It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Geladinhu
Who cares really?
It's funny how most Americans cannot accept the idea of having a president that comes from another place.
I like soccer better than politics. So I'll try to explain my view point based on soccer. What really matters is if the team plays well together, the coach can be from anywhere if it makes the team play well together.
After all, it is just a game even if a lot of people take it way too seriously.
It's not about winning against other teams (oh no, the coach comes from another place so it will screw up the team on purpose ) , it's about the challenge to break down the contrasts as to unite and at the same time have fun.
The coach is also a player, and all a player wants is to enjoy himself and have a good reputation (in order to enjoy himself even more).
Nationalists have to chill the f. out!
[edit on 15-7-2009 by Geladinhu]
WE don't get to vote on all our own laws, we have people represent us; again which we did not get to directly vote on to do so. That is the sad fact of the matter. You do not have the right in this country to challenge whatever you want. Congress can, and you have the right to ask your congressman to do something about it, doesn't mean he will.
Here's an attempt to make your soccer analogy actually FIT this situation. I know nothing of soccer, and find it to be far more useless than even politics, but I assume there are still rules involved.
Are there any rules in soccer?
If the captain of the team ignores those rules, is there no penalty? If not, then why the hell have rules to begin with?
That's why Americans get upset when all indications are that the captain of their team has disregarded the rules. If he can, why can't the rest of us?
Originally posted by THX-1138
In order to be natural born you have to have both parents be citizens of the country?!!!
1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General
our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States
The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," (Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains) a treatise written in 1758 by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, codified the definition of "Natural born citizen" as jus soli jus sanguinus: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Originally posted by A.M.L.
I believe all Jewish people can gain citizenship in Israel (confirmation of this?).
That fact wouldn't seem to disqualify Jewish people with duel citizenship with Israel and the United States from being the POTUS.
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.