Where does the Constitution define "natural born citizen?"
You can argue common law but that would still make him a natural born citizen.
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.
Being ‘open to debate’ because some birthers are raising invalid objections to the standard and correct interpretation is a bit like saying the validity of capitalism is open to debate because there are some marxist profs out there.
Sure, but ... they’re wrong.
If you want to disprove the simple fact that “natural-born citizen” means something other than ‘citizenship at time of birth” show us the distinction in US law. You can’t.
“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.”
Anyone’s who’s ever read the 14th amendment knows that Vattel has no longer any bearing on who becomes a citizen at birth, if he ever did.
“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.”
I don’t see as how it matters either way. At least, after the first generation passes. It might’ve been an interesting intellectual exercise to inquire as to whether existing slaves—who obviously would have been born on U.S. soil since the slave trade ended long before—were automatically retroactively made citizens from birth, even if they hadn’t been recognized as such at their birth.
“Congress cannot “remove the disability by statue.” Congress cannot, by statue, change the meaning of The Constitution.”
Congress can certainly clarify any constitutional ambiguity as they see fit. They have as much right to do that as the Supreme Court. And some would argue that in the matter of Presidential qualification Congress has primary or even sole jurisdiction.
Again I refer to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
The Court addressed the so called Common Law (Vattel as precedence.
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject
Maybe this will help: This also explains why many of us do not believe that babies born to illegal aliens who cross the border to give birth are even citizens.
Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the "jurisdiction of the United States
[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count "foreigners," "aliens," and those born to "ambassadors or foreign ministers" as outside the "jurisdiction of the United States. Thus it is clear that the idea of allegiance ("not subject to any foreign power") was somehow central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the fourteenth amendment. )
As to "subject to the jurisdiction" that goes beyond simply being subject to arrest for jaywalking or violating any other law. Read this: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans. And, oh boy, does that article raise an interesting issue if an Indian (no pun intended) - ok, Native American - tries to run.
Just being born here does not make you a “Natural Born Citizen”....it just makes you a citizen. Therefore you do not have the right to be president.
Only if your parents were also citizens at the time of your birth would you then be considered a “Natural Born Citizen”.
The 14th Amendment is now naturalization at birth. At the time when it was adopted, there was about 4+ million former slaves who were not US citizens. The 14th Amendment naturalized them as citizens. It is a man made law and not natural law. So people considered as 14th Amendment citizens are not natural born citizens.
“Again, tell me what the difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen is?”
I’d like to point out that you asked no fewer than three times, while it only took me about 30 minutes to get to it. Patience, please.
By the way, I’ll answer again for good measure. The category “Citizen” includes both born citizens and naturalized citizens. “Natural Born Citizen” includes only born citizens.
“’Natural born citizen’ is about inherited loyalty at birth, not geography”
Our legal tradition assumes loyalty can be inherited, so to speak, through geography. It’s called “jus soli.”
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1401(c) “(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person” -You are a natural born citizen.
Thank you.
“Anyone who believes illegals aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction should try visiting a prison.”
Bingo! If illegals are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the State’ in which they imprisoned they should be released immediately and be paid millions for wrongful incarceration.
Where does the Constitution define "natural born citizen?"
You can argue common law but that would still make him a natural born citizen.
Thank you for what you did.
And thanks for your service.
Natural born subjects to a king or a queen? We are not subjects to kings or queens in the United States. We have no royalty and therefore no obedience or allegiance to them. We are citizens in a representative republic.
“Do you not think that our founders would have been influenced directly by Vattel”
I don’t doubt they were. I also know for a fact it doesn’t matter on this issue, as the 14th amendment (which contradicts Vattel) is now the controlling legal authority.
“Also, with SCOTUS using Vattel as proof in other decision, he would be as valid in this instance as the next.”
They also could also easily have used other currently popular legal authorities, from Blackstone to Grotius and beyond, without any of them constituting U.S. law persay, either.
“Besides, if one refers to ‘International Law’, I’m sure that most of it is codified by multiple treaties, i.e. Geneva Convention, etc.”
Yes, it is, as was the so-called “law of nations” in the olden-days.
“So, while it is a ‘catch-phrase’, the founders has some definite ideas what it meant.”
Yes, they did. Just like we have an idea what “international law” means, and wouldn’t confuse it with any particular book which happened to go by that name. Which was my point.
IF he was born to parents before they were naturalized...he is NOT eligible to run for president.
I am not confused. You apparently are. I simply have a hard time grasping what you say. And you state the obvious so confusingly.
“If we want to address the anchor baby situation, we can, by using the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause to limit it to those born to legal residents and exclude those born to illegal aliens.”
No we can’t. Illegal aliens are not outside U.S. jurisdiction. They are simply in violation of U.S. law.
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.