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.
There is also the "subject to its jurisdiction clause". What do you think that means?
OK...Show me...Prove it.
Like how you did links and connection. Good work.
WRONG...there is natural citizenship in which no law is required, it's called ‘natural law’ hence the term natural. You get it? NATURAL as in NATURE not STATUTE aka positive law. It requires both parents to be citizens. Then there is citizenship by statute which is what Gray's erroneous opinion referred to in WKA and then you have the naturalized citizens. According to the Declaration & the Constitution, our Federal Union was founded on the “Laws of Nature & of Nature's God” which states that children follow the nationality of the parent(S), not that of the soil as the sovereignty of the Federal Union does not reside in the Federal Government, but in the people of the states. Under natural law, consent of the individual is required and an alien is NOT a sovereign member of our society, thus they can not consent for their children to be members because they hold no political right to do so and neither does the government hold any right to confer citizenship on any individual other than by statute or naturalization. PERIOD!
CITIZENSHIP EITHER FLOWS THROUGH NATURALLY THROUGH THE PARENTS(PLURAL, UNLESS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK) OT IT COMES VIA THE LAW. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO BABIES BORN TO ALIEN PARENTS in the USA, REGARDLESS OF THE PARENTS LEGAL STATUS, IS CITIZENHIP BY FIAT & NOT BY NATURE DUE TO JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, NOT ACTUAL LAW RATIFIED BY WE THE PEOPLE!
“Talk to Scalia. Every word in the Constitution has meaning and you can’t just dismiss one because you personally feel it is superfluous. By definition there is no such thing as a superfluous Constitutional word. You cannot simply strike out ‘natural-born’ and keep the ‘citizen’ part.”
What the heck are you talking about? Where have I suggested I would, and why would I want to do that? I know very well not all citizens can be president.
“Natural-born has specific meaning and Vattell gives us the most appropriate definition”
Even if he did, again, it’s moot point considering the 14th amendment.
“As to ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ that goes beyond simply being subject to arrest for jaywalking or violating any other law”
No it doesn’t, in fact. If you are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, you are subject to every law, including jaywalking. If you weren’t liable for such laws, you’d have qualified immunity, and there’d be grounds to consider you outside U.S. jurisdiction. Illegal immigrants have no such immunity, are in fact subject to all laws like you and me, and are as such under U.S. jurisdiction.
“And, oh boy, does that article raise an interesting issue if an Indian (no pun intended) - ok, Native American - tries to run.”
That comes as no surprise, since they’re always listed, along with diplomats and invading armies, as being one of the primary categories of those who aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Native American tribes have always been considered sort of nations within the nation. That’s why, if you were wondering, they can run those casinos even though you and I can’t.
“Check out United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Its addressed there.”
Correct, but unlike the parents of Wong Kim Ark the father of Barack Obama did not have a permanent domicile in the US, and permanent doicile was one of the facts cited by the court majority. The precedent would apply to Bobby Jindal, whose parents did permanently reside in the USA.
However, I agree with the dissenters (Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan) who said:
“it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
“Talk to Scalia.”
If you did, you’d be disappointed.
I once asked a Congressman about the birthright citizenship question, as in my view it SHOULD be changed, and he said that he had a discussion with Scalia, who indicated that the SCOTUS would uphold 14th amendment to cover illegal aliens. I still think its worth Congress putting in law what ‘under the jurisdiction’ means and giving it a try.
“You cannot simply strike out “natural-born” and keep the “citizen” part. Natural-born has specific meaning and Vattell gives us the most appropriate definition (post 27).”
This is where you fall completely off the wagon. A definition from a foreigner written 200 years ago has no relevence in US law. It’s what US law says that matters, and nowhere in US law does it say what you claim - the simple fact is that ‘natural-born’ is just a plain old synonym for ‘citizen at time of birth’ and THAT is clearly defined in US law to precise degrees ... which is why you are quoting a foreigner to make your case, because you cant quote US law or any US judicial opinion!
I would say you are deluded. There are not any "special" citizens as that all citizens are treated and respected the same. The subject about natural born citizens as there is no required law to make them citizens because they are without attachments or allegiances to other countries. They just are citizens of their respective countries because there is no other claim or allegiance from a foreign country. Natural born citizens only belong to or have one country and have no other.
“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.”
What are you, then? And don’t say native born, because that doesn’t count.
“I am not confused. You apparently are.”
I’m not the one asking for clarification and continually failing to grasp what the other’s saying.
Let’s try again. There are two categories of citizenship:
1. born citizens
and
2. naturalized citizens.
The former can be president. The latter cannot. That is all.
I think we just got the ‘long-form’ version of legal opinion. well done, you’ve educated us all, and sorry about the crack pipe joke ...
“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark
” ...became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens ... “
“Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. “ - Minor v Happersett
“The founders only put two types of citizen in that clause. The only time a citizen could become president was at the adoption of the constitution until the grandfather clause ran out. Jindal fails to qualify and doesn’t meet Article 2 Section 1.”
You need to read the 14th amendment. Oh, and your second sentence makes no sense. A citizen can always be president, if he was born so, and the grandfather clause never “ran out,” nor could it. That’s not how it works.
“His parents weren’t U.S. Citizens when he was born on U.S. soil.”
People can make all sorts of guesses as to what they meant, but I’m sure you’re aware that Article 2, Section 1 says nothing about whether your parents have to be citizens.
“According to Jindal, his mother was already four months pregnant with him when they arrived from India.”
Why quote this? What is its bearing?
Just look at the holding or the conclusion of the 1898 WKA decision. Justice Gray only "Affirmed" Wong Ark a citizen and not a natural born citizen. Here it is in black and white and highlighted in yellow.
“There are some around here who see this as inadequate, as it doesn’t say ‘natural born,’ so he must not be a natural born citizen.
Which is hooey.”
Exactly. They weren’t deciding presidential eligibility in the Ark case, so of course they didn’t say whether he was or not.
“Jindal is a citizen and not a natural born citizen.”
Is he a naturalized citizen? No. Then he must be a natural born citizen, because there is nothing else for him to be. No other category exists.
The ruling you cite, in clear English, shows that ‘natural-born’ and citizen from birth are the same thing ...
“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, ...”
So those who are citizens at birth are ‘natural-born citizens’.
The ruling also mentioned the two ways of acquiring citizenship, one being natural-born and the other naturalization. Thus the ruling comports with the simple and clear understanding that ‘natural-born citizen’ and citizen from birth are the same thing.
The idea that there is some mysterious ‘natural-born citizen’ class distinct from those who have been US citizens their entire lives but are not NBC is a bogus one that has zero basis in US law.
It certainly doesn't appear so.
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.