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.
Now you are engaged in projection. You ignore what was said in the holdings of Supreme Courts opinions, and you make up what they mean in their conclusions, by taking a few mis-understood snippets, while ignoring the main points of the rulings. case in point is Wong Kim Ark, where you attempt to imply the opposite of what the extensive quotes I shared indicate.
Will you accept this basic formulation?
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.”
If you cannot even agree to this, and if you can’t read the 14th amendment as its properly understood, that all US citizens are either natural-born citizens from birth or naturalized later in life, I can’t help you in understanding any further. You are uneducable.
Your misrepresntations of what I say and your attempts to ask gibberish questions only make it obvious that you have no clue at all about this matter, and are merely attempting to spread FUD about this topic.
LOL, nice obfuscation there by highlighting just a few sub-chapters from the introduction & several different chapters. Well that and trying to pass this book off as international law, when in-fact is is about anything but. It's detail into English common law & its origins and the American rejection of British imposed allegiance. Now while the introduction is jam packed with aplethora of knowledge, the meat begins in chapter 1:
“The Conflict Between Laws: Sovereignty And State Formation In The United Kingdom And The United States”
sub-chapters:
I. Law, nationality and nationalism: monarchical allegiance and identity
II. The creation of the United Kingdom, 1536-1801: religion and the origin of the common law doctrine of sovereignty
III. Sovereignty in political theory from Justinian to the English jurists
IV. Natural law versus common law: the polarisation of a common idiom
V. Sovereignty, Dissent and the American rejection of the British state
VI. Sovereignty of the New Republic: the American constitution in transatlantic perspective
According to British scholars the common-law doctrine prior to the assent of James 1 & continuing after was: nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth in within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects
You obviously do not understand a court holding.
Here is the definition that you ignore and when confronted with the Supreme Court holdings in Wong Ark and Marie Elg's cases you make up and conflate what they said.
"A holding is distinguishable from dicta, which is language in the opinion... holding 1) n. any ruling or decision of a court. "
What you cite is dicta what I've been citing is their words in their holding.
Your misrepresntations of what I say and your attempts to ask gibberish questions only make it obvious that you have no clue at all about this matter, and are merely attempting to spread FUD about this topic.
You can't seem to answers the questions in post 1015.
No gibberish; you play dumb to avoid the questions.
Here you go again.
- - - -
"You ignore what was said in the holdings of Supreme Courts opinions, and you make up what they mean in their conclusions.
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 is 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. "
“The Indiana court played word games to be sufficiently ambiguous.”
Sufficient to confuse you, I suppose.
“the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen is irrelevant.”
That would be one way to put it.
“Under the Fourteenth Amendment the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen versus a naturalized citizen is irrelevant”
That’s less apt, I’d say.
“Indiana wrote their footnote 14 in that way because they really do know the 14th Amendment did not create natural born citizens.”
My point was always that either it did or it didn’t, but it’s now a moot point. Because afterwards, there were without a doubt natural born soil babies. I tend, for the record, to think, along with others, that there’s more than a chance NBCs always included soil babies. In the interest of thread harmony, however, I’ve been willing to smooth things over and just call it moot point.
“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?”
You want to know the difference between a naturalized citizen and what I consider a 14th amendment NBC? I don’t think I need to tell you; it’s what I’ve always maintained. Namely, people born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are NBCs, while people made citizens in the U.S. after their birth are naturalized.
As the 14th puts it: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The former are NBCs, the latter regular-old citizens.
Can you really be this stupid?
United States v. Rhodes has no impact on the question, especially since the contrary had already been ruled, and also because it was not an issue at judgment in Rhodes, thus being an irrelevant idle comment.
An appeals court cannot rule on an issue that has not been brought before it; they have no “original jurisdiction.”
Its called “grasping at straws.”
“It’s like the questions in an IQ test. All NBCs are citizens, but all citizens aren’t NBCs”
NBCs being a special class of...what? Citizen. It is their place on the strata of citizenship that secures their NBC privileges. Therefore, to say that native borns are as much citizens as NBCs but to disbar them from the presidency is inconsistent. I repeat, you cannot be every bit the citizen as an NBC without being eligible for the presidency.
“They are all ‘as much a citizen’ as the other, but they are not ‘as much a NBC’ as the other.”
