WWTBAM Bored

Children born overseas to U.S. military members and government employees will no longer qualify for automatic citizenship. Even though both parents may be U.S. citizens serving in the military, the parents will be required to apply on their behalf for naturalization prior to their 18th birthday.

As far as I can tell, this change should be called the John McCain rule. If it had been applicable when Senator McCain was born, he would have been considered a naturalized citizen who was not eligible to run for President.

The change will take effect in three months. I hope that any women who may be affected by this policy change, especially including active-duty military, have the opportunity to return to the United States for their children's birth.

Please read this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... -not%3famp

You're a lawyer.

Unless you don't do links

Beebs52 wrote:Please read this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... -not%3famp

You're a lawyer.

So the later guidance says that it only affects children whose U.S. citizen parent (or parents) haven't resided in the United States in the last five years. That's a smaller pool than the initial release suggested. --Bob

Plus
"The real thrust of what this memo is getting at in the end - and what they were trying to do, and it caused all kinds of confusion with the legalese - this was aimed at preventing individuals who are either adopting a child who was born overseas to non-U.S. citizen parents or for kids or people who never really had any connection to the United States to shoehorn their way into citizenship," Moss explained.

Beebs52 wrote:Plus
"The real thrust of what this memo is getting at in the end - and what they were trying to do, and it caused all kinds of confusion with the legalese - this was aimed at preventing individuals who are either adopting a child who was born overseas to non-U.S. citizen parents or for kids or people who never really had any connection to the United States to shoehorn their way into citizenship," Moss explained.

I'm much less interested in someone claims the policy is about than in what the actual policy says. --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:Please read this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... -not%3famp

You're a lawyer.

He says he's one. But first and foremost he's a blind self righteous partisan. He probably didn't read anything but the headline of the article before he posted his usual diatribe and doubled down on it. This, bobby, was fake news from YOU. and it demonstrates in miniature how MSM fake news is generated. Blind self righeous partisans who don't do their homework and write what they feel, not what is the truth.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Please read this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... -not%3famp

You're a lawyer.

He says he's one. But first and foremost he's a blind self righteous partisan. He probably didn't read anything but the headline of the article before he posted his usual diatribe and doubled down on it. This, bobby, was fake news from YOU. and it demonstrates in miniature how MSM fake news is generated. Blind self righeous partisans who don't do their homework and write what they feel, not what is the truth.

You'd be wrong about that. I read the entire article. Which was apparently posted before the Administration came out with the "clarification" made necessary by all of the affected people who read the new policy exactly the same way I did, and exactly the same way the article did.

As for blind partisanship, there's this not-so-recent invention around called a mirror. Try using one. And any time you want to test my bona fides as a lawyer in court, you're welcome to try your luck. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Please read this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... -not%3famp

You're a lawyer.

He says he's one. But first and foremost he's a blind self righteous partisan. He probably didn't read anything but the headline of the article before he posted his usual diatribe and doubled down on it. This, bobby, was fake news from YOU. and it demonstrates in miniature how MSM fake news is generated. Blind self righeous partisans who don't do their homework and write what they feel, not what is the truth.

You'd be wrong about that. I read the entire article. Which was apparently posted before the Administration came out with the "clarification" made necessary by all of the affected people who read the new policy exactly the same way I did, and exactly the same way the article did.

As for blind partisanship, there's this not-so-recent invention around called a mirror. Try using one. And any time you want to test my bona fides as a lawyer in court, you're welcome to try your luck. --Bob

Right, bobby. First of all, you seem to have a blind spot for the word 'some'. You neglected to include it in your helpful analysis. Just like you seem to ignore it in reference to illegal immigrants being 'bad people', muslims being terrorists and the like whenever someone you don't like makes a point. Then you make a reference to McCain based on your false reading of the story. Then when you are faced with the facts and shown you are wrong, you barely acknowledge it, create an excuse and go right on with your partisan attacks. Just like the MSM.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: He says he's one. But first and foremost he's a blind self righteous partisan. He probably didn't read anything but the headline of the article before he posted his usual diatribe and doubled down on it. This, bobby, was fake news from YOU. and it demonstrates in miniature how MSM fake news is generated. Blind self righeous partisans who don't do their homework and write what they feel, not what is the truth.

You'd be wrong about that. I read the entire article. Which was apparently posted before the Administration came out with the "clarification" made necessary by all of the affected people who read the new policy exactly the same way I did, and exactly the same way the article did.

