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.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The brand new Congress since the adoption to the US Constitution were not infallible as I have shown you above.

You've done no such thing, only that they determined to lengthen the time a resident must be a resident prior to becoming a naturalized citizen.

Can you show me where it says in the US Constitution that a person born overseas is a natural born citizen?

That's not my contention. My contention is that since the Constitution is silent on the issue, we have no choice but to go by the original writings and statutes as created by the men who wrote the Constitution.

And for them, natural born meant at least parent (provided the father was a resident at some time) who was a citizen.

So can you show where in the Constitution it defines what a Natural Born Citizen is?

[editor-surveyor]

"I've posted the Act of 1790 several times; can you tell me where in that Act it says you have to born on US soil?"

Every kid that has passed the 8th grade in school knows that the 1790 act was unconstitutional, and was repealed shortly after enactment, and replaced with language that agreed with the constitution.

Give up!

[editor-surveyor]

Wow, more falsehood from a know liar; I’m shocked.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Without the residency requirement, a foreign born natural born US citizen (by the terms of the statute) male who stays abroad could pass US citizenship to his kin, and absence of residency was seen as resulting in insufficient loyalty to a land that one never set foot on.

An interesting point, and may have been the intent.

You assert that the language "children of citizens" is ambiguous, then you assert that unless your opponent can point to unambiguous language that you must be right. "It's ambiguous, therefore my opponent MUST be wrong."

On the contrary, I am claiming it is still ambiguous! RS is claiming that his position is unequivocal and my must be completely wrong because of the ambiguous nature of the wording. At best, we have an unsettled definition, meaning that claiming citizenship one way or another is incorrect; it's undefined.

I've shown that early on the original Framers thought you could be a citizen even if born outside US soil; that qualified in their minds as a natural born citizen. When such concrete facts are ignored, I tend to get a little testy...

I might, at some time, engage you in a flame war, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time in a good faith debate with you.

I'm sorry that you feel I'm engaging in a flame war; have I insulted or denigrated anyone? I've been called a liar and charlatan and Chi-com traitor and troll in this thread so far...

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Every kid that has passed the 8th grade in school knows that the 1790 act was unconstitutional, and was repealed shortly after enactment, and replaced with language that agreed with the constitution.

And that language is? If it is available to 8th graders, I'm sure you would have no problem presenting it here.

What is the Constitutional definition of a Natural Born Citizen?

And where in the Act of 1790 does it state you have to be born on US soil?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Wow, more falsehood from a know liar; I’m shocked.

Please try to cut down on the verbiage and length of your arguments; they are so hard to follow and the number of references is simply overwhelming...

[Red Steel]

You've done no such thing, only that they determined to lengthen the time a resident must be a resident prior to becoming a naturalized citizen.

A statute CANNOT change the meaning and intent of the US Constitution passed by Congress. That can only be done by a Constitutional Amendment. This is easy to understand. You seem to not get that FACT. Congress removed those words in their statute by repealing the Naturalization Act of 1790 because they were unconstitutional, and the attempt to define the NBC phrase would be never seen again in any other laws passed by Congress.

So can you show where in the Constitution it defines what a Natural Born Citizen is?

I see you cannot show me in the US Constitution where it says a person born overseas is a natural born citizen. However, I provide you the meaning and intent behind the NBC clause above.

[Cboldt]

-- I'm sorry that you feel I'm engaging in a flame war --

I didn't say you were engaging in a flame war. I said you were playing the game of a sophist. Some of your questions are obviously ridiculous, for example, one of your challenges was "Please highlight the verbiage of the Act that convey citizenship to males born abroad. I see no such distinguishing language." Heh.

the children [duh, MALES and FEMALES] 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

[Cboldt]

-- Chester A. Arthur NEVER hid the fact that his father was born in Ireland. --

That's a straw man. When did Chester Arthur's father become naturalized? When was Chester Arthur born? Bonus question (not relevant to the issue of qualification): How did he obtain the presidency?

-- There is NO requirement that one’s foreign born parents be naturalized in order for a person born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. --

So say people who read more into Wong Kim Ark than can be rightfully read into it. Chester Arthur's boy wrote the majority opinion in that case.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I see you cannot show me in the US Constitution where it says a person born overseas is a natural born citizen.

And I've never claimed it did; what I have said is that US Statutes made that position and that because the Constitution itself is silent on the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is, then the Statutes passed by the same men who wrote the Constitution is a good guide for what they considered a Natural Born Citizen.

However, I provide you the meaning and intent behind the NBC clause above.

Not from the Constitution, nor from a good number of the writers of the Constitution.

Perhaps we can agree on a few things:

1. The Constitution itself does not define what a Natural Born Citizen is; it is silent on the matter.
2. Vattel's Law of Nations was a significant influence in the crafting of the US Constitution.

3. The Statutes passed by the first few Congresses are an explicit record of what the Founders intended as the Statutes are an implementation of the Constitution.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I'm sorry, you had previously wrote:

The statute confers natural born status to a male person born abroad.

And the Statute says no such thing. It confers natural born status to persons born abroad, male AND female. Adding restrictions to the Statute as written isn't really an honest representation of the Statute, is it?

