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 ...
You've been told many, many times over what the situation is with McCain and you still keep coming back to it as if it's a new subject when it isn't.
If you say you are going by Vattel and yet McCain isn't eligible according to you - then please provide the section of Vattel and the exact language that details why and under what circumstances McCain wouldn't be eligible.
What section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible?
Please answer the question rather than providing lame excuses for not answering the question.
@The Constitution gives authority to Congress to establish rules for citizenship in Article I section 8. December 16, 2008
Put up a "good" argument when in actuality it's all BS!
The Constitution enpowers Congress to establish "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.
After-birthers always seem to want to make a bloody mess of things.
Again, you fail in context and that's why you're trying to emphasis only that particular section.
What section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible?
Please answer the question rather than providing lame excuses for not answering the question.
What section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible?
No section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible.
As you've often stated...Vattel isn't U. S. law.
U. S laws render McCain ineligible as Vattel explained..."for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise."
Was Senate Resolution 511 an actual law? No! It only had the appearance of law.
If Vattel WAS U.S. law - and all U.S. law was in accordance with Vattel - then McCain would certainly be natural born.
My question is what did Vattel write that would render McCain not a natural born citizen?
According to Vattel and the section I quoted McCain would be born with natural allegiance to America and be a citizen at birth, an indigenous or native citizen - and thus a natural born citizen.
Now under what section of Vattel would McCain not be a native or indigenous or natural born citizen?
Lame excuses are wearing thin.
What section of Vattel, assuming Vattel has any bearing on who is or is not a natural born citizen in America , would make McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?
But that isn't what I asked and you know it.
Well if the question you asked isn't the question you meant to ask then perhaps you should rephrase your question.
My question is what did Vattel write that would render McCain not a natural born citizen?
Vattel didn't write anything that would render McCain not a natural born citizen. The writers of our "uniform rules of naturalization" did that.
Now under what section of Vattel would McCain not be a native or indigenous or natural born citizen?
What does it matter since Vattel isn't U.S. law?
Lame excuses are wearing thin.
Your games wore thin long ago.
What section of Vattel, assuming Vattel has any bearing on who is or is not a natural born citizen in America , would make McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?
What does it matter since Vattel isn't U.S. law?
OK then. According to Vattel - McCain would be a natural born citizen.
So to say McCain is not is to abandon Vattel and his philosophy.
Where in U.S. law do you get that McCain would be anything other than a natural born citizen?
If you are not going by U.S. law OR Vattel - then by what definition is McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?
Where is natural born citizen defined such that McCain would not qualify?
If you are not going by U.S. law OR Vattel - then by what definition is McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?
What makes you think he ever was a natural born citizen?
Where is natural born citizen defined such that McCain would not qualify?
Where is natural born citizen defined such that McCain would qualify?
Nice game. Your turn, Pong.
1401 - The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
What makes me think McCain ever was a natural born citizen? Because he was born with natural allegiance to these United States, under the principles recognized in natural law, and thus he was a U.S. citizen at birth.
Under Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen (or more correctly an “indigenous or native”)- McCain would certainly qualify - as I have repeatedly told you.
Now under what definition of “natural born” would McCain not qualify?
Under English law - he would be considered “natural born”.
Under Vattel - he would be considered an “indigenous or native citizen” and thus natural born.
Under U.S. law he is a U.S. citizen at birth and thus natural born.
So where in U.S. law do you get that McCain would be anything other than a natural born citizen?
And as you well know positive law, those laws written by men, cannot make someone a natural born citizen.
Because he was born with natural allegiance to these United States, under the principles recognized in natural law, and thus he was a U.S. citizen at birth.
The principles of natural law require that he have citizen parents, which he had, and be born "in country". He wasn't born on a military installation, he was born in a civilian hospital in Panama.
@The Coco Solo Naval Hospital wasn't built until after 1941. (EO authorizing it to be built) He doesn't meet the requirements.
Now under what definition of “natural born” would McCain not qualify?
See above.
I posed this question to you a couple days ago and did not receive an answer other than “my, what strict stipulations:”
...I want to see a declarative statement such as, “it is the policy of this nation that in order to be a NBC, you must have citizen parents.” Give me something like that and I’ll join your side. And while you are at it, also provide evidence that the framers used Vattel specifically on the citizenship issue.
