Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rubio and Birthright Citizenship
American Thinker ^ | 5/4/2012 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56

Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.

The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; citizenship; constitution; immigration; ineligible; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen; nbc; norubio; obama; rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last
Interesting on Fox News' recent pooh-poohingl of questions about Marco Rubio presidential eligibility.
1 posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:27 AM PDT by Menehune56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

in before the birther mob...

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

The governing phrase from Art. II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

Do you have to be born within the territorial limits of the United States to be such a citizen?

No, said the Founders.

The Heritage Foundation’s Guide shows how the First Congress in 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born.” This was our first naturalization statute (1 Stat. 104).

Now, consider Marco Rubio. His parents were resident aliens when he was born in 1971, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “all persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside.”

This “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause shows why Rubio is — and, very likely, why children of illegal aliens are not — a “natural born citizen of the United States.”

“To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution’s eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future. Surely, that is not what we want.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_good_news_rubios_eligible.html


2 posted on 05/04/2012 7:32:41 AM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baclava

Much ado about nothing.


3 posted on 05/04/2012 7:35:38 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: baclava
Now, consider Marco Rubio. His parents were resident aliens when he was born in 1971, seeking and soon to receive their status as naturalized U.S. citizens.

WEASEL WORD WARNING!

"soon to receive" didn't happen before Marco was born. More explicit: his parents WERE NOT CITIZENS when he was born. Ergo, HE IS NOT a natural-born citizen, and NOT ELIGIBLE. I will not vote for any such candidate, and neither will millions of others.

Republicans who seek to subvert the plain meaning of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution just show their contempt for the document. This is why the country is in the shape it's in: the elites in BOTH major parties despise the Constitution, and only use it, Alinsky-style, when it suits their ends.

A pox on you all.

4 posted on 05/04/2012 7:40:05 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (I will vote against ANY presidential candidate who had non-citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: baclava

I am so sick of the “tortured wording that tries to eliminate the simple words “natural born citizen” from “citizen” and “naturalized citizen”.

Read those sentences. It is a worse description than the meaning of the word “IS” from the past!

The thought does not follow but the words try to make them the same.

Read the history of attempts to change the wording. Those members of congress knew what it meant and wanted to change it!

NOT ELLIGIBLE...and I am from Fl and like Marco Rubio!


5 posted on 05/04/2012 7:40:09 AM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Thanks for your words of clarity.
..weasel words..
I will be using that!


6 posted on 05/04/2012 7:42:57 AM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
Cindy isn't much of a thinker.

Marco Rubio is far from an “anchor baby”. His parents were here legally. He was born a U.S. citizen to legal residents who soon became naturalized citizens.

Marco Rubio is not a naturalized citizen - he was born a citizen according to U.S. law - which should always reflect our best understanding of natural law.

Natural law is not what was written hundreds of years ago by one man in one book. Those that think it is have little concept of the foundational philosophy of this Republic.

7 posted on 05/04/2012 7:46:36 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

If you want to change the constitution in regards to this .. fine. But everyone already born a citizen would remain so... only future children born in the US to non-citizens would be affected.

Rubio is a citizen and always will be, period.


8 posted on 05/04/2012 7:46:53 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

This is an issue that needs to be addressed ASAP, not allowed to fester until it explodes just before the elections.


9 posted on 05/04/2012 7:48:00 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

sigh, it is NOT ABOUT CITIZENSHIP, it is about what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen.”


10 posted on 05/04/2012 7:50:52 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Chen Guangcheng: Gutsy call, Obama /UltraMegaDrippingSarc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Rubio is a native born citizen and always will be. He is not a natural born citizen. He and Bobby Jindal are not eligible to be VP or President. The 14th Ammendment was not about Natural Born.


11 posted on 05/04/2012 7:50:55 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

...and that’s why this board is quickly dying

‘American Thinker’ is now a subversive site?

When did the lunatics take over this asylum?


12 posted on 05/04/2012 7:53:12 AM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
I think Rubio's seeming reluctance to be considered as a VP candidate is based in part because he knows that there is a question concerning his eligibility.

That said, EVERY DAY that the usurper currently occupying the Oval Office is allowed to continue unchallenged weakens the Natural Born provision of The Constitution. I could certainly see a scenario that if he were seriously challenged in court, the court might support him based on the fact that he has been allowed to continue for so long without so much as a peep from congress or the judicial branch.

0bama has set a precedence, and certainly if any similar questions arise in the future, whether with Rubio or anyone else, challenges will be even less effective than they are now and go absolutely nowhere. They will say "we settled that issue back with 0bama". If congress and the courts continue to dodge the issue, that provision of The Constitution is effectively dead.

13 posted on 05/04/2012 7:57:13 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Sworn to Defend The Constitution Against ALL Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. So Help Me GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

No one disagrees with you.

Look at your words...Citizen is not what is in question.

Can you honestly say he will have only the good of the US as his lifetime direction. That was the meaning of the Natural Born Clause...IMHO


14 posted on 05/04/2012 8:03:20 AM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Nice, clear explanation.

Thanks for adding that to this conversation.

I can not even get some family members to understand they are being fooled with language.


15 posted on 05/04/2012 8:08:28 AM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY

And I’m equally sick of hearing about this totally useless distraction.

It’s time wasted on nonsense when we should be doing what it best for the country as a whole. That is stopping the runaway downward trend into has-been status. America and Americans deserve better.


16 posted on 05/04/2012 8:11:18 AM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
The real bottom line:

Any court, and all 50 states, will say Rubio is eligible, per the Constitution. No birther will ever agree.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

17 posted on 05/04/2012 8:12:19 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baclava

It is not an interpretation, it is a fact arising from the fundamental definition of natural law as practiced for thousands of years. It is not “strained” in anyway whatsoever, because being a natural born citizen has been a practice among many nations for many centuries. The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing whatsoever about the definition of a natural born citizen, because it only refers to persons acquiring statutory citizenship, meaning a statute was required to confer citizenship rather than citizenship being the natural consequence of being born the child of native born parents who constitute the body of the nation’s citizenry.


18 posted on 05/04/2012 8:13:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The only problem with your quote is the simple difference between US Citizens and British Subjects. Citizens verses Subjects.


19 posted on 05/04/2012 8:28:49 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: baclava

Here’s the deal. I am planning on holding my nose while I vote against Obama come November. But if presumptive-nominee Romney picks Rubio I think I’ll just sit it out. Oh, I’ll vote, just skip the presidential line.


20 posted on 05/04/2012 8:29:48 AM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Marco Rubio is a native born U.S. Citizen, he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen, and he is not eligible under the Constitution to serve in the Office of the Vice President or the Office of the President.

Vattel did nothing to originate the definition of natural born citizen, because he was only reporting the already centuries old practice among many nations of restricting certain rights of citizenship only to the children born with two citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the sovereign. This was the law and its practice in earlier centuries of England, before the laws changed the natural born citizen requirement. Many Continental jurisdictions retained the natural born citizen requirement, which was reported by Vattel in his book. The Founding Fathers then used Vattel’s book to provide guidance along with other books to develop the Constitution with guidance from British-English and Continental legal precedents. The natural born citizen clause was clearly and unambiguously asserting a limitation well understood by Continental Europeans of the 18th Century. The Ancien Regime for instance had jurisdictions which did not allow the children born in the French jurisdiction to inherit their parents’ real property, because the parents were foreign born, which was an application of the difference between children native born in France versus natural born in France.

The same distinction carried forward to some post-Revolutionary War States of the United States of America who did not confer state citizenship and thereby U.S. citizenship to children born in the jurisdiction of the state whose parents were not state or U.S. citizens. Yet, the children born in the jurisdiction of the state whose parents were U.S. citizens were natural born citizens of the state and the United States in 1799. The child whose parents were not state and U.S. citizens were not eligible to the Office of the President in 1799, but the natural born children were so eligible in 1799.


