Re: Vets Required to show proof of Citizenship, why not POTUS?

[DAG48]

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

DAG48....

Obama has never been a dual citizen. Ever.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/mor...pakistan-trip/

There was an article in a Newspaper in Hawaii announcing his birth. Give it a rest. It's done. The birther movement never had any factual basis, and is more rediculous everyday.

Silver Fox,

I don't really give a crap about the "birther" argument. This is about President Obama having Dual Citizenship status, and why that is a bad idea for any President.

Also, I would like to ask, are you saying President Obama lied when he stated his father was born in Kenyan under British Rule (thus a British Citizen), and was really a U.S. Naturalized Citizen at the time of President Obama's Birth?

This is the first time I have heard this. In fact, if you would care to look, you can find a Pro-Obama website that states the President did hold Dual Citizenship which expired in 1981 or 1982, which is false, as British Citizenship is Renounced or Revoked, and cannot be taken from a minor. You can look that up on this thread, if you would care to read, before you post.

[Silver Fox]

Originally Posted by DAG48

Silver Fox,

I don't really give a crap about the "birther" argument. This is about President Obama having Dual Citizenship status, and why that is a bad idea for any President.

Also, I would like to ask, are you saying President Obama lied when he stated his father was born in Kenyan under British Rule (thus a British Citizen), and was really a U.S. Naturalized Citizen at the time of President Obama's Birth?

This is the first time I have heard this. In fact, if you would care to look, you can find a Pro-Obama website that states the President did hold Dual Citizenship which expired in 1981 or 1982, which is false, as British Citizenship is Renounced or Revoked, and cannot be taken from a minor. You can look that up on this thread, if you would care to read, before you post.

As I recall, his father's citizenship doesn't matter. If you're born on U.S. soil you're a citizen of the U.S. and the U.S. alone in U.S. laws, how other nations apply those laws is frankly, irrelevent.

[Silver Fox]

Originally Posted by Variable Wind

Not saying that DAG is correct, but using Factcheck.org is like saying "Obama says so." His people run the site.

Horrible source.

"His" people don't run the site, it's run by the University of Pennsylvania.

[Variable Wind]

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

"His" people don't run the site, it's run by the University of Pennsylvania.

Im sorry...FUNDED by his people. IE they call the shots.

[ringjamesa]

Originally Posted by DAG48

I would say you have to read the whole post as well. Fortunately anyone wanting to know what I originally typed can click on the Arrow after Ring's Handle in the post quoted above, then the Arrow after my Handle, and make up their own minds. Cool Feature, saves me a lot of typing, quoting, ect. Otherwise: it was post #28, I believe

Ring,
I am terribly sorry I touched on a sore subject for you. How dare I raise a question which is being contested in Federal Court and posting what I think the cons are for having a Dual Citizen as President.

MeasureMan,
The connection between the Veterans in Utah and a President's eligibility and dual citizenship is merely to bring the two together to compare and contrast. This is clearly a case of taking a law too far as Salt Lake County Utah was the only County to question the Citizenship Status of their Disabled Veterans. I understand, and have previously posted, Veterans have to verify who they say they are to receive benefits, but Salt Lake County took an illegal immigration law and stretched it to apply to disabled vets, that's what sets me off about the whole thing. That is why I attached it to the President's Dual Citizenship status questions and what my opinion was about it.

Everyone,
All Birther arguments aside, in my humble opinion, if any Honorably Disabled Veteran is required to show proof of legal status as a Citizen of the United States, or attest to their citizenship, before they can receive Disability Benefits at the State, Local, or Federal Level, then I think we can question our President's dual citizenship status.

It is my intention to post entries on this thread as to the outcome of Federal Court Cases which plaintiffs are arguing about the Presidency and Dual Citizenship status. I will provide links, which usually show opposing view points, so you may take a look at the Legal Decisions for yourselves and form your own opinions, as I have stated mine. I stand behind what I have posted, it is my opinion and does not make me the antichrist.

Now run along and have fun.

If you noticed, there was an OR in that sentance. They have to prove their citizenship or residency status to qualify for a property tax break. I agree if they had to prove their citizenship or even residency status to get veteran's benifits, that would be wrong in my option. I really dont' see what qualifying for a property tax break has to do with the President of the United States though, unless of course he is trying to claim a property tax break in CO. I disagree that they took an illegal immigration law and misused it. Verifying residency to qualify for a property tax break seems like a reasonable requirement to me. My question would be as to whether they required ALL individuals applying for the tax break to prove residency status. If they did, I have no problem with that. If they singled out the veterans, then yeah they were WRONG.

