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 previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-420 next last
To: allmendream
It seems we find some examples going one way - and some going another...
Well what examples has them going another way?

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?

351 posted on 05/09/2012 8:18:13 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA; philman_36
It just occurred to me we may have been looking at this whole 'naturalization at birth' thing from the wrong angle. It isn't what the codes said at the time, or what they say now, or even whether or not the federal government has the authority to pass such legislation.

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.

352 posted on 05/09/2012 8:23:52 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
...and deemed born in country for such purposes...
Those are some interesting words.
What exactly do you mean by "deemed born in country for such purposes"? Are you talking about Senate Resolution 511?
353 posted on 05/09/2012 8:30:10 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“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.


354 posted on 05/09/2012 8:31:08 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Vattel as one example - goes the other way and carves out an exception to the absolute rule you are attempting to establish - because one born overseas to a soldier or diplomat cannot be considered to have parents who “quit” their home country.

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.

355 posted on 05/09/2012 8:31:51 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 351 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; HoneysuckleTN
Can a minor child personally sign a legally binding contract?

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.

356 posted on 05/09/2012 8:39:13 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Vattel 217 shows how McCain fit the criteria because he could not be considered as anything other than born in country according to Vattel.
As long as there are no laws stating otherwise as Vattel noted in
215 Children of citizens born in a foreign country...
...the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.

What was the law when McCain was born?

357 posted on 05/09/2012 8:47:33 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
So Vattel doesn't hold his principles as being above all law and existing outside time and space - he considers them subject to civil and political laws that may ordain otherwise.

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?

358 posted on 05/09/2012 8:52:18 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 357 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
His principle would be that McCain would be an indigenous native citizen - and thus natural born - because of his soldier father serving overseas.
You just close your eyes completely to 215, don't you.

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.

359 posted on 05/09/2012 9:01:58 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You just closed your mind completely to 217 didn't you - because 217 would make McCain eligible - according to Vattel.

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?

360 posted on 05/09/2012 9:18:09 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 359 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“Vattel as one example - goes the other way and carves out an exception to the absolute rule you are attempting to establish - because one born overseas to a soldier or diplomat cannot be considered to have parents who “quit” their home country.”

Once again you are making a false statement by misrepresentation of what Vattel wrote. The “reputed” makes the clear distinction that the person is “reputed” and not actually a natural born citizen.

“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.”

Your statement is false and obviously so because “reputed” to be a natural born citizen clearly indicates the person is not a natural born citizen who is nonetheless treated and thereby “reputed” as if they were a natural born citizen.

“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.”

Now there are statements so replete with your repeated ad nauseum falsehoods as to exasperate the most patient of people. As you have been shown so many times before, the English commentators such as Lord Coke, Blackstone, and others all recognized the differences between a subject made and a subject born while observing the subject made was “deemed” or as Vattel described “reputed” to be natural born citizens, whereas an actual or true natural born citizen was described as a subject born and not as a subject made. You are essentially attempting to deceive and lie by the omission of what the legal commentators fully had to say about the differences between an actual natural born subject or citizen versus a person styled as a natural born citizen despite not actually being a natural born citizen.

The lawyers of the United States were variously accustomed to practicing the customs and laws of the American colonies in North America. These customs and laws embraced first and foremost the customs and laws created in the American colonies separately and often uniquely from any European or other source of custom and law. Generally speaking, these American customs and laws were sometimes adapted from English, French, Dutch, Spanish, German, Swedish, and Amerindian customs and laws; but they were nonetheless continued forward with adaptations and inclusions of natural law and American innovations. To characterize the American jurisprudence as being dominated by precedents in English custom and law is a major falsehood and gross misrepresentaton of the reality of an independent American legal system.

“So where IS there an example of an authority establishing the concrete criteria you so desperately need that would render McCain ineligible?”

The irreducible fact requiring no sovereign order, public law, or legal statute to recognize the commonsense reality that a child born with no obligation of allegiance or loyalty to more than one sovereign is born in nature with only one possible allegiance to the one sovereign of the child's parents. Any condition in which citizenship is conferred by a man-made act results in an unnatural born citizen, whether or not the unnatural born citizen is afforded the courtesy title of being “reputed” or “deemed” as if the child were a natural born citizen.

