Pooperscooping the Vattel Birthers – No.2 (The Doctor Who Thingy)

With Their Protruding Toilet Plunger, The Daleks Were Often Mistaken For Vattle Birthers

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint – it’s more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly… time-y wimey… stuff.   The Doctor (Dr. Who).

Apparently, the Vattle Birthers  (my sarcastic name for the Vattel disciples who promote the goofy two citizen parent theory) are fans of Dr. Who.  For them, time must truly be wibbly wobbly. The biggest tenet of their CULT, is that there is a difference between a natural born citizen, and a 14th Amendment citizen. They think they have  a good reason for going down this path, because of the way they read the  Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS case in 1898. This case held that birth in the United States was enough to confer citizenship, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.  And, the Wong Kim Ark judges also made it clear this was the same as being a natural born citizen. The case is provided at this website if you are interested in reading it.

But,  the Vattle Birthers go to some pretty bizarre lengths to prove this theory. Here is one where the Vattle Birther took language from Wong Kim Ark, and Minor v. Happersett which were talking about two different points in time. One was discussing  the history of American citizenship BEFORE the 14th Amendment,  and the other is talking about AFTER the 14th Amendment. The Vattle Birther then strings both quotes together as if what they were saying was about the same point in time, not 90 years apart.  On top of that, the Vattle Birthers ignore the 19,464 words in the Wong Kim Ark decision which discusses, at length, how the 14th Amendment birth by citizenship is the same thing as natural born citizenship for people born in America. And they ignore how the Wong Kim Ark judges concluded the 14th Amendment put the concept of natural born citizenship into the Constitution.

Here is a another way to look at what the Vattle Birther was trying to pull.  Take a sentence, from a history of flight, before the Wright Brothers: Try as they might, men were unable to take to the air in flying machines. Now, take a sentence from a modern day travel magazine which is after the Wright Brothers:  Women frequently fly on airplanes and enjoy the experience. Combine them like a Vattle Birther, and you get: Men can’t fly on airplanes, but Women can. Pretty dumb, huh??? Sadly, pretty typical of Vattle Birther logic. Stuff taken out of context and just glommed together.

Here is the cut and paste from the real Internet debate between me, and the Vattle Birther.

Vattle Birther:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that —all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.

. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

Do you understand?? “Citizenship by birth” defined by the Constitution … through the 14th amendment. Contrast that with natural-born citizenship.

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

When “construing” the 14th amendment, Natural-born citizens are NOT defined in the Constution. This is plain and simple English that even YOU should be able to understand and be honest enough to admit.

Squeeky’s Response:

You are just cutting and pasting words together from the cases without any logic or intelligence except maybe enough intelligence to intentionally MISLEAD people. It is like you gave a monkey some flash cards with parts of sentences on it, and then trained the monkey to hold up two cards. (For a banana.) You might get a sentence, by accident, but if you did it would be something like: [The house I grew up in] and [flew away on a broomstick.]

Here is the sneaky and underhanded misrepresentation you tried to put over. AGAIN. In that case the Court was discussing a history of citizenship in the country, which YOU left out the CONTEXT of. Remember this little sentence in that decision:“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States BEFORE the adoption of the amendment. I am going to do it in a easy way by just putting in the DATES of the stuff the court was talking about:

In 1789 “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

In 1868 The 14th Amendment is passed.

In 1898 when the Wong Kim Ark case was done. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

You are trying to trick people into believing the Judges are talking about those two comments as both being said at the SAME POINT IN TIME, when it is clear if you look at the case, that they are talking about TWO POINTS IN TIME, one BEFORE the 14th Amendment when the Constitution DIDN’T say, and the other point AFTER the 14th Amendment, when now the Constitution, thru the 14th Amendment DID say.

You should just be ASHAMED of yourself for doing this kind of tricky stuff and YOU should apologize to everybody here for this kind of UNDERHANDED and LYING stuff!!!

I have already caught YOU doing this exact same thing before, taking something from page 655 of the case, when it is talking about the earlier history of citizenship, BEFORE the 14th Amendment, going back to England in 1608, and then taking part from page 702, when the Judges are talking about AFTER the 14th Amendment:

Which, here is the FULL context of the second part:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.

I think you are being very DISHONEST on purpose to people here. It is NOT HARD to understand BEFORE and AFTER the 14th Amendment.

So There!!!

Sooo, if you debate with Vattle Birthers, be on the look out for stuff like this. Because Vattle Birthers focus on words and terms and ignore the meanings of the words and terms. Because the words natural born citizenship and citizenship by birth in the United States are different words, the Vattle Birthers want to pretend they mean different things. Which is the very essence of taking words out of context.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: