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.
“So then it pays to be a born on U.S soil to illegal aliens then to diplomats, right?”
Yes, I suppose. Though, probably, anchor babies—at least the ones who remained U.S. residents most of their lives—would have more of an interest in the possibility of being president. It’s not at all clear to me whether the children of diplomats would care about their deficiency.
“using the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause to limit it to those born to legal residents “
“No we can’t.”
Congress can define ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to exclude for example those on tourist visas and illegal aliens, in the same manner as diplomats are excluded.
The case could be made, it may not fly with SCOTUS, but Congress has power to make law under the 14th amendment to implement it and could try to do so.
“Illegal aliens are not outside U.S. jurisdiction.”
Neither are diplomats from that perspective. One could make the argument that they are outside the law and thus are not ‘under the jurisdiction’ ... analogy - would invading barbarian armies get citizenship too?
What do you think (,at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution) means in Article 2 Section 1 presidential clause when pertaining to citizen?
[No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.]
Why did the founders Tublecane put two types of citizens in that clause?
What you post is "hooey."
The 1939 SCOTUS decision in Perkins v. Elg did not "decided presidential eligibility," but nevertheless the Supreme Court in their holding said she was a natural born citizen because Ms. Elg was born inside the United States and she had citizen ParentS when she was born.
So, you do see where the Supreme Court said Ms. Elg was a natural born citizen?
And "Affirmed"
“There is also the “subject to its jurisdiction clause”. What do you think that means?”
That people who are not subject to U.S. law at the time of their birth aren’t citizens. However, everyone who is a citizen at the time of their birth—as, obviously, Jindal was (otherwise he wouldn’t be a citizen now, as we all agree he is)—is the same as every other born citizen.
So why did the founders put two types of citizens in the Presidential Clause?
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
This is there so that Alexander Hamilton, born in British West Indies, could run for president.
“CITIZENSHIP EITHER FLOWS THROUGH NATURALLY THROUGH THE PARENTS(PLURAL, UNLESS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK) OT IT COMES VIA THE LAW.”
Ah, the old “naturalized at birth” argument. Citizenship of the blood and nothing else. Well, not to depress you, but there is no such thing a purely “natural” U.S. citizen (that is, a citizen by parents and not by law). That’s because the U.S. is not natural. It came into being via positive law: namely, the Constitution. No one on earth is a U.S. citizen otherwise than by 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!”
Hold on, the 14th amendment was ratified by judicial activism? What?
Thank you for again showing that “natural born citizen” is simply another term used for those who acquire citizenship at birth.
This man used “natural-born citizen” while the 14th amendment says “citizen”... “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”
There is NO class of people who are citizens from birth yet not ‘natural-born citizens’.
Notably, the 14th amendment has the 2 classes of citizens - born or naturalized. That’s it, nothing more!
Actually, there is. Citizen and Natural born citizen. Under citizen one can either be naturalized or born on US soil to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent and still be a citizen, but not natural born citizen. Both parents must be citizens to qualify as natural born citizen.
“Justice Gray only ‘Affirmed’ Wong Ark a citizen and not a natural born citizen”
Duh. The issue at stake was whether he was a citizen, not whether he was eligible to be president. But basic reasoning skills inform us that since there is no such thing as a born citizen who is not eligible to be president (the qualification being natural born citizenship), Wong Kim Ark was.
There are 14th Amendment citizens according to the Supreme Court, which is naturalization (by law) at birth.
"U.S. Supreme Court
Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)
Kawakita v. United States
At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, ..."
And
"First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan., He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97.and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States,..."
Here we see SCOTUS in the modern usage of "native-born." The Supreme Court further stated that Kawakita was a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Kawakita had duel allegiances.
Duh? Duh this. Wong Kim Ark was naturalized at birth, and therefore, not a natural born citizen. See post 232 above. There it is....
Gentlemen -
There are two ways you can be “born” into citizenship.
1. You can be “born” on American soil.
2. You can be “born” to American parents.
If you satisfy both requirements, then you were “Natural Born”.
Citizen and Natural born citizen. Under citizen one can either be naturalized or born on US soil to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent and still be a citizen, but not natural born citizen. Both parents must be citizens to qualify as natural born citizen.
Look, you can make up your own views of what NBC *should* mean, but nowhere in US law does this exist ... “Natural born citizens only belong to or have one country and have no other.”
US law cite please.
And this is obviously wrong... “The subject about natural born citizens as there is no required law to make them citizens” ... since law DOES define who is a citizen at birth aka a natural born citizen. e.g. 14th amendment.
Bobby Jindal is not eligible to run for President. His mother was only in this country for 5 mos at the time of his birth so there is no way she was a citizen when he was born. Sorry thats just the way it is. Obama is not eligible and neither is Jindal. Bobby Jindal is a “Born citizen” There are 4-5 categories of citizen in this country. “Natural Born Citizen” is a person born in the US of 2 US citizen parents.
“Congress can define ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to exclude for example those on tourist visas and illegal aliens, in the same manner as diplomats are excluded.”
No they couldn’t, because the latter have qualified immunity whereas the former do not. Unless we were to extending diplomatic privileges to aliens. But we won’t, ever, because we don’t want to. We want them to be subject to our jurisdiction, as they always have been.
“Neither are diplomats from that perspective.”
Yes they are. it’s called qualified immunity. To say nothing of the age-old traditions of international relations.
“One could make the argument that they are outside the law and thus are not ‘under the jurisdiction’”
No one couldn’t. Not unless we suddenly dumped them all out of the system and radically changed their status, which we won’t do. They are quit clearly inside the law under current conditions.
“analogy - would invading barbarian armies get citizenship too?”
Apparently you’re unaware of that invading armies, along with diplomats and native tribes, are among the conventional “above the law” groups. They belong together for obvious reasons, reasons which exclude illegals, which I believe are too obvious for me to go into. The only relation illegal immigrants bear to invading armies is in the fever-addled minds of hyperbolists.
“Justice Gray only “Affirmed” Wong Ark a citizen and not a natural born citizen.”
Which proves nothing, because he wasn’t running for President and they were only deciding on citizenship.
At the same time, there is quote after quote making CLEAR that ‘natural-born citizen’ is just another term for those who acquire citizenship at time of birth.
“What do you think (,at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution) means in Article 2 Section 1 presidential clause when pertaining to citizen?”
It means what it obviously says it means. First, that a person has to be born a citizen to be eligible. Second, that and an exception is made for those who were born before the U.S. existed.
“Why did the founders Tublecane put two types of citizens in that clause?”
For one thing, obviously, if they hadn’t no one could be president until 35 years after the Constitution’s adoption. Also, because they didn’t want to exclude the fine men who fought for independence simply because they were born British subjects.
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.