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 ...
Someone born in Ireland is of Irish soil. Someone born in France is of French soil. Naturalization laws can't change that.
Jus soli, the "law (or right) of the soil", simply is and needs no law to be "put into effect".
Naturalization laws can't change where a person is born.
Naturalization laws allow someone to voluntarily change not only the place they live, but to whom it is that they pledge their allegiance.
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.
Oh, dear God! This isn't ENGLAND! This is AMERICA!
@DENIZEN, English law.
In the United States there is no such civil condition.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
7 FAM 1110 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION (CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
d. Until 1866, the citizenship status of persons born in the United States was not defined in the Constitution or in any federal statute. Under the common law rule of jus soli—the law of the soil-persons born in the United States generally acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.
e. This rule was made part of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Statutes at Large 27) and, 2 years later, it was adopted as part of the 14th Amendment which states, in part, that:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...”
f. The provisions of the Act of April 9, 1866 were reenacted in 1878 as Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes was repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940.
g. Section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940 provided that:
“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;
(b) A person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property.”
It is unfortunate that you would rather spew “birther” insults and your ignorance rather than some common decency and respect. It is nonetheless a fact that Norway’s citizenship laws provided for jus sanguinis citizenship laws for the children of Norwegian citizens born in other natons with competing eligibility for jus sanguinis rights of citizenship through the mother and/or jus soli citizenship for the palce of birth. There are limitatoins to the right to claim this Norwegian citizenship based upon a short time after reaching the age of majority and residency requirements to name just two such requirements. You can confirm by reading the Norwegian Government’s websites and/or the Wikipedia article on the subject of Norwegian citizenship.
Norway does require the renunciaton of another citizenship, whenever possible, when claiming Norwegian citizenship by jus sanguinis descent.
Assuming your father was a Norwegian citizen and your mother was a German citizen at the time your brother’s birth, he may also have had a right to claim German citizenship by right of jus sanguinis from your mother, but I would have to check the German laws egarding it. Since you are non-receptive to such information, I’ll let you decide whether or not you want to continue on in ignorance and deny the information.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 080 DUAL NATIONALITY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005) (Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country[....]
Side note: when I used to quote this State Department handbook in the years before 2009, it unequivocally noted that the U.S. Government did not recognize a right to dual citizenship, but it did acknowledge that other natons did so and U.S. Citizens claimed dual citizenship without U.S. Government recognition of such a practice. After the Obama Administration was inaugurated and Hillary Clinton became the new Secretary of state, the wording was changed to what you presently see. The old wording appears to have disappeared down the memory hole.
Jus soli, the “law (or right) of the soil”, simply is and needs no law to be “put into effect”.
You are mistaken about that in a number of ways. First jus soli is common-law because it arose from man-made customary laws typically associated with feudal law, the law in which fealty are personal relationships of duty and loyalty to an individual person. The doctrine of jus soli came into popularity during the Middle Ages as individual conquerors used the othas of fealty to gain the allegiance of widely disparate societies, populations, cultures, faiths, and places. Since there were often no or limited lines of descent from parentage and/or place in these feudal polities, the jus sanguinis doctrine was incapable of creating and maintaining the needed cohesiveness for the lord’s dominions. The jus soli doctrine was man-made to solve this problem and was used as feudal customary law and subsequently became the common-law of many societies.
Common-law in the United States after the American REvolution came to be codified in state statutory law and Federal statutory law. In particular jus soli citizenship rights were codified in U.S. Federal law with the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Statutes at Large 27) and the subsequent 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Yes, thank you. I’ve been using those resources and others for a number of years. The Avalon Project and Gutenberg Project are also quite useful.
No, REALLY?
You have obviously been so twisted to believe the federal government has the right to define EVERYTHING, that you haven't even been listening to anything.
You know those big leather-bound tomes lawyers have behind their desks? This is one of the guys who wrote them:
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. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
-----
In the United States there is no such civil condition.
Now, no. Why? BECAUSE THE 14TH AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUIONAL!
The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
William Rawle
---------
You are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish, but the next time you're forced to stand there with your organ in your hand while government gives preferential treatment to their chosen class of citizens, I do hope you'll think back to this little conversation and realize just what I was trying to get you to understand.
Until then, enjoy your unlimited government.
“U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth.”
So much for the naturalized AT birth argument. Under American law it is always one or the other - born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen.
Stop acting like a troll trying to disseminatte false propaganda. You’ve alreaddy been shown the historical evidence that naturalization “makes” an alien person a citizen subsequent to birth while denizaton and staturory jus soli “makes” an alien a citizen at birth by man-made law. Wheereas a natural born citizen is naturally a citizen at birth without anyone using a jus soli or jus sanguinis man-made law to make the person a citizen. Just because people have been careless and inconsistent in using the terminology does not mean the way they practiced the citizenship is any less valid.
Otherwise to remain consistent with historical usage of the term, you would have to ignore how they “deemed” and “reputed” aliens naturalized as citizens subsequent to their birth as the natural born citizen they were styled, which was at complete odds with the practice and intent of birth to two citizen parents within the sole allegiance of the sovereign.
The allegiance of the sovereign? That is laughable. You think people have a natural allegiance to a hereditary sovereign - or is it the natural right of people to be free?
An unborn child is not an alien or foreigner and when they are born a U.S. citizen they are not “naturalized”.
U.S. law consistently uses the language “born or naturalized as a citizen”. One or the other. One is either born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen.
If you are going to act willfully stupid, as if you had never heard of the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America “and the freedom for which she stands”, then you’re not worth anyone’s waste of time.
It takes a lot of stupidity to be a birther.
No wonder you seem to have trouble prevailing in court, or the court of public opinion, or in having any prominent conservative commentators or elected representatives sign on.
Oh - but that of course just shows how deep and pervasive the CONSPIRACY goes!!!!
LOL!
“when they are born a U.S. citizen they are not ‘naturalized’.”
They are made a citizen, just as a naturalized citizen is made a citizen. Since they are made citizens, they could not have been citizens before they were made citizens. Otherwise there would have been no reason to have a law, commnlaw or statutory law, to make the person a citizen at birth or subsequent to birth in the event they had been a citizen at birth without such a law.
A true natural born citizen is a citizen without the action of a jus soli or jus sanguinis law to make them a citizen at birth or subsequent to birth.
A person who is made a citizen at birth by act of a law as if they are naturalized at birth is by the action of law an unnatural citizen at birth and not a natural citizen at birth.!
So, now you are accusing such people as Queen Elizabeth I, Lord Edward Coke, Blackstone, and many others of such repute of being “birthers” in your crazed attempt to troll Free Republic.
A natural born citizen is one who through EITHER natural law concepts of jus soli or jus sanguinis and according to the natural law concept of “under the jurisdiction thereof” - is a citizen at birth.
Now you invent the concept of an “unnnatural citizen at birth” - unrecognized in U.S. law - or English law - or Vattel - and completely at odds with natural law.
One either has allegiance at birth through natural law or not. This natural allegiance at birth is recognized by granting the child citizenship at birth.
In the USA one is either born a citizen or one must be naturalized as a citizen. Being born a citizen in recognition of natural law concepts makes one a “natural born citizen”.
So where and by who is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?
You are the numbskull who denied that U.S. Citizens pledge their allegiance to the sovereign United States of America when you wrote: “The allegiance of the sovereign? That is laughable. You think people have a natural allegiance to a hereditary sovereign - or is it the natural right of people to be free?” That is exactly the kind of disloyal denial of allegiance to the Constitution and the sovereign People of the United States a person would expect from Obama supporters, Democrats and New World Order Republicans trying to erode or outright destroy the sovereign powers of U.S. Citizens loyal to the Constitution and the United States.
People have the natural right to be free - not natural allegiance to a sovereign.
So much for your understanding of the natural rights of man.
Just exactly what do you mean when you say, “in your crazed attempt to troll Free Republic”? Who the hell are you to make such a statement? As conservatives we must stick together. Sure we have our differences but it is you, sir, who is out in left field. It is you and your kind that are the trolls. Mainstream conservativism do not condone your views.
And let me also say that you can stick your blue blood ancestory where the sun doesn’t shine Whiskey. I don’t know you but I really do not like you based on the comments you have made on this thread. As far as I am concerned, the topic of all this, Rubio, is a very fine, dedicated and patriotic individual and the son of legal immigrants. He has demonstrated more loyalty to this country than you have. If he runs for VP or any office, he would have my vote based on his character. You haven’t proven your case that he isn’t eligible. In my opinion he is a greater American than you could ever hope to aspire to.
The term anchor baby doesn’t apply to a child born here to legal immigrants, especially immigrants who went on to get their citizenship. They would have remained to become citizens with or without having a child who was a US citizen.
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.