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 that's hilarious coming from someone who constantly regurgitates WKA that cites Calvin's Case & English common law subjectship as the basis for the US definition of citizenship. So now you reject a book that gives the history of English nationality & subjectship based on the works of English scholars.
FYI..all the scholars on the law of nations are quoted in the book from Grotius to Vattel & beyond by the more lessor known founding father's personal writings from both sides of the isle,Federalists & Anti-Federalists. Now, it does claim Jefferson to be a Deist, which we now know conclusively he wasn't, but that is neither here nor there as the book also claims that the revolution was a religious one disguised under the premise of individual sovereignty * individual rights. What is important is the facts of the history of English common law nationality that didn't come into complete existence until the after Ireland fell and thus the individual sovereign British States finally became a “Nation” of states (Ireland, Wales & Anglican England). The Catholics were tough nuts to crack as has been proven in their continues religious wars over the centuries since & to this day.
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.
This point is just further proof of how much you have not paid attention to:
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:36:28 PM · 52 of 57
patlin to Mr Rogers
Thank you, I appreciate you diligence in getting to the root of the problem.
After all, Vattel was the source of our government, our Constitution, and all meanings...so why doesn’t the Supreme Court know it?
I do not buy into Vattel being the ultimate authority though his woks are vital when you put them next to all the others such as Locke, Puffendorf, Domat, etc. What vattel did was tighten the meaning of natural born to limit it to birth within the territory and for good reason.
You seemed to have that market cornered.
"Can you really be this [WOSG] stupid?"
Which is only stated a few posts above this one.
"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.”"
A circuit court judge huh? You're the fool for even citing this. We are not under allegiance of any King. We fought 2 wars to break away from feudal law.
I suppose you believe
"Once a English subject, always a English subject"
America in 1812 went to war against this “natural allegiance.” The English common law nonsense.
We became a independent nation state that is not part of any English kingdom.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” — George Mason, A Founding Father of these United States.
“Won Kim Ark was ruled a natural-born citizen by the district court”
No, he wasn’t.
Is there a Senate in the English parliment? Was there a Senate in Rome?
It is very simple..if English law was on the Framers mind..why is our government so different.
You do not want to admit the role Vattel’s Law of Nations played in forming the colonies into the United States..because the book sinks your boy. Aristotle sinks your boy. Roman law sinks him. The Greek City states sinks him. So you have to discredit them..to prop up your golden calf aka Obama.
This is your agenda. This is your purpose in life.
“NBC is not a seperate category from citizenship”
What an ignorant statement.
Do you have any idea how insane you sound arguing that “natural born” has nothing to do with natural law? Are you really that stupid? Or are you just engaging in disingenuous word games to advance your anti-American agenda?
Now that there are numerous restrictions on immigration, persons here without permission are foreign nationals who remain under the jurisdiction of their home country. Their children are naturally under the same jurisdiction and not covered by the 14th Amendment. The parallel here would be American Indians, who were foreign nationals up until they were naturalized en masse by an act of Congress in the 1920s.
Student exchange has a long diplomatic history. Persons present in the US on student visas are still loyal nationals of and subject to the jurisdiction of whence they came. (Even within the US, students at a state school from another state are under the jurisdiction of their home state and not allowed to claim the discounted tuition of locals. Because they ain't local.) Their children are naturally under the jurisdiction of their home country as well. Their children are not covered by the 14th Amendment.
Thus we can see your list is facile and incomplete.
If you are still confused and ignorant on matters of migration and citizenship, I recommend you consult a reference book such as Vattel's Law of Nations.
Hope this helps.
"-- folks working toward naturalization."
Cite?
“A circuit court judge huh? You’re the fool for even citing this.”
Now you ARE the fool. Justice Swayne was a Supreme Court Justice in 1866. The first Republican Suprem Court Justice no less.
And this citation was used in Wong Kim Ark. This was the common understanding of the matter and remains so.
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.””
“At the time Wong Kim Ark was born, there was no Chinese Exclusion Act or any other kind of immigration restriction.”
Really !?!? 1882 was after 1898?!?
Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898, exclusion acts were 1882 ...
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=47
“The 1882 exclusion act also placed new requirements on Chinese who had already entered the country. If they left the United States, they had to obtain certifications to re-enter. Congress, moreover, refused State and Federal courts the right to grant citizenship to Chinese resident aliens, although these courts could still deport them.
When the exclusion act expired in 1892, Congress extended it for 10 years in the form of the Geary Act. This extension, made permanent in 1902, added restrictions by requiring each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, she or he faced deportation.
The Geary Act regulated Chinese immigration until the 1920s.”
As for this ...
“The equivalent today would be people with green cards. Those folks were under the jurisdiction of the US, and their children were born citizens, naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment.”
... well said!
The only error in understanding is that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were in the above situation, legal resident aliens.
“Do you have any idea how insane you sound arguing that “natural born” has nothing to do with natural law?”
Not as insane as arguing against the basic and understood definition of ‘natural-born’ that is found in the legal dictionaries.
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
It’s not hard, but in your effort to avoid the truth and seek a wrong reason conclusion, you make up and conflate basic concepts.
The 14th amendment did not give automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, it granted birthright citizen to those born in the US and ‘under the jurisdiction’ of the US. Everyone who WAS granted citizenship that way was and is a ‘natural-born citizen’, since they are citizens from birth.
The “natural born” terminologies came from English common law, was used in Blackstone and many others in English common law, which (as per Smith v Alabama) is used in US court reasoning.
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”
If you are a citizen at birth you are a natural-born citizen, its as simple as 2+2=4.
Wong Kim Ark court knew this:
“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark
Even Vattel ‘got it’ ... “”...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” - Vattel
This concept was plain to Supreme Court Justices of the time of the 14th amendment:
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.””
Born citizens are natural-born citizens. Case closed.
That’s why it is a slam-dunk 9-0 case that anyone born in the US to resident alien parents, declared a citizen from birth since the Wong Kim Ark ruling, would be declared ‘natural-born citizen’ under Article II requirements.
“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the l700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth”or” by birth.[1]” - Congressional Research Service,
“Is there a Senate in the English parliment?”
ROFL. Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
We have something called ‘parliamentary procedure’, derived from ... guess where ... English parliament ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure
Our bicameral legislatures (House and Senate style) were developed PRIOR to 1776.
http://www.enotes.com/government-checks-balances/historic-roots-legislative-branch#colonial-state-legislatures
“In 1787, Americans had a century and a half of experience under state and colonial legislatures that were mostly bicameral.”
This goes back in history to the bi-cameral nature of the BRITISH PARILIAMENT, which has a House of Commons and a House of Lords.
Game. Set. Match!
And this citation was used in Wong Kim Ark. This was the common understanding of the matter and remains so.
I may be fooled, but not a complete fool because I'm not like you who willfully leaves out and ignores the salient Wong Kim Ark citations:
Justice Gray cites Binney who compares "A CITIZEN" (Wong Kim Ark) with a natural born citizen, and aliens or double allegiance babies are NOT subjected to the complete "POLITICAL JURISDICTION" of the country they reside...
"Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,"
And this from Minor v Happersett also cited in WKA.
"It was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] 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 parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, BUT NEVER AS TO THE FIRST."
And moreover, the Supreme Court "AFFIRMED" Wong Kim Ark ONLY at the time of his "BIRTH A CITIZEN" and NOT a natural born citizen:
The bottom line period. Wong Kim Ark WAS NOT "Affirmed" as a natural born citizen.
None of those citations contradict one iota what I said, and you have one posted this - what - 12 or 15 times. Quite a fetish you have with these quotes.
It’s only in your mind that three is a conflict, because you have difficulty parsing the English language.
Do any of your quotes contradict the basic and known definition of ‘natural-born citizen’ as “citizen at time of birth”? No.
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” That definition has been uncontested by any of the sources and citations.
The SOLE argument is about that definition of jurisdiction.
Either Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen at birth (and thus a ‘natural born citizen’) or he was not. There never was, in this or any other court case, a conclusion that he or anyone else was a citizen at birth but somehow not a ‘natural born citizen’. That distinction is an invention of your own mind and birther mis-reading of basic law.
“We are not under allegiance of any King. We fought 2 wars to break away from feudal law.”
Why of course. But we speak English, not Swahili, and derive a “Bill of Rights” (done in England in 1688), parliametary procedure, legal contract law from English commerical contract law (corporations etc.), common law, and much more besides. The laws we wrote, but the language of our laws is English and uses English common law terms and understanding.
Even the quote YOU USE in the same paragraph cites an English source to make the point (that children of aliens are natural-born citizens):
“His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’”
As for:
“Once a English subject, always a English subject”
of course NOT.
Swayne says: “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. “
We are CITIZENS, not subjects. THAT is what the American Revolution decided. Not what language we use for law and our daily living, but who runs our Government.
Sorry, but they did the moment they quoted Justice Waite's definition (see also Vattel) of Natural Born Citizen. "... all children, born in a country of [p680] 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." Ark was not born in the country to citizen parents, so he would have been an alien or foreigner under the natural and pre-existing definition of citizenship in the United States.
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.