[Measure Man]

Originally Posted by ringjamesa

Verifying residency to qualify for a property tax break seems like a reasonable requirement to me. My question would be as to whether they required ALL individuals applying for the tax break to prove residency status. If they did, I have no problem with that. If they singled out the veterans, then yeah they were WRONG.

Yep...that outrage shown here might as well be outrage over veteran's having to show a passport to come in the country after vacation.

[Silver Fox]

Originally Posted by Variable Wind

Im sorry...FUNDED by his people. IE they call the shots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck

To bad it's nonprofit and nonpartisan. Just because the truth agrees with the Obama camp doesn't mean they're in bed with him. It just means birthers are stupid.

It gets its funding from the Annenburg Foundation, and answers to no one in either political camp.

[DAG48]

What I find interesting:

I can go to one thread and have a "conversation" about why the POTUS gets to have a large security detail because he holds such an important and high profile position, and ordinary people walking around in the surrounding area exercising their right to openly carry a firearm are labeled as nutjobs.

Yet if I open a thread comparing how disabled vets are required to prove their citizenship vs. the POTUS not being vetted in relation to his Dual Citizenship, the President is above reproach because he simply won an election. I do not understand why the compare and contrast method of writing this thread to prove a point escapes some of you folks, when it works so well in other threads, like the one noted above.

I know the Congressional Hearings, Court Proceedings, British Nationality Act, U.S. State Department, and other sources I have provided summaries for and links to are lengthy and sometimes dry, but when folks don't read or comprehend them then I cannot tell if their posts are merely attacks due to political or racial issues, or are simply ignorance.

I welcome thoughtful comments on the subject, but honestly, I have seen enough to make me think some of you folks are not reading, much less comprehending, the material provided.

If you disagree with the President having dual citizenship fine. If you disagree with my bringing this to the attention of others, tough. I have just as much right to post my views and findings as anyone else. If you think any POTUS having a Dual Citizenship is a good Idea, I kindly disagree.

[DAG48]

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

As I recall, his father's citizenship doesn't matter. If you're born on U.S. soil you're a citizen of the U.S. and the U.S. alone in U.S. laws, how other nations apply those laws is frankly, irrelevent.

Silver Fox,

I urge you to read the U.S. State Department website where it states Dual Citizens are bound by the laws of Both (all) Countries in which they hold citizenship or nationality. That, or read where I posted it earlier in this thread. I even provided a link to the U.S. State Department in that post. If you bother, you can clearly read why any POTUS holding a Dual Nationality is relevant.

I also have provided links to where Congress has debated the issue and stated why they think it is a Bad Idea to have Dual Citizens hold public office and most Probably Un-Constitutional for the POTUS to have this status as his/her allegiance must belong to the United States alone for the benefit, or possible survival, of our Country, the United States of America.

We are not an Ethnic Country, which is the case of much of the world, we are a Country founded by Immigrants. What binds us is our allegiance to our Constitution and Country.

Look, if you are so blinded by Ideology that you cannot see the basic facts, such as President Obama's father being a British Citizen who was in the United States as a Student at the time of the President's birth, which automatically conveyed that British Birth Right to our President (the same as his mother conveyed U.S. Citizenship to President Obama), then I really can't help you any more than what has already been posted.

[ringjamesa]

Originally Posted by DAG48

What I find interesting:
I can go to one thread and have a "conversation" about why the POTUS gets to have a large security detail because he holds such an important and high profile position, and ordinary people walking around in the surrounding area exercising their right to openly carry a firearm are labeled as nutjobs.
Yet if I open a thread comparing how disabled vets are required to prove their citizenship vs. the POTUS not being vetted in relation to his Dual Citizenship, the President is above reproach because he simply won an election. I do not understand why the compare and contrast method of writing this thread to prove a point escapes some of you folks, when it works so well in other threads, like the one noted above.
I know the Congressional Hearings, Court Proceedings, British Nationality Act, U.S. State Department, and other sources I have provided summaries for and links to are lengthy and sometimes dry, but when folks don't read or comprehend them then I cannot tell if their posts are merely attacks due to political or racial issues, or are simply ignorance.
I welcome thoughtful comments on the subject, but honestly, I have seen enough to make me think some of you folks are not reading, much less comprehending, the material provided.
If you disagree with the President having dual citizenship fine. If you disagree with my bringing this to the attention of others, tough. I have just as much right to post my views and findings as anyone else. If you think any POTUS having a Dual Citizenship is a good Idea, I kindly disagree.

Except they are not being required to prove their citizenship...