Is Bobby Jindal Eligible To Become President If He Was Born Before Parents Were Naturalized?

[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.

[WOSG]

So Wright says: “any person born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a natural-born citizen...”

So this ‘great treatise’ is definitely on the side of saying “YES” to the question of whether Jindhal is a natural-born citizen.

Of course the caveat “if he choose” has been updated in subsequent rulings, that natural-born US citizenship is granted automatically and not withdrawn except by affirmative action of renouncing US citizenship. See Elg and others.

So, to recap, anyone who is “born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a natural-born citizen” unless they affirmatively renounce US citizenship.

[WOSG]

I said it was in the Congressional record, which you affirmed. of COURSE items in the Congressional record are placed there by members of Congress.

[WOSG]

Look in the mirror when you say that, hypocrite ...

You blast me for studying English history & citing from English scholars & English history taught in England, then you quote from English jurisprudence. Yes, stymies the mind it does.

(Note to audience: patlin goes hot and cold on English sources, depending on whether that source suits her conclusions or not. )

[WOSG]

You fail logic 101.

That entire quote is entirely consistent with the fact that ‘natural-born’ citizen is a citizen at birth.

[WOSG]

““A Natural Born Citizen is born of Citizen Parents.”

“That’s not correct.” It’s not the complete set of possibilities.

“Well that’s all I need to know about you. What is born of citizen parents??”

Well, they make natural-born citizens too. you want a special prize or name for folks who have only citizen parents? Sorry. There is no such provision in US law. You can have immigrant parents and still be a natural-born citizen of the US, and Jindhal is one example.

[WOSG]

Ah, the old ‘argument by silly graphic’ fallacy.

Trying to avoid answering the question ...

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS DEFINITION? YES OR NO?

Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”

[WOSG]

“Cut and paste...we can cut and paste all day”

Yes, you are very good at the repeated cut and paste.

“Obot”
Good at slander too.

“Justice Gray wrongly decided the case”
Quick to condemn the legions of sources, citations, judges, authorities and writings that disagree with you.
Trashing Blackstone, the first Republican Supreme Court Justice, the Supreme Court majority in WKA and other rulings, and practically every recent court and their rulings, including the Indiana court in Alkeny.

One has to think - WHEN YOU POINT A FINGER, 3 FINGERS POINT BACK.

I mean, at some point your self-contradiction of fighting against the common-law definition which CLEARLY supports the WKA majority, and at the same time attempting a non-statutory definition of natural-born (which can ONLY happen if you resort to common law) bites you in the butt.

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
- James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution, 1789

[patlin]

“Are” and “MAYBE” are NOT the same and NBC is NOT defined at the age of 18, it is defined at the infant’s first breath, thus it can only be defined at that moment.

[WOSG]

Quit slandering me. I only speak up for the truth of the matter here, and that is the Constitution and the law as it IS.

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
- Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

[edge919]

I don't think your Madison quote is really from Madison ... certainly not the part about the children of 'this state.' Madison's home state, Virginia, was governed under an act that said, "all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens."

The part you quoted appears to be from Zephaniah Swift who was describing laws in Connecticut as still under English common law (hence the term natural born subject and not natural born citizen).

[WOSG]

“In Liacakos v. Kennedy, the defendendant argued that the plaintiff was not born in the United States. The plaintiff declared himself to be a natural-born citizen and the defendant evidently did not challenge on the basis of parentage. I’ve found nothing in the decision showing whether this court reviewed or established a definition for natural-born citizenship.”

The court certainly declared the definition in their use of the term, the synonym between ‘born in the US as a citizen’ and ‘natural-born citizen’ is so clear and uncontroversial that it’s in legal dictionaries and any non-crank lawyer wouldn’t bother contesting that definition and use.

“I’ve never argued that a court can misunderstand the term natural born citizen.”

Not once in US jurisprudence has the birther view of ‘natural-born’ prevailed. Cite after cite are consistent with the basic and widely-accepted definition, that ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

“Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen... The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
- Lynch v. Clark, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (1844)

[WOSG]

“Your cut and pasting of feudal law of being born anywhere in the “Kingdom” that NBS = NBC went away 234 years ago when the Kingdom was renounced as persona non grata by the United States.”

ALL that has been asserted is this - citizenship terms and conditions were defined in terms of English common law. The term ‘natural-born’ wasn’t invented in the US, it came from English common law.

Court ruling after court ruling agreed with this point, from Justice Story on down through WKA.

Do you agree or disagree?

You cite Miror quotes that specifically were intended to validate that point. If you disagree with the point, quit using Minor.

