Posted on 03/12/2015 12:32:49 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Many people have said that there is a third category. Here’s an example: “The Fourteenth Amendment and a natural born citizen”
http://birthers.org/USC/14.html
Those supporting such a distinction haven’t yet been able to convince a 21st century judge or members of Congress of a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States at birth.
Naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship at birth.
ineligibility bump
No, “naturalization statutes” definitely do NOT confer citizenship at birth.
Title 8 of the U.S. Code is entitled “Aliens and Nationality.” It covers who is an alien and who has American nationality.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8
Chapter 12 of Title 8 covers the law of the land on Immigration and on Nationality. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12
Subchapter 3 in Chapter 12 has a Part I which defines “Nationality From Birth and Collective Naturalization” which is the way a person is born an American citizen and the way persons born in the territories, such as Puerto Rico or the American Virgin Islands become citizens.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III/part-I
The key section in Part 1 is Section 1401, entitled “Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth” which clearly spells out exactly who is born an American citizen. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
There is nothing about naturalization in Section 1401.
Subchapter 3 in Chapter 12 also has a Part 2 which is the law of the land on becoming a naturalized American citizen. There is nothing about Citizens of the United States At Birth in Part 2.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III/part-II
"An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization"
Sec. 3 [] the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States
A naturalization statute conferring citizenship at birth. Q.E.D.
Question! Did you post these citations to make a case/argument for or against aspects of alien citizenship. I see a double edged argument as far as the requirements for POTUSA as set forth in few words in ARTICLE II of the Constitution.
I believe Obama’s birth in Kenya was mama Stanley Ann’s way/method, along with her communist parents, to have an official birth apart from the Indonesian Guru sperm doner. Light skin, dark skin or any shade between would fit the condition.
This shows that naturalization statutes can and do confer citizenship at birth, that “citizen at birth” includes naturalized citizens.
I take your comment to say that persons who go through the court process of getting citizenship can as law become ‘natural born citizens’ after obtaining their papers. We, stepfather and brother, never thought as such when my mother was getting her papers for citizenship nor have I personally being born in the US of two non citizens.. I also take that all the Chinese babies being born in the US of visiting parents are also ‘natural born’ citizens.
What is the naturalization numbers of children naturalized when their parents become citizens? They don't have any. They are regarded as "derivative naturalization."This is part of the problem, in my opinion. Every citizen who is not a natural born Citizen should be required to take an oath of citizenship and exclusive allegiance to the USA upon naturalization or upon reaching the age of majority (for children derivatively naturalized). Part of the oath should require that all other citizenships be renounced. The USA should not recognize any form of dual citizenship for adult citizens. All such loopholes should be tightly closed.
They don't have to take tests, they don't have to swear oaths, and they don't get naturalization numbers. Their naturalization is "derived" from that of their parents.
Anyone born with exclusive USA citizenship would be a natural born Citizen because by their very inborn nature no other possibilities would exist. Anyone born with any naturally conflicting allegiances or anyone acquiring naturally conflicting allegiances at any point would not be considered a natural Citizen.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1884 that there are only two types of American citizens: citizens at birth and naturalized citizens. There is no difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States at birth. They are identical, just slightly different terms of art.Actually, all citizens are equally sovereign. No type of citizen is more of a citizen than any other. All citizens have equal rights under the law. The Constitution's presidential eligibility restrictions are just job requirements put in place in order to attempt to protect We the People from being lead by a commander-in-chief with in-born or acquired foreign allegiances.
Senator Cruz’s status would be determined by CURRENT law not by statutes that were on the books 200 plus years ago and are no longer the law of the land.
Tell that to a convicted felon or a United States citizen born in a territory who doesn’t have the right to vote and has congressional representatives who can’t vote in Congress.
To this day, naturalized citizens can have their U.S. citizenship revoked but Citizens of the United States at Birth cannot. The number one reason for “denaturalizing” U.S. citizens was working in Nazi concentration camps.
Through a grievous clerical error, Robert E. Lee died without having his citizenship restored. President Gerald Ford restored it in 1975.
You claim that “’naturalization statutes’ definitely do NOT confer citizenship at birth”
I’ve shown your claim to be wrong.
“The Father of the Constitution” James Madison did not agree:
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” —House of Representatives, May 22,1789
Says who? Certainly not the Wong Kim Ark Supreme court. They say the EXACT OPPOSITE.
That document is recognized in the United States as proof of the acquisition of U.S. citizenship at Birth and not being a naturalized United States citizen.
Says who? A bureaucratic document doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Did they have those back in 1787? No? Then my point is made.
Yeah, but you read into it a little ways and you realize immediately that it was written by an idiot, and it is full of false presumptions and non sequiturs.
Again, the Ankeny ruling has got to be one of the most ignorant and stupid piece of crap that has ever been flushed out of a court toilet, and I generally have a low opinion of Judicial petty dictators anyway. That Ankeny ruling is the crap de la crap of judicial stupidity.
“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—September 6, 2012
And what is so hilarious is that after years of arguing that being born in this country is what makes you a "natural born citizen", you guys are trying to switch gears and tell us that this isn't actually necessary.
I find this assertion annoying. You don't have to specify the existence of a hand when you refer to a glove being used. The one thing is a self evident aspect of the other. The founders would have been dumbfounded if anyone said there is no "enforcement mechanism" spelled out in the document. They would have said "It is the duty of all Americans to enforce constitutional law."
But let's say that we should ignore the obvious intent that whomever in authority and is in a position to do so, ought to enforce constitutional requirements.
Who keeps obviously Foreign Presidential candidates off the ballot? Are we to believe that no one in authority would step up and disqualify them? In the case of Roger Calero, (born in Nicaragua to alien parents) several states took it upon themselves to enforce the requirements of the Constitution.
Are we to believe that it is reasonable for State election officials to do this when they wish, and to refuse to do this when they don't feel like it?
Give me some guidance here, because your world makes no sense to me at all. *I* see it as a DUTY And a RESPONSIBILITY for state officials to act as the first line of eligibility enforcement, and I said seven years ago that these people were falling down in the performance of their duties, and that they had an OBLIGATION to not let ineligible candidates get on the ballot.
Now of course, the Idiot court system has come along and said they don't have to, but we all know how stupid the judiciary has become since Roosevelt.
To me, the obvious reason for this is that the Founders thought the Electoral College would function as intended, that the Electors would actually elect the President they thought best suited to lead the nation. Thus the electors would decide whether a candidate met the specified criteria.
The Electors are selected by the Parties. They are merely a rubber stamp for whichever party wins the popular vote. The Electoral college serves no actual purpose anymore.
I think that horse has left the barn.
As I think I made clear, I dislike much of what the Court decides, but I recognize that some mechanism to settle disputes, short of war, is necessary.
Given the way the courts have been deciding a lot of issues, i'm not certain that they have done anything but put off "war" for a little while.
They have certainly severed the nation's laws from the fundamental principles upon which they were based. The "law" now means whatever a judge says it does. I am reminded of the pigs in "Animal Farm."
If you will remember, they were also constantly re-writing the law to mean whatever they wished.
If you have a somewhat less destructive method for overturning Court decisions, I’d sure like to see it.
Telling the truth would seem like an obvious tactic. Refusing to accept nonsensical ideas from an Imperial court would seem like another.
But I don't know. Again, it doesn't seem like we really have any easy ways out of this.
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.