“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.”

That is nothing more than your false assertions based upon your own false statements and deliberate misrepresentations of the quotations.

361 posted on 05/09/2012 9:22:49 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
You just closed your mind completely to 217 didn't you - because 217 would make McCain eligible - according to Vattel.
Not at all. I read 217 in context with 215.
That is what you're not doing.

American law when McCain was born was that he was a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.
Now see, you're digging on that hole again. What law are you talking about? The Immigration Act of 1924?
Natural born citizens need no "law" to be natural born citizens.

362 posted on 05/09/2012 9:28:36 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Yes, citizenship obtained by the act of a naturalization law is the definition of unnatural born citizenship, which is the exact opposite of natural born citizenship.


363 posted on 05/09/2012 9:33:10 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I see you’ve met the kneepad obamanoid who staunchly defends little barry bastard’s illegitimacy almost daily at FR. The plea will now be ‘just because I (insert latest version of the spittlegeist), you accuse me of being an obamnoid’, trying to cover its exposure.


364 posted on 05/09/2012 9:35:44 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Even when I warn him about digging a hole he takes hand to shovel yet again..

Thanks for addressing his "concerns" at #361.
As you said, he can exasperate the most patient of people.

365 posted on 05/09/2012 9:44:20 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
According to you 217 has no context or bearing on the criteria established in 215.

Did Vattel write 217 for no reason then? What was the purpose and meaning of 217 if not to recognize the natural law concept that a soldier or diplomat serving his nation overseas did not “quit” his nation and thus his children are to be considered under natural law as being born in country?

Does that concept of natural law not exist outside of time and space and above all law immortal and immutable in the same way as you think Vattel 215 does?

How do you ignore the natural law concept that a person serving their nation overseas has not “quit” his nation?

The same way you ignore English law and their concept of “natural born” - the same way you ignore American law - the same way you ignore everything and anything that contradicts your reading of Vattel 215 - even the passage two down from it - Vattel 217.

So WHERE and WHEN and by WHO is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?

366 posted on 05/09/2012 9:50:38 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 362 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
It "applies to" the parents and is "applicable upon" the children.

While we may understand the concept, perhaps some people find the similarity of the words apply and applicable to be confusing.

The only way to rephrase it while still maintaining the meaning, IMHO, might be to say:

It "applies to" the parents but is "operable upon" the children.

367 posted on 05/09/2012 9:53:46 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
According to you 217 has no context or bearing on the criteria established in 215.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Did Vattel write 217 for no reason then?
Did Vattel write 215 for no reason then? And why did he write it, and place it, before 217?

Does that concept of natural law not exist outside of time and space and above all law immortal and immutable in the same way as you think Vattel 215 does?
Which concept are you speaking about?

How do you ignore the natural law concept that a person serving their nation overseas has not “quit” his nation?
Where have I done so?

So WHERE and WHEN and by WHO is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?
It's already before you and you've refused see it.
Asking your question over and over again isn't going to cure you of your self imposed blindness.

368 posted on 05/09/2012 10:10:13 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
It "applies to" the parents but is "operable upon" the children.
Okay. Thanks for that.
369 posted on 05/09/2012 10:12:17 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Still waiting...

American law when McCain was born was that he was a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.
What law are you talking about? The Immigration Act of 1924?
It isn't USC 8 Section 1401 as you said earlier, as he was born before it was enacted, so which law is it?

370 posted on 05/09/2012 10:19:14 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

So WHERE and WHEN and by WHO is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?

Still waiting.


371 posted on 05/09/2012 10:20:23 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 370 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So WHERE and WHEN and by WHO is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?

Since you believe that American law made McCain a natural born citizen I don't believe anyone could ever answer your question to your satisfaction.

Just one more in the long line of your many "gotcha" questions.

372 posted on 05/09/2012 10:27:36 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Will it take a hundred replies before you too 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"?

Or will yours be much quicker?

373 posted on 05/09/2012 10:30:46 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Yes, more than one, andand not the first time. The chores of Atlas.


374 posted on 05/09/2012 11:00:01 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
So my obvious question is...what did I get wrong this time?

I honestly don't think it's wrong so much as all of us have been mislead.