21 posted on 05/04/2012 8:31:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Why do you keep citing dicta to support your argument?


22 posted on 05/04/2012 8:31:37 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“It is a fact”... hahaha...

People who are obsessed with conspiracies tend to make up their own ‘facts’.

I tend to agree with Sarah - - “It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.”

the End


23 posted on 05/04/2012 8:33:42 AM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Wrong.

Under English law anyone born on soil controlled by England by those under the authority of England was a natural born subject of England no matter the nationality of their parents.

There was nothing in English law to differentiate those that were “natural born subjects” of England and those that were BORN as subjects.

The U.S. Constitution makes mention of natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. Currently one is either born as a citizen or one must be naturalized.

The U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about “native born”. You must have gotten that from penumbras and emanations. ;)

24 posted on 05/04/2012 8:41:27 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

That is a lie and a fraud.

The laws of the United States were derived from English law, Continental Eropean law, and common law originating in the colonies and states before and after the colonial independence of the United States of America. The oft repeated fallacy and myth of U.S. law arising only from or even maily from English common law is a fraud and a lie. English common law had not yet been codified at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted and adopted. Few American jurists had any access to any written English common law and precedents, so they independently created their own American common law parallel with the independent developments of common-law in England.

Simply put, it was quite impossible for 18th Century U.S. law to be founded upon English common-law, because it did not yet exist when the U.S. and ealeir Colonial American laws were created independently of the English common-law.


25 posted on 05/04/2012 8:41:46 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

WEASEL WORD WARNING!

“soon to receive” didn’t happen before Marco was born. More explicit: his parents WERE NOT CITIZENS when he was born. Ergo, HE IS NOT a natural-born citizen, and NOT ELIGIBLE. I will not vote for any such candidate, and neither will millions of others.

Republicans who seek to subvert the plain meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution just show their contempt for the document. This is why the country is in the shape it’s in: the elites in BOTH major parties despise the Constitution, and only use it, Alinsky-style, when it suits their ends.

A pox on you all.

Agree —— Unless a court steps up and confirms the definition of Natural Born citizen in a way that would inclu
de Rubio and Jindal and Obama (and I certainly don’t hold out hope of that) I would not be able to vote for a ticket with someone who in my opinion is ineligible to hold the office. This constitutional issue has been consciously suppressed by the very people who swore oaths to uphold the Constitution!
I hope Romney picks someone whose eligibility can not be questioned. God help America.....or what’s left of her.


26 posted on 05/04/2012 8:43:48 AM PDT by Froggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

yea, those stupid birthers... they think there’s a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. pfft

it’s not like it’s a term used around the world for hundreds of years or anything... naah

of course, it does make me wonder why the founders would change the wording from citizen to natural born citizen if there’s no difference... hmmmm


27 posted on 05/04/2012 8:47:47 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer; 3D-JOY

Here’s what’s evolved in my befuddled brain recently:
The puppet masters, never to be viewed as not being VERY wily and smart, have set up an environment that will ensure OB’s second term in order to complete the destruction of mankind’s only real source of personal freedom (ie the USA).

They are going to field a ticket for the pubs that is so obnoxious to a great percentage of the conservative base that they WILL succeed in DIVIDE & CONQUER, with many not voting, voting for unelectable candidates or write-ins.

That is the only explanation I have been able to come up with for all the maneuvering and media blackout of the subject that has taken place re the NBC/eligibility issue and the continued bandying about of NON-NBC guys like Rubio and Jindal.

We’ll have to see what the final result is, but I for one am VERY concerned that the BIG FIX is in place already and it’s so well orchestrated that this DIVIDE & CONQUER PLAN is now the invisible elephant in the room we’re all just shouting in the wind when we carry on about all the other issues (ie planned and organized distractions) of the day.

