Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2015, 06:32:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw on: March 17, 2015, 12:34:38 am
I doubt this observation is original.  I even doubt that I'd find this interesting if I weren't sleepy.  However, it's clear that both Libertarianism and Communism share a common flaw, namely that human beings are rational actors who can rationally determine what is in their own best interest.  The only real difference is that libertarians hold that the best interest is best determined at the individual level and communists that it is best determined collectively.  So feel free to discuss as I head off to the Land of Nod.

I just don't see the commonality that you see between communism and libertarianism.

As a self-described Liberal Classic, I understand the collectivist nature of laws and legislation and I am willing to accept sufficient collectivism to benefit the general well-being of the society that I am a part of. Laws and legislation are both the extended manifestation of our natural rights to prtect our life and property. As Bastiat pointed out, the fact that we each have an individual right to protect our lives and our property give birth to the collective rights to defend our lives life and protect our property, ergo laws which protect life and property.

As a libertarian, I agree with Bastiat (paraphrasing here) and oppose the situation that we find ourselves in where the law has been perverted to the degree that it has converted plunder into a (governmental) right, in order to protect plunder. And to a great extent has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.


2  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Hate Speech #2 on: January 15, 2015, 08:52:57 am
Hate speech that incites violence against other people based on their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation should not be tolerated, no. Criminal penalties should definitely be considered in such cases.

But defining what would constitute "hate" speech must then be absolutely left up to the individual(s) being protected since it would be them being impacted and targeted by the nebulous nature of the definition of "hate speech". At that point they (everyone in fact, since everyone has a gender) would be motivated to threaten to engage in violence anytime they wanted to restrict any criticism or opposition to any general point of view held by anyone of any of the "protected classes", and as a result all speech would be threatened.

I am highly offended by Andrew Serrano's "Piss Christ". At first glance one would think that his right to free speech/expression displaces my right to not be offended by his exercise of those rights, but in fact the truth is that there is no right to not be offended, Constitutional or other. Under the protection of "hate speech" laws, Christians could threaten to riot and cause violence as a reaction to Serrano's work, thus setting a standard where the substance of all art could be controlled by any  race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation group.

There are plenty of laws against engaging in violent acts and laws against "hate speech" that are based on the possibility of people engaging in some level of violence based on their reaction to speech are basically excuses and reasons for people to engage in violent acts by shifting the responsibility for their actions to others.  

Laws against "hate speech" are basically blackmail supported by force of government.

The remedy for "hate speech" is more speech, not less.

P.S. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was an extreme examples of what happens when law (Sharia law) excuses violent behavior as a result of being offended and redirects the blame for the violent acts to those who engaged in the offensive speech while indemnifying those who engaged in the violent behavior.
3  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of threads about race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or class on: January 14, 2015, 10:35:34 pm
Could a thread on this work:

What do you think would be the hardest on you, and which do you think would be the easiest on you? Being a different sexuality than you are now, being a different race than you are now, or being a different gender than you are now?

(Basically a different way to get people to reflect on what's currently worse in American society... racism, sexism, or homophobia)

I see nothing beyond the pale as to that kind of thread.  It is not asking about the merits of a group as to which having a negative opinion would raise issues, but rather a personal question about how one might navigate having been dealt a different deck of cards than one was in fact dealt.

OK...

I can address that.

I was born a normal white kid in Cuba, the grandchild of Euro immigrants (Spaniards).

I migrated to the US in 1968, and apparently something happened on the flight over because once we landed, we weren't allowed to mark the "Caucasian" box in the immigration forms. I'm not quite sure what we were called, but we were no longer Caucasian. I recall correcting someone who asked me if I was Mexican a couple of years later (they saw my last name), and his response was basically "Cuban Mexican, Puerto Rican Mexican, Mexican Mexican... what difference does it make?"

That was rough.

Then in 1973, Richard Nixon invented Hispanics and suddenly I'd been transferred. I was now a member of an ethnicity that didn't exist at the time of my birth. It was (as best as I can explain) ethnic conscription. Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans... one big happy opinion pollster group. As an additional benefit, I had a whole new box to check off on the census forms.

Everything went along fine for years, and I sort of got used to my status, then one day George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin and VOILA! White Hispanics were born, and I'd been transferred again.  

I'm training my kids to be white as most descendants of Europeans seem to claim that they are, and to enunciate their last name the same way that people from the UP pronounce it (that's as Caucasian as one can get) and maybe people will see them and think "you're too white and too tall to be a Mexican of any nationality", and the generations of my descendants will just be...

Well, maybe by then we'll stop the silliness and decide to just be people.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation on: September 21, 2009, 09:41:11 am
Quote
Your problem here is that you're only reading half the 14th Amendment and half the interpretation, reading it as "everyone is entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and gets the same laws" rather than "no one shall be deprived life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process of law." The court found in this case that it wasn't fairly applied and that the situation was different, not because it followed the incredibly broad definition of the 14th Amendment that you've set up.

I didn't set up anything...the Courts did. In addition to this, they overturned California's Prop. 187 on exactly the same grounds.

So now, we have two instances of Federal Courts finding that illegal immigrants cannot be denied the equal protection of the laws under the Constitution.

It is disingenuous to dismiss the FACT that on two separate occasions, the Courts have found that laws which seek to exclude illegal aliens from receiving equal benefits have been found to be unconstitutional by Federal Courts, and equally disingenuous to argue that once the government enters into the business of dispensing health care, health care will not be at least as important a function of government as education is today.

The argument being advanced to "win" the public option debate is that health care is a "right", so if the argument is won, then the State would be in fact denying what they themselves are calling a "basic human right" to a group of people.

Prop. 187 sought to bar illegal aliens from accessing publicly funded education, social services and health care services, and it was found to be unconstitutional.

So will any verbiage introduced in any Federal bill associated with Federal health care.
5  Questions and Answers / Presidential Election Process / Re: Is there any plausible argument in favor of the electoral college? on: September 20, 2009, 11:54:23 pm
As opposed to election by national popular-vote.

None of the conventional arguments strike me as persuasive. But conventional or unconventional, line 'em up.

There absolutely is.

It forces the candidates to pay attention at States other than coastal States.

It was the States that created the Federal government, and they made sure that every States would have a voice in the selection of the head of the executive.

Without an electoral college, Presidents would be elected by voters from California, Texas,  New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and maybe North Carolina and New Jersey in every election.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation on: September 20, 2009, 11:46:55 pm
What are you talking about? This thread is about how Rush Limbaugh is a racist, not about how the scary browns are gonna get socialized medicines.

Racists...fascists...and I thought t was Republicans who had anger issues.

Huh

Do you have problems in your brain? Or do you whack your head against the keyboard and see what comes out?

Wilson is a fascist, Rush is a racist.

There are head problems in here, but I'm not the one having them.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Was Ron Paul's presidential campaign a success? on: September 20, 2009, 10:12:18 pm
Quote
Was Ron Paul's presidential campaign a success?

What an interesting question.

It kind of acknowledges that Paul's presidential campaign was never about actually winning the presidency, in which case, and considering the fact that he ended up three slots behind last place, then you'd have to agree...his presidential campaign was a success, insofar as he didn't win.

The scary thing about Paul is that you listen to him, and you begin to realize that he makes sense on several levels, which makes you take a serious look at the guy, and the you just say "that guy is just ing weird looking! He looks crazy! I can't vote for him!"
8  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Same Old, Same Old [Cuba] on: September 20, 2009, 10:00:20 pm
okay

The REAL goal here is to grant Cuba credit. Right now all purchases must be paid for in cash.

Cuba is one of, if not the worst credit risk in the world. If the US agrees to allow it to buy goods on credit, thise sales are guaranteed by the Ex-Im Banks Export Credit Insurance, meaning that the US taxpayer will shoulder Cuba's debt when they do what they have always done, and not pay their bills.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation on: September 20, 2009, 09:46:34 pm
What are you talking about? This thread is about how Rush Limbaugh is a racist, not about how the scary browns are gonna get socialized medicines.

Racists...fascists...and I thought t was Republicans who had anger issues.
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation on: September 20, 2009, 09:45:28 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/limbaugh-segregated-busing/

Quote
Last week, a video of a school bus beating showing two African American children assaulting a white student began circulating the internet. Despite claims by authorities that the attack was not necessarily racially motivated, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh jumped on the story and claimed that in “Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up.” Yesterday, Limbaugh proposed a solution to this problem — a return to segregated busing:

Quote
    LIMBAUGH: I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.

wow.

Joe Wilson's not a fascist, and for the record, Obama was lying.

Illegal aliens will get coverage under a public option. Federal Courts have already settled that matter.

Plyler vs. Doe (1982)



what?

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


Plyler v. Doe.

Illegal aliens will get health care benefits under a public option.

One would imagine that the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago would know this.
Thanks for staying on topic, Luis. You can join Neal Patel in the uncontrolled outbursts section now.

Play it loose, play it fast...just responding to the fashionable lie being sported by the guy I was talking to.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation on: September 20, 2009, 06:22:01 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/limbaugh-segregated-busing/

Quote
Last week, a video of a school bus beating showing two African American children assaulting a white student began circulating the internet. Despite claims by authorities that the attack was not necessarily racially motivated, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh jumped on the story and claimed that in “Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up.” Yesterday, Limbaugh proposed a solution to this problem — a return to segregated busing:

Quote
    LIMBAUGH: I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.

wow.

Joe Wilson's not a fascist, and for the record, Obama was lying.

Illegal aliens will get coverage under a public option. Federal Courts have already settled that matter.

Plyler vs. Doe (1982)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this bill does not cover illegals at all (not that it's a bad thing to do that) and Plyler v. Doe has nothing to do with health care.

The “Section 246 Proves Joe Wilson Is A Liar” Lie
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Born abroad on: September 20, 2009, 06:09:12 pm
If "natural born" is defined as citizenship at birth, then the XIV Amendment recognizes the rights of naturalized citizens to become President of the United States, since it guarantees them every privilege and immunity held by persons who are born citizens.

Point me to where it says this.

So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.

So, according to you, an illegal alien's anchor baby can be President.

Nice.

Whether it's "nice" or not is irrelevant. It's what the Constitution says.

Where?
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation on: September 20, 2009, 06:08:02 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/limbaugh-segregated-busing/

Quote
Last week, a video of a school bus beating showing two African American children assaulting a white student began circulating the internet. Despite claims by authorities that the attack was not necessarily racially motivated, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh jumped on the story and claimed that in “Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up.” Yesterday, Limbaugh proposed a solution to this problem — a return to segregated busing:

Quote
    LIMBAUGH: I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.

wow.

Joe Wilson's not a fascist, and for the record, Obama was lying.

Illegal aliens will get coverage under a public option. Federal Courts have already settled that matter.

Plyler vs. Doe (1982)



what?

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that

[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Shaughnessv v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886). Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976). [n9] [p211]

Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [n10] We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [p212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.


Plyler v. Doe.

Illegal aliens will get health care benefits under a public option.

One would imagine that the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and lecturer in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago would know this.
14  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Same Old, Same Old [Cuba] on: September 20, 2009, 04:55:06 pm
What embargo did Obama "extend"?

There is no embargo.

next time you travel, I suggest telling customs that you have a bunch of cuban cigars in your backpack, just to measure their reaction

Is that the measure of an embargo?

Until very recently, I couldn't bring any aki from Jamaica into the US...do we embargo them too?

We sold Cuba nearly a billion dollars in goods last year...what kind of embargo is that?
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Birthers have found Obama's "Kenyan" Birth Certificate on: September 20, 2009, 04:46:38 pm
The birth certificate is irrelevant.

Yes, just like facts.

Birth of a Notion - Barack Obama and The XIV Amendment

That's what's relevant.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rush Limbaugh comes out in favor of school segregation on: September 20, 2009, 04:45:20 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/limbaugh-segregated-busing/

Quote
Last week, a video of a school bus beating showing two African American children assaulting a white student began circulating the internet. Despite claims by authorities that the attack was not necessarily racially motivated, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh jumped on the story and claimed that in “Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up.” Yesterday, Limbaugh proposed a solution to this problem — a return to segregated busing:

Quote
    LIMBAUGH: I think the guy’s wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that’s the lesson we’re being taught here today. Kid shouldn’t have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses — it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama’s America.

wow.

