Foggy responds to Professor Kuck

Here at the Fogbow

Professor Kuck,

First, I’d like to congratulate you on becoming a national hero of the “birther” movement — the people who think President Obama is an illegal usurper who needs to be arrested immediately. Consider the stark reality:

  • Hillary Clinton (Yale Law School) desperately wanted to win the primaries in ’08, but she never suggested that President Obama was ineligible because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen;
  • Michael Mukasey was the nation’s top law enforcement officer during the entire ’08 election cycle. It was his responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution, but he never suggested that President Obama was ineligible because his father wasn’t a U.S. citizen;
  • Chief Justice John Roberts has sworn in President Obama twice now, but has never suggested that President Obama was ineligible; and,
  • Courts all across this nation — federal and state courts, trial and appellate courts — beginning with Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) — have uniformly rejected the arguments made by Mario Apuzzo on your show. As the Ankeny court put it, “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
  • However, standing tall against all of these is the distinguished University of Georgia immigration law professor Charles Kuck, who, in a radio show aired just yesterday, openly advised Mr. Apuzzo — the small-time DUI practitioner who has lost every single case in which he’s raised the issue — that his legal arguments are “correct”. In fact, you said several times that his arguments are “correct”. Which means, of course, that the dozens of court decisions that have established a broad national consensus on the issue were all decided wrongly.

Read more here

22 thoughts on “Foggy responds to Professor Kuck

  1. I will also throw in a few more exclusions from taking the pledge of office of the presidency of the United States, if elected, and that is all of the offspring of JEB (Bush). All his children were born prior to their mother’s, JEB’s wife, being naturalized a US citizen from being a Mexican national, or citizen.

    Here’s my question to Prof Kuck, as an Immigration lawyer: Isn’t it true that all ‘naturalized’ Mexican nationals, or citizens, may return to Mexico as same, if they return to Mexico on a permanent basis from being naturalized US citizens? Would this also apply to their Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born citizen-children born in this country? I suspect it would include their offspring as well, much the same as in the George Romney.*

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * Unlike the Jewish promise to accept all Jews returning to Israeli, which is not treaty supported.

  2. Natural born means born on soil, subject to jurisdiction. Dual allegiance or the right of return, has no impact on their birthright citizenship.

    For goodness sakes my friend… You’re arguments become more and more irrational.

    Poor David, still not understanding…

    Remember that in the US one can at them moment only lose one’s citizenship voluntarily and the courts have found that this raises a significant bar.

    The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, allowed Mexicans caught up in newly acquired territory to return to Mexico and retain their citizenship or stay and become full fledged US citizens.

  3. David shows himself to be still confused on the well established status of children born to illegal immigrants

    Are you sure illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction in terms of US citizenship? I am not.

    Of course they are born fully subject to our jurisdiction, just like Wong Kim Ark. Perhaps you are not familiar with Plyler v Doe

    Use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State’s civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

    So what causes you to still doubt their status? Heck, your case Farrar v Obama helped with setting some precedents in this area. We should all be thankful to you for that.

    Others have similarly tried to educate you on how our system works

    The policy of the Mexican Government as to citizenship is not relevant. US law is determinative of US Citizenship irrespective of the Mexican government law as to rights of Mexican Citizenship. Some states even allow dual citizenship, but even this fact is irrelevant.

    Further evidence of David’s confusion:

    And, yes; how a foreign country sees its foreign inhabitants living under its jurisdiction is prima facie evidence they have unequivocally abandoned their US citizenship.

    There is no foundation for this, in fact our courts have held just the opposite, it is only voluntary expatriation with the intent of abandoning one’s US citizenship that can cause a US citizen to lose its citizenship.

    And of course David is still lamenting that the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark rejected his position

    You are right: they are betraying themselves. But can you blame them for following an unconstitutional law?

    They believe Wong says all person born within US borders are Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural born Citizens. This is what Obama believes; what Rubio believes and what all the others believe. But they would like to keep this little bit as quiet as possible, so they have their surrogates go out and keep raising the issue.

    Our Constitution deserves full respect when it declares such people born on US soil, to be natural born citizens.

    As to his dangerous advice

    Any suggestions?

    having gone that route before, I can tell you if your complaint is basically over the natural born Citizenship (nbC) issue, it will probably get dismissed because of Ankeny.

    If you haven’t paid your 2011 federal income taxes yet, a better course would be to refuse to pay your federal taxes, thereby creating an “injury”(when the IRS fines you) to a specific subset of the population (those who believe Obama is unqualified) thus creating federal standing.

    Yes, Ankeny and now also Farrar v Obama. Did I thank you for that contribution to precedents🙂. And no, your approach is as flawed as poor Lakin who refused to follow legal orders.

    Say, David, are there any more plans on solidifying birth right citizenship by you? I understand that at least one case may still be pending on appeal… Ah, Judd/Taitz v Obama, pending before the 9th circuit. That will soon be resolved as well, the SOS has no duty to determine eligibility and certainly people like Farrar lack standing. Did the case also look further?

  4. David is not confused. He is just ignorant, in the literal sense of the word. He totally ignores anything which contradicts his preconceived notions.

