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 ...
@I hope you are both smart enough to know I'm sending you on a fools mission (and I mean that respectfully).
A fool's errand? You ask for that which nobody is able to provide as it doesn't exist in the manner you desire.
That's why you've framed your request in the manner in which you have.
Bang! I predicted your eventual reaction way back at #250...
@And you'll inevitably hoot, holler, jump for joy while doing "the happy dance" in some faux celebration and say, "See! They can't show me what I want in the manner that I want so I won the argument. "
You're so predictable.
Just some links that I thought ya'll might find of use.
The distinction shared among all the legal commentators was the difference between the person being made a citizen at birth by a man-made act or statute of public law versus the person born a citizen at birth without a man-made act or statute of public law. In the absence of the man-made public law regarding naturalization of aliens in the United States, your brother was the natural born son of a father possessing Norwegian citizenship, but the man-made U.S. public law regarding naturalization intervened to make your brother a statutory citizen of the United States.
If your parents had both been naturalized citizens at the time of your brother's birth within the jurisdiction of the United States (soil), he would have been a natural born citizen of the United States, because no other sovereign would have any claim of obligation upon your brother's allegiance or loyalty upon his birth.
Because your brother was born with his father's natural born citizenhip (jus sanguinis), your brother was born with a natural obligation of allegiance and loyalty to the sovereign of Norway, but the man-made naturalization laws of the United States also granted your brother man-made or statutory U.S. citizenship at birth which only at the age of majority your brother could affirm as a U.S. Citizen or repudiate as a Norwegian Citizen. Because of the duality of conflicting obligations of allegiance and loyalty to more than one sovereign at birth, your brother was not a natural born citizen of the United States, but he was a statutory citizen or native born citizen of the United States by right of statute and not by right of birth.
Unless there was something in the codes at the time concerning automatic naturalization for military service, your brother would have taken the condition of the father, so he, too, would have been an alien resident at birth.
But, in continuation of the 'taking the condition of the father', minor children become naturalized citizens when the father becomes a naturalized citizen....just like Rubio was.
Any children born after the father's naturalization was complete would, of course, be natural born.
--------
Question: Was my father subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or No? Was my brother subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or no?
That depends. Are you talking about the Original jurisdiction intended by the Founders, or the 'popular' notion of jurisdiction conceived after the 14th Amendment?
I'm not trying to be evasive, it's just that there have been entire threads on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means
---------
I also presume that his three children born in the US are not citizens either?
No, that's one thing that naturalized AND natural born citizens have in common....
ALL their children are natural-born.
---------
I await your answer as I think this information (or your opinion) could make my family’s next Fourth of July cookout very interesting : )
LOL! You have no idea what kind of wild conversations my imagination just came up with!
------
Pardon my curiosity, but have you been studying the natural born / naturalized citizen issue for a long time, or is your interest a recent one?
So by the most often quoted definition of “natural born” among birthers - McCain would be qualified.
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 seems we find some examples going one way - and some going another - all some combination of the natural law concepts of allegiance at birth due to parentage or place of birth - because there is not ONE definitive definition held outside law and time and space - immortal and immutable.
So my obvious question is...what did I get wrong this time?
No, you are deliberately misrepresenting what Vattel wrote.
“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Consequently, your entire analysis is misbegotten upon fallacious assumptions and equally fallacious in conclusions.
McCain was not “born in the country of parents who are citizens,” however he was born as a statutory U.S. Citizen by operation of man-made U.S. statutory law instead of the law of nature.
Vattel also said that children born of soldiers serving overseas are “reputed” born in country for such purposes as ascribing natural born allegiance and CANNOT be considered as having parents who “quitted” their country.
That is exactly what I mean by saying that birthers have elevated Vattel - or more properly only ONE SENTENCE of Vattel - into some pre-foundation founder whose pronouncements (well one sentence) is above all law, and exists outside of time and space immortal and immutable.
McCain was born of parents who are citizens - and deemed born in country for such purposes according to Vattel.
So where is this “law of nature” written down - and by who - where McCain would not be an idigenous and native citizen and thus natural born?
Because according to Vattel - McCain would be an indigenous or native citizen.
This is not misrepresentation - this is what Vattel wrote.
Vattel 217:
“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”
If one does use Vattel 212 specifically - The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. - it seems that McCain couldn't be a natural born citizen.
Or are you contending that McCain was born in a military hospital despite evidence that he couldn't have been born in a military hospital as it wasn't even authorized to be built until after he was born.
...because there is not ONE definitive definition held outside law and time and space - immortal and immutable.
Well that seems to be the issue then, doesn't it.
Some would argue that Justice Waite did just that in Minor vs Happersett. You obviously don't agree as your past replies have indicated. Shall I provide a reminder?
If you believe We the People are Sovereign, the question should be -
Can a minor child personally sign a legally binding contract?
If the answer is 'no', then it matters not whether the contract is offered, as no legal implied or expressed acceptance of it can ever occur.
Nor would the alien/foreign parents have the standing to sign such a contract on their child's behalf, as they are among the excluded classes of the intent of the 14th Amendment.
The above, of course, should not be confused with the legitimate legal concept of derivation, where a child becomes a naturalized citizen when the parent, with knowledge and consent, has completed the naturalization process to become a citizen himself.
------
IMHO, the entire legalistic perversion by the federal government of the naturalization-at-birth concept is for no other reason that to control the quality and quantity of the populace.
“You are willfully ignoring the “reputed” part of Vattel’s statement. Vattel’s “reputed” is consistent with the writings of the other legal commentators in recognizing the differences between a subject made or citizen made versus a subject born or a citizen born, and usage of “reputed” and “deemed” by these commentators explicitly reference status as a man-made by public law citizen versus an actual and true natural born citizen who requires nothing to make them “reputed” or “deemed” to have rights the same as or similar to a true natural born citizen. Vattel’s remark using “reputed” is clear evidence of the dichotomy. The Framers of the Constitution had the intent of excluding any person who was born with a natural born obligation for an allegiance and loyalty to any sovereign other than the People of the United States. Any person born in the jurisdictoin of a sovereign who claims the allegiance and loyalty at birth of any child other than those of alien enemies or alien friends under the liegance of their own sovereign defeats the intent of the Framers of the Constitution despite being “reputed” to otherwise having the same rights as a true natural born citizen. A true natural born citizen does not have to be “reputed” or “deemed” to be a natural born citizen to be a true natural born citizen. So, once again, you are misrepresenting what Vattel wrote and how the Framers of the Constitution applied his stated principle to achieve the intent of exclusion.
Vattel 212 - indigenous or native citizens - translated after the Constitution to “natural born” - establishes the criteria - Vattel 217 shows how McCain fit the criteria because he could not be considered as anything other than born in country according to Vattel.
Another example going another way is English law - where the child of any parentage born under the authority of England was “natural born”. No translation needed for that one - they said “natural born” in the language and the law our founders were familiar with and the law our founders who were lawyers practiced under.
So where IS there an example of an authority establishing the concrete criteria you so desperately need that would render McCain ineligible?
Vattel’s criteria were not as concrete as you wish - he showed where someone born out of country would fit the criteria under the natural law concept that one serving his nation overseas has not “quit” his nation in the same way as someone who went overseas for his own interests.
Well then maybe you'll be able to better put into words what I meant here...The law is "applicable upon" the children, it "applies to" the parents.
As HoneysuckleTN @intimated the other day I may not be expressing it correctly.
What was the law when McCain was born?
His principle would be that McCain would be an indigenous native citizen - and thus natural born - because of his soldier father serving overseas.
The English principle would be that McCain would be natural born because of his citizen father.
The American principle would be that McCain would be a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.
So WHERE and by WHO is natural born citizen defined such that McCain wouldn't be eligible?
Once again...What was the law when McCain was born?
I've even given you the link to find out at @reply 343.
Here it is again for your convenience...@Immigration Act of 1924
Be sure to read Sec. 4. and Sec. 4. (c) carefully.
Vattel 217 shows how McCain would be a native or indigenous citizen under the criteria established in 215.
American law when McCain was born was that he was a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen. American law says over and over again “Born or naturalized as a citizen” - one is either one or the other.
Under the English concept of natural law - McCain would be “natural born” because of his citizen father.
Under the American concept of natural law - McCain would be “natural born” because of his citizen parents.
Under Vattel’s concept of natural law - McCain would be a native indigenous “natural born” citizen because his father's service means he could not be considered as having been born outside the nation.
So under whose concept of natural law would McCain be ineligible and where and when was it written?
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.