I will never forget being at a post-trial party with my girl friend, a court translator. A Spaniard working on a North Sea oil rig had been hit by rigging, and was suing in the U.S. for his injuries - he was blinded and lost his ability to talk because of a spinal injury - even though neither the companies involved or the injured were American. The worker won. Both prosecution and defense were at the party, and so was the Spanish oil worker, who was dancing, watching beautiful lawyer's wives, and talking with my girl friend.
What does this have to do with legal responsibilities? I wonder if we have a corrupt legal profession which sees that this is where the remaining money is, a socialist system where they will be both the masters and the beneficiaries? They produce nothing, and will not be lawmakers in China or India or Russia or Brazil or ...
The deVattel argument is also pretty pathetic:
Birfers are citing the English translation of deVattel that dates to 1883, almost 100 years after the Constitution was written. If the founders of the Constitution used the original French of deVattel, then the phrase he used was “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The first English translation of deVattel’s work was published in London in 1760:
“”The citizens are the members of the civil fociety: bound to this fociety by certain duties, and fubject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Nothing about a “natural born citizen” there. “Natives” or “indigenes” is the term deVattel used.
The first American version was in 1787, and the wording is identical. It’s hard to see how the Framers of the Constitution would have used deVattel to define a term that wasn’t in any of the translations available at that time or in the original French.
The Framers of the Constitution were more familar with English common law and, indeed, the Colonists had followed it before the Revolutionary War, and after the nation was founded. William Blackstone was considered the leading commentator on the Common Law and he concluded that under English Common Law either place of birth or citizenship of overseas parents was the key to citizenship at birth. For example, as he wrote in 1753:
“THE firft and moft obvious divifion of the people is into aliens and natural-born fubjects. Natural-born fubjects are fuch as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, fuch as are born out of it.”
English common law held that in English Law the following two types of children would be considered natural-born subjects of the crown of England: (1) a child born in England of aliens of England, and (2) a child born outside England of natural-born subjects of the crown of England.