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

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.

And that was kept secret until after Arthur’s presidency.

No it wasn’t. The issue never came up because it wasn’t and isn’t an issue.

In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in a Barack Obama eligibility lawsuit which tried to invalidate Obama’s receipt of Indiana’s Electoral College votes: “...we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels—November 12, 2009
There has been no successful appeal of the Court’s ruling in Ankeny.

And when California attorney Orly Taitz attempted to bring a quo warranto claim against Obama in the Washington DC federal courts, the Chief US District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, an appointee of Ronald Reagan ruled:
“This is one of several such suits brought by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution (see US CONST. Art. II, Section 1). This court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Royce C. Lamberth in “Taitz v Obama.”

The courts will not rule on NBC because its only required of the President and the Constitution only allows it to be contested in the Electoral College and in Congress. This is why all of the court cases against Zero have been thrown out under the grounds “Plaintiff has no standing.”

An Electoral College and a Congress made up of Democrats are not going to contest this. Obama knew this and successfully gamed the system.

Its a true flaw in the Constitution.

“I’m assuming you didn’t go to law school, otherwise you would’ve learned in the first week that treatises such as Vattel have no binding force whatsoever in our legal system.”

It’s futher ironic that these birthers are trying to convince of the unimportance of common law in our system, all the while peddling theories that could not even apply without a common-law interpretation.

Federal Courts have to rule based on the statutory law and the Constitution.

Nowhere in the constitution or Federal statutes are their claims to be found. They misinterpret a simple term of art ‘natural-born’ (a term meanign those who acquire citizenship at birth) to be something special or different from what it really is. That’s why they have to lean on an 18th century treatise written by a foreign source and with no legal binding authority on any US court.

Vattel is NOT part of our written law, and hence has no authority in the courts per se.

“Courts which originate in the common law possess a jurisdiction which must be regulated by their common law until some statute shall change their established principles, but courts which are created by written law and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law cannot transcend that jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to state the reasoning on which this opinion is founded, because it has been repeatedly given by this Court, and with the decisions heretofore rendered on this point no member of the bench has even for an instant been dissatisfied.” – Chief Justice Marshall, Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807)

Corrected history: “The founding fathers felt that if they required that both parents to be citizens at the time of birth of a President”

Wrong, the founding fathers felt that if they required that President be natural-born citizens, ie, citizens from their birth, rather than naturalized citizens, it would limit foriegn influence.

Nowehere can be found the limit or restriction that ‘both parents be citizens’. Nowhere in law.

“he 14th. amendment DID NOT affect or address the issue of Natural Born citizenship as required by Article 2. “

I have disproved this claim already on this thread. Black descendents of slaves became eligible to be President, whereas before they were not. So it did impact eligibility. It did not need to state or change ‘natural-born citizen’ because that is simply a legal term of art to mean citizen from birth.

“The 14th amendment did not give automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil” ...but everyone who WAS granted citizenship that way was and is a ‘natural-born citizen’.

“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the l700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth”or” by birth.[1]” - Congressional Research Service,

“The presidency was considered a higher office and therefore deserving of stricter standards.

And those stricter standards are? Give us a description.”

Simple: Those eligible to be President needed to be born a Citizen of the United States, rather than a naturalized citizen. Hamilton’s draft of the constitutional provision was:

” No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

The intent and meaning of natural-born was and is clear - it is equivalent to those who acquire citizenship via birth.

“”...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” - Vattel

An Electoral College and a Congress made up of Democrats are not going to contest this. Obama knew this and successfully gamed the system.

Its a true flaw in the Constitution.

Any one Representative and any one Senator could have challenged the certification of Obama’s Electoral College votes by submitting written objections to Vice President Cheney who was presiding over the Joint Session of Congress which was held to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College.
None of the 535 members of Congress submitted a written objection to Vice President Cheney.
If a Republican Representative and a Republican Senator had submitted a written objection, both Houses of Congress would have adjourned the joint session and met in their individual chambers to consider the objections.
The Courts might well consider an Obama eligibility lawsuit if a plaintiff WITH standing had been presented to the right court. John McCain, Sarah Palin and/or the Republican Party would have been able to show direct and particularized injury from Obama’s election. I could see a judge granting standing to those plaintiffs but none of those entities chose to file suit or even join an existing suit as co-plaintiffs.
Additionally, the CRIMINAL rather than the civil courts could consider Obama’s eligibility if a Grand Jury investigation had been convened to look into election fraud. There are no issues of standing in the criminal courts.
Grand juries are always the way to go in investigating political malfeasance: Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, CIA Leaks-Valerie Plame affair, Rod Blagojevich indictment, conviction, impeachment and removal are just a few examples of the successful use of Grand Juries.

