Posted on 03/12/2015 12:32:49 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
If said congressional act covers such people, then such people are naturalized, and can only be naturalized; this is precisely because congress's sole power WRT citizenship is that of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization:
Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Civil Rights Act of 1866
“The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27-30, enacted April 9, 1866, was the first United States federal law to define U.S. citizenship and affirmed that all citizens were equally protected by the law. It was mainly intended to protect the civil rights of African-Americans, in the wake of the American Civil War. This legislation was enacted by Congress in 1865 but vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. In April 1866 Congress again passed the bill. Although Johnson again vetoed it, a two-thirds majority in each house overcame the veto and the bill therefore became law.
Formally titled “An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their vindication”, the Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. A similar provision (called the Citizenship Clause) was written a few months later into the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
And?
The only power regarding citizenship that the congress has is to define a uniform rule of naturalization — that rule could be that anyone born in the US is naturalized, it could be that every child born on Imaginary Moon Base Steve is a citizen… let me reiterate: congress cannot, by normal legislative means, define the term natural born citizen, if they could it would be altering the Constitution absent an amendment.
You aren't advocating for the rule of law, you are advocating for the rule of rules. You are making procedure of greater significance than the purpose for which the laws were intended.
No I wouldn't, because I have complete faith in your ability to deliberately skew the point anyways. The *Naturalization Act* could explicitly say "Naturalized Citizens" and you would still insist it means the same thing as "natural born." Let us face it, you are a dishonest debater, and you really are not interested in what is the actual truth, you just want to push a particular meme.
The fact that the act says "Considered as" should be sufficient for any reasonable person to conclude that the one thing is not the same thing as the other, but here you are playing your stupid little word games again with a level of intellectual dishonesty that is on occasion simply breathtaking.
The Act excluded from needing naturalization “the children of citizens who may be born beyond the sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States.”
And this is exactly what I mean. If it is not “the children of citizens who may be born beyond the sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States" who are being "naturalized", then who is?
Who is the "Act" targeting? Who does the "Act" benefit? Who does the "Act" "naturalize"? Are you going to have us believe that it is a "natural born citizen" act that they simply mistitled as a "naturalization act" ?
What does the fact that it was "more or less unnecessary" have to do with the fact that State officials exercised the power to keep him off the ballot? Isn't the point in contention that they do not have such power?
Do you not know how to weigh facts yourself?
Watch you reference the Civil Rights act of 1866 when you want to make a point about Congressional laws being germane, and then watch you disregard it when it doesn't agree with your meme.
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;
His point is that he read it in a book somewhere, therefore it must be true.
Calero was born outside the US to non-citizen parents. He was very obviously not NBC.
My point was that states have carefully avoided setting up criteria that would force them to rule on less obvious cases.
Such as that of Obama or Cruz.
Can you imagine the s***storm that would have followed a Secretary of State ruling Obama ineligible to be on the ballot because he was not NBC? Racism would be assumed to be the sole reason behind the decision.
Who wants to walk into that type of mess? Maybe you would, but not most people.
The issue under discussion is can Congress create Citizens of the United States at Birth/Natural Born Citizens or does Congress only have the power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 to create “an uniform rule of naturalization.” (Of course the term “naturalization” covers BOTH individual naturalization of aliens and the collective naturalzation of residents of territories acquired by treaty or legislation).
I provided two examples of when Congress did just that: The Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
“Subject to a foreign power” has been defined by the Supreme Court to mean a person with diplomatic immunity or a member of a foreign invading military on U.S. soil.
Were former slaves, emancipated by either the Emancipation Proclamation or the Thirteenth Amendment “subject to a foreign power?” Were residents of the states that formed “The Confederate States of America “subject to a foreign power?”
I’m of the opinion that there are very few Americans living in the 21st Century who care about the birth circumstance of a child, particularly since the persons who developed the concept of American allegiance, the Founders and Framers were themselves born and raised “subject to a foreign power” and yet they managed to become the model for American loyalty and allegiance.
Benedict Arnold was a natural born citizen. Both of his parents were born in Connecticut.
What I know about is how to back up my personal opinions with evidence.
ev·i·dence, noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Congress has the power to individually naturalize aliens and to collectively naturalize the residents of territories.
Congress has also exercised its authority to define the American nationality under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment through which current law, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and subsequent acts are constitutional and nationality law as distinguished from naturalization law is currently implemented under Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1401 of the U.S. Code: “Nationals and Citizens of the United States At Birth.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act, in addition to establishing new criteria for the naturalization of aliens expanded the definition of the “United States” for nationality purposes, which already included Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to add Guam. Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States.
The constitutionality of the current law of the land defining who is entitled to be a Citizen of the United States at birth has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
That he is "very obviously not NBC" is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is that STATE OFFICIALS TOOK ACTION, using a power you claim they don't have.
My point is that they *DO* have such power, and will use it when they want to.
Can you imagine the s***storm that would have followed a Secretary of State ruling Obama ineligible to be on the ballot because he was not NBC? Racism would be assumed to be the sole reason behind the decision.
And now you've finally stated the unvarnished truth. We know EXACTLY why 50 state election officials shirked their obvious duty. It's because they knew very well that the media noise machine would label any such effort to disqualify Obama as RACIST!!!!!!!!
It was in fact, racist to do what they did. Being non-racist is to treat everyone as you would any white guy. Had a white guy gone through much of his political life claiming to having been born in a foreign country and then refused to show anyone proof when he is called on it, I would have expected them to refuse to let him on the ballot too. The Example of Roger Calero demonstrates that this is not conjecture.
Who wants to walk into that type of mess? Maybe you would, but not most people.
No, I understand very well why people would not want to "walk into that type of mess." I also understand why cops don't want to walk into houses occupied by perps with guns.
My thinking? If you won't do your duty when it is unpleasant, we need to get rid of you and get someone else who will.
Don't think I didn't notice how you deliberately equate the one thing with the other, when the distinction is in fact, the point in dispute.
(Of course the term “naturalization” covers BOTH individual naturalization of aliens and the collective naturalzation of residents of territories acquired by treaty or legislation).
And it also covers "naturalization" of the class of people, such as those born to a Single American Parent (Cable Act of 1922 and Citizenship act of 1934) in a foreign country.
It also covers "naturalization" of a class of people born to two American Parents in a foreign country, just as the Supreme Court pointed out in Wong Kim Ark.
Benedict Arnold was a natural born citizen. Both of his parents were born in Connecticut.
Benedict Arnold was born a British Subject of his Majesty King George III.
And?
The question isn't are they citizens?
the question is are they natural born citizens?
— again, the only power that the congress is authorized by the constitution with respect to citizenship is that of naturalization.
If you say that they are natural born citizens, then you are asserting by your claim that the congress may alter definitions of the terms in the constitution by ordinary legislative means – and that, in turn, means that there is absolutely no actual restriction that the constitution imposes because its terms may be [re]defined at-will by the congress. (As a practical example, they could consider ex post facto to only cover instances which actually increase prison sentences, and then use that to justify a law that retroactively makes [e.g.] smoking a capitol crime, since nobody had been sentenced under this law [as it made what was legal illegal] it would be deemed a-ok under your allowing them to [re]interpret the constitution at-will.)
The 14th Amendment did not give the congress any new powers of citizenship:
AMENDMENT XIVNote also that the site annotates the alterations to the Constitution as
Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.— not Article 2, Section 8.
Fixed it for you.
That is why you keep running away from this quote from the Supreme Court.
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized...
That is why you claim a "Naturalization Act" of 1790 creates "natural born" citizens.
There is no distinction in law between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen. The two terms are synonymous.
The Supreme Court resolved that issue in 1884 and no subsequent ruling has altered that holding.
Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8..”
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913)
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”
And Congress has the power to collectively naturalize any children born in Foreign Countries. They have the power to naturalize anyone born with blue eyes. They have the power to naturalize anyone born with the name "steve." They could naturalize anyone who has an American Uncle, or who likes candy. They can naturalize anyone for any reason they so desire.
They have the power to naturalize in accordance with whatever whim suits their fancy. They have complete and total control over the power of naturalization, and they can use it willy nill according to any criteria which can be written down as law, and they *DID* use it in the "Naturalization act of 1790", they used it again in 1795, 1802, 1922, 1924, 1934, 1952, and probably a lot of other occasions which I didn't mention.
But in all cases it was their power of NATURALIZATION which was being used.
I’ll see your Wong Kim Ark quote and raise you my Naturalization Act of 1790 quote: “The children of citizens who may be born beyond the sea or out of the jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
My quote gives us the original thought process of the Founders and Framers on this issue.
And the Supreme Court case "Rogers v Bellei" demonstrates conclusively that THEY ARE NOT. A "natural born citizen" has no residency requirement. Nor does his mother or father.
And please spare us all the "they changed the residency requirement" dodge. It is irrelevant to the point.
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.