Joe Wilson's not a fascist, and for the record, Obama was lying.

Illegal aliens will get coverage under a public option. Federal Courts have already settled that matter.

Plyler vs. Doe (1982)

17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Birthers have found Obama's "Kenyan" Birth Certificate on: September 20, 2009, 04:15:42 pm
The birth certificate is irrelevant.
18  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Same Old, Same Old [Cuba] on: September 20, 2009, 12:31:00 pm
What embargo did Obama "extend"?

There is no embargo.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Birthers have found Obama's "Kenyan" Birth Certificate on: September 20, 2009, 12:21:41 pm
This is mind numbing stupidity.   The birthers 'found' Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, and made up pile of crap was presented in court.  Someone should have told these morons that Kenya uses the Metric system.  No joke the birth certificate presented in court from 'Kenya' is not only in English but also uses the American system of measurement (inches, pounds).  Holy crap these people are dumb.



http://americangrandjury.org/lucas-smith-affidavit-now-filed-with-the-us-district-court-obama-kenyan-bc/comment-page-6#comment-3088

Kenya adopted the metric system in 1971, the official language is English, and the system of measurement used in America is generally called the Imperial System, as defined by the British Weights and Measures Act of 1824.

You are correct in one thing however...there are some truly stupid people in this world.
20  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Is having "In God We Trust" on money, buildings, etc. constitutional? on: September 20, 2009, 09:54:45 am
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

No religion is being established and no one is stopped from exercising their religion. It's constitutional.
It's still a claim that a God exists....whatever God that might be. I think the establishment of any such being violates that clause.
But it doesn't say what specific God, so it's not preferencing one religion over the other. It's kind of a generic thing. But then again, I'm no constitutional scholar.

It's a preference of religion over non-religion.  And not all religions believe in one supreme being.  On top of that, the intent was clear to preference Christianity.  It's unconstitutional.

The First Amendment addresses the issue of religion, not of non-religion, specifically it addresses the issue of the establishment of a national religion, or of a law establishing preference of one religion over another religion.

I disagree that a preference to Christianity is clear in the phrase, I can't think of one religion that doesn't have a central god figure.

The question of finding the phrase unconstitutional via the argument that it appears to denote a preference of religion over non-religion, is interesting. However, to have the phrase removed from the money would then show a definite preference of non-religion over religion, in order to appease a segment of the population to whom the phrase is meaningless, and may simply find it offensive.

There is no constitutional protection from being offended by the idea that other people practice religion.

No...it is not unconstitutional since it doesn't establish a religion, it doesn't denote preference for one religion over another, and since a lack of religion is not a religion (now, there's a real debate...is atheism a religion?), it does not cross that border either.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Born abroad on: September 07, 2009, 06:14:10 pm
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.

So, according to you, an illegal alien's anchor baby can be President.

Nice.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Born abroad on: September 07, 2009, 06:13:05 pm
My last post on the subject...

People wish to equate being born a citizen, or even gaining citizenship via being born on US soil (both instances of citizenship at birth) with the term "natural born citizen" found in the Constitution.

If "natural born" is defined as citizenship at birth, then the XIV Amendment recognizes the rights of naturalized citizens to become President of the United States, since it guarantees them every privilege and immunity held by persons who are born citizens.

The only counter to that argument, is to introduce the notion of citizenship by birthright, and defining "natural born citizen" as a son/daughter of citizen parents. 

Do that, and we run smack into the prevailing definition at the time that the Constitution was written...Vattel. Then the argument boils down to whether that annoying "s" is there or not.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Born abroad on: September 07, 2009, 03:59:33 pm
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Born abroad on: September 06, 2009, 10:15:53 pm
I don't quite understand why you're so obsessed with this.

Because some people can't accept when they've lost.

Then again, the argument can be made that if indeed a person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency won, we all lost.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Born abroad on: September 06, 2009, 10:14:20 pm

You cannot be both a natural born citizen, and a British subject at birth.

Of course you can. British subjects are not British citizens. The terms are not the same.

You're British, or do you just live there?

Quote
British Nationality Act, 1948

1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.

Part II

Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Citizenship by birth or descent.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines