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.

[jamese777]

How can he be a natural born citizen when his parents were both foreign nationals and they weren’t even naturalized yet?

---

Because, as the Indiana Court of Appeals already ruled and no other court has overruled: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, 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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

There is no court decision in the entire history of the American republic which has ruled that two American citizen parents are required in order for a candidate or elected official to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen” and therefore eligible to run for or assume the office of president or vice president.

[VADoc1980]

Mmm, hows that 14th amendment not granting citizenship to illegal aliens workin out for ya? Oh wait, you say it’s not? Shocker. You need another constitutional amendment to repeal the citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. That’s why people are clamoring for one. If it was as simple as you say (that children of illegals aren’t citizens), we wouldn’t be granting them citizenship at birth. We are.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It IS as simple as I say, but as usual, the Constitution has been ignored and subverted so that what is patently obvious (the 2nd Amendment) has been twisted in a way it was never meant to be.

[VADoc1980]

You're the one ignoring the Constitution and trying to trample the will of the people and their elected representatives that passed the 14th amendment in 1868. I don't care what some French guy named Vattel said. He certainly wasn't natural-born. The 14th amendment grants citizenship to everyone born in this country. There are only two types of citizenship - born and naturalized. Jindal wasn't naturalized so he's a born citizen. Obama wasn't naturalized so he's also a born citizen. Being born here trumps any writing you can come up with and all court decisions regarding the 14th are IRRELEVANT. The Constitution trumps everything. It's the ultimate authority on citizenship. Nobody outside of the birther community cares about the secondary source, persuasive crap being put out there.

If you are born in this country, you are a citizen. If you don't like that fact, repel the 14th. But the attempts of birthers to get around it seem downright seditious sometimes.

[VADoc1980]

Much as I like Bobby Jindal and think he would be good for the country I hope that he is, in fact, ruled ineligible. He is one of the best we have but he should not be granted the status of a Natural Born Citizen if his parents were not citizens when he was born.

You just contradicted yourself. If you're born a citizen then it happens at birth. You can't retroactively grant someone natural-born status. If Jindal was born here then he became a citizen at birth. You have no say in the matter. You're not the arbiter of who is a natural-born citizen and who isn't. The 14th amendment states that individuals born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens. There are only two types of citizenship, regardless of what some on here think: born and naturalized. Jindal wasn't naturalized so he must have been born a citizen in Baton Rouge.

[VADoc1980]

SCOTUS had the chance in January 2009, and Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly was the missing 4th vote to hear the Obama case.

Cite a credible source for this or retract it. Otherwise you're just smearing three distinguished members of the court without evidence (Alito, Scalia and Thomas) by implying that they decided to hear this case.

[VADoc1980]

All you need to know about dissenting opinions is that the dissenters were on the losing side of the argument.

[devere]

“Otherwise you’re just smearing three distinguished members of the court without evidence (Alito, Scalia and Thomas) by implying that they decided to hear this case.”

That’s hilarious! I thought I was criticizing Roberts for NOT deciding to hear the case.

[patlin]

Obviously you haven't read the congressional testimony & statements of the framers(Sen. Howard & Sen. Trumbull) of the 14th & cited by the Supreme Court in 1884 case of Elk v Wilkins, the seminal case that held the language of the 14th to be constitutional, explanation & language was accepted in the holding of both the deciding & dissenting opinions aka the entire court unanimously accepted this definition as being the law since our founding:

“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

or how about Rep Bingham who wrote the actual language of the bill that passed the House of Reps:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. Now, where in either

[VADoc1980]

No, you're actually paying Roberts a compliment if what you say is true (that he refused to hear it). But where's your evidence that the other three conservatives on the court wanted to hear this case? Saying so in a post doesn't make it so. Or were you just dropping your hook and trying to get a bite?

The idea that Roberts should be criticized for refusing to listen to the birthers' screed is amusing. Should we grant 9/11 truthers hearings before SCOTUS as well?

[devere]

“All you need to know about dissenting opinions is that the dissenters were on the losing side of the argument.”

Really? Here’s to Byron White and William Rehnquist, the dissenters in Roe v Wade. Their dissent will someday be the majority opinion.

[devere]

You need more re-education than I have time for.
Enjoy your experience on Free Republic.

[noinfringers2]

The Constitution I have a copy of specifically requires a ‘natural born citizen’ NOT just an ordinary ‘citizen’ as noted in the 14th amendment. I alluded to this in a prvious posting as to my brother and I being born of non-naturalized Russian immigrants, thus not being eligible for POTUSA. We both served in WWII. Brother was killed on Okinawa. As much as I had thought as a child that I could be POTUSA I had to settle for smething less grandiose such as a foot soldier.

[VADoc1980]

Let's make something clear, patlin. It doesn't matter what the framers of the 14th amendment's intentions were. It only matters what the amendment says, in plain English, because that's how SCOTUS interpreted it in later cases (like Wong Kim Ark). If the framers of the 14th amendment had said in the legislative history that they didn't mean for this to apply to Chinese people, would you support excluding people of Chinese descent from automatic citizenship at birth here?

Perhaps if these gentlemen you reference didn't want the 14th amendment to apply to everyone born here, they should have MENTIONED IT IN THE AMENDMENT. I'm looking at my pocket copy of the Constitution and I don't see anything in the 14th amendment about allegiance to any foreign sovereignty or excluded by operation children of ministers, consuls, etc. If it ain't in there, it doesn't matter.

[bushpilot1]

E. Vattel was not French. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with a natural born citizen. All citizens cannot be a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment gave citizenship to former slaves. Nothing more. Please do not distort and warp our laws for political and personal gain.

It is a canker that eats at the heart of our constitution.

[VADoc1980]

If you don’t think that you aren’t eligible to be president despite being born in this country then I don’t think you’re intelligent enough to hold the office, so I guess it’s a good thing that you doubt your eligibility, chances of winning aside.

[VADoc1980]

My post above should start with "If you don't think that you are eligible."

[VADoc1980]

And when that day happens that Roe is overturned (and I hope it happens soon, because 1 million babies are being killed a year), then the majority in Roe will be irrelevant. The matter will be sent back to the states. But until that day, it is irrelevant. Or we could always pass a constitutional amendment that overrules SCOTUS. You can pass a constitutional amendment for almost anything.

[VADoc1980]

Wow, so you think that the 14th amendment only applied to slvaes? You’re saying people born here aren’t even regular birtherized citizens? I think the logic that there are three types of citizens (natural born, native and naturalized) is preposterous, but I’ll go along with it for purposes of this post. You’re saying that children born in this country aren’t even non-natural born citizens? That’s a complete distortion of what the 14th amendment says.

[patlin]

Let's make something clear, patlin. It doesn't matter what the framers of the 14th amendment's intentions were...

What an arrogant idiot. Intent has EVERYTHING to do with interpretation. As far as the Chinese, take that up with China & the US Govt who signed the agreement disallowing US citizenship to the Chinese & their offspring born in the US and I might add, that the US Congress agreed to.

Justice Joseph Story (1833) Rules of Constitutional Interpretation

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm

§ 181. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties.