Is Bobby Jindal Eligible To Become President If He Was Born Before Parents Were Naturalized?

[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.

[WOSG]

Repeating a non-sequitor doesn’t help the discussion.

Let’s consider:

1) “All Xs are Ys”... does that mean only Xs can be Ys? of course not. So stop presuming that a quote from a man saying “All Xs are Ys” is telling us than any non-X cannot be a Y. Fallacious. We know from Wong Kim Ark that the definition of birthright citizenship was changed by the 14th amendment to exend beyond parents who are citizens.

2) Your second logical fallacy is presuming that a definition of natural-born citizen is fixed by these quotes while ‘citizen at birth’ can change. In other words, ‘natural born’ I have argued is a term of art that equates to citizen at birth.

3) The third error is presuming that a quote from a Congressman is controlling in any manner. It’s better than a foreigner, but it’s still not legally binding. Bingham was not even talking about the 14th Amendment, and the language from that Act was different from what was put into 14thA. So it’s merely descriptive of his view of citizenship and no more so than a number of other quotes, from court rulings, etc.

So you have a non-controlling opinion from a politician about a law that it not the current law, stating a category of people who are natural-born but not addressing in any way the question at hand of whether there is a distinction or a class of people who are citizens at birth but NOT ‘natural-born citizens’. Nothing he says lend support to that assertion.

Again, “natural-born citizen’ and ‘citizen at birth’ are synonymous. There is no distinction in US law that separates the two, and nothing you have brought here changes that basic and simple point.

[patlin]

Once again, they were not under any compulsion to decide presidential eligibility in the Ark case...

They were not under obligation to discuss it in the Elg case either, but they did. The Elg case is 40 years AFTER WKA & thus does set precedent regarding the citizenship of the parents in regards to A2S1C5.

[Drew68]

We are dealing with a Birther.

And they're no closer to selling this garbage today than they were two years ago.

[Tublecane]

“And common law of England is not recognized as the law of the land but a distinctive American domestic law that took its place, which recognizes the law of nations.”

The point that domestic American law recognizes international law but not English common law is at best a triviality, at worst a gross distortion. Obviously, English law has no direct authority. But where do you think we got most of our ideas from?

International law is respected, but it also is NOT domestic law, which differs from it as much as two nations differ from eachother in any aspect but retain similar rules governing trade, piracy, etc. Both Protestant parliamentary Britain and Catholic autocratic Spain, for instance, at the time would’ve assented to the same international laws. But is that more significant than what the U.S. and Britain shared among the laws that governed its own people? No.

References among the founders to Vattel, by the way, would drown in a sea of Blackstone if both could be converted into water.

[darkwing104]

chopperman wrote: No, the chart clearly defines those born overseas as citizens if one of their parents is a citizen.

Naturalization Act of 1790;

"Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

This act exteneded American Citizenship to people born in Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa and Swains Island.

[Tublecane]

“FYI...positive law is NOT to be in opposition to nature, it is merely suppose to protect the laws of nature & the natural rights of man. The right of man to have his children follow his nationality until they come of age. The natural right of a family to be a single union under one set of laws. The natural right to NOT have some usurped powerful central government make children aliens to their parents who are the sovereign providers & protectors of the children during their youth”

If you say so. I could just as easily argue that it’s the right of man to claim his nationality from where he was born.

[chopperman]

That article does not provide precedence because it does not give the parents status at time of the birth. If they were naturalized, which I suspect they were, then those Presidents were Natural Born.

[kosciusko51]

WOSG

I found this interesting. From Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1473 , 1833.

§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. ...

So Story seems to indicate that the eligibility clause is there to prevent naturalized citizens from becoming president, with the exception of those who were naturalized citizen at the adoption of the constitution. In his commentary, he doesn't make a distinction based on the parent's status.

I don't know how you prove that a person who at birth becomes a citizen is a naturalized citizen.

[WOSG]

“I challenge anyone to find the term “natural born citizen” within the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

That’s the point! - there is no ‘special super-duper citizen’ type. We are all equal under the law, and citizens. there are 2 ways to become citizens, and the 14th notes both “born or naturalized” ... and the only legal distinction is that Article II distinction that disallows those who have been naturalized citizens to become President.

It would be an easy 9-0 SCOTUS decision that anyone born a US citizen would be declared eligible, if it ever came up.

“Since the term “Natural Born Citizen” does not exist in the text, this Amendment cannot possibly change whatever the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant at the time of it’s passage.” - Really, so all black people are not natural-born citizens, just plain ol’ citizens. he he he. ... you are not a legal scholar, clearly.

Tell it to Presidential candidate Alan Keyes.

“Most American citizens are birthright citizens, meaning simply that at birth, and without need of any process of naturalization , they are natural born citizens of the United States. In this sense, birthright citizenship cannot be abolished without making citizenship the arbitrary gift of government, rather than a fact arising from unalienable right. The Constitution itself takes cognizance of this natural route to citizenship when it specifies that, except for those who were citizens at the time of its adoption, only natural born citizens shall be eligible for the Office of President of the United States.” - Alan Keyes

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2562728/posts

[Tublecane]

I could draw a chart to demonstrate that there are three types of hamburger: those whith two buns and a patty, those with one bun and one patty, and those with two buns and no patty. But no one would have to listen to me, because I’d be making it up as I go along.

[Tublecane]

“as of consequence, he was never declared a natural born citizen by Gray.”

You can say that, but it doesn’t make it true.

[Red Steel]

You have shown not a single cite of US law or any US court ruling to back up the bizarre claim that there is some category of citizenship for those who are born US citizens but not natural-born citizens. None of your SCOTUS cites back up the claim, and mere silence in a court ruling about whether a case is or is not ‘natural-born’ doesnt count.

This 1952 SCOTUS opinion backs me up in spades. And I have shown on this thread that people born in the US are citizens by virtue of jus soli birth because of the 14th Amendment, and they are not natural born citizens

Here it is again.

"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,..."

You do see this statement above?

"He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,"

You can't get much clearer than this.

Furthermore, All natural born citizens are native born citizens but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.

And we see in Kawikita's case, he was ONLY a native born citizen. The conclusion here is obvious except for the thick-headed.

[Tublecane]

“You got easily stomped.”

Stomped. Slam dunk. Destroyed. You keep saying that, but you also keep having to explain and modify. There’s an old saying that if you have to explain yourself you’re in trouble.

Nothing wrong with that, depending upon how deep your trouble is. The rest of us have to reiterate and shift ground, too. Then again, we don’t constantly claim to be making airtight, potent, undeniable, world-conquering arguments.

[WOSG]

It’s a bogus chart.
“native born citizen” has no legal meaning.
It has no legal basis for its first row definition, it is simply wrong,
and it merges multiple citizenship types in row 2, failing to distinguish between naturalized and non-naturalized, as there are key differences in law (one can be deported the othercannot etc.).
It’s completely ignorant of actual citizenship law and not even citing correct statutes.

Please stop miseducating people, you are spreading FUD and folly.

[Tublecane]

“If we could have an objective vote about my posts on this subject versus yours, no way you win.”

Who’s eligible to vote? If it’s people on this thread, maybe. Birthers are attracted to birther threads. If it’s the general Freeper population, probably. But that’s because they hate Obama. If it’s the legal establishment, historians, the educated public, heck, even the conservative intelligentsia, no way.

[WOSG]

NO!

“law of nations” in the Constitution is a general term and used ONLY in a statement on maritime law, having NOTHING to do with citizenship topic. At all.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=153#153

Please keep up with the conversation, let’s not wheel out the Vattel canard again...

[patlin]

Ummm, once a person is naturalized, they ARE citizens, thus their children naturally follow that condition and become natural citizens if born after the parents naturalization. If they are born prior to the naturalization of the parents, they become naturalized citizens themselves upon the naturalization of the parents.

See: Naturalization Acts of 1790 & forward & the 100 year US Census Report in the Congressional Records of 1892.

Statement of Mr Louis Schade:

Mr. SCHADE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee...It is now about thirty-six years since I was active in defense of the old American policy of encouraging and not driving off immigration. I think it was in 1856 when I prepared some statistics on this subject...

Now. I want to give you some proof, taken also from the census of 1880, showing that this assertion of mine, this calculation is correct. In 1880 the foreigners and their children (not grandchildren) outnumbered the natives in the following States...

The CHAIRMAN. Are you allowing the natives any children or only the foreigners?

Mr. SCHADE. I repeat again that this statement is taken from the census of 1880. The census stated, for instance, that the foreigners number so many and those born in this country of foreign parents were so many. By adding them together I construed the above table.

The CHAIRMAN. You compare those with the native born?

Mr. SCHADE. I give the foreigners and their children. I do not add their grandchildren, because I give them to the natives.

Representative GEISSENHAINEB. You do add the children?

Mr. SCHADE. Yes, sir.

Senator HALE. Your figures, from 1790 to 1890, would show the native population, including the blacks, to be 25,000,000?

Mr. SCHADE. Yes, sir.

Senator HALE. And as the whole population of the United States is 65,000,000, you conclude from that that the other 40,000,000 are foreigners and their increase.

Mr. SCHADE. Yes, sir; foreigners and their children since 1790....

lots of numbers discussed...

At 11:30 o'clock a. m. the committees adjourned.

[Red Steel]

You can say that, but it doesn’t make it true.

But it is true that justice Gray did not conclude WKA a natural born citizen, but only a citizen. And it is not because I said it - Gray said it in his holding, which is a determination held in his court opinion.

[Red Steel]

Who’s eligible to vote? If it’s people on this thread, maybe.

All of the FR posters not only on this thread. You after would lose.

If it’s the legal establishment, historians, the educated public, heck, even the conservative intelligentsia, no way.

You would lose again.

[Retired Intelligence Officer]

So why does Obama claim he is a Native Born Citizen on his own website Fight The Smears during the campaign?

Click link and look at the top of the page to see what I am saying:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.