I ask it because all your theories regarding NBC is hinged upon it and if it IS the policy of this nation then it MUST be written down somewhere!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I stated that my children were NBC because of the following regulation:
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth. To become a citizen at birth, you must: Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements. Reference follows:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/? vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD
If you had the ability to read you would have noted “you may become a citizen either at birth or after birth.” At birth grants NBC if born on U.S. soil or overseas of a citizen parent and after birth, depending on circumstances, naturalization. We all receive our birth certificates AT birth or within a reasonable amount of time like 10 days. Years later then it would be AFTER birth. Case in point; Vietnam veterans who left their children behind can apply for citizenship once they or their mother realize that they can do so. I went to the American Consul at the time of my children’s birth and received a Birth Certificate – not naturalization papers or procedures to follow to achieve citizenship, but full blown citizenship with the same rights that I have. Instead of a BC signed by a hospital administrator, I have that plus one signed by the Consul.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You then come back with a reference on citizenship for children of non citizen military members. WTF?????
Did I not make it clear that I was not a non citizen military member?
Then allmendream teaches you about Vattel in Post 308. Vattel is your authority on being born overseas to parent citizens yet you abandon that in your attempt to ridicule me. It is obvious to anyone that you confuse his 2 parent rule for overseas birth with a birth on U.S. soil of any parents (with the exception of diplomats or those not under the jurisdiction.,etc., etc.)
Then in post 311 you quote a paragraph that states that the fathers rights will not pass if the soldier remains in that foreign country. What does this quote have to do with returning soldiers? You talk about context but you show ignorance.
Then you go on to insult me because I had children overseas and should have know better like that is any of your business. You said, “I was warned by my parents before going in about coming home with a foreign bride and/or child. Though they didn't go into specific details, but they knew far more than I did about many things and I simply trusted their judgement. Would that your parents had advised you so.
I can almost guarantee your parents knew more than you at any time. You are so pompous; you assume I had parents still living and able to provide me with advice of any sort…. You really demonstrate an understanding nature regarding the circumstances of others. Regardless I could care less about your opinions; I am however guaranteed the right to have children anywhere I choose. Show me where I can’t. A foreign bride may be wise advice if you bring home a hooker I guess your parents had insight into your character predilections.
If you had spent any time overseas while in the military you would have known that you must get permission from higher authority (in my case the Chief of Naval Personnel) before you could marry a foreign national.
Then you say to me, “You get your ass handed to you in debate….”
When did that happen?
You then say, “The only thing you've done is clearly show that statutes (INA/USC 8) made your British born children U. S. citizens. No statute (INA/USC 8) can make someone a natural born citizen.
I say, show me ANY statute that can make someone a natural born citizen. I showed you, as well as others, many quotes stating that birth in this country bestows natural born citizen status as well as native born citizen status. Cruise back on this thread, you’ll find them, even one from President Grant as well as several politicians and Supreme Court Justices. Just because you choose to bury your head in the sand doesn’t make them go away. I know I’ve asked you for several answers. Will that be too much for you to handle or should I summarize for you?
Natural law as seen and expounded upon by Vattel would qualify McCain as he would be “deemed” to be born in country because his father was overseas serving his nation not “quitting” it.
Natural law as seen and written by England would qualify McCain as he was the child of a citizen father.
Natural law as seen and written by America would qualify McCain as he was a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.
So....What principle of natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?
I posed this question to you a couple days ago...
WOW. You must be the one on the ropes. You posed no questions anywhere in your reply.
You presented a demand for something that couldn't be delivered as I explained.
I ask it...
Again, you didn't ask anything. You demanded something.
I stated that my children were NBC because of the following regulation:
Yes, that reply is @here.
I replied @here that "Natural born citizens need no statutes to make them such."
Regulations are statutes, aren't they?
Did I not make it clear that I was not a non citizen military member?
You made it clear that your children were @born to a British woman.
Then allmendream teaches you about Vattel in Post 308.
Really? In 308 I was merely shown one section of a book without benefit of the other contextual sections.
What does this quote have to do with returning soldiers?
Are you inferring that it only pertains to returning soldiers?
Then you go on to insult me because I had children overseas...
Really? This is what I said...I was smart enough not to have any kids born anywhere while in the military. (if that isn't it be sure to be specific on where I insulted you)
How is that insulting you?
When did that happen?
Which time?
I say, show me ANY statute that can make someone a natural born citizen.
I can't as none can. You're the one saying statutes made your children natural born citizens.
Will that be too much for you to handle or should I summarize for you?
Not at all. I even managed to provide links to better manage the conversation since it covers such a wide area.
Where do you get in U. S. law that McCain is a natural born citizen?
Where in U.S. law?
1401 - The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth
You say 1401 applies and it couldn't. 1401 wasn't written until 1952. He was born in '36. (I can play the "gotcha game" too)
What principle of natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?
It's many places and by many people. Do you really want a thorough listing? It could take some time.
You want me to answer Vattel as if you'll "get me" in a contradiction, but Vattel wasn't the only one to write about natural law, he is simply considered the most concise and definitive and that's why he's so often quoted.
Bang! Slam dunk - you lose.
Again: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
I wasn’t speaking of comma before the conjunction “But”. The word Who is not a conjunction. I was speaking of the comma before the word “who” as in “, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”.
In this case the “who” is a relative pronoun - Basic Principle: A pronoun usually refers to something earlier in the text (its antecedent) and must agree in number — singular/plural — with the thing to which it refers.
In the text in question the first “who” referrers to “foreigners and aliens” but the second “who” after the comma is a pronoun and the antecedent is “foreigners and aliens”.
But never mind our disagreement on grammar, you still didn’t address my question and the more important and relative issue at hand.
My father was born in Norway and legally immigrated to the US when he was about 6 years old. His parents were legal resident aliens. They, my grandparents, took up permanent residence in the US, held jobs, paid US taxes, bought a home in the US, they did not maintain any residence in Norway, did not have any income from nor did the pay any taxes to Norway. They and my father were subject to US jurisdiction.
Question 1. Was my father a “natural born” citizen? Answer. No. Of course not.
After Pearl Harbor as a young man of 18 years old, my father was drafted into the US Army even though he was not yet a “naturalized citizen”. He could have qualified for a deferrement as his job on a major railway as an apprentice carpenter qualified him as his work, according to the railroad, was considered “essential to the war effort” and I would guess some sort of security clearance was also required, but my dad thought it more important to serve his country – that country being the USA.
He served in the South Pacific in an infantry unit that saw brutal combat and suffered heavy casualties in the Solomon Islands and in the Philippines, was wounded twice, received two Purple Hearts and a metal of valor along with many combat ribbons, served with honor and distinction and received and honorable discharge in 1946.
Shortly after the war he met my mother who was born in the US to first generation US citizen parents (her grandparents immigrated from Germany BTW but somehow my mother didn’t support Germany in WWII). My parents got married in 1947 and in late 1948, my older brother was born. But at the time of my brother’s birth, in New Jersey, where my father and mother had bought a house and my father had started a small business on a GI loan, my father had not yet become a “naturalized” citizen. He had started the process but the wheels of government can move rather slowly.
Question: Was my brother born a US citizen or do you consider him an alien or foreigner?
Question: Was my father subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or No? Was my brother subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or no?
If you consider my brother a foreigner or alien because of my father not yet being a “naturalized citizen” when my brother was born, then please describe for me (and my brother please because he would be interested in knowing this) the process that my US born brother should have undergone to become a naturalized citizen. I’ve looked for what US law or code under which American born children can and should become naturalized and, gee, I couldn’t find anything.
And since my brother never underwent any such process, never reported himself to the INS, never registered himself as a resident alien, never got a green card and presumably committed fraud every time he filled out an I-9 form whenever he started a new job since he claimed to be a US citizen, can I also presume that his three children born in the US are not citizens either? And if they are not citizens, what about my brother’s 10 US born grandchildren? Are they also not US citizens?
Come to think of it, I might be the only US citizen in my entire family since I was born after my father was “naturalized”. Not to mention my two US born uncles and their children and grandchildren; my cousins.
I await your answer as I think this information (or your opinion) could make my family’s next Fourth of July cookout very interesting : ),
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.