In your earlier post, when speaking of Vattel:

215 Children of citizens born in a foreign country... ...the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.

That's quite true....BUT

The federal government is neither a civil or political entity, it is an 'administrative organ' [as Tucker put it] made to operate ONLY in designated areas.

One designated area is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Nowhere in that clause is found the word 'citizenship'. That's because the citizenship the Constitution speaks of, whether natural born OR naturalized, does not emanate from the federal government, it emanates from the civil States.

So Vattel's words DO apply, they just don't apply to what most people think they do.....the federal government.

---------

Civil and administrative are two totally separate kinds of 'law'. The Founders used them purposefully to 'secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their Posterity'.

The only other option would be to believe that the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred Honor and then fought a War just to write down less than 5000 and trust the judgment of the people elected to do the 'right thing'.

------

Be that as it may [and IMHO] McCain would be eligible according to Vattel's § 217.

Natural born citizenship is inherited. The location of that inheritance doesn't matter.

375 posted on 05/09/2012 11:18:51 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The federal government is neither a civil or political entity, it is an 'administrative organ' [as Tucker put it] made to operate ONLY in designated areas.
Well the federal government does write/create both civil and administrative law in such designated areas, doesn't it?

Civil and administrative are two totally separate kinds of 'law'.
Neither type leap into existence of their own accord.

Be that as it may [and IMHO] McCain would be eligible according to Vattel's § 217.
Are you saying that he would be eligible only in connection to that one section and without the contextual reading of the other preceding sections?

Natural born citizenship is inherited. The location of that inheritance doesn't matter.
So to you only jus sanguinis applies to natural born citizenship and jus soli has no bearing at all?

376 posted on 05/09/2012 11:38:49 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Nowhere in that clause is found the word 'citizenship'.
Well, IMO, that's as bad a statement as saying that natural born citizenship isn't defined in the Constitution.
The naturalization process is about granting citizenship, isn't it?

That's because the citizenship the Constitution speaks of, whether natural born OR naturalized, does not emanate from the federal government, it emanates from the civil States.
It seems to me that the word "uniform" discounts your assertion. Don't naturalization laws have to be "uniform" from State to State and require a standard for all?
I understand a citizen of one State can move to another State. I also understand that I become a Citizen of that State as I'm domiciled there (unless I retain property in Texas and then I'm still a Texas Citizen). However, I'll always be a Texan in my heart no matter where I live due to being born here.
As I've said in the past...
@I'm not a Texan because I'm an American.
I'm an American because I'm a Texan.

So am I not a U. S. Citizen as well as a Texas Citizen or a Citizen of whichever State in which I live?

377 posted on 05/09/2012 12:00:30 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Got to take the opportunity to go run some errands. Back later.


378 posted on 05/09/2012 12:04:09 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Well the federal government does write/create both civil and administrative law in such designated areas, doesn't it?

Sort of. The Administrative authority is outlined by the Constitution. The only other authority is municipal, and is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)

The seat of the general government is not a civil 'State' as are the other States, it was designed on the Roman city/state. It's why it's called the District of Columbia.

In fact, the only place you could be a citizen of the United States PRIOR to the 14th Amendment was to be inside the District itself.

§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

-----

Neither type leap into existence of their own accord.

Well of course they didn't.

-----

So to you only jus sanguinis applies to natural born citizenship and jus soli has no bearing at all?

The only difference between them is 'jus sanguinis ' is only inheritable by blood, and 'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws.

My biggest point is that the federal government has no jurisdiction to pass those 'laws' concerning citizenship to begin with since theirs was authority over making a rule, not implementing a law.

-----

The entire nationalization of naturalization concept is unconstitutional, IMHO.

379 posted on 05/09/2012 12:10:03 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
“So to you only jus sanguinis applies to natural born citizenship and jus soli has no bearing at all?”

“The only difference between them is ‘jus sanguinis ‘ is only inheritable by blood, and ‘jus soli’ is only acquirable by laws.”

The doctrine of jus sanguinis arises from the man-made tradition in the civil code of Rome, whereas the jus soli doctrine arises from the man-made feudal law tradition made popular in the feudal societies. Both legal traditions and principles were man-made laws and thereby unnatural methods of determining the citizenship of persons at birth and/or after birth. The law of nature by contrast is applied in the absence of and contrary to man-made and unnatural laws. The legal doctrine of jus sanguinnis is sometimes less restrictive than the natural law of natural born citizenship, and its is sometimes more restrictive than the natural law of natural born citizenship. The application of jus sanguinnis sometimes contemplates only one citizen parent and/or birth not on the soil of the parent nation, and other times contemplates citizenship only for the great-grandchild or greater citizen great-granparents or even 5th generation great-grandparents. yet, the natural law only requires the parents to be citizens.

The natural born citizen doctrine is therefore neither the man-made common-law or statutory laws of jus soli or jus sanguinnis.

380 posted on 05/09/2012 12:35:19 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; MamaTexan
...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.


Oh, no, I never meant to suggest that you were not expressing it correctly. (I don't know enough about constitutional law or legalese to do that!) I only meant to offer alternate wording for clarification. I failed. MamaTexan's rephrasing at #367 works much better than mine.

Thank you, MamaTexan.
381 posted on 05/09/2012 12:54:23 PM PDT by HoneysuckleTN (Where the woodbine twineth... || FUBO! OMG! ABO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Well, IMO, that's as bad a statement as saying that natural born citizenship isn't defined in the Constitution.

That's right, it isn't. Nor should it be as the definition of natural born is ultra vires, or outside the legal scope and authority of Man, and thus, Man's creation known as 'government'.

-----

The naturalization process is about granting citizenship, isn't it?

Yes the process is, but the general government was never granted the jurisdiction over the entire 'process' of naturalization. Only to make a uniform Rule for it. By the wording of the constitutional article itself, there must have already been a 'process' for naturalization in place, and their was.

By the common law of England, only the King could make denizens, but in America, we have no King.....but we did have Sovereign States.

A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. In the states of Kentucky and Virginia, the privileges of alien friends depended upon the constitution of each state, the acts of their respective legislatures, and the common law; by these they were considered, according to the time of their residence, and their having complied with certain requisitions pointed out by these laws, either as denizens, or naturalized citizens. As denizens, they were placed in a kind of middle state between aliens and natural born citizens; by naturalization, they were put exactly in the same condition that they would have been, if they had been born within the state, except so far as was specially excepted by the laws of each state. The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever.
St. George Tucker

The making of the rule for naturalization is a process that can begin only after the State has made them denizens.

-----

It seems to me that the word "uniform" discounts your assertion. Don't naturalization laws have to be "uniform" from State to State and require a standard for all?

Yes. Although again we have the difference between rule making and rule implementation.

------

However, I'll always be a Texan in my heart no matter where I live due to being born here.

There are probably a lot of us that feel that way. :-)

-----

So am I not a U. S. Citizen as well as a Texas Citizen or a Citizen of whichever State in which I live?

It's more like -

Because you are a Citizen of the State of Texas, you are a citizen of the united States.

382 posted on 05/09/2012 1:08:29 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The natural born citizen doctrine is therefore neither the man-made common-law or statutory laws of jus soli or jus sanguinnis.

Well you've certainly got me on the Roman history part, but I was speaking more on the conceptual origins of the terms as they immigrated from England.

The law of nature by contrast is applied in the absence of and contrary to man-made and unnatural laws.

I wasn't speaking of the laws of nature as meaning that of base humanity, I was speaking of the Laws of Nature and Nations by Vattel, i.e. Natural Law.

There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries

383 posted on 05/09/2012 1:29:22 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: HoneysuckleTN
I only meant to offer alternate wording for clarification. I failed.

LOL! They were both fine, but you're welcome.

384 posted on 05/09/2012 1:33:56 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“Well you’ve certainly got me on the Roman history part, but I was speaking more on the conceptual origins of the terms as they immigrated from England.”
The terms are Latin and are common to everyplace and every society which at one time was subject to and the inheritor of Latin custom and law. The North American Colonies inherited some of their customary law and statutory law from English, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, and Swedish colonies and communities incorporated tinto the United States, while much of the common-law and statutory law was original to the American Colonial and later State and Federal courts and governments. Although Vattel was an important contributor of the natural law concepts, he was by no means the only source of the natural law concepts. No small part of the natural law concepts arrived in America along with the first English, French, Dutch, Swedish, and German colonists and their first colonial charters. The United Provinces of the Netherlands of the Dutch republic were a notable inspiration for these earliest colonists. The Dutch even to this day do not have a national citizenship, relying instead upon municipal forms of citizenship. The concepts behind jus soli and jus sanguinis were applied with varying specifics by ancient Rome and ancient Greece just as they were by the later societies of England, the rest of Britain and Europe, and America. It is because these are man-made and unnatural laws that they are subject to so many variatons in specifics and applications.

