(11-08-2015 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It really says something about the sad state of presidential politics when these are the things we are discussing.

A few weeks ago, Chuck Todd (Meet the Press) said the network shows are turning into the political equivalent of ESPN. But he doesn't seem to be doing anything about it.

(11-08-2015 12:11 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 10:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  But see, in the leftist world view, only leftists are allowed to vote for a candidate because of charisma; when conservatives do it, they are being shallow. And even more clearly, leftists are the only ones allowed to vote for a candidate based on ethnicity -- or at least, they are the only ones allowed to pat themselves on the back for doing so. In fact, it is only grudgingly (and with much excuse-making) that leftists allow non-Anglos to be conservatives at all.

Very convincing analysis here.

Thank you, sir -- but of course it was an easy case to make. :)

(11-08-2015 01:18 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I don't actually question his telling of his life story... or that birthright citizenship is the law of the land.

Are you sure? Sure it's in the text of the constitution, but after all, the constitution is a living, breathing document that is supposed to adapt to the prevailing views of the time -- provided, of course, that one agrees with those views.

(11-08-2015 01:06 PM)JSA Wrote:  http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369

That site is misnamed. It should perhaps be called hagiography.com

(11-08-2015 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It really says something about the sad state of presidential politics . . .

... and of the presidency!

Birthright citizenship--jus solis or jus sanguinis--is the law of the land and always has been. That's why I never gave any credence to the birthers. Yes, there was a technicality, Obama's mother did not fulfill all of the requirements of the statute in force at the time to convey American citizenship, but that law was changed, and I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would have applied the change retroactively--if things had ever gotten that far, which of course they never did, not even remotely.

Same thing applies to Ted Cruz, just as it did to George Romney when he was making a couple of runs back in the 1960s, and as it would have applied to McCain if he had been elected. It's a non-issue, and it's stupid to talk about it as if it were an issue.

(11-08-2015 01:06 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 11:44 AM)JSA Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 10:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:56 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'd put my money on Rubio being the nominee at this point. (Ironic given what Republicans have been saying about electing a first term Senator with little 'real world' experience based on charisma and status as an historic 'first'...)

But see, in the leftist world view, only leftists are allowed to vote for a candidate because of charisma; when conservatives do it, they are being shallow. And even more clearly, leftists are the only ones allowed to vote for a candidate based on ethnicity -- or at least, they are the only ones allowed to pat themselves on the back for doing so. In fact, it is only grudgingly (and with much excuse-making) that leftists allow non-Anglos to be conservatives at all.

Has any "leftist" asked for proof he was born in the United States?

http://www.biography.com/people/marco-rubio-20840041

http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369

Wow. They are both American citizens. Can we let go of this inanity now?

(11-08-2015 01:18 PM)JOwl Wrote:  "Marco Antonio Rubio"? Sure sounds foreign to me. I hear he's actually really Mexican, and a secret Mormon.

Yes, I'm kidding. I don't actually question his telling of his life story... or that birthright citizenship is the law of the land.

Sadly, he's not qualified to get Optimistic Owl's vote, due to lack of "executive experience".

He could still get it, under the principle of voting for the least bad. But only if Webb doesn't get the Dem nomination.

But yes, he isn't currently in my top three.

(11-08-2015 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, there was a technicality, Obama's mother did not fulfill all of the requirements of the statute in force at the time to convey American citizenship,

sure, it's a moot point, and I always considered Obama to be American and eligible to be President through his mother's citizenship, regardless, but now I wonder, what were the technicalities she didn't fulfill at the time?

(11-08-2015 09:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, there was a technicality, Obama's mother did not fulfill all of the requirements of the statute in force at the time to convey American citizenship,

sure, it's a moot point, and I always considered Obama to be American and eligible to be President through his mother's citizenship, regardless, but now I wonder, what were the technicalities she didn't fulfill at the time?

IIRC (and I'm too lazy to look it up because it really doesn't matter) the law at the time required her to be age 18 and to have lived in the US for so many consecutive months prior to the date of birth, and I think she had lived overseas too recently to meet the months requirement. Or maybe she was under 18 when he was born and the law required so many months if the parent was under 18. Or maybe it was 48 consecutive months after turning 14 and it had not quite been 48 months since she got back from overseas. Something like that, now that my memory has been jogged, I think it was the latter. Whatever the provision, it was later repealed, and I have very little doubt that any court would simply have applied the repeal retroactively and been done with it.

The shorter and easier answer is that he was born in Hawaii.

(11-08-2015 11:04 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  The shorter and easier answer is that he was born in Hawaii.

Not to the question that was asked, which was what were the issues with his having jus sanguinis citizenship through his mother. Place of birth is irrelevant to that question.

I like John Kasich. It's pretty sad that he has no chance to become the Republican candidate because he's too establishment. This may be the first presidential election I choose not to vote in ever since 1984 when I first could vote. But that's how I am leaning if it's Clinton vs. any Republican besides Kasich. Or maybe I'll vote on the other elections/issues and just skip a presidential vote.

(11-08-2015 11:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 11:04 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  The shorter and easier answer is that he was born in Hawaii.

Not to the question that was asked, which was what were the issues with his having jus sanguines citizenship through his mother. Place of birth is irrelevant to that question.

Nor does place of birth always settle it entirely. For example, a child of foreign diplomats who is born in the U.S. is not a U.S. citizen (according to DHS anyway; I don't know if this has been tested in court). See http://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-wa...n-diplomat
And though it's an extreme case, a child born to a pregnant soldier (or camp follower) in an invading army would not be a U.S. citizen.

