8 U.S. Code Section 1401. The following shall be NATIONALS and citizens of the U.S. at birth

originally posted by: luthier

Lol no it is not the same concept at all...because there wasn't such a thing.

Odd, I thought we had the Chinese Exclusion Act at the time of the ruling. I thought the border NOT being open is why Ark was stopped in the first place. Must be my mistake.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier

Lol no it is not the same concept at all...because there wasn't such a thing.

Odd, I thought we had the Chinese Exclusion Act at the time of the ruling. I thought the border NOT being open is why Ark was stopped in the first place. Must be my mistake.

I addressed the exclusion act..when I mentioned forced labor.

The boarder is typically viewed as land boardering another country.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

MME, I love how you always see some thing no one else quite grasps and then when you articulate your observations it becomes obvious in hindsight but no one else seemed to pick up on.

I also love that you make me think.

Might I be correct in surmising that this ties in with the U.S.A. Inc. subject we've talked about from time to time?

That's very interesting proposition you make in this post.

Say an individual is a citizen but not a national, this would mean that they are eligible for office, but by not being a national, they would not necessarily have to be loyal to the United States even though they are an agent of same by virtue of their position within the government.

Am I warm or cold here?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: MotherMayEye

MME, I love how you always see some thing no one else quite grasps and then when you articulate your observations it becomes obvious in hindsight but no one else seemed to pick up on.

I also love that you make me think.

Might I be correct in surmising that this ties in with the U.S.A. Inc. subject we've talked about from time to time?

That's very interesting proposition you make in this post.

Say an individual is a citizen but not a national, this would mean that they are eligible for office, but by not being a national, they would not necessarily have to be loyal to the United States even though they are an agent of same by virtue of their position within the government.

Am I warm or cold here?

I just published my follow up thread, here....Link

Meet you there after you get a chance to read it?

a reply to: CynConcepts

Here you go, CC!

Link to new thread

a reply to: luthier

Maybe you view it that way, but I don't, and neither does the law or the courts.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It would stand to reason that all citizens are considered nationals because while many hoot and holler about hating America they would surely cling to us during an invasion or some other horrific event because it's home. It's like those annoying teenagers who rant about hating their family. When snip gets real they cling to their own. Long story short, despite all the rhetoric they have allegiance to this country.

In terms of the "the following shall be nationals and citizens". (a) pretty much reaffirms that persons born in the United States are citizens as nationals. It kind of speaks for itself.

I know many of us are against anchor babies. I'm not terribly fond of it myself, but if the constitution doesn't specify anything against it, then I think we have to take what it says at face value. Besides, their parents may or may not be US nationals, but they themselves certainly will be. Again, it's home. It doesn't matter where mom and dad's home is. They themselves know the United States as home.

I think some examples of non-citizen US nationals could include those working toward citizenship such as men who join our military. They swear an oath of allegiance and confirm it through their own blood. Eventually they will become citizens, i.e., they currently are not citizens but diff three criteria to be a national.

All this is just me thinking. There could be a thousand things I don't know or haven't thought of, so make of it what you will.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

You may or may not be interested in my followup thread: Link

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Which is why there are U.S. citizens and "legal residents." A "legal resident" cannot vote in our Presidential elections, but still is supposed to owe allegiance to the nation and the flag.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Which is why the SC ruled legal permanent residents convey citizenship. Their reasoning for why citizenship was conveyed would not apply to illegals.

Very intriguing! I only had time to read the first post on the thread where you ran out of room and will get to the continuation of it later today.

That really is interesting stuff. It's all so legalistic lawyery fine print stuff, but it is oddly relevant to know.

Thanks for that!