View Single Post
      06-02-2011, 08:50 PM   #35
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
Vattel was argued in oral arguments in Wong Kim Ark, and rejected by the Majority, impugning the use of Vattel for questions of US citizenship. They rejected Vattel, and instead ruled that there are:

"two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization ... citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth"

Where have I seen that before? Oh yea...

http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showp...9&postcount=14
I certainly don't dispute citizenship by location of birth or by parentage. That is citizenship. What makes "natural born Citizen" is not equal to what makes "citizen". This thread is about "natural born Citizen" and a discussion of what constitutes "citizen" is most appropriate in discussing how it is distinguished from the other.

With support for your argument, what do you have in historical documents that clarifies the different types of citizen and more specifically "natural born Citizen"?