  5. until birtherism, who on this planet ever heard of an additional category of citizenship in the US for presidents & VPs? either you are “native/natural born” or naturalized PERIOD.

    how does larousse define the french word “parents”?

    relative, relation

    un proche parent a close relative ou relation
    un lointain parent, un parent éloigné a distant relative ou relation
    un parent du côté paternel/maternel a relation on the father’s/mother’s side
    nous sommes parents par ma femme we’re related through my wife
    ce sont des parents en ligne directe/par alliance they’re blood relations/related by marriage

    from the new census data, the fastest percentage population growth is among multiracial Americans, followed by Asians and Hispanics – the US is rapidly becoming a “majority-minority” country – that’s an awful lot of people who would be EXCLUDED from the american dream of the presidency

  6. But the mexicans….. Soon they will be ‘taking over our nation’….

    Poor souls, so afraid…

  7. soon republicans will sponsor a bill supporting abortions for minorities and banning abortions for white american women – heck they will even fund the abortions for minorities

  8. Why are we anti-white, or even pro-commie. Poor rambo, I guess you cannot deal with facts?

  9. Gee, rimjobike… where to start? Pro-equality does not equal anti-white. Being erroneously called anti-white does not equal racist. No clue where the pro-commie comes from; pure hallucination on your part. And 5th column implies trying to undermine established authority, which we are NOT doing, but YOU are!

    That’s why WE will be remembered as fiercely loyal Americans defending the Constitution from parasitic anarchist dimwits like you. Everyone who thinks and writes like you do will become pariahs when posterity sees that we were correct… and the imaginary reveal of BHO’s non-existent illegitimacy you hang your bloodlust for Obama’s hanging for treason on never happens.

    When some nutbag says “The end of the world is coming within days!” and then nothing happens, everyone… as in everyone… then says” What an idiot!” That would be you, kid. A permanent laughing-stock forever.

  10. Rambo Ike is just upset that his position has no support… Fine, he can ignore this website, just as birthers ignore contradicting evidence.

    Lovely example of confirmation bias.

  11. I was just doing a drive-by and noticed the racist remarks by you & Donna. Then Brown, a prototype for the racist Obots, made it a threesome.

  12. Racist remarks? Racist obots? You must have forgotten to wear your bifocals.

    So how is life treating you with President Obama still around🙂

    As you should know by now, he is clearly a natural born citizen.

    Bummer

  13. And Mario is still in denial… Hilarious how he continues to argue the impossible… And fails again and again.

    What a legacy…

  14. SueDB: I love it when I wake up in the morning and Mr. Obama is President.

    I love it when I wake up in the morning and Mr. Obama is Rambo Ike’s President.😈

  15. NBC,

    Want to clear up who you & Donna were targeting with the smear statements?:

    “But the mexicans….. Soon they will be ‘taking over our nation’….Poor souls, so afraid…”

    “soon republicans will sponsor a bill supporting abortions for minorities and banning abortions for white american women – heck they will even fund the abortions for minorities”

    It’s obvious you weren’t around to see the May Day Marches [Socialist’s Day] and what went on.

    If only you and your comrades could provide some verifiable proof for Obama being born in the United States. 207 court cases & your Home Boy is still running away from providing any. But, does it even matter, since he IS NOT a natural born Citizen.

  16. It seems that, like many birthers, you do not understand the concept of sarcasm.

    As to verifiable proof, I refer you to the COLB and the birth certificate, combined with the DOH of Hawaii’s verifications and certifications, combined with two newspaper announcements.

    So he was clearly born in Hawaii, which was, at the time of his birth a state of the US.

    As to the idea by some that natural born requires two citizen parents, the court in US v Wong Kim Ark laid that to rest.

    Perhaps you want to listen to Foggy on Professor Kuck’s show?

  17. I love it when I wake up in the morning knowing I’m not like Obots and haven’t spent my yesterdays supporting Obama & his marxists in their destruction of the American Republic.

    NBC: By no credible measure is Obama a Marxist but even if he were, what does that have to do with his eligibility? You just do not like him. Fine…

    So now you call the 5 years of “Obot Racial Obsession” sarcasm. How clever of you. Kinda like Hammer & Sickle Foggy calling the forged birth certificate he distributed satire.

    NBC: It was funny how some birthers are so willing to accept anything that proves their bias. It’s called confirmation bias. The fascinating part is how so many birthers have shown how their racial or political hatred for our President, allows them to go down a path of follies.

    I listened to the scripted Kuck’s interview of Foggy. Kuck, an immigration attorney, hides behind the term “Undocumented Workers” when he knows they are “Illegal Aliens” who have broken the laws by invading America. Of course it would be bad for his business if he told the truth.

    NBC: : I fail to see how this would be bad for his business. As to the terminology, who really cares. This is about the eligibility of any child born on soil to become our President, even those born to undocumented/illegal aliens. Given your attempt to discredit Kuck rather than his arguments, I have to conclude that you realize their accuracy.

    Why couldn’t Foggy tell the truth when asked about his credentials? No mention of drug treatment or his problems with the California Bar Association. Sounds like a bitter old man who has been a thorn on society and he realizes now he never ever amounted to anything of value.

    NBC: As I said, hatred and ad hominems to distract from the excellent rebuttals. Thanks for playing Rambo Ike… A bit out of your league though…

Comments are closed.