NBC is not a seperate category from citizenship. It is another level of citizenship. Take the old Indian caste system (please). Brahmins on top, “Untouchables” on the bottom, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras inbetween. If I were to say Untouchables had every bit the class of Brahmins by virtue of the fact that priests and slaves are both human, I’d be laughed out of the room. For though the two are humans, they are not of the same class, because
Now, you may think saying natives are every bit the citizens as NBCs is the same as saying Brahmins are every bit as humans as untouchables. But it’s not. It’s like saying they are of the same class. You are not of the same class if you cannot enjoy the priestly privileges, and you are not as much a citizen as NBCs if you can’t be president.
“Because it doesn’t. I just doesn’t mean NBC.”
No one was a NBC of the U.S. at that time. Why can’t you understand that? The NBC part was for people yet to be born (like me). The grandfather clause was for everyone else.
“No. It was because there were some that they wanted to be eligible when they knew their parent/s were not born in America.”
Wrong. The main point would not be that people had non-American parents. It would be that they themselves were born British subjects or citizens of the states. Being born in America wouldn’t be enough. We are citizens under Constitution of the United States of America, not citizens of America.
That’s less apt, I’d say.
It made it more clearer without ambiguity, and I explained why to a fault.
The bottom line. Indiana cited dubious and silly cases like Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S.; they could not articulate why Wong Kim Ark was a "natural born citizen" - they just cut and pasted Blackstone.
"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” "
Based on the language and the WKA opinion Indiana? LoL! And why did they put "natural born Citizens" in quotes? Don't you guys really believe it? What a bunch of deceptive rats.
Another example of deception by Indiana where they want you clowns to misread their BS "opinion".
Indiana - "The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, "
Yes Indiana, Justice Gray did "reaffirmed" in his opinion of United States v. Wong Kim Ark where he cited Minor v. Happersett.
Here it is that's been cited about a zillion times on these threads and "based on the language" of the Wong Kim Ark Opinion:
"Minor" - "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first... "
Then in the small print footnote 12 Indiana states,
"12 Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom."
Indiana does see...that in Minor the other classes of citizenship are doubtful, and that the children born in country of 2 parent citizens are natural born citizens. And not that clown Obama who inherited his British citizenship at birth.
“LOL, nice obfuscation there by highlighting just a few sub-chapters from the introduction & several different chapters.”
Obfuscation? Really? At least I looked it up and bothered to transcribe interesting headings. Can’t do much more, as I don’t physically own it. I could read as much as Amazon will allow, but I didn’t want to. That still doesn’t make me an obfuscator, though, because at least I let the light in with what I did read.
“Well that and trying to pass this book off as international law, when in-fact is is about anything but”
I explicitly stated that I couldn’t find much in the way of international law, or “the law of nations,” except the couple headings I guessed at. If anything, though, I was being generous, because, given your previous statements, I assumed it’d have a little more by way of Vattelism. Your admission that it’s “anything but” I find oddly supportive of my position.
“It’s detail into English common law & its origins and the American rejection of British imposed allegiance.”
Ah, I see. How is this supposed to be a counterbalance to the picture I’ve painted? Must be a debunking of my transplanted Englishmen/traditional common and constitutional law rights narrative. Lest you forget, however, my argument was that even revisionist books, for instance ones that aver America radically went its own way, raise the common law, transplanted Englishmen, “the rights of Englishmen” and related issues. Indeed, this one does.
Your argument, if you’ll recall, was that I was stupid, ignorant, and pulling ideas out of my a**. That Americans seeing themselves as Englishmen was almost too crazy to acknowledge. That I must have got my ideas from google, the publik skewls, anywhere but an actual book.
Well, here’s an actual book: one that you’ve apparently read. It’s veritably overflowing with the terminology I’ve employed: common law, whigs, “rights of Englishmen,” etc. If these are shown to be myths, fine. But never forget, one of my original points, in the face of your dismissal, was that these ideas existed at all. Yet, somehow, I’m still in the wrong, even though there they are in black and white.
By the way, about the British-imposed allegiance, did it ever occur to you that they rejected British rules because of English principles? That they knew Britain was corrupt because English law, history, and philosophy told them so? Well, they did. And that’s basically what I’ve been arguing.
“According to British scholars the common-law doctrine prior to the assent of James 1 & continuing after was: nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth in within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects”
Go ahead and boil it back down to citizenship. Maybe that was your point, argued particularly badly, all along. But our disagreement was over much, much larger issues, and you know it.
“they are not of the same class, because”
ignore the because
One of the main authors of the 14th Amendment stated,
"Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Barack Obama or Wong Kim Ark with their multiple allegiances to foreign states does not fit into the 'complete jurisdiction thereof.' Noway does Obama or did Ark become natural born citizens under the 14th Amendment. The Act did not make instantaneous natural born citizens.
“Indiana really knows as they tried to skate by with ambiguous language that the 14th Amendment only naturalized citizens”
Their language is not ambiguous, and cannot be meaningfully construed to say that the 14th amendment “only” naturalizes citizens. That interpretation is “only” in your head.
“They admitted that Wong Ark was not ruled to be a natural born citizen”
That’s what everyone admits, as it’s the plain truth.
“but was only a citizen.”
Speaking of ambiguous language, here’s your implication that they ruled him not to be a NBC, right on schedule.
“It made it more clearer without ambiguity”
You didn’t make it clearer. You simply made it into a different point altogether. The dichotomy was not originally between NBCs under the 14th amendmnet and naturalized citizens under the 14th amendment. It was between NBCs pure and simple and naturalized citizens under the 14th amendment.
Really, though, it could be stated in terms of a dichotomy between NBCs pure and simple and naturalized citizens pure and simple, without unduly altering the meaning. Which is why I said your first reformulation was a way to put it.
“And why did they put ‘natural born Citizens’ in quotes? Don’t you guys really believe it? What a bunch of deceptive rats.”
They probably put it in quotes because those words appear in the Constitution. Geez.
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Ooooh, doubts for one but none for the other. What a shocking revelation!
“And not that clown Obama who inherited his British citizenship at birth.”
Obama, for whom it’s “doubtful.” Which to you means absolutely, unequivocally, irrefutably, and (ironically) indubitably not a NBC.
Can YOU really be this stupid? A supreme court Justice gave a clear definition of natural-born citizen in a court decision. It was quoted - APPROVINGLY - in Wong Kim Ark.
and you cant even answer if you agree or disagree with it?!?
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.”
“Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it state citizens born and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are natural born citizens.”
This merry-go-round is getting old.
Yes, I know. Never said it did. I arrive at 14th amendment soil babies being NBCs by virtue of the fact that all born citizens are NBCs, by virtue of the words N, B, and C.
“Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
I’ve already talked about this. Not owing allegiance to anyone else is not what it means. Dual citizenship is allowed. Possible allegiance to other countries is not a concern for citizens from birth, since they possess citizenship by right.
Soil babies receive allegiance both through geography and through their parents not being one of the conventional groups that are beyond the law and beyond the capacity for allegiance: that is, diplomats, native american tribes, and invading armies. “Political jurisdiction,” or whatever you call it, follows from the same mechanism that determines legal jurisdiction. If the U.S. government can assert general legal authority over the parents, the child can be assumed to have the minimum requisite capacity for allegiance.
One thing the government can never dictate is total and undivided allegiance. Like I’ve said before, there are always people who travel abroad a lot, people who are close to foreign grandparents, people whose ideology warps their mind against their home country, etc. These cannot be adequatly checked in a free society.
What can be checked are conditions at birth. Our Constitution has done that. Not according to two citizen parents and no dual citizenship, as you hold. They did it through being subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which soil babies not born of diplomats, Indian tribes, and invading armies fulfill.
“Barack Obama or Wong Kim Ark with their multiple allegiances to foreign states does not fit into the ‘complete jurisdiction thereof.”
Both, despite dual loyalties, were citizens at birth, yes? They meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause according to SCOTUS (Obama I assume, Ark I know [they told me]). You know this, so what are you talking about?
“Nowhere in the 14th Amendment does it state citizens born and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ are natural born citizens. The phrase “All persons born” is a general statement that covers all classes of born citizens.”
IT DOESNT NEED TO. IT’S ALREADY BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING “CITIZEN AT TIME OF BIRTH” SO “ALL PERSONS BORN” WHO ARE “CITIZENS” WHEN BORN ARE “NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS”.
My GOD are you dense!
The Justices of that time knew exactly this equivalence, as it was written in the law dictionaries.
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.”
Here is the faux "dichotomy" that the deceptive Indiana court did not explain.
Natural born citizens were already natural born because they had parents who were citizens and they were born in the country, which the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with them. And the other class of citizens who had multiple allegiances to foreign states had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment in becoming citizens until the Amendment was expanded by the WKA ruling. However, the 14th Amendment did naturalize former slaves into citizens, which was the 14th Amendment's purpose.
“Here is the faux ‘dichotomy’...”
That’s interesting and all, but I think you missed the entire point of what you originally quoted. All they were saying, at the most basic level, is that the difference between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens has only ever been important to the select few men who got to be president. Not necessary to read anything more into it.
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.