Quote from: Solar on September 01, 2015, 01:40:18 PM
It doesn't require one considering the Founders never defined "Natural Born".
In other words, they left it open for future leaders to define.

They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth.  That is what these guys keep coming back to.  They cannot get past that hurdle.

Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 02:11:39 PM
They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth.  That is what these guys keep coming back to.  They cannot get past that hurdle.
[/quote

Quote
1934 THE "CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1934": On 24 May, Congress makes a major change to the
]"citizenship law" to now enable U.S. citizen mothers to also transmit U.S. citizenship at birth
abroad. But for the first time the law now also creates a new burden by imposing a
mandatory "subsequent five year residence requirement" in the United States, prior to
reaching age eighteen, and an "oath of allegiance requirement" within six months of the
child's twenty-first birthday, for any child born abroad to parents, one of whom is an alien.
The new law states:
· "Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,
whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the
United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of
citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen
mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth
of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship
shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein
for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday,
and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall
take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America

https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf

Does this help?

Quote from: redbeard on September 01, 2015, 02:59:21 PM
Does this help?

Thanks redbeard.  I will try again using your "quote".   

Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 02:11:39 PM
They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth.  That is what these guys keep coming back to.  They cannot get past that hurdle.

Yeah, Red posted it, there is no mention of two parents, simply because people die, and that in no way would be fair to the child, especially if the family were in some type of accident while traveling abroad, where the father is killed.

The people you're arguing with, are, to put it simply, Idiots!

Quote from: kroz on September 01, 2015, 02:11:39 PM
They stated that both parents must be citizens at the time of birth.  That is what these guys keep coming back to.  They cannot get past that hurdle.

The Constitution doesn't provided a definition. I used to believe that too. I was wrong. They are too.

Quote from: carlb on September 01, 2015, 05:11:35 PM
The Constitution doesn't provided a definition. I used to believe that too. I was wrong. They are too.

The problem I am having is that the "Fix" gives a definition of a "citizen".   The Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen".

They agree that he is a citizen but that does reach to the level the Constitution requires..... "natural born citizen".

I know, it is splilting hairs, but that is the dilemma.   

Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 04:17:35 AM
The problem I am having is that the "Fix" gives a definition of a "citizen".   The Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen".

They agree that he is a citizen but that does reach to the level the Constitution requires..... "natural born citizen".

I know, it is splilting hairs, but that is the dilemma.   

Nope, it's not splitting hairs. Now ask them to provide the definition the Founders gave for "Natural Born".
That's the problem, there is none, so there argument at best, is invalid.
If you do a search for the term, you'll see they simply avoided defining it, they thought it best future generations define the term, and whether out of wisdom or fear, they never touched it again.

You've won by default, they have no recourse but to concede.

Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 04:17:35 AM
The problem I am having is that the "Fix" gives a definition of a "citizen".   The Constitution uses the term "natural born citizen".

They agree that he is a citizen but that does reach to the level the Constitution requires..... "natural born citizen".

I know, it is splilting hairs, but that is the dilemma.   

It's not a dilemma.  You said it yourself: natural born citizen.  He is.

Quote from: taxed on September 02, 2015, 02:53:51 PM
It's not a dilemma.  You said it yourself: natural born citizen.  He is.

hhmmm...  I keep working it..   there is a deafening silence over there now... 

They can bitch and moan about it until the end of time but in the end, no court would take this up. THEY are fighting a battle they can never win

Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 03:34:09 PM
hhmmm...  I keep working it..   there is a deafening silence over there now... 

Keep slapping them around.

The fact is, if the mother is a citizen, and she has a kid, then that kid is naturalized, even if born overseas.  They may try to argue that the mother would be forced to live in that country in order to stay with the child until she gets it naturalized, but that is just silly and shows how stupid they are.  An American-born citizen mother can only have naturalized babies.

Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 03:34:09 PM
hhmmm...  I keep working it..   there is a deafening silence over there now... 

Sounds like tey finally figured it out.

Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2015, 04:20:51 PM
Sounds like tey finally figured it out.

I think you are right.  There was no response to my last post.....