Keep in mind how close EVERY poll is between OB and ANY challenger, when from ANY logical point of view OB should be polling down in the single digits by now. He is being supported and will be until they are dead and buried, (and by some them even after that has occurred if you know what I mean), by the slightly less than 50% voting block who:

(a) depend on him for their livelihood and goodies,
(b) are guilt ridden middle and upper class types who have to prove their compassionateness and political correctness and fairness to themselves and everyone else,
(c) just plain hate the USA for their own twisted reasons, but who have never tried to exist anywhere else on the planet,
(d) just have have no personal ambition and are perfectly content to bathe only occasionally, walk or bike everywhere and basically just exist, contributing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to society,
(e) lack the maturity gene, sit around humming cumbaya and simply want, (in the words of that most eloquent philosopher Rodney King), “... everyone to just get along ...” (and the 1% to pay their “fair” share)

Re that last comment, the other day I listened to Micahel Meved spend about five (5) minutes trying to get some liberal spokeshole moron to commit to a specific TOTAL (ALL forms - local state, fed and hidden) percentage that the EVIL 1% should have to pay in taxes in order to to satisfy the feel good guys.

It was pathetically comical to listen to the weasel trying to evade the question. His responses ranged from “I’m not an economist” to “I don’t really know what the federal rate should be” to FINALLY “I think 39% (just for federal taxes) is about right”.

A-MAZING


28 posted on 05/04/2012 8:51:42 AM PDT by CanuckYank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
And when you read what was written before your snippet, that being what is in II, you have this... This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

It would be rather hard to follow that rule when English law had been overthrown here in America, wouldn't it.

And "the rule" continued to prevail continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established because there were still British citizens here in the US.
The rule didn't apply to American nationality, only to British nationality as the text indicates...on the subject of British nationality...not on the subject of American nationality.

29 posted on 05/04/2012 8:55:32 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You are badly mistaken because you are relying on erroneous sources of information at the very least. Britain and the prior England did adopt the legal principal of jus soli to claim the allegiance and sovereignty over every perso born subject to the Jurisdiction of the sovereign of the kingdomn of England and the later United Kingdom of the 18th-19th Centuries. What is deceivingly omitted are tt the many changes to England’s prevous citizenship laws. The were many an Anglo-Saxon or Norman father and mother who accompanied the Sovereign of England to the King’s possessons in France, whereupon their children were born under the jurisdiction and with fealty and allegiance to the King of England, who could not inherit their estates due to their not being born on the soil of England. Bit by bit, the problems this cause resulted in changes to these laws into the adoption of the jus soli principle by the end of the 18th Century.

The adoption of the jus soli principle by England put England and later Britain in conlfict with many nations, including the newly independent United States of America. England-Britain kept trying to deny the right of its natural born subjects to emigrate and naturalize as citizen sof another nation, and this put Engalnd into conflict with the nations naturalizing former British subjects.

The natural born citizen clause was put into the Constitution to keep Britian in particular and any other nation in general from trying to command the allegiance of an emigrant who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen or any child born under jus sanguinis as a British subject. This was in accordance with the natural born citizen principles of law praticed for centuries by many nations and by England in the earlier centuries.

Look it up, and you’ll find this is true.


30 posted on 05/04/2012 8:57:15 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: baclava
"Wasted nonsense......doing what's best for the country." Come one.

Most people CAN walk and chew gum at the same time.

To simply toss aside the clear meaning of words and the Constitution at the same time to focus "on the economy," insults us all.

Why not try doing both, or perhaps even more?

Most people, especially Americans, can do much more than they think and it's high time to aim higher than merely looking forward to the weekend.

I'm saying these things after just getting back from Europe and visiting England, Spain, France and Italy.

Lovely people but clearly going down the tube for the simple reason that they refuse to think for themselves AND WORK!

31 posted on 05/04/2012 9:01:39 AM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sten
of course, it does make me wonder why the founders would change the wording from citizen to natural born citizen if there’s no difference... hmmmm

Hey, I recognize that. It's like what happens in our time with the words Democracy and Republic. According to our betters "there’s no difference".
What a coincidence. /sarcasm

32 posted on 05/04/2012 9:02:26 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
At the time of our founding - under the laws and terms of law familiar to the founders - one was “natural born” if they were arrived at that condition of allegiance via birth.

Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.

Nothing in U.S. law demanded both either - as the 1790 act showed to all but the willfully ignorant.

Our Constitution allows for two types of U.S. citizenship currently - those that were born as citizens and those that had to be naturalized as citizens.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “native born” - you must have gotten that from penumbras and emanations.

33 posted on 05/04/2012 9:05:03 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Oops...one too many...continued to prevail continued to prevail...there.
34 posted on 05/04/2012 9:06:06 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

One had to have “actual obedience” to the crown in order for their children to be subjects. Second, English common law requires perpetual allegiance. The founders had to reject this bit of common law in order to be U.S. citizens. Third, the U.S. signed a treaty with Britain prior to the adoption of the Constitution that resulted in children born in the U.S. to loyalists being recognized as British subjects and NOT as U.S. citizens. Of course, the loyalists were pretty much driven out of the country within a short period of time, but there’s ample evidence to show that the U.S. did not rebadge natural-born subject as natural-born citizen.


35 posted on 05/04/2012 9:09:25 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.

Well then isn't it a great thing that English law was neither practiced nor put in effect here in America where we wrote and established our own law.

36 posted on 05/04/2012 9:09:52 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Yes, our own law. But the language they were all familiar with in the legal terms “natural born” and “naturalized” - came from England.

There is also nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that would differentiate a U.S. citizen at birth and one who was a natural born citizen.

The term “native born” is not used in the Constitution.

Going with what the Constitution ACTUALLY says - there are currently two types of U.S. citizen as outlined by the U.S. Constitution - natural born and naturalized.


37 posted on 05/04/2012 9:15:45 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
But the language they were all familiar with in the legal terms “natural born” and “naturalized” - came from England.
So no other nations had laws governing their citizens and only the British model of citizenship was used as a source.
Sorry, just ain't buying it.

And, contrary to your implication, the principle behind it was completely different...sovereign citizens aren't subjects.

38 posted on 05/04/2012 9:25:02 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Yes - it’s a waste of time..it’s just and endless loop of jibber jabber that proves or solves nothing.

Like I said, I tend to agree with Sarah on all the birther crap - - “It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.”

wait...don’t tell me - she’s the next to be thrown under the purity bus, right?


39 posted on 05/04/2012 9:26:27 AM PDT by baclava
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

If so where is that understanding reflected in the Constitution?

Penumbras and emanations again?

The U.S. Constitution currently envisions only TWO types of U.S. citizen - those that were born with natural allegiance and those that had to be naturalized into that state of natural allegiance.


40 posted on 05/04/2012 9:27:16 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
There is also nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that would differentiate a U.S. citizen at birth and one who was a natural born citizen.
On the contrary. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 does just that..."establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
Why empower Congress in such a manner if there was no need to differentiate the two as you imply?
41 posted on 05/04/2012 9:29:53 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
If so where is that understanding reflected in the Constitution?
See #41.... Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4..."establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".
42 posted on 05/04/2012 9:31:19 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
That is ONE category of U.S. citizenship covered by the U.S. Constitution.

Naturalized citizens. Congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization so that there was only ONE standard for a foreign national to become a U.S. citizen.

There is also mention of one other type of citizen that one could currently be - that being “natural born”.

Thus under the clear language of the U.S. Constitution - one is currently either a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Nothing in Article 1, Section 8, clause 4 establishes a category of citizenship from birth that is not “natural born” thus differentiating a U.S. citizen at birth from a “natural born” citizen.

A Uniform rule of naturalization differentiates those that are natural born citizens from those that must be naturalized. It does nothing towards establishing “native born” as a category of U.S. citizenship under the Constitution.

Must have gotten that one from penumbras and emanations.

Because if we go by what the U.S. Constitution actually says - it mentions “natural born citizens” and “naturalization”.

43 posted on 05/04/2012 9:38:19 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
You and others seem strangely intent on establishing the idea that only the British aspect/concept of citizenship was considered by the Founding Fathers.

It wasn't the only aspect/concept considered as many nation's aspects/concepts were considered.

And British law wasn't the only place where "legal terms", or such similar concepts, such as “natural born” and “naturalized” were used.
That's like saying neither France nor Germany had a law governing armed robbery, murder or rape.

That alone says something.

44 posted on 05/04/2012 9:41:30 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Most of our founders were born as natural born subjects of England. Many were lawyers who used and studied English law. The terms of law they were most familiar with - and utilized - were terms used in English law - those being “natural born” and “naturalized”.

But that is not the crux of my argument.

The U.S. Constitution only makes mention of two types of U.S. citizens that one could currently be - natural born or naturalized.

Are we going with what the U.S. Constitution ACTUALLY says - or what you want it to say via penumbras and emanations?


45 posted on 05/04/2012 9:49:09 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
It does nothing towards establishing “native born” as a category of U.S. citizenship under the Constitution.
Isn't that because there was no need?
Can't both be native born, that being only born on US soil?
Because if we go by what the U.S. Constitution actually says - it mentions “natural born citizens” and “naturalization”.
I've never said it doesn't, have I?
What is the main difference between the two?
46 posted on 05/04/2012 9:49:38 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
...were terms used in English law...
Weren't those same "terms" used in other nations?
Just because the "terms" weren't in the English language doesn't mean they didn't exist outside of England.

The U.S. Constitution only makes mention of two types of U.S. citizens that one could currently be - natural born or naturalized.
Have I contended otherwise?

But that is not the crux of my argument.
I have no idea what the "crux" of your argument is other than that "native born" seems to be a problem for you when it shouldn't be a problem at all.
Or is it a problem since somebody claimed to be a "native born" citizen instead of "natural born" citizen.

47 posted on 05/04/2012 9:54:53 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

There certainly WOULD be a need - if the founders intended for there to be FOURTH category of citizenship there most certainly was a need for it to be included - but it was not.

The U.S. Constitution makes mention of only THREE types of U.S. citizen - those who were citizens at the time of adopting the Constitution - those who were natural born - and those that must be naturalized.

The difference between the last two (and currently the only two) between that those who are natural born and those that are naturalized is this......

A natural born citizen is born a U.S. citizen and has no need of a legal process to establish citizenship - a naturalized citizen is not born as a U.S. citizen and has need of a legal process and sworn oaths to establish U.S. citizenship.

The clear meaning of the Constitution is that currently there are two types of U.S. citizen - natural born and naturalized.


48 posted on 05/04/2012 9:55:30 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: baclava

It is very telling to see you argue the Constitution and rule of law do not matter. The founders of the Confederate States of America argued that they had the right to reinterpret the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in support of their overthrow of the U.S. Government with the secession of their States from the United States of America. After the decision by force of arms reestablished the authority of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) made a decision in a lawsuit involving the question of whether or not the contracts and acts of the rebel governments could be relied upon in a court of law after the end of the war. SCOTUS decided all of the acts of the unlawful rebel governments were without a lawful authority or basis and thereby null and void.

Likewise in a case in which a state governor was found to have been ineligible to the office of the governor at the time he was elected and inaugurated into the office of the governor, the state supreme court decided all of the ineligible governor’s accts of signing legislation into law, appointing officers and judges, and making executive orders were null and void, without effect in law.

Based on such historical precedents in law and other such precedents, it appears that the ineligibility of Obama implies all of his acts, appointments, and executive orders should be rendered null and void as a matter of law. If that isn’t a worthwhile expenditure of time and effort, nothing else can be.


49 posted on 05/04/2012 10:01:01 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
Rubio voted yes on NDAA. He recently gave a speech praising the UN
50 posted on 05/04/2012 10:02:53 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson