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 ...
LOL!!! OMG that video is so funny. hahahahaha
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.
That's not correct and you know it. There is NO US statute that says a person born overseas to US parents is a natural born citizen.
That was SO FUNNY!! I especially liked how he sounded at the ASU graduation. He sounded like Jerry Lewis when he did those shows with Dean Martin. LOL!!
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.
No, actually 3.
- citizens by statute.
- 14th Amendment (anchor babies)
- natural born citizens
There is. Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401 of the U.S. code.
Gee Obot you forgot something.
"AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
To be a US natural born citizen, he would have to be ONLY subjected to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States, and NOT subjected to China, England, Canada, Germany, France, Mexico, Kenya, and any other power he may have received through parentage.
You are mistaken; it has been established US Statute since 1790, when the Founding Fathers who wrote the US Constitution were not just alive but still quite active in shaping these United States.
Please see the acts of the First Congress, specifically the part that states:
And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or 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.
I would argue that your disagreement is incorrect; being born to citizens of the United States anywhere in the world literally conveys natural born status per the statutes as established by the very first Congress.
Additionally, note the wording! Your father needs only to have been a resident in the United States; the Statute does not explicitly require both parents to be citizens, but is explicit that your father must have been a resident. This would lead one to logically conclude that either parent being a citizen is sufficient, as long as the father at least legally resided within the US.
Come on NS. I don't even have to look because that US code has been rehashed a million times on FR. Nowhere does it say in it that a person born overseas is a natural born citizen.
It says they're a citizen at birth. It's the same thing.
Yet you add a very important word when trying to make your claim:
To be a US natural born citizen, he would have to be ONLY subjected to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States
Can you tell me where you came up with that "ONLY"? I am a citizen of the United States by birth, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. I am also a resident of the State of Washington, and a resident of the County of Snohomish, and subject to the jurisdictions thereof. Does that mean I cannot be a US citizen since I am subject to additional jurisdictions?
You're trying to make an exclusionary position of something that is usually inclusive. You are subject to the US jurisdictions; if you are subject to additional jurisdictions that has zero impact on your subjection to US jurisdictions, it just means you have additional rules to obey.
There isn't any "ONLY", nor is there any statute or legal finding to support such an exclusionary position as you espouse.
You really are an amateur at this.
That was superseded by the Act of 1795, 5 years later. Congress took out the words natural born citizen because they realized that would be modifying the intent and meaning the US Constitution without Amendment, so they rectified their mistake.
"The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to three years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or "first papers", which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen."
No it isn't and you know it. The US State Department doesn't believe that.
What does "And the children of citizens [plural] of the United States" mean?
The statute confers natural born status to a male person born abroad. The "residency" clause limits or conditions the descent of that male's citizenship to his children.
The last time I checked the State Department wasn't tasked with defining who was a natural born citizen and who was not.
Here's something to chew on:
"Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not without more mean that he renounces the other," (Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717) (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States."
Noway a duel citizen can be a natural born citizen with split allegiances. It is plain to see except for the obtuse people.
Because you say so? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
To be a US natural born citizen, he would have to be ONLY subjected to the jurisdiction thereof of the United States, and NOT subjected to China, England, Canada, Germany, France, Mexico, Kenya, and any other power he may have received through parentage.
Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.
The only persons who aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are foreigners with diplomatic immunity.
For example every illegal alien that is caught and deported back to Mexico is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and penalized under American law.
You really could benefit from a good middle school civics class.
I might go through the list that you provided, but without doing so, I find you to be intellectually infirm or dishonest. "Foreign born parent" isn't the test. The question is one of citizenship of the parent, at the time of birth. Of all the ones you list, as far as I know, the parents were citizens of the US, and resident in the US, at the time the president-to-be was born. The exception is Chester Arthur, who successfully hid from the public, the question of whether or not both of his parents were citizens of the US at the time of his birth.
Excuse me, you said there never was a statute that defined a person born overseas as a natural born citizen; clearly you are wrong. That statute has been amended dozens of times, but nevertheless it was a lawful statute created by the Founders of the Nation.
Additionally, the link you provide - and the acts that followed and superceded the 1795 Act - speak NOTHING to the status of a child born to citizens overseas, merely the length of time a resident must be in the US prior to becoming a naturalized citizen.
I believe we see who is the amateur, or at least not familiar with the English language...
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.