You may think it's sophistry, but I think it's an important distinction and clarification to make. We cannot add or subtract words from what was written, for it changes the meaning in significant ways.

So, I stand by my point: you claim that it confers natural born status to a male person born abroad. On the contrary, it confers natural born status to ANYONE born abroad. A pretty big difference in who is covered, don't you think?

[Cboldt]

-- So, I stand by my point: you claim that it confers natural born status to a male person born abroad. On the contrary, it confers natural born status to ANYONE born abroad. A pretty big difference in who is covered, don't you think? --

Huge. And it would matter if that was the point of debate. But the point was addressing a contention of yours that focuses attention on the father/male side of a citizenship determination.

... 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.

[jamese777]

— Chester A. Arthur NEVER hid the fact that his father was born in Ireland. —
That’s a straw man. When did Chester Arthur’s father become naturalized? When was Chester Arthur born? Bonus question (not relevant to the issue of qualification): How did he obtain the presidency?

— There is NO requirement that one’s foreign born parents be naturalized in order for a person born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. —

So say people who read more into Wong Kim Ark than can be rightfully read into it. Chester Arthur’s boy wrote the majority opinion in that case.

---

Nice try, but the constitutional requirements for being Vice President are the same as they are for being President.
Eligibility

The Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Thus, to serve as Vice President, an individual must:
Be a natural-born U.S. citizen;
Not be younger than 35 years old; and
Have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

If you were correct in your interpretation of US v Wong Kim Ark, Barack Obama wouldn’t have been sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts as the 44th President of the United States and his Electoral College votes wouldn’t have been certified by Vice President Cheney. There would have been a challenge to that certification and there was none.

[Cboldt]

-- There would have been a challenge to that certification and there was none. --

By that argument, everything Congress does is constitutional. "They adopted him, therefore he's qualified."

[PugetSoundSoldier]

It focuses on the male side of parentage only, not of the child. And I’m not sure how my contention is wrong. The Statute is quite clear in that the father must have resided in the US at some time; the only exception to this Statute would have been a natural born citizen overseas who never came to the US, and thus could not pass his citizenship to the kids.

[jamese777]

By that argument, everything Congress does is constitutional. “They adopted him, therefore he’s qualified.”

---

Well yeah. That’s the way it works. When Congress passes a law, its the law of the land until its declared unconstitutional.
The law of the land gives Congress the power to challenge the electoral votes of any candidate and it only takes any one Senator and any one Representative to initiate the challenge but the law states that the challenge must be in written form. There was no challenge. Obama was sworn in, he’s the president.
That’s the way our system works but there’s always the possiblity of changing the system in the future.
There are two persons who might have standing to sue Obama because they could make the case that they suffered direct harm from Obama being elected since they were the only other people to receive Electoral Votes. Those persons are John McCain and Sarah Palin but they have chosen not to sue.

[edge919]

But are there citizens who were not naturalized who are also not natural born? Some say yes, I don't see where there is any sort of third type of citizenship spelled out in the law.

Natural born citizenship isn't a statutory type of citizenship. That's why the Minor ruling said you couldn't find a definition of NBC in the Constititution. It's an extraconstitutional concept. "Natural born" refers to innate characteristics, i.e., natural born athlete, natural born musician, natural born liar (no offense to Obama). Native-born does not = natural born. In these examples of natural-born, you can't swap in native-born and have it mean the same thing. Native-born athlete, native-born musician, native-born liar ... it means something else entirely. A natural born citizen is an innate citizen because the characteristics of his birth and parentage make it so. As the son of a British/Kenyan national who returned home to Kenya and a mother who married two foreign nationals, moved out of the country and made her child an Indonesian citizen, Obama is NOT a natural born American citizen.

[allmendream]

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

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 process.

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

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”.

[Cboldt]

-- That's the way it works. When Congress passes a law, its the law of the land until its declared unconstitutional. --

So you are modifying your contention to "Obama is presumed qualified?"

[Red Steel]

And I've never claimed it did;

You asked me where it defines in the Constitution the NBC clause? Turn around is fair play by asking you the same form of question as to where does it state in the US Constitution where a person born overseas is a natural born citizen...that you believe is true?

what I have said is that US Statutes made that position and that because the Constitution itself is silent on the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen

That law was repeal, expunged, and unconstitutional because it is in error. Yes the Constitution doesn't say however, the meaning and intent of the Founders is the De Vattel's definition behind the NBC clause.

the Statutes passed by the same men who wrote the Constitution is a good guide for what they considered a Natural Born Citizen.

Not so, Congress made an error and corrected it and I've told you why.

2. Vattel's Law of Nations was a significant influence in the crafting of the US Constitution.

The overwhelming evidence say de Vattel's definition is the meaning and intent for the natural born citizen clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

3. The Statutes passed by the first few Congresses are an explicit record of what the Founders intended as the Statutes are an implementation of the Constitution.

The act passed in 1790 does not circumvent the adopted 1787 Constitution as I have said in many words. If that was true as you say, they would not have repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790 in 5 years and not have removed the words natural born citizens, but they did.