As for blind partisanship, there's this not-so-recent invention around called a mirror. Try using one. And any time you want to test my bona fides as a lawyer in court, you're welcome to try your luck. --Bob

Right, bobby. First of all, you seem to have a blind spot for the word 'some'. You neglected to include it in your helpful analysis. Just like you seem to ignore it in reference to illegal immigrants being 'bad people', muslims being terrorists and the like whenever someone you don't like makes a point. Then you make a reference to McCain based on your false reading of the story. Then when you are faced with the facts and shown you are wrong, you barely acknowledge it, create an excuse and go right on with your partisan attacks. Just like the MSM.

You're again demonstrating a reading comprehension problem. I didn't miss the word "some." It wasn't there.

After publication of the article I cited, USCIS (effectively) added the word "some." Precisely because a shitload of people would have been caught in the policy as originally publicized and were freaking out.

I wasn't wrong. USCIS backtracked. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You'd be wrong about that. I read the entire article. Which was apparently posted before the Administration came out with the "clarification" made necessary by all of the affected people who read the new policy exactly the same way I did, and exactly the same way the article did.

As for blind partisanship, there's this not-so-recent invention around called a mirror. Try using one. And any time you want to test my bona fides as a lawyer in court, you're welcome to try your luck. --Bob

Right, bobby. First of all, you seem to have a blind spot for the word 'some'. You neglected to include it in your helpful analysis. Just like you seem to ignore it in reference to illegal immigrants being 'bad people', muslims being terrorists and the like whenever someone you don't like makes a point. Then you make a reference to McCain based on your false reading of the story. Then when you are faced with the facts and shown you are wrong, you barely acknowledge it, create an excuse and go right on with your partisan attacks. Just like the MSM.

You're again demonstrating a reading comprehension problem. I didn't miss the word "some." It wasn't there.

After publication of the article I cited, USCIS (effectively) added the word "some." Precisely because a shitload of people would have been caught in the policy as originally publicized and were freaking out.

I wasn't wrong. USCIS backtracked. --Bob

Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Right, bobby. First of all, you seem to have a blind spot for the word 'some'. You neglected to include it in your helpful analysis. Just like you seem to ignore it in reference to illegal immigrants being 'bad people', muslims being terrorists and the like whenever someone you don't like makes a point. Then you make a reference to McCain based on your false reading of the story. Then when you are faced with the facts and shown you are wrong, you barely acknowledge it, create an excuse and go right on with your partisan attacks. Just like the MSM.

You're again demonstrating a reading comprehension problem. I didn't miss the word "some." It wasn't there.

After publication of the article I cited, USCIS (effectively) added the word "some." Precisely because a shitload of people would have been caught in the policy as originally publicized and were freaking out.

I wasn't wrong. USCIS backtracked. --Bob

Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

You'd be right about that. I pay enough attention to remember that Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone and that there was brief talk during the 2008 campaign about whether he was in fact eligible to run for President. It's the sort of idea that people come up with when they learn facts and think for themselves. So I guess I'm not surprised you're having trouble with the concept.

And I did verify the policy. USCIS changed its tune. Which is the third time I've told you this. But that doesn't matter to you either, because you've long since demonstrated that thoughts contrary to your preconceived notions have no path through your skull. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Right, bobby. First of all, you seem to have a blind spot for the word 'some'. You neglected to include it in your helpful analysis. Just like you seem to ignore it in reference to illegal immigrants being 'bad people', muslims being terrorists and the like whenever someone you don't like makes a point. Then you make a reference to McCain based on your false reading of the story. Then when you are faced with the facts and shown you are wrong, you barely acknowledge it, create an excuse and go right on with your partisan attacks. Just like the MSM.

You're again demonstrating a reading comprehension problem. I didn't miss the word "some." It wasn't there.

After publication of the article I cited, USCIS (effectively) added the word "some." Precisely because a shitload of people would have been caught in the policy as originally publicized and were freaking out.

I wasn't wrong. USCIS backtracked. --Bob

Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

Going back even further, George Romney probably couldn't have run for president if this policy was in effect when he was born.

Appa23 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You're again demonstrating a reading comprehension problem. I didn't miss the word "some." It wasn't there.

After publication of the article I cited, USCIS (effectively) added the word "some." Precisely because a shitload of people would have been caught in the policy as originally publicized and were freaking out.

