Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers>/<>
[Thanks, tutstar.]
Posted on 03/11/2010 8:25:03 AM PST by kyright
Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.
The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.
The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I'll remember the time I argued with a person who stood firm on the conviction that the US Congress enacted a statute in 1790, that would confer natural-born US citizen status to a child born in France, of a French-citizen father (who had resided in the US at some time) and US citizen mother.
ping
Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers>/<>
[Thanks, tutstar.]
So you are in favor of feudal law, that was REJECTED by the founding fathers, where the people are no longer the sovereigns? You would have US sovereignty vested in the central government in DC?
Lest I remind you, congress only has the power of naturalization, aka conferring citizenship onto aliens, all other citizenship is conferred through descent which is the law of nature and which was the form of law in England prior to the feudal takeover after the Norman conquest.
I would think being a soldier, you'd have better grasp of the Constitution & US law which you took an oath to protect & defend.
Have you ever even opened a book from our founding or read the history of England prior to the feudal takeover? Obviously NOT!
Bump Dat...
May 1779Papers 2:476—78
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens. The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record, and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar. And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right, which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them, and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them: And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right, it is enacted and declared, that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides, or of the General Court, or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses, and by them proved in either of the said courts, openly declare to the same court, that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and shall depart the commonwealth; or whensoever he shall without such declaration depart the commonwealth and enter into the service of any other state, not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America, or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state, such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this commonwealth from the time of his departure. The free white inhabitants of every of the states, parties to the American confederation, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be intitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities of free citizens in this commonwealth, and shall have free egress, and regress, to and from the same, and shall enjoy therein, all the privileges of trade, and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the citizens of this commonwealth. And if any person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor, in any of the said states, shall flee from justice and be found in this commonwealth, he shall, upon demand of the Governor, or Executive power of the state, from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence. Where any person holding property, within this commonwealth, shall be attainted within any of the said states, parties to the said confederation, of any of those crimes, which by the laws of this commonwealth shall be punishable by forfeiture of such property, the said property shall be disposed of in the same manner as it would have been if the owner thereof had been attainted of the like crime in this commonwealth.
NOPE< NADA, NO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP THERE UNLESS YOU WERE BORN TO AMERICAN PARENTS. YOU WERE EITHER A CITIZEN OR NOT, THERE WAS NO DUAL CITIZENSHIP.
It reaally is amazing to come here and watch you defend your man with such passion.....spit.
Did anyone commenting here actually read the entire Post article and its links to the articles written by the Constitutional scholars, as well as the actual transcript of the 2005 Congressional Hearing?
ALL there agreed that birthright citizenship is not Constitutional. Case law, like Wong Kim Ark, which specifically addressed the issue of the Chinese Exclusion Act, cannot amend the Constitution.
Up until around 50 years ago, a child born to a non-US citizen father, was automatically naturalized when the father naturalized as a US citizen, or he could naturalize himself as an adult. Also, until recently, Dual citizenship was not tolerated. The naturalization oath has not changed.
To listen to some of you here, you believe that any child born in the US to illegal aliens and retaining dual citizenship is a “natural born” citizen, and can run for President, as long as he lived in the US for at least 14 years, while a naturalized US citizen could not. Could the Framers have meant this? What is the logic in that?
There is no logic there, because the Framers would not have even imagined that dual allegiance or illegal aliens would be allowed or tolerated. They didn’t envision “birthright” citizenship ever being granted because they had rejected the notion of “subjects” and instead created a form of government and citizenship based on “consent”.
Even the Representatives at the 2005 Hearing knew this.
Stop throwing around Case law like it is more powerful than the Constitution.
It reminds me of all the anecdotal sob stories about a person who “can’t get health insurance” as the reason to change the entire health care system for every other American.
Straw men, appeals for tolerance, diversity, and thousands of details of specific cases cannot trump the foundations of citizenship found in the Constitution.
And your concern for how our laws are viewed by the rest of the world don’t cut it either. The US is practically the only country in the world that offers birthright citizenship. Other countries have abolished the practice, for good reason.
If you ask them if it were to turn out that the bamsters father was osama himself, they would still defend him as a legitimate POTUS.
Believe me, I've asked several of them.
Welcome to FR.
Don't step in the troll though.
It is called wackadoodle logic.
In Ludlam v. Ludlam (1863), judge Selden of the New York Court of Appeals provides a historical explanation:
The subject of alienage was very elaborately examined in Calvin's Case (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I). Among the principles settled in that case and which have remained unquestioned since are these: (1) that natural allegiance does not depend upon locality or place: that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot therefore be confined within certain boundaries; or to use the language of Coke that “liegeance and faith and truth which are her members and parts are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.”22
Judge Selden concludes that “as a result of necessity from these principles, the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural-born citizens of England.”23 Thus, parentage and not the accidental place of birth determine “natural born citizens” under common law principles.
And thus endeth the lesson on the real definition of English natural born subject/ US natural born citizen. ALL backed by references from ENGLISH CASE LAW.
In the Annals of First Congresses a Mr. Burke remarked that "the case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III." Thereafter in 1790 and 1795 the first piece of legislation on citizenship[29] in the United States was enacted by Congress. The Nationality Act of 1790, which was declaratory of the common law doctrine of Jus Sanguinis,[30] stated in clear language that "children of citizens of the United States that may be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens .... "[31] The intent of the framers of the Constitution was in effect reaffirmed, i.e., foreign born children of American parents are "natural born citizens" under U. S. CONST. Art. II, � 1, cl. 4.
Cornell Law 1950 Thesis: “Presidential Timber”
In the Annals of First Congresses a Mr. Burke remarked that “the case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.” Thereafter in 1790 and 1795 the first piece of legislation on citizenship[29] in the United States was enacted by Congress. The Nationality Act of 1790, which was declaratory of the common law doctrine of Jus Sanguinis,[30] stated in clear language that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens .... “[31] The intent of the framers of the Constitution was in effect reaffirmed, i.e., foreign born children of American parents are “natural born citizens” under U. S. CONST. Art. II, � 1, cl. 4.
Not as amazing as coming here and watching you miss the point entirely.
I got your point nailed.
Of course you do.
So you are modifying your contention to “Obama is presumed qualified?”
I'll keep that for future use.
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.