§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
Because this went so well for everyone the last time.
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “citizens”. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
Because this went so well for everyone the last time.
Obama had one parent that was a US CITIZEN. Harras had neither, the law is pretty clear on that.
While this is a compelling argument, I think the idea of Biden stepping down shortly after being elected puts into question the legitimacy of the election, not just Harris's citizenship.
TheOneX wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:26 pm
While this is a compelling argument, I think the idea of Biden stepping down shortly after being elected puts into question the legitimacy of the election, not just Harris's citizenship.
The legitimacy of this election will be in question due to voter fraud. In a legit election I believe Trump wins. The Dems have stated multiple times "by any means necessary". My betting money is on Biden winning because he gets 100% of the deceased and illegal immigrant vote.
TheOneX wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:26 pm
While this is a compelling argument, I think the idea of Biden stepping down shortly after being elected puts into question the legitimacy of the election, not just Harris's citizenship.
The legitimacy of this election will be in question due to voter fraud. In a legit election I believe Trump wins. The Dems have stated multiple times "by any means necessary". My betting money is on Biden winning because he gets 100% of the deceased and illegal immigrant vote.
You better believe there is going to be protest and demands of accuracy counts and verifications to make sure this is legitimate.
Want to make it legal? Insist that every vote is attached to a SS#
If you wanted to oppose this on birther grounds, the challenge would have to come before the election. As it stands, she’s going to be appointed POTUS.
SuburbanFarmer wrote: Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:03 pm
If you wanted to oppose this on birther grounds, the challenge would have to come before the election. As it stands, she’s going to be appointed POTUS.
If she gets in the WH... And with Seattle, NY, and other states in clear view. It doesn't look good for either Gropy McGee and Blowjob Harriet.
Because this went so well for everyone the last time.
