then there were probably a dozen or so illegally elected Presidents who were not born in the US nor were their parents US citizens.

There are 7, among them the current executive, who were born to parents who were not both themselves born in this nation. Jefferson - whose mother was English, but of course he qualified under the grandfather clause of being a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. Jackson, whose parents were both Irish, ditto on the grandfather clause. Buchanan had an Irish born father who was a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Woodrow Wilson had an English born mother - also a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Hoover had a Canadian born mother - also a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Only Arthur, whose father was Irish, had a parent who was born on foreign soil that was not a naturalized citizen at his birth, though his father had become a naturalized citizen by the time of his election.

Ironic, isn't it, that he was also subjected to questions about his ability to qualify as a natural born citizen. Perhaps this is another instance where an objection is raised only when it isn't a member of one's own party. The Democrats of the time questioned Arthur on the same grounds that Democrats now claim are irrelevant and the Republicans of the time said the questions were irrelevant in defense of their candidate and relevant when the candidate is a Democrat.

Perhaps the question is always relevant - and what was intended is what I have forwarded - regardless of which party the candidate belongs to. Both sides say it is relevant and germane when it isn't their candidate being questioned and both say that it is irrelevant when it is. Should the parties, or the people, decide if it is relevant or not? Should the parties, or the people, determine what is meant by "natural born citizen"? I've got a wonderful idea - let's have that discussion. Let's have that discussion on the merits of the question itself, not on the impact it will have on a candidate we support or oppose now or in the future. Let's decide the question once and for all. Since ex post facto laws are not allowed, Obama, like all current office holders, would be exempt from inclusion.

Let's have the discussion on the 14th Amendment and whether the child of two foreign nationals who have migrated here in violation of immigration law is rightfully a US citizen. Let's define once and for all if the child of a citizen and a foreign national is a natural born US citizen or simply, as I have stated, someone who is a US national that may choose for themselves to be a US citizen, or not, when they reach an age at which they can understand the implications of that choice. As I said earlier, which Dog chose to overlook for whatever reason, is that the child of two citizens is a natural born citizen regardless of the soil on which they were born. That too is consistent with the writings of Vattel upon which the framers hinged their construction of our form of government.

Let's not make the discussion partisan and about a single person only, let's make it about what is the right and proper choice for the nation overall.

Nmysys wrote: LJ:

That happens to be my new signature line. I posted it about two hours ago and as far as I know NeptuneChimney hasn't unless he was referring to my signature line. It doesn't say if you voted for Obama for any reason that we want to know what that reason is. Just pointing it out. No need to be so damn defensive!!!

:thumbsup:

The 14th amendment is unambiguous that a child born in the US regardless of the citizenship of it's parents is a US citizen (the caveat being that of those not under the jurisdiction of the US, such as an ambassador). That is without question. There is simply nothing to discuss. The only way to change this is to amend the Constitution. This of course has nothing to do with the question of what constitutes a natural born citizen. It is interesting that the Constitution did not define who is a natural born citizen, but left it for Congress to provide the definition. Thus, Congress could change the definition as it chooses.