“...we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels—November 12, 2009
There has been no successful appeal of the Court’s ruling in Ankeny.

... we can add that the Supreme Court would rule 9-0 to affirm this if it DID make it.

“Like I told your friend WOSG, make this stupid argument in court. Please.”

Apparently, the argument that ‘natural-born’ is equivalent to being a US citizen at birth HAS been made ... and won ...

And those stricter standards are? Give us a description.”

Simple: Those eligible to be President needed to be born a Citizen of the United States, rather than a naturalized citizen. Hamilton’s draft of the constitutional provision was:

The intent and meaning of natural-born was and is clear - it is equivalent to those who acquire citizenship via birth.

“”...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” - Vattel

“Drafts” do not carry the force of law. If it is so clear why is Barack Hussein Obama II the 44th President of the United States today? With more than 80 unsuccessful court challenges to his eligibility including eight attempts at the Supreme Court of the United States, no judge or panel of judges has ruled him to be ineligible.

Where in any law ever passed by any Congress in US history is the two citizen parent requirement codified in law? Where in any decision ever issued by the Supreme Court of the United States has the two citizen parent requirement in order to be a natural born citizen been upheld?
An 18th century Swiss professor’s law book also does not carry the force of law in the United States.
“We conclude that a person born within the borders of the United States is a “Natural Born Citizen” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals in “Ankeney, et.al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.”—November 12, 2009

“I think I see what you mean. The Fourteenth Amendment overrides any common-law foundation for citizenship. I don’t want to throw away birthright citizenship until we can come up with a positive, better solution through the Constitution.”

More precisely, the 14th amendment overrode the Dred Scott decision, a decision which some ‘birthers’ here are curiously using vaguely similar arguments to. the 14th amendment repaired a defect in our laws wherein citizenship was not clearly defined.
there is no common law definition of citizenship. Citizenship is defined in US law by statute and our constitution, as the 14th does define ‘birthright citizenship’.

There is simply no reasoning with these people on this issue. First they say look to the plain meaning and then they say not to look at the plain meaning, but to reference an 18th cen treatise.

They also cannot cite to any official govt’t document such as a birth certificate or passport which draws a distinction between “natural born” and ‘born’ citizens of the USA.

Of course they cannot do so because there is no such distinction.

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, ( Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.”

Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 101-102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 45 (U.S.1884)

There is a reason there is no case or procedure for a person born in the US to foreign nat’l parents who are here illegaly to be naturalized. The reason is because that person is a citizen at birth and doesn’t need to be naturalized.

” “Drafts” do not carry the force of law.”

Or course. But the Hamilton wording emphasizes the point that the framers saw these terms as equivalent and synonymous - “born a Citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” are the same thing, and they saw it that way.

The same wiki link has these other definitions:
The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster’s International Dictionary (3rd edition) define it as a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later).

Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

A memorandum to Congress dated April 3rd, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service, states—

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the l700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth”or” by birth.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

Wrong. They were here on visas and they hadn’t gone through the naturalization process to make them legal citizens. You do know that you have to go through a naturalization process to become a LEGAL American when immigrating. If you believe both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the child’s birth for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen, then Bobby Jindal has a problem. Under this definition, he would not be a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, he would not be eligible to be President of the United States. Amar and Raj Jindal are the Punjabi-born parents of Governor Bobby Jindal. Raj Jindal’s maiden name was Raj Gupta. According to nola.com:

http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/12/a_passage_from_india.html

In fact, it was Gupta’s career move that brought the newly married couple to Louisiana.

Gupta was accepted as a graduate assistant at Louisiana State University when she was pregnant with Bobby. Her husband, who at the time was an assistant professor at a Chandigarh engineering college, was concerned about her moving overseas in her condition. LSU offered her one month of maternity leave if she joined the program, a deal the Jindals agreed was too good to turn down.

They moved in January 1971. Bobby was born soon after, in Baton Rouge.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that at the time of Bobby Jindal’s birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens. In fact they could not have been U.S. Citizens at the time because citizenship in the United States always requires 5 years of residency in the United States before qualifying. It is clear that the Jindal’s were only here for a few months before Bobby Jindal was born.

You are so right. If it was a question of the birthright of the parents, then why all the hoopla over the short form vs the long form of Obama’s birth certificate? We already know his father is a Kenyan, so he could be disqualified just on those grounds, no matter which BC he uses. The whole question has been, was he born in Hawaii, or was he born in Kenya?

Now the rules keep changing with every argument we present. Let them fight it out. I have a very busy Saturday ahead of me. Bobby Jindal IS eligible. Argue with me all you people want, but it won’t matter in the long run. If Bobby Jindal wants to run, he will and will meet all eligibility requirements. Have fun.

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.