So-called natural law too has been the subject of many schools of thought and application over the millenia from Plato and Aristotle to the Framers of the Constitution of the United States. The differences in opinion and application, however, was reduced to a simple and easy to understand application by the reliance of the Framers of the Constitution upon legal commentators as Vattel, Blackstone, Coke, and others in their efforts to implement their intent to exclude any person whose allegiance at birth could potentially compromise loyalty to the sovereign People of the United States to the exclusion of all other sovereigns. Due to the nature of fealty and feudal law with respect to jus soli and jus sanguinis, there is but one possible definition which accomplishes the intent of the Framers. The legal doctrine of jus sanguinis, being a law in the civil code, can and often does authorize the granting of citizenship to a person born outside the allegiance of the sovereign and the soil of the nation granting the citizenship, which is contrary to the intent of the Framers, whereas true natural born citizenship does not permit by its very definition the possibility of conflicting allegiances and loyalties. at birth.


385 posted on 05/09/2012 2:27:40 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I understand what you're saying, especially about laws applying outside of DC when they're only supposed to apply to only those inside DC.

The only difference between them is 'jus sanguinis ' is only inheritable by blood, and 'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws.
We'll just have to disagree on the jus sanguinis/jus soli aspect then as, to me, it appears that both apply.
I defer to Mario Apuzzo...'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is (if you haven't read it before...it's long)

Throughout American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen, it was not English common law but the law of nations that became United States common law that defined a “natural born Citizen.” It defined such a citizen as being born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our federal common law. It is this definition that creates subsequent generation “citizens” who are “natural born Citizens.” They are subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father who are citizens.
386 posted on 05/09/2012 2:28:41 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The legal doctrine of jus sanguinis, being a law in the civil code, can and often does authorize the granting of citizenship to a person born outside the allegiance of the sovereign and the soil of the nation granting the citizenship, which is contrary to the intent of the Framers, whereas true natural born citizenship does not permit by its very definition the possibility of conflicting allegiances and loyalties. at birth.

Yes, the Framers were very specific about the Presidential qualifications.

The rest of your post contained some interesting information. I'd only researched the law of nations concept as written by Vattel, Pufendorf, and Grotius.

387 posted on 05/09/2012 2:35:57 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The legal doctrine of jus sanguinis, being a law in the civil code, can and often does authorize the granting of citizenship to a person born outside the allegiance of the sovereign and the soil of the nation granting the citizenship, which is contrary to the intent of the Framers, whereas true natural born citizenship does not permit by its very definition the possibility of conflicting allegiances and loyalties. at birth.

Yes, the Framers were very specific about the Presidential qualifications.

The rest of your post contained some interesting information. I'd only researched the law of nations concept as written by Vattel, Pufendorf, and Grotius.

388 posted on 05/09/2012 2:36:09 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: HoneysuckleTN
I only meant to offer alternate wording for clarification. I failed.
IMO you didn't fail at all. I was just trying to get more info/commentary, not less.

MamaTexan's rephrasing at #367 works much better than mine.
I would agree. That doesn't make your suggested usage any less "applicable". {;^)

Some people may not understand no matter what is used.

389 posted on 05/09/2012 2:36:09 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

One of the rather interesting implicatons is the way in which the Framers so confdently consulted varous legal authorities, analyzed the basis for their commentaries on citizenship, and then concluded the natural born citizen clause as their own unique application of the natural law principles in a basic definition accomplishing the exclusion they intended. I’d wager they would be shaking their head sin disbelief to see their straightforward thinking being so badly misrepesented and misapplied today.


