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 ...
My wife and I were both born in the US. Both of my children were born outside the US while I stationed overseas in Germany. Both have US State Department birth certificates stating “Record of the birth of a US Citizen born abroad.”
I believe that both are natural born citizens, would you agree?
In the case of grants of citizenship by many countries (including Canada) the parents cannot “renounce” the grant for their child, it can only be confirmed by the child when they turn 18. If the child does not confirm, then the grant is removed.
Again, why would the actions of a foreign nation - independent of the wishes or desires of the citizen or their parents - matter in terms of who we consider a citizen? How is what you proffer different from having Hugo Chavez unilaterally grant any US Presidential candidate Venezuelan citizenship?
This isn’t a hypothetical; this is a real issue, that happens to real children every day. What a foreign national considers you to be should be irrelevant; what matters is what you (or until of legal age, your guardian) and the United States consider your citizenship to be.
International law recognizes citizenship by blood relation (primarily father), citizenship by birth on national soil, or self-initiated expatriation and naturalization as an adult.
No sovereign nation can extend its sovereignty to the citizens of any other country (”grant citizenship”) under these recognized categories.
Chavez cannot declare that Sarah Palin was born to an internationally recognized Venezuelan citizen father, or that she was born on Venezuelan soil, or that she self-expatriated to Venezuela and declared herself as an adult to be a Venezuelan citizen.
LMAOROF!!!,,,Tooo Funi!!!,,,TANKS,Lu...;0)...
That was funny.
Onion comes up with some good stuff.
I hope everyone knows this was a joke video
****What a foreign national considers you to be should be irrelevant; what matters is what you (or until of legal age, your guardian) and the United States consider your citizenship to be.****
I agree totally.
Thanks and bookmarked.
A Kenyan this time and next time an illegal alien. Hey, it's not like you have to prove anything.
A child born on a US Naval or Coast Guard vessel to two US citizens is a natural born citizen, yet if that birth happened in Canadian territorial waters Canada also extends citizenship to the child. Does that eliminate the child from the US Presidency?
Why do you want to cede citizenship to International Law? I don’t care what International - or any other nation - decides about citizenship. What others choose to label me is irrelevant. What matters is what the US and the citizen mutually agree to.
But what if we concede and accept the International law as you summarize? Then clearly Obama - either by birth in HI or to a blood relation (his mother) - would qualify under International Law as you state as a born citizen of the US. So we have to accept him.
And we would have to grant natural born citizenship to any child born on US soil, independent of their parent’s citizenship.
There isn't and this is why Obama will not be removed from office over the basis of his eligibility.
None of your straw arguments make a speck of sense, and the fact that you choose to display the Chi-Com flag on your personal page here is indicative of your allegiance.
Troll be gone.
The State Department notes that this question is unsettled. See Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent, section 7 FAM 1131.6-2d (pages 8 & 9 in the linked PDF file).
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular AffairsAt the other extreme is citing US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), for the proposition that a child born of Korean or Japanese parents (any nationality, I use these as examples because the practice is common for Koreans and Japanese), born on US soil while here on a "birth vacation" (this is done in order to give the child a chance at US education), then raised from birth to adulthood in Korea or Japan, is a "natural born US citizen" for the purpose of qualifying for the presidency. All that person needs to do to perfect the qualification is reside in the US for 14 years.7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural- born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;"
c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization", enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, "...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
As a political matter, Congress thinks the natural born citizen requirement is a quaint, antiquated, and discardable piece of history. Many, if not most of them think naturalized citizens should be permitted to obtain the office. They can obtain this result by not challenging eligibility at the time electoral votes are counted.
Obama, having been born in Kenya, the son of a British citizen, and never having been naturalized in the US, is not a US citizen, and cannot legally hold any elective office.
The strength of your argument is overwhelming...
Compared to the total lack of strength of your pile of straw?
That simple point does seem to be missed by most of the babbling trolls here.
From the verbosity of your posts I have been unable to discern why you consider the arguments weak. Perhaps you can expand on your objection or concerns? Or do I have to divine them from your terse posts?
That is true. But that's because you are acquiring citizenship and our laws require you to voluntarily relinquish any other citizenship in order to become a U.S. citizen. Citizenship acquired by birth is a different matter. Say, for example, a husband and wife both of whom are U.S. citizens were residing in Great Britain for a year and in 1980 they gave birth to a child. By U.S. law that child is a natural born citizen since both the parents are citizens. But the child is also by law a British citizen since it was born in the U.K. The U.S. cannot strip the child of its British citizenship any more than Great Britain could strip the child of its U.S. citizenship. One nation's laws does not invalidate another nation's laws.
Excellent post! For some reason people want to cede our control of citizenship to other nations, allowing the status granted by a sovereign nation to determine what we will consider for our own citizens.
It matters not what another nation considers the citizenship - or lack thereof - for one of our citizens. All that matters what WE consider. Another nation “laying claim” to a person should be completely irrelevant in the question of US citizenship.
Absolutely.
My contention is that there are two types of U.S. citizenship, and two ways to gain U.S. citizenship; and that the two types of citizenship are directly related to the two ways to gain citizenship.
Either one was a U.S. citizen by the natural act of being born, and thus is a “natural born citizen”.
Or one is a U.S. citizen by virtue of a “naturalization” process, and thus they are a “naturalized citizen”.
Makes perfect sense to me. Consistent with a common sense reading of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. citizenship law, in which no THIRD type of U.S. citizenship is ever spelled out.
So yes, I agree that both of your children are “natural born citizens” of the USA.
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.