“The term “citizen” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people–and he who before was a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the state.””
- Wm. Gaston, NC Supreme Court in State v. Manuel, 4 Devereaux & Battle 25-26 (N.C., 1838)

[WOSG]

Thanks, here is the corrected Madison quote, from a speech he gave:

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”- James Madison, 1789

http://books.google.com/books?id=InEDAAAAQAAJ&dq=It%20is%20an%20established%20maxim%20that%20birth%20is%20a%20criterion%20of%20allegiance.%20Birth%20however%20derives%20its%20force%20sometimes%20from%20place%20and%20sometimes%20from%20parentage&client=firefox-a&pg=RA1-PA33&ci=38%2C201%2C790%2C196&source=bookclip#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20an%20established%20maxim%20that%20birth%20is%20a%20criterion%20of%20allegiance.%20Birth%20however%20derives%20its%20force%20sometimes%20from%20place%20and%20sometimes%20from%20parentage&f=false

[WOSG]

Corrected quote:

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
- Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

[Red Steel]

Trashing Blackstone, the first Republican Supreme Court Justice, the Supreme Court majority in WKA and other rulings, and practically every recent court and their rulings, including the Indiana court in Alkeny.

I'll say what I want and when I want. Blackstone writings and English common law is soooo passe as of July 1776. And Ankeny ain't worth a pile of spit on top off monkey dung. That silly opinion is about as far as it will go. It's not going to help Obama in any of the other eligibility court cases.

"Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” - James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution, 1789"

There's that word "considered" again. It's apparent that Madison spoke of "natural born subjects," the children of aliens to be treated the same as natural born citizens. Clearly Madison thought there was a difference between the two classes of citizens but they would be respected the same.

Chew on this trolly.

James Madison -

"The two extremes before us", he said, "are a perfect separation and a perfect incorporation of the 13 States. In the first case they would be independent nations subject to no law, but the law of nations, In the last, they would be mere counties of one entire republic, SUBJECT TO ONE COMMON LAW."

Madison at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was not speaking of Blackstone or English common law - noway nohow and nowhere... Madison spoke of the "law of nation" and ONLY SUBJECT TO ONE COMMON LAW - and that is UNITED STATES COMMON LAW.

Yes, you are very good at the repeated cut and paste.

No no... you're the best at peat and repeat.

[editor-surveyor]

You slander the constitution, laws and courts of this country.

You are a traitor.

[edge919]

The court certainly declared the definition in their use of the term, the synonym between ‘born in the US as a citizen’ and ‘natural-born citizen’ is so clear and uncontroversial that it’s in legal dictionaries and any non-crank lawyer wouldn’t bother contesting that definition and use.

The court used NO definition. They accepted the plaintiff's claim at face-value and simply said he provided more proof than the defendants who believed he was born in Greece.

As for the Lynch decision, Sandford's claim makes little sense, "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.” There would be plenty of doubt. All we have to look at is the letter from John Jay to George Washington, "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."

Sandford, himself provides plenty of doubt later in the same decision. "It was assumed to be an indisputable proposition, that by the international or public law, she [Lynch] was an alien; for that by the public law, the child follows the political condition of the parent." "Vattell says, the natives, or indigenes are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. That in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a stranger, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." He further cites doubt here, "The case of Inglis v. The Sailor's Snug Harbor, (3 Peters, 99, &c.,) was cited as having been decided on the principle of public law, that the national character of an infant followed the condition of his father."

It's also a little telling that even though Gray cites the Lynch case three times in the WKA decision, it does not quote any passage from Lynch on the subject of natural-born citizenship. Instead, Gray opts for this type of description, "Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents." Sandford used the term natural born citizen five times, such as the quote you provided, yet this is one case of which Gray does not provide ANY direct quotes. It's almost as if Gray was trying to avoid doing so, which makes sense, since he DID cite Justice Waite's defintion from Minor v. Happersett and affirmed it.

[edge919]

Yes, Madison says place of birth is the ‘most certain’ criterion, but he finishes this paragraph by acknowledging the impact of jus sanguinis, which you left out for some strange reason: “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.”

[WOSG]

More ad hominem. Have you no shame?
We respect the constitution, laws and courts of this country when we speak up for the truth about them.

[WOSG]

“The court used NO definition. They accepted the plaintiff’s claim at face-value ...”

Sure they did. They used the definition of being born in the USA, even to alien parents, as sufficient to call him a ‘natural-born citizen’. If your point is that they didn’t inquire or justify the definition, granted, but they obviously did use it. Neither did they inquire into whether the sky was blue or whether the plaintiff was an adult.

“As for the Lynch decision, Sandford’s claim makes little sense, “Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.””

It’s funny how quote after quote and cite after cite, restating the common understanding, is nothing but ‘worthless dung’ to birthers, but then a few shreds of mis-represented quotes is golden, solely because its the few shreds that dont blow their cause out of the water.

Sooner or later, one has to respect the weight of the evidence and common understanding.

John Jay’s comments of course do nothing to alter or contradict the above quote, or the definition of ‘natural born citizens’ as commonly understood. It justifies ‘natural born’ but does NOT define it.

The Vattel quote is descriptive but not limiting, and moreover has no force in US law since it is descriptive to other countries and NOT US or England, and proof of that is found in 1790 naturalization law and other laws that grant citizenship at birth to children born overseas. Derived from English law on the matter, they are clear in intent and purpose. Granting citizenship to children born overseas DOES NOT take away the birthright citizenship of those born in the US.

“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark