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.
“Based on the original historical meaning of ‘natural born citizen’, someone born to a foreign citizen on US soil probably does not qualify to serve as POTUS.”
Whether or not that’s true, after the 14th amendment it’s moot point.
So, if a diplomat has a child in the US, the child is not citizen, since their parent is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Also, anyone illegally entering the US is in violation of the jurisdiction, and therefore should not be a citizen. Also, this does not state that they are NBC, but just citizen. And yes, there is a difference, otherwise, why the reference in Article 1, Section 8?
Well, that’s part of rationale for De Vattel’s construction of “natural born” — the presumption of loyalty of those born in nation to those who are citizens, and the presumption of some animus, divided loyalty or even animosity of those whose parents were not citizens. In the case of black slaves, admittedly, it’s a not a bright line call. Were they really citizens prior to the 14th, or not? Dredd Scott — never reversed — says they were even fully HUMAN. A terrible ruling. It should be reversed by Court declaration.
Yet among many other deficiencies of the 14th is that it did not clarify the citizenship status pf black slaves before the 14th was enacted.
“He was born here in the US. He is a US Citizen. I would love to deny citizenship to children born here by illegals but I can’t change the rules.”
Jindal’s parents were legal.
The fact that Jindal’s parents were resident aliens who intended on becoming US citizens would probably allow Congress to remove the disability by statute or resolution."
Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute or resolution. You'd need three quarters of the state legislatures to ratify. Not going to happen.
There are only two types of US citizen - natural-born and naturalized. If you are a US citizen, you are either:
1) A citizen from birth, aka natural-born citizen
2) A naturalized citizen (via immigration process)
Everyone in category #1 is eligible to be President.
As per the 14th amendment, Jindhal is in #1. Thus he is eligible to be President.
There is no need for a complex falsehood when the truth is simple and clear.
“Running for PRESIDENT goes far and above being a citizen. He must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which has stricter requirements than just being a citizen.”
Yes, there is a level of citizenship beyond citizenship pure and simple. It is called being born a citizen—or natural born citizenship—as opposed to being naturalized.
How can they be legal when they weren’t naturalized yet? Also what is the difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen?
The question in Wong Kim Ark wasn’t if they were natural born citizens. They weren’t asked that. It remains something undecided by the SC. I don’t see the SC ruling that either Obama or Jindal are ineligible.
The question in Wong Kim Ark wasn’t if they were natural born citizens. They weren’t asked that. It remains something undecided by the SC. I don’t see the SC ruling that either Obama or Jindal are ineligible.
If you look at the 14th Amendment and what the authors said, i.e. that the amendment was NOT going to grant citizenship to US born children of illegal aliens, then it does matter.
Much as I like Bobby Jindal and think he would be good for the country I hope that he is, in fact, ruled ineligible. He is one of the best we have but he should not be granted the status of a Natural Born Citizen if his parents were not citizens when he was born.
“And what part of CITIZEN vs. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN don’t YOU get??”
What I don’t get is what this distinction is supposed to do with born citizens and natural born citizens, who are to my mind (and U.S. law) the same.
It hasn’t been argued and decided. Womg King Ark is a trump, like Miller is in gun law.
Okay, so where does that put me: Born in a United States Army Hospital, Korea to Parents who were both American Citizens.
“Yes, there is. Do some research. There is a big difference.”
No, there isn’t. Do some research. There is no difference.
“Whether or not that’s true, after the 14th amendment it’s moot point.”
That’s open to debate.
http://www.birthers.org/USC/14.html
Will you please answer my question Tublecane? What is the difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen?
As per the 14th amendment, Jindhal is in #1. Thus he is eligible to be President.
Again, being born here does make one a "citizen", but not necessarily a "natural born citizen", that require both parents being citizens (either born here or naturalized) before the baby is natural born citizen.
And again, per the 14th amendment, Jinhal is not in #1 and is not eligible because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.
“That isn’t what ‘under the jurisdiction’ means.”
Are you telling me legal aliens aren’t under the jurisdiction of U.S. law? Or is it that the phrase as it appears in the 14th amendment means something different than what a knowledge of law and English would lead one to believe it means? Was it written in code?
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.