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.
Well, there's a simple reason: do you agree with the conclusion in Wong Kim Ark? Was it rightly decided?
They didn't use a definition. They accepted a claim at face value because the only thing being contested was place of birth. The defendant had no reason to challenge the citizenship status of the parents as the plaintiff could have still claimed 14th amendment citizen at birth. This is why skeptics don't dispute that Obama MIGHT be a citizen (if he could prove his place of birth); just not a natural born citizen.
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.
No one used the term 'worthless dung' and no one here is a so-called birther. I guess that makes for a good strawman, but it's not a strong debate technique. Sandford illogically answers the question he poses without acknowledging these several 'reasonable doubts' he listed. Again, Justice Gray avoids using any direct quotes from this decision, obviously because it was trumped by Justice Waite in the Minor decision.
Sooner or later, one has to respect the weight of the evidence and common understanding.
The weight of the evidence is that the highest court to define natural born citizenship in relation to the Art II Sec I is the SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett. A common misuderstanding by lower courts does not outweigh that definition, especially when the SCOTUS affirmed the Minor definition in WKA.
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.
Sorry, citizenship at birth to children born overseas fits Vattel's definition of children naturally following the condition of the father without regard to birth. Vattel's definition of NBC was otherwise used nearly verbatim by Justice Waite in Minor.
“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark
The Constitutional requirement is natural born citizen, not natural born subject. "... 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 ..." - US v Wong Kim Ark
Truth is lost on an ideologue such as you.
Dismantling a free, representative republic is your agenda.
Your tactics are pure Alinsky.
The conclusion was that Wong Kim Ark was not declared a natural-born citizen, so yes, I agree with that. It makes sense then why Gray did not cite Lynch for a definition of natural-born citizen and merely used it to support a conclusion that the 14th amendment could be used to declare children of foreign parents to be citizens of the United States.
“Now that’s hilarious coming from someone who constantly regurgitates WKA”
Different subject, but so long as we’re on it, I only ever cite WKA for what it ostensibly is: a confirmation of Ark’s citizenship from birth. I also argue over the implications of particular quotes from the decision, but only when other posters bring them up.
“& English common law subjectship as the basis for the US definition of citizenship”
You must have me confused with someone else. Because I don’t remember getting into that. Repeatedly and forcefully, I’ve always said I don’t care what came before the 14th amendment. If the Founders were influenced by common law and common law said aliens can have citizen babies, I never used that to my advantage. Moot point, I’ve called it.
When I talk about common law, it is as part of the ideology of the Founding generation, its general influence on the American legal system, and its role in prompting the revolution. You, if you’ll recall, were the one who—despite the apparent attention to the subject paid in your beloved book—rejected its influence altogether. Either wholly or qualifiedly, whichever it was.
This being a birther thread, we both had the citizenship argument in the back of our heads, surely. Speaking for myself, though, I honestly limited my comments within our side argument to the general intellectual climate. Suspect my motives all you want, but I offer as proof the fact that I never dragged, so far as I recall, citizenship and the common law definition of NBC into it.
You, contrariwise, did. That sparks suspicion in me that the whole silly argument against the colonists seeing themselves as transplanted Englishmen was an offshoot of divorcing the Founders from the common law definition of NBC. Give an inch and take a mile, as they say. Can’t have the Founders be English in mind and spirit if Vattel is right. Which makes sense, because the argument is, as I said, silly. Foreshame.
“So now you reject a book that gives the history of English nationality & subjectship based on the works of English scholars.”
I didn’t say I rejected it. I haven’t read it, nor heard anyone but you speak of it. So how could I judge? In fact, I like book insofar as it supports my original point. Namely, that an understanding of the American revolution as ignited by uniquely English ideas is not a crazy notion, and is not confined to illiterates that populate internet search engines.
“’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’m lost. You’ve talked up Vattel and downplayed English tradition enough for me to assume the book would show the same inbalance. I can tell by the table of contents alone that it doesn’t. Like I said, even if it debunks the extent of common law’s influence, even if it utterly destroys the possibility of English common law citizenship in America, that doesn’t harm my original argument. I said every book on the revolution, even revisionists ones, bring up the “rights of Englishmen,” common law, etc. Remember? That’s what we’re talking about then, and what we should be talking about now.
Now, here’s a quote from an early post:
“Vattel was the source of our government, our Constitution, and all meanings...so why doesn’t the Supreme Court know it?”
Here’s my recent quote:
“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.”
How have I not been paying attention? Unless you were being sarcastic above, how was I not justified in wondering why there was so much apparent common law and so little internation law? The body of the book is something else, of course. And I accept your suggestion that it covers the usual suspects and comes down on your side (or at least that you think it came down on your side). However, again, if you’ll recall the argument ball started rolling with my surprise at your out of hand rejection of the common law/rights of Englishmen case in favor of internationalism. I said my interpretation is everywhere, even in the ones that shoot it down. You persisted in denying such, and eventually offered up your book.
Behold, said book deems common law, the rights of Englishmen, etc. important. What gives? Simultaneously, I detect but hints of Vattelism in the table of contents. Okay, maybe I shouldn’t have expected more Vattel, persay. International law could’ve been completely absent, so long as common law was, too. Since common law was there, in spades, I feel vindicated.
Finally, you criticize me for expecting to find more Vattel by posting as proof of my inattention your claim that he “was the source of our government, our Constitution, and all meanings.” What the heck? Am I talking to the same person post to post?
2ndly, when you criticize someone for researching the history of English laws in which you quote, you do yourself a great disservice that renders open minded researchers such as myself:
Have a great weekend. My tolerance level has been reached where obots are concerned.
No, let’s be clear - the ruling in Wong Kim Ark was that Wong Kim Ark, born in the US to resident alien parents, was a citizen at birth.
Do you agree with that ruling?
(As we both agree, there was nothing in the ruling itself that stated ‘natural-born’).
I know where you're trying to go with this, so you're not really trying to be clear. You're just trying to spin this into another connect-dots-that-aren't-connected argument.
So much irony there.
I have been a life-long conservative opponent of all the left does, including their dismantling of our representative institutions through their abuse of law and our history.
So I have vigorously defended the Constitution from the left, and abhor their tactics.
When I see misguided people mis-state what the Constitution and our laws say, I try to correct them.
For doing that in this instance, you accuse me of being the opposite of who I am.
“Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.”
No, this is not a trick question and there is no right/wrong answer - just want a clarification that could be illuminating. The ‘dog that didnt bark’ point was why Gray did not bring up “natural-born” when the dissent in Wong Kim Ark did, and when the district court did.
Birthers have their explanation for it, that somehow Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth but not a natural-born citizen. I have oodles of quotes, cites, and law dictionary references to show that such a distinction makes no sense.
So why didn’t Gray use it? ... To illustrate, I just want an honest answer ...
So, lets try again - the ruling in Wong Kim Ark was that Wong Kim Ark, born in the US to resident alien parents, was a citizen at birth.
Do you agree with that ruling?
Gray DID bring up natural-born. It cited Minor's definition of all children born in the country of citizen parents. Do you agree that Gray gave that definition of natural born citizen??
You continue to avoid answering the question ... and while NBC can only be defined at that moment, courts have clarified those ‘may be’ into ‘are’ in the main circumstance at issue - if you are born in the US to resident alien parents, you are a natural-born citizen.
So here we are again -
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....”
Hey, please answer my question first.
As to Minor, the quote is misconstrued by birthers to be an exclusive or limiting expression. “Vanilla is a wonderful flavor of ice cream” doesnt imply chocolate is bad.
“Children born of nobel prize winners are smart kids” doesnt imply that they are the only smart kids in the world.
Moreover, the MAIN point of WKA quoting Minor is to support the ‘common law’ view of citizenship, as Minor didnt touch on natural-born per se. Read in context, it fully supports the basic ‘natural-born”=’citizen at time of birth’ equivalence.
I’ve answered your question already. “The conclusion was that Wong Kim Ark was not declared a natural-born citizen, so yes, I agree with that.” I’ve explained elsewhere in this thread that one can be a citizen at birth via the 14th amendment). Remember, Gray made a distinction. NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution. 14th amendment citizen by birth defined IN the Constitution. As I mentioned, you’re trying to connect dots (and don’t want to admit it) ... natural born subject = citizen at birth = natural born citizen.
“Is there a Senate in the English parliment? Was there a Senate in Rome?”
Not to deny Rome’s sack of the American revolutionary imagination, but that’s a bad example. Aside from the name, that is. Yes, “senate” is definitely from Rome.
Rome had assemblies (comitia and concilium) in addition to the Senate. Their relationship to the higher body was not unlike the U.S. House’s to its Senate. Assemblies originated legislation, were more democratic, etc. They also possessed responsibilities like our Senate, in that they appointed (confirm, in our case) government officials, etc; and our electoral college, in that they elected the consuls (our president).
The Roman Senate, though, was far stronger. Stronger than our Senate, certainly. Stronger relative to the Roman House (the assemblies) and president (consuls) by far than our Senate relative to its counterbalances. Also, the assemblies themselves split into seperate plebian (concilium plebis) and patrician (comitia centuriata) bodies. Which would be as if our House had its own house and senate.
Consider, now that we’ve discussed all that, Great Britain. They have a (barely, these days) bicameral legislature, containing an upper and lower house, with more and less restrictive entry barriers, respectively. Consider how the lower is not eaten up by the higher (quite the contrary), as the Roman Senate ate the assemblies. Consider there is only one prime minister, as opposed to two consuls.
Don’t mention disparity between the PM under parliament and our president. Just as the British executive branch is under his king and dependent upon his party, the Roman consuls were pitiful next to the Senate and slaves to the assemblies. And though the House of Lords is these days an infant compared to our Senate, the Roman Senate next to the consuls makes our president appear a titan next to our Senate.
Rome was an antecedent of both the U.S. and Britain. Nevertheless, how is all this supportive of your point, exactly? Aside from, again, the name? I can’t see as how, considering legislative bodies alone, the U.S. is more Roman than British. It’s definitely more British than Rome. But even under the most lenient of appraisals, it’s a wash.
“It is very simple..if English law was on the Framers mind..why is our government so different.”
It isn’t very different, which is obvious to absolutely anyone without an ideological axe to grind. Granting their interest in Roman history, Roman law, and the classics in general, I ask you, what is more likely? That the Founders ended with a government remarkably similar to their mother country’s, even though they based it on a nearly 2,000 year-old civilization with a foreign tongue, religion, history, etc.? Or that they copied the system under which they lived. A system under which they were educated (partly in Roman law, history, and philosophy), trained as lawyers, practiced as politicians, planted, traded, and marketed? With the same language, the same history, the same culture? Absurd!
“You do not want to admit the role Vattel’s Law of Nations played in forming the colonies into the United States”
I take his role for what it was.
“because the book sinks your boy”
What’s my boy? England? Oh, wait, you mean Obama. Pshaw!
“Aristotle sinks your boy. Roman law sinks him. The Greek City states sinks him.”
You’re making me laugh. It’s too much. Why not the Bible, too? All are as relevant to the definition of an NBC in U.S. law as color to a blind man.
“So you have to discredit them..to prop up your golden calf aka Obama.”
I don’t descredit them on anything, much, beside the definition of a natural born citizen in U.S. law and the hierarchy of traditions in the ideology of the American revolution. Pretty limited restriction zone, truly. They can have free reign elsewhere.
“This is your agenda. This is your purpose in life.”
All I can say to this is: shut up. A waste of the wonderful piece of technology that is the computer.
“’NBC is not a seperate category from citizenship’
‘What an ignorant statement.’”
So you’re saying natural born CITIZENSHIP is not a quality of citizenship? Who’s the ignoramous?
“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?”
“Nothing”? No. They both contain the word “natural,” obviously.
What you must understand is that even if positive law is inspired by natural law theory, it still isn’t really natural law. The grand notion of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for instance, can be found burried in various statutes. However, these laws are not themselves natural, and therefore cannot be natural law. Think of a baby, who comes from his mother and father but is ultimately neither. No one can possibly contain both. It’d be like catching a comet by the tail.
The only manner in which man-made laws could be considered as embodying Nature, as I’ve said, is through the mechanism of something like the 9th amendment. Or jury nullification, for that matter. Those, I hope you understand, are anomalies. All the Declaration of Independence—home to the expression “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—did was declare seperation from Britain. Even there, high-falutin’ language leads to nothing but practicality.
By the way, isn’t you birthers who maintain that natural law dictates NBCs be born of two citizen parents no matter what the temporal law says? That governments change but nature doesn’t? That’s all I’m driving at.
“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.”
The situations are not parallel. Children of foreign nationals who become 14th amendment citizens are born on U.S. soil. Native tribes would have been considered having been born, for all intents and purposes, inside their “nation within the nation.”
Aside from that, even if you grant that they were born on U.S. soil, their jurisdiction is hampered by another factor. Namely, the quasi-sovereignty of the tribes and their qualified legal immunity. Or if that’s not the correct terminology, their special relationship to the law, which divided them from ordinary citizens. Like the children of diplomats and invading armies, their status prevented them from being born citizens no matter where they were born.
“Student exchange has a long diplomatic history.”
Stick the word “diplomatic” in there if you want, but students are not diplomats. They do not have qualified immunity, and therefore are fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction. It matters not if they are also under the jurisdiction of other nations. The U.S. government allows dual citizenship, as you know.
“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.”
Of course you would.
“We have something called ‘parliamentary procedure’, derived from ... guess where ... English parliament ...”
“Our bicameral legislatures (House and Senate style) were developed PRIOR to 1776.”
“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.”
Well said.
“The bottom line period. Wong Kim Ark WAS NOT ‘Affirmed’ as a natural born citizen.”
We all know that, you broken record.
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.