Finally, it's not entirely clear that the set "citizens by birth" and the set "natural-born citizens" (the latter being the requirement for Presidential eligibility) are exactly the same. I don't know what the differences might be, but one principle (not an ironclad one) of legal construction is that different phrasings are presumed to have different meanings.

(11-08-2015 11:40 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  This may be the first presidential election I choose not to vote in ever since 1984 when I first could vote. But that's how I am leaning if it's Clinton vs. any Republican besides Kasich. Or maybe I'll vote on the other elections/issues and just skip a presidential vote.

I hear what you're saying. It is almost certain to be an uninspiring choice. And while I understand that Clinton and the Republican nominee will have their partisans, it's hard to see how any thoughtful person will go to the polls with much enthusiasm.

I apologize for trying to bring a simple closure to the question of whether Obama is a citizen. Please, continue to discuss that.

(11-09-2015 12:08 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I apologize for trying to bring a simple closure to the question of whether Obama is a citizen. Please, continue to discuss that.

None of us here were saying that he wasn't. We were saying that the law of citizenship is more complicated than people may think. That strikes some of us as interesting in its own right -- and isn't that what conversation is all about?

(11-09-2015 12:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  None of us here were saying that he wasn't. We were saying that the law of citizenship is more complicated than people may think. That strikes some of us as interesting in its own right -- and isn't that what conversation is all about?

I never said you said he wasn't. [chuckle]

But there was very clearly a discussion of whether Obama is a citizen, including several posts delving into his jus sanguinis status, and speculation about whether some court would have retroactively repealed the time-limit clause for him, without mentioning that no court would have even bothered with such a case since he had jus soli citizenship anyway.

For readers who aren't already familiar with the citizenship rules, that doesn't really clear things up.

For the rest of us -- and maybe I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous on this -- but as far as I know, the law is neither ambiguous nor particularly complicated (by federal standards). The exceptions you mentioned, children of diplomats and military invaders, are relatively clear from a basic reading of the 14th amendment.

Now, if you want to talk about the Republican candidates who want to restrict jus soli citizenship, we can do that, but I don't think Obama's mother will figure into that discussion.

(11-09-2015 02:17 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-09-2015 12:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  None of us here were saying that he wasn't. We were saying that the law of citizenship is more complicated than people may think. That strikes some of us as interesting in its own right -- and isn't that what conversation is all about?

I never said you said he wasn't. [chuckle]

But there was very clearly a discussion of whether Obama is a citizen, including several posts delving into his jus sanguinis status, and speculation about whether some court would have retroactively repealed the time-limit clause for him, without mentioning that no court would have even bothered with such a case since he had jus soli citizenship anyway.

For readers who aren't already familiar with the citizenship rules, that doesn't really clear things up.

For the rest of us -- and maybe I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous on this -- but as far as I know, the law is neither ambiguous nor particularly complicated (by federal standards). The exceptions you mentioned, children of diplomats and military invaders, are relatively clear from a basic reading of the 14th amendment.

Now, if you want to talk about the Republican candidates who want to restrict jus soli citizenship, we can do that, but I don't think Obama's mother will figure into that discussion.

I am interested in jurisdictional issues as they apply to the concept. If you wouldn't mind indulging a tangent here unrelated to the Obama issue, (of which I have little interest at this point as it is to me a fait accompli); Since nation-states are defined by borders, how does jus sanguines and jus soli apply to states/territories within a nation-state? Thank you.

(11-08-2015 09:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 09:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, there was a technicality, Obama's mother did not fulfill all of the requirements of the statute in force at the time to convey American citizenship,

sure, it's a moot point, and I always considered Obama to be American and eligible to be President through his mother's citizenship, regardless, but now I wonder, what were the technicalities she didn't fulfill at the time?

IIRC (and I'm too lazy to look it up because it really doesn't matter) the law at the time required her to be age 18 and to have lived in the US for so many consecutive months prior to the date of birth, and I think she had lived overseas too recently to meet the months requirement. Or maybe she was under 18 when he was born and the law required so many months if the parent was under 18. Or maybe it was 48 consecutive months after turning 14 and it had not quite been 48 months since she got back from overseas. Something like that, now that my memory has been jogged, I think it was the latter. Whatever the provision, it was later repealed, and I have very little doubt that any court would simply have applied the repeal retroactively and been done with it.

If I may, I'd like to follow this illustration to see if I understand the general concepts I believe you laid out:

The mother crossed a border without fulfilling the Statutory requirements in technical terms but, had it gone to court later, this would have been deemed to fulfill a law that was later changed to allow for such an action to occur in spirit, and would have been allowed to be retroactively applied (does the law specifically have to say it can be applied retroactively, or is that a matter of specific judicial interpretation and/or discretion?) in order to alleviate a technically illegal situation after the fact (months, years, does it matter how long ago the question would have been brought, since you mentioned a time limit or did I misread how that applied?) thus rendering the original Statute effectively arbitrary? That logic could viably be used to potentially undo the "truth" of the previously existing requirement that was allowed to be retroactively changed had it gone to court, even though it did not? I'm assuming here that there was no original objection to the potential problem, it was either hidden, ignored or unforeseen (and would it have made a difference which of the three it was and what the intent was?), and the question only came up years after the fact. Is there any inherent right here that is unstated? Ne exeat, for instance, and how might that apply?

When Statutory time limits are on the books (and my current impression is that all Statutory time limits are basically objectively arbitrary), is there a standard procedure or tact for setting them aside, and does it have to be in only criminal cases, or could the same concept apply to civil matters as well (for example, OJ being sued civilly for the crime he was acquitted of criminally, for instance, which I believe was successful as the standard of proof civilly was not as burdensome, if that suit did not come until much later?)