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.
"2008 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal Georgetown Immigration Law Journal ARTICLE: BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND THE CIVIC MINIMUM by William Ty Mayton"
...
"And now to cut to and quickly state the thesis of this article: Citizenship right under the Fourteenth Amendment includes--within the Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" qualification--gauge classically identified by Emer de Vattel.
This gauge is the "moral relation of the parents to the state " (and not, as Vattel added, an 'inanimate piece of land" "
We could call the clowns the Neo Obama Tories. Which part of natural born do they not understand?
““All NBCs are citizens, but all citizens are NOT NBCs. Therefore, they are a separate category.””
Sorry you are too ignorant to comprehend the above statement.
“A seperate category from basic citizenship, yes. But not a seperate category from citizenship persay, since NBC status is a category of citizenship, as everyone knows. You cannot possibly be too dense to see that.”
I must be dense. I have no clue what SEPERATE means.....LOL
Blackstone...”The Law of Nations brought England into the civilized world”
The descendants of the original citizenry received citizenship as a matter of course.41 The new comers to America, the immigrants who came in after the founding generation, themselves gained citizenship, by means of naturalization under laws enacted by Congress. Children born to them after they became citizens gained citizenship at birth, again as a matter of course. But what about children born to these naturalized citizens before they became citizens, while they were yet aliens?
Here, the answer was provided, clearly and positively, by Congress, as in its first session it enacted the immigration and naturalization “Act of 1790”.42 Immigration and naturalization, as Rep. James Madison then put it, was not a right but rather a “privilege”. In context, “privilege” denoted that Congress might properly limit immigration and naturalization to persons of commitment, to one who “really meant to incorporate himself into our society” and of a character sufficient to add to the “wealth and strength of community”.43 Character as thus stated included republican virtues as opposed to the servile, class-ordered mentalities—the “sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments”—then associated with the old world.44
Upon showing character and commitment, by compliance with the terms of naturalization, immigrants became citizens. And so did children born to them before they were naturalized. The 1790 Act provided that upon naturalization all of their children “dwelling within the United States shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Notice, these children are not made citizens by means of jus soli: It mattered not whether these children had been born in the United States or abroad. Rather, citizenship was attuned to jus sanguines. It turned on the connection of their parents to the United States, that they had become United States citizens.
____________________________________________________________
41 As explained in a thoughtful opinion:
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution . . . was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen-a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. Minor v. Happensett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1874).
42 Act of March 26, 1790, entitled An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, 1 Stat. 103.
43 I Annals of Cong. 1150 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
44 Id. at1156 (Rep. Sedgwick). Sedgwick later defined republican virtue as “habits of temperate discussion, patient reasoning, and a capacity of enduring contradiction.” 2 Annals at 571. Sedgwick also would exclude exploiters, those seeking short term gain without long-term commitment. Id. The whole debate was consistent with modern notions about political communities. As explained by Michael Walzer, “Admission and exclusion are at the core of communal independence. They suggest the deepest meaning of self-determination. Without them, there could not be . . . historically stable, ongoing associations of men and women with some special commitment to one another and some special sense of their common life. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality 61 (1983).
Birthright Citizenship & the Civic Minimum by William Ty Mayton
Emory University School of Law
May 7, 2007
Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 07-11
here we go...The federal common law of nations...lots of vattel..the founders, and..the
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1346554
BEWARE THE TROLLS
Based on everything presented..in this troll thread and make no mistake it is a troll thread....Jindal could possibly qualify as a natural born citizen..in India.
He does not in the US.
Communists will lie audaciously to further their anti-American goals.
As a constitutional conservatives who opposes Obama 100% , my respect for the Constitution and our laws leads me to a different understanding on the question of who are natural born citizens than you. It’s a matter of what the law is and what supreme court justices have said. If you can’t ‘get it’, so be it. You respond by slandering me with a parade of lies, all because I have a difference of opinion with you. Shabby and shameful, and bad form to talk about a Freeper without pinging them.
That A2S1 presidential qualification law was NOT written in 1898 by the SCOTUS & the WKA decision that was based on feudal law which included some imaginary concept of dual citizenship that the US had never adopted. Neither has there been any amendment to the constitution to change it although many have tried over the last 50 years, so that makes you utterly blind and ignorant on this subject.
“Thanks for admitting you are a mendacious liar”
When did that happen?
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.