BEWARE - Arizona Senate Bill 1308 Defines Dual Citizens As Natural Born Citizens

Arizona Senate Bill 1308 passed out of committee yesterday by an 8-5 vote. This bill is a cleverly disguised attempt to protect President Obama from eligibility scrutiny. It does this by declaring persons born with dual citizenship as natural born citizens. But it does this in a very sneaky manner.

That’s right. Arizona has now passed out of committee a bill which states that persons born with dual citizenship are natural born citizens of the United States. This same bill is being considered by all states party to the compact......

This so called “compact” is being pushed by a conglomerate of states, and it looks like it’s being done to protect Obama......

When the relevant section of Article II is read in conjunction with the relevant section of Article III, you have a complete declaration that a person born of one citizen parent is a “natural born United States citizen”.

According to that definition, a person born with dual citizenship is also a “natural born United States citizen”.

Anchor babies will not be eligible for US citizenship according to this bill, but Obama will be eligible to be POTUS. Looks like a deal was struck to protect Obama by attacking the citizenship of children born on US soil to illegal immigrant parents.

Apparently, the US citizenship of anchor babies is being sacrificed to protect Obama from competing eligibility legislation – such as Arizona HB 2544 – which does, in fact, require Presidential candidates to prove they have never owed allegiance to a foreign nation......

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.

A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance.

However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

It is not circumventing the constitution to say that persons born on U.S. soil are natural born citizens, regardless of whether other countries (for whatever reason) recognize them as citizens as well. James Madison, the "father of the Constitution," said:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States." -- James Madison, 1789

Consistent with this principle, numerous courts have said that persons born on U.S. soil are natural-born citizens:

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth." -- Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (Storey, J.)

"And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen." -- Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844).

"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen". It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States" -- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President." -- Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).

I don’t agree with that theory! But, thank you for your thoughts!

United States Supreme Court reports, Volume 15 By United States. Supreme Court, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company

The citizens are the members of the civil society bound to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents and succeed to all their rights. Again, I say to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution, the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,)
Law of Nations, 1758,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.