Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers

The Post & Email ^ | March 10, 2010 | Sally Vendée

[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.

[edge919]

And where is this supposed “native born” citizenship spelled out in US Law?

The 14th amendement and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

There are two ways of becoming a U.S. citizen, and only two types of citizenship discussed under U.S. law. Either you were born a citizen, or you became a citizen by a naturalization

You can't just be born and become a U.S. citizen unless more criteria is defined. Laws describe various types of birthplace citizenship as opposed to birthright citizenship.

If born a citizen you are a natural born citizen, not either a natural born or “native born” citizen.

Being born a citizen is not the same thing as natural born because there may be very convoluted, statutory means of being born as a citizen ... and you can be native born and NOT be a citizen. It's not nearly as simple as you try to imagine.

If not born a citizen, the only way to become a U.S. citizen it to be “naturalized”, and that person is then a “naturalized U.S. citizen”.

That doesn't mean that being born a citizen by statutory means is = to being natural born.

[Cboldt]

-- ... even the ones who had parents that were not born in the United States. --

ROTFL. You can't shake that straw man. Where the parents were born is irrelevant. It's the citizenship of the parents that plays into the inquiry of citizenship of the spawn.

[allmendream]

Where is this “native born” spelled out?

The only time I have seen it mentioned from contemporaneous sources was to equate it to “natural born” as in “these were natives or natural born citizens”.

I still have only seen two types of citzenship mentioned in U.S. statute or the Constitution, and that would be natural born or naturalized.

Source please.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Wow... I mean... Wow. I guess you really didn’t follow what I’ve been arguing.

Please see your post 115 and tell me how that is different from the position I’ve been espousing for the last umpteen posts.

BTW, your post 115 proved my point perfectly, so thank you for that post.

[edge919]

The Supreme Court explains it pretty well. Not sure why you’re having such a hard time understanding:

“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

[celtic gal]

That depends upon the country. My cousin is married to an Estonian whom she met when they were going to the University of Notre Dame. They live in France and all 4 of the kids are born there. Before they can become US citizens at age 18 they have to prove they have “lived”in the US for 4 years by using proof of passports and travel documents. At age 18 they can also apply for citizenship in Estonia and France.They are not French citizens by virtue of being born there. this acording to my cousin who has lived there now for more than 10 years.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

That can’t be! We’ve been told in no uncertain terms by the birthers here that Obama cannot be a Natural Born Citizen because his father was a British subject! And that you had to be born to two citizen parents AND on US soil regardless of what the original citizenship act of the Founders said...;)

Thanks for the quote, I’d love to keep that as a link; do you have it?

[allmendream]

But where does it specify that native born is in any way different than natural born? As I said, the two terms seem to be used interchangeably, just as “citizen” and “subject” get interposed when in Wong Kim Ark they spoke of a child born of foreign national subjects in U.S. territory as a “natural born subject”.

[patlin]

You have been arguing that our citizenship is based on Jus Soli and that parentae is not a factor. HARDLY, have you actually looked up those original laws as they were in their pure form before expansion under the feudal laws? Do you have any idea what the enlightenment period id? Do you have any knowledge of the ancient Anglo-Saxons who were the founders of England?

NOT! It might behoove you to actually read & study historical reference to see what the laws actually said before concluding that I agree with your feudal argument.

[patlin]

Ron,

Here's another link for you. If you liked the last one, your going to be absolutely giddy over this one. There is a lot of historical reference to England's and its laws pertaining to all other nations. The skinny on US citizenship begins on page 71.

It's a long read, but worth every minute of it: A treatise on the law of citizenship in the United States: treated historically By Prentiss Webster

http://books.google.com/books?id=ky-TxmjrU0YC&printsec=toc#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Funny, I looked at the phrasing of the very first statute created about citizenship, and it states unequivocally that you can be born outside the US and still be a natural born citizen.

The only area we may differ is if the father is required to be a citizen or merely a resident. I contend it’s a bit ambiguous because of the phrase requiring the father to be at least a resident, and nothing explicit about his citizenry.

But as far as being a natural born citizen when you’re born overseas to two parents, I don’t think that was in question. Per your own posts above.

[edge919]

The quote is from Wong Kim Ark. It doesn’t say anything that would lead anyone to believe Obama is a natural born citizen. Native-born does not equal natural-born.

[edge919]

But where does it specify that native born is in any way different than natural born?

You didn't ask for that. What you want now is in the rest of the Supreme Court's decision from Wong Kim Ark. Natural born is being born to citizens and native born is being born on soil regardless of parents.

[patlin]

What part of citizens(plural) do you not understand? What part of unity of allegiance at birth and that the president must have had a very ‘singular good fortune’ as stated by the North Carolina legislature when debating on ratifying the constitution is so hard for you to wrap your brain around?

It has and remains common law from the dawn of time that children follow the condition of the father unless born out of wedlock or otherwise stated by the laws of the country. In 1961 the law still affirmed that of early common law.

And don't confuse ‘common law’ to mean ‘English common law at the time of the revolution’ as that is the law that was repudiated by the founders in the Declaration in 1776.

[jamese777]

The quote is from Wong Kim Ark. It doesn’t say anything that would lead anyone to believe Obama is a natural born citizen. Native-born does not equal natural-born.

---

Yes it does, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
A born citizen and a native born citizen are synonomous terms and the only other type of citizen is a naturalized citizen. Born citizens can be president, naturalized citizens cannot be president.

[edge919]

Yes it does, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

No, Wong Kim Ark specifically acknowledged someone could be native born but not considered natural born. Ankeny acknowledged that it made this ruling too. They aren't interchangeable terms. You simply fail to understand and are only wishing it to be so.

[El Gato]

Perhaps you could offer some third world dictator a bribe for him to declare Obama a citizen of his country thus making Obama a dual citizen and not qualified to be president.

It's not dual citizenship that is at issue, it's dual citizenship *at birth* that is a problem. Not even that really, since it would not matter if the country of a non US citizen or citizens, considered their child a citizen of that country or not. What matters is that there is/are one or two, Non US citizen parents.

So no need for the bribe. Obama had a non US citizen parent. Therefore, even if he is native born, in the modern meaning of the term, he's not natural born.

[jamese777]

The parents’ citizenship has NO bearing on eligibility to be President of the United States if the candidate was himself/herself born in the United States and is not the child of a foreign diplomat or the child of a foreign military of occupation.
That’s why Barack Hussein Obama II has been the president for over a year now.
The other six US Presidents with foreign born parents aren’t “strawmen,” they are historical precedents.

[patlin]

Yes it does, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment

How so in light of Slaughterhouse, Minor & Elk? Have you read Kent's commentaries on who the natives were? do you know which section they are defined in? You will not find it under the section on natural law. Instead you will find it under the section on immigration & naturalization. As Kent states:

All person born may be natives, but not all natives are citizens. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

So, wrap your brain around that one, then go read Kent and come back & debate the facts, not what has been indoctrinated into your brain by progressives who think we have a living breathing constitution.

[El Gato]

I believe that both are natural born citizens, would you agree?

Yes, but only because you were "in the army of the state at the time. If you had merely taken a job as an expatriot in Germany, then no, they'd be citizens at birth, under statute law, but not natural born citizens. They'd also not be be dual national German citizens, because Germany does not care that the child was born there, it cares who the parents were. I have met one really nice looking, but recently married, lady of Turkish ancestory, born in Germany, and lived there her entire life. But she's a Turkish citizen, not a German one.