390 posted on 05/09/2012 2:40:41 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Because you are a Citizen of the State of Texas, you are a citizen of the united States.
Pretty much what I implied with this...
I'm not a Texan because I'm an American.
I'm an American because I'm a Texan.

And yet this is where you've got me confused on your view of the jus sanguinis/jus soli aspect.
You say...'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws. and yet I don't see that in action here.

Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law.

391 posted on 05/09/2012 2:50:05 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
(if you haven't read it before...it's long)

LOL! It is loong, and yes, I've read it.

I still don't agree. Tucker specifically stated otherwise, and honestly, I can see no difference in Vattel's and Blackstone's definitions.

Besides, Apuzzo IS a lawyer, so I really don't expect an Officer of the Court to ADMIT the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional, do you? ;-)

392 posted on 05/09/2012 3:03:55 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Pretty much what I implied with this...

LOL! I know. I was just being persnickity about your having the federal citizenship before the State one.

-----

Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law.

Assuming your parents are citizens, you'd be a jus sanguinis one.

From my understanding, the Original Intent was that jus soli citizenship was just the naturalized kind of citizenship and the intention to BE naturalized had to be consciously made....which means children couldn't be naturalized without their parents appling for citizenship.

393 posted on 05/09/2012 3:11:30 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

No the framers are shaking their heads because you birthers have no clue. They didn’t define NBC because they thought it would be obvious. Minor v. Happerset had it exactly right:

” The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar...”

If the Framers of the Constitution didn’t rely on our ENGLISH heritage and the common law for the meaning of “natural born citizen,” then why the heck did they choose to use a specific legal term which was found in the common law and no place else?

And if they were referring to Vattel’s concept, then why the heck didn’t they use Vattel’s terms — and state that the President had to be “a natural,” or “an indigene?”


394 posted on 05/09/2012 3:37:51 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I was just being persnickity about your having the federal citizenship before the State one.
I never placed my State second.

I'm not a Texan because I'm an American.
I'm an American because I'm a Texan. (second sentence is key as it places Texan first)

Assuming your parents are citizens, you'd be a jus sanguinis one.
IMO you've evaded with that reply. You've evaded once already and I've let you slide. Not again.

I'm not asking about jus sanguinis. I don't want a comment on jus sanguinis. I'm asking only about jus soli.

Because you are a Citizen of the State of Texas, you are a citizen of the united States.
You say...'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws. and yet I don't see that in action here.

Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law? (I've made it a question this time)

What "law" made me a jus soli Citizen of Texas"?
You have the handle MamaTexan so show me in our Texas statutes which specific law that is.

395 posted on 05/09/2012 5:56:46 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
...and then concluded the natural born citizen clause as their own unique application of the natural law principles in a basic definition accomplishing the exclusion they intended.
That to me is key. They used such a wide variety of people while picking and choosing the best from each of them, as it were.

Who even bothers any more to learn that they used @THE SPIRIT OF LAWS by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu as one of their references? Not too many.

And that's just from one man. They used the works of over thirty different peoples.

396 posted on 05/09/2012 6:06:08 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; WhiskeyX
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.

Interesting. I’ll have to look again at my father’s naturalization document, I’ll pull it out of the safe deposit box when I have time. But I do not recall seeing anything in that document regarding my brother. You would think that if my brother was indeed an alien resident at birth, he would have some sort of naturalization papers in his own right and in his possession as legally it would be important for him to prove his citizenship if he didn’t have it from birth. And if my mother had been the resident alien and my father the born US citizen, are you saying that my brother would have been a born citizen and wouldn’t require any sort of naturalization after birth? I don’t see that, the paternal vs. maternal clause anywhere in the Constitution or in the 14th Amendment.

What you are referring to as to “the minor children become naturalized citizens when the father (parent or parents) becomes a naturalized citizen” pertains only to the minor children of the naturalized citizen who were born outside of the US before the parent’s naturalization, not those of the children born in the US. Those born in the US do not require naturalization. Yes, if my brother had been born in Norway and while he was still a minor, when my father became naturalized, then yes my father’s naturalization would apply to his non-US born children and in that case, my brother would possess his own naturalization documentation and papers to that effect.

No, that's one thing that naturalized AND natural born citizens have in common....ALL their children are natural-born.

But what if my father wasn’t naturalized until after my brother got married and had children and grandchildren or my father never became naturalized or died suddenly before the naturalization process was complete. In that case, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that my brother, his children and all his grandchildren and all their children and so on would all be resident aliens and would all have to apply for US citizenship?

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.

BS! My brother was never a Norwegian citizen. And if you insist that he was then kindly describe in detail and with references to US law (and not just the typical birther navel gazing and quotations from Vatell, a Swiss philosopher who may have had some influence on the founders but did not write nor sign the US Constitution), exactly how my brother at the age of majority (21 at the time) should have gone about affirming his US citizenship and repudiating his supposed Norwegian citizenship. Would that have required him to swear an oath in front of a judge? Swear a notarized affidavit? Placed an ad in the local newspaper stating he really, really, really didn’t want to be a Norwegian anymore? Travel to Norway in person and personally refute his Norwegian citizenship? And if he traveled outside the US before this supposedly required affirmation of his US citizenship, would he have had to get a US passport or a Norwegian passport or both? When he got his draft notice during Vietnam at the age of 20, could he have gone to the draft board and claimed that as a Norwegian citizen and not yet attained the age of majority, that he was exempt? I somehow think that wouldn’t have worked.

This whole argument reminds me of what I experienced after my father died. His entire estate was valued at less than $10,000 and my attorney advised me that as a “small estate” and being that I was a signatory on my father’s account and his executor, I didn’t have to open an “estate account” with his bank. He even warned me that the bank might try to make me open one as there were some pretty hefty bank fees associated opening one, but that I didn’t have to and shouldn’t be pressured into doing so.

When I went to the bank to deposit an insurance settlement check (from a previous car accident unrelated to his death), the bank teller insisted that I couldn’t deposit the check as it was made out to the “estate of” and that I had to open a special estate account that my attorney warned me about. I presented the paperwork my attorney provided, the court filing that stated it was a “small estate” and explained to her why I didn’t have to open an “estate account”.

She just looked at me with a blank stare for at time and then said, “No, you have to open an estate account”. When I asked her to explain why, she said, and I quote, “Well, like it’s sorta, like kinda like a law”.

I politely schooled her on the fact that there is no such thing as “sorta, like kinda like a law”; it’s either a law or it isn’t, there is no grey area. And then I requested to speak with the bank manager. After she looked at the paperwork, she agreed that I was correct and that didn’t have to open an estate account.

Here is a pretty good explanation of citizenship.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The whole “birther” argument pinges on the “sorta, like kinda like a law”, but not on the actual law.

And furthermore, when my father took the oath of enlistment, IMO he became a citizen and the judge who presided in his naturalization, thought the same, saying it was merely a “formality” as my father proved and affirmed his US citizenship with his military service:

Oath of Enlistment:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

397 posted on 05/09/2012 6:14:55 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
An excellent resource...@Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

Note that it is www.constitution.org, not www.constitution.net
.net has, IMO, some very questionable material there.

398 posted on 05/09/2012 6:25:34 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
IMO you've evaded with that reply. You've evaded once already and I've let you slide. Not again.

I wasn't trying to 'slide' on anything.I was under the impression you were asking about the differences.

-----

I don't want a comment on jus sanguinis. I'm asking only about jus soli.

Fair enough.

NEXT TIME however, you'd like to restrict the subject to a specific part of a specific topic, DO be kind enough to inform the other person instead of just copping an attitude about it, okay?

-----

You say...'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws. and yet I don't see that in action here.

What do you think the 'naturalization laws' are?

-----

Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law? (I've made it a question this time)

Under my impression of Original Intent, you are not a jus soli citizen of the State of Texas, and it is man made law because it is based on English common law and requires the process of denizenation.

-----

What "law" made me a jus soli Citizen of Texas"? You have the handle MamaTexan so show me in our Texas statutes which specific law that is.

I don't recall saying there CURRENTLY were any laws to make you a jus soli citizen of Texas, just that Constitutionally, that was the way it was supposed to work.

399 posted on 05/09/2012 6:37:20 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

No wonder you're so screwed up in your thinking.
See comment at 398 pertaining to www.usconstitution.net.

Try visiting @www.usconstitution.org instead.

400 posted on 05/09/2012 6:38:32 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-420 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