I wasn't wrong. USCIS backtracked. --Bob

Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

You're entirely too logical, and oh, knowledgeable.

Beebs52 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

You're entirely too logical, and oh, knowledgeable.

There's that.

Appa23 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:You're again demonstrating a reading comprehension problem. I didn't miss the word "some." It wasn't there.

After publication of the article I cited, USCIS (effectively) added the word "some." Precisely because a shitload of people would have been caught in the policy as originally publicized and were freaking out.

I wasn't wrong. USCIS backtracked. --Bob

Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

I wondered whether that was the same Act that applied to your kids. I remember your dislike of the conclusion that they weren't considered native-born citizens for purposes of the Constitution. But you're correct that I relied on the USCIS summary of the new policy that was linked in the article, rather than chasing it back to the statutes themselves. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

I wondered whether that was the same Act that applied to your kids. I remember your dislike of the conclusion that they weren't considered native-born citizens for purposes of the Constitution. But you're correct that I relied on the USCIS summary of the new policy that was linked in the article, rather than chasing it back to the statutes themselves.

So you're a great lawyer who can't be bothered to "chase it back" to the actual law? Sounds as if you are NOT one who "learns facts and think for himself!"

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Sure, bobby. And I'm also quite sure that your reference to McCain came totally from your own fertile mind, because you knew right off the top of your head he would have fit the erroneous particulars of the outrage you saw but did not verify. I'm sure you didn't pick that false factoid from the batphone.

No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

I wondered whether that was the same Act that applied to your kids. I remember your dislike of the conclusion that they weren't considered native-born citizens for purposes of the Constitution. But you're correct that I relied on the USCIS summary of the new policy that was linked in the article, rather than chasing it back to the statutes themselves. --Bob

And you just couldn't wait to tell your thousands, or is it millions?, of minions on this bored, could you? I don't believe a word you write. You are just BJ with a slightly larger vocabulary. You were wrong, bobby. Then you couldn't resist adding your ponitification to it, pretty much word for word from many left wing pundits doing the same thing. And your weaseling is getting old.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:
No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

I wondered whether that was the same Act that applied to your kids. I remember your dislike of the conclusion that they weren't considered native-born citizens for purposes of the Constitution. But you're correct that I relied on the USCIS summary of the new policy that was linked in the article, rather than chasing it back to the statutes themselves. --Bob

And you just couldn't wait to tell your thousands, or is it millions?, of minions on this bored, could you? I don't believe a word you write. You are just BJ with a slightly larger vocabulary. You were wrong, bobby. Then you couldn't resist adding your ponitification to it, pretty much word for word from many left wing pundits doing the same thing. And your weaseling is getting old.

I was wrong to believe that something put out by Donny's USCIS was reliable. And go flock yourself. --Bob

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Appa23 wrote:No matter what, the reference to McCain was incorrect. We are discussing a change in interpretation/application of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, not any of the acts dealing with territories or the like that do address citizenship relevant for determining "natural-born citizen". No child that gains automatic citizenship pursuant to CCA (INA 320) is eligible currently to be President. I know because my older two children gained citizenship under this law.

If you actually read the policy, which includes checking the cites, then it was fairly clear to me that there was a limited application, and certainly did not affect all government employees and soldiers abroad.

I wondered whether that was the same Act that applied to your kids. I remember your dislike of the conclusion that they weren't considered native-born citizens for purposes of the Constitution. But you're correct that I relied on the USCIS summary of the new policy that was linked in the article, rather than chasing it back to the statutes themselves.

So you're a great lawyer who can't be bothered to "chase it back" to the actual law? Sounds as if you are NOT one who "learns facts and think for himself!"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Beebs52 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I wondered whether that was the same Act that applied to your kids. I remember your dislike of the conclusion that they weren't considered native-born citizens for purposes of the Constitution. But you're correct that I relied on the USCIS summary of the new policy that was linked in the article, rather than chasing it back to the statutes themselves.

So you're a great lawyer who can't be bothered to "chase it back" to the actual law? Sounds as if you are NOT one who "learns facts and think for himself!"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Estonut wrote:So you're a great lawyer who can't be bothered to "chase it back" to the actual law? Sounds as if you are NOT one who "learns facts and think for himself!"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

You didn't have to explain it, albeit incorrectly. Geez