Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
“You did not answer the question correctly in 986.”
I suppose I did not understand the question.
“So tell us Tublecane, what persons did the 14th Amendment only naturalized into citizens vs. who it made into natural born citizens?”
I don’t really understand this question, either.
I doubt it very much. Got a source?
If you want a source, dig it up shill!
It’s out there in so many places that I know that you’ve seen it.
Keep on shilling!
Prior to the 14th Amendemnt, states did not have to recognize as citizens of the state people who had been naturalized in other states. The 14th amendment prohibited this practice, making any naturalized US citizen a simultaneously a citizen of whichever state in which he happens to reside.
With the best of them. The Indiana court played word games to be sufficiently ambiguous.
Their footnote: "For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. "
Indiana should have placed "Under the Fourteenth Amendment" in the active voice and parenthetically separated the subordinate clause "the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen is irrelevant."
Like this... on second thought without the comma:
Under the Fourteenth Amendment the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen versus a naturalized citizen is irrelevant.
Rewriting their statement to be a restrictive sentence and substituted the word "and" with "versus" to it make clear. Furthermore, Indiana wrote their footnote 14 in that way because they really do know the 14th Amendment did not create natural born citizens.
Come now tub...yes you do. Give us examples and explain the differences about the people under the 14th Amendment who were naturalized into US citizens versus who were made natural born US citizens?
About 2 days ago, Jindal stated he is not running for president.
Your statement and question is gibberish. So not only can’t you read the footnote right, you can’t even read the 14th amendment birthright citizenship clause right either?
Cite please for this claim. It’s not believable.
Plenty of people HAVE stated that Wong Kim Ark would be a natural-born citizen. Do you agree or disagree with Justice Swayne?
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”
Is he right or wrong?
“If you want a source, dig it up shill!”
great way to start a false rumor.Make something up and throw it out there and refuse to back it up.
I have an unknown source that says you are a tax evader, but I wont tell you or anyone else that source. Should the claim be believed?
“About 2 days ago, Jindal stated he is not running for president. “
So? Last week, Gov Perry stated he is not running for president. In both cases, eligibility has NOTHING to do with it.
“No, the 14th only addressed citizenship by birth in country, which is not the same as “Natual Born” citizenship.”
Yes, it is the same. If you are born a US citizen, you are a natural-born citizen of the US.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
ENGLISH has been the language of liberty, from the magna carta through Locke’s Treatise to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
Any honest book on the topic would be VERY Anglo-centric.
And it appears you cannot articulate who was naturalized a citizen under the 14th Amendment and who was declared a "natural born citizen" under the 14th Amendment. Give us specific examples and explain why someone was naturalized versus why he was not declared a "natural born citizen" under the 14th Amendment; explain the differences between the mentioned two classes of citizens under the 14th Amendment.
I'll start you off:
This is why under the 14th Amendment that this person was naturalized because....[you fill in the blanks].
And this why this person was a "natural born citizen" and why he was not naturalized under the 14th Amendment because...[you fill in the blanks].
It is that simple.
Texas lawmaker files bill to require Presidential candidates to show birth certificate
Obama is one and done for sure.
Shills like you are what’re not believable.
“And why does “citizen” in that case not refer to a naturalized citizen?”
Because it doesn’t. I just doesn’t mean NBC.
“In other words, how can you be an equal citizen and an unequal citizen at the same time?”
It’s like the questions in an IQ test. All NBCs are citizens, but all citizens aren’t NBCs. They are all “as much a citizen” as the other, but they are not “as much a NBC” as the other.
“But only by virtue of conditions, as you ought to know, which could not possibly exist today. Namely, being born before the ratification of the Constitution.”
No. It was because there were some that they wanted to be eligible when they knew their parent/s were not born in America. They had other allegiances. That was the problem. It was taken care of with the NBC requirement. Citizens born of citizens.
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.