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.
Sorry, but you there are several ways you can be a citizen at birth and NOT be a natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett and WKA gave us clear distinctions between these terms.
You are suffering under the fallacy that absense of evidence equates to evidence of absense. It does not.
Nobody is talking about an absence of evidence ... or evidence of any kind at all.
You're forgetting that the SCOTUS recognized natural born citizenship as separate from the two categories of citizenship established under the 14th amendment. NBC is extraconstitutional.
Justice Waite: "The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption."
Justice Gray says NBC is OUTSIDE of the Constitution: "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.""
Justice Gray affirms Waite's opinion that Virginia Minor's citizenship was due to jus soli and jus sanguinis, not the 14th amendment, and is, as such, a separate type of citizenship: "Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ..."
I have never voted in a election of the Netherlands. I have been there many times on vacation visiting my grandmother and other family members.
I have never voted in a election of the Netherlands. I have been there many times on vacation visiting my grandmother and other family members.
If we really want to get technical, every person in the USA, unless they are an American Indian would be subject to the jurisdiction of the country of where their families originally came from.
No. He is a natural born citizen, meaning that he is a citizen naturally, i.e., automatically at birth, not through some later ‘naturalization’ process.
Freepers with ODS will pull out Vattel, who they never heard of before the Anointed One came to light, but it’s a specious argument.
Ha! Your post reminded me of something. No matter what there are more than the two forms of citizenship the Boxists claim as a hard fact. (Yet such a claim is a false and total artifice.) There is the citizenship of a man and the citizenship of a woman.
Clearly citizenship is categorized, and not all categories have the same rights. There is citizenship of a minor and citizenship of an adult. The Boxists seek to win arguments by artificial limiting constructs, just as they seek to ignore Vattel, and related precedents the Founders well knew.
You claim ownership of the Dictionary, like the Federal Reserve claims ownership of money. In fact such things may not be owned by one and only one, or even a few and only a few.
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the ‘living document’ approach to the Constitution. Written words do not mean what you or I subjectively wish them to mean. As allegedly said by Lincoln, just because we call a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.
Truth is not like that, and why I made analogy to the system of currency, of money. Gold is like truth. It is self-authoritative, and it's meaning can be determined accurately by anyone, not just by some authority. That is, anyone may use the known and fixed by Nature density and chemistry of gold to determine how much of an amount of gold is had.
Yet surrender that authority of determination to a certain official person or persons, and it is a certainty of human nature that in time they will be corrupted and use that sole authority to gain favor, power and wealth to themselves.
No, if the child of a foreigner born here, remains here and makes no affirmative act to renounce the citizenship afforded to them by the United States under the 14th Amendment, then any children he or she may have will be natural-born citizens, provided his or her spouse or at least the other parent is a citizen as well. The bond of allegiance will have been broken by failing to affirm the claim and it therefore cannot descent to any children born of two citizen parents.
As for myself, I descend from all original citizens with the exception of two known Cherokee women. Their countries of origin span practically all of Northern Europe and the British Isles. There is no "country where my family originally came from," unless this were to be narrowed down to my surname, which is English. I have no other nation that can claim me, and no other country has my allegiance.
I suppose a case could be made for Confederate ancestors having to take an oath of allegiance, with any children born during the era of 1861-1865 being of questionable citizenship, but the United States never ceased claiming them as citizens and those states as US territory. My paternal great grandfather did take the oath of allegiance. Only one 2nd great uncle refused.
It's really not that complicated. Citizenship that descends from the parents, particularly the father, with no competing claims due to birth in a foreign jurisdiction is natural citizenship by circumstance of birth, so-called under Natural Law. There are no doubts or questions whatsoever, no competing allegiances. Other forms of citizenship are bestowed by a state or a monarch and are therefore not "natural" but statutory.
“The 1790 Naturalization Act is defunct ignorant one. “
... written and passed into law by signers of the constitution.
So much for respect for our founding fathers.
“It has been superseded by many Naturalization Acts. “... in which respect it is no different nor less valid than other laws that were later amended.
“The Congressional Research Service is a far left group” ...
That’s pure ad hominem, and hardly relevent when the quote merely stated commonly accepted definition. They are not the only one’s stating the obvious. Maybe the Oxford dictionary has biases too. They said the same.
“At the time the Constitution was wrote ...” ... we did not have the 14th amendment, which makes the specification of who acquires citizenship at birth back then only of historical interest. TODAY, who gets to be a US citizen at birth?
This post has the answer:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=548#548
“You are conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen.” “
Natural-born citizen equates to those who acquired citizenship at birth, rather than through naturalization.
Very simple.
“I think the law actually on the books says there needs to be at least one born citizen parent.”
You *THINK*?!? Look, if the law is there, cite it. there is no such law, except in the cases where someone is born overseas (then such rules apply). If you are born in the US, neither parent needs to be a US citizen to acquire citizenship at birth.
“The problem is judicial activism. Heard of it?”
Yes, and we are seeing examples on this thread by birthers who refuse to acknowledge the original intent of Article II, which was to restrict Presidential eligibility to those who acquired their citizenship at birth (vs those who acquired citizenship by becoming naturalized citizens).
If you acquired your citizenship at birth, you are a nautral-born citizen and are eligible to be President. End of story.
If you want to oppose judicial activism, then have the intellectual integrity to oppose birther arguments based on flawed mis-readings of the law and our constitution and support the above proposition, which is valid BTW no matter what the original intent of the 14th amendment is (because it never changed the equivalence between “natural-born citizen” and ‘citizen from birth’).
“Vattel’s law of nations definition was root definition of US citizenship & birth in a nation & subject to its laws does not constitute automatic citizenship, one must be born to citizen parent(S), no foreign allegiances allowed. “
WRONG! First, the phrase birthers use to justify their claims was - “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
Natives, not ‘natural-born citizens’ and not ‘citizens’. Vattel, like all non-birther types recognized the two ways to be a citizen - via birth or via naturalization. ALL those who were citizens or subjects at birth were “natives” or “natural-born”.
Vattel notes that in England even children of aliens become “NATURAL-BORN subjects”. And well he should, for that was British common law. Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fatherswere natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
Many of the framers of the Constitution were lawyers, and key ones were English trained, based their understanding and language on English Common Law, and the U. S. Supreme court has said that the Constitution is written in the language of English Common Law (Smith v. Alabama):
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465.
IT IS THIS UNDERSTANDING OF TERMS, COMBINED WITH THE 14TH AMENDMENT, THAT LED TO THE KIM WONG ARK DECISION, that granted birthright citizenship to ALL those born in the USA even those who are born to foreign residents of the US. Vattel’s definitions are obsolete and irrelevent post 14th amendment.
You should stay about from Dr Conspiracy’s website..he is a proven fraud. The words posted there have no validity, using them here shows us what you are.
Obama is a hybrid, he is not a natural born citizen.
“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendents of the White Europeans who formed the country.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2620065/posts?page=26#26
The pure bloodline argument at it's finest...
“Not eligible, end of story.”
Eligible via citizenship at birth, end of story.
” Jindal will never be President for more than one reason. He isn’t eligible and he will never be elected.”
1. If he ran in 2012 he would clean the floor on Obama.
2. Jidhal is eligible.
“That’s just the facts. Can we just have a normal President that we don’t have to worry about?”
There is nothing non-normal about Jindhal, except that he is well-above-average in just about everything.
” How about a real American next time?”
Jindhal is as real American as you can get. And has been Congressman and Governor to boot.
“We already have had one usurper with dual allegiances to god knows how many other countries and once is enough.”
This is an insult and slander against governor Jindhal, who’s only allegiance has always been to USA, and has been a great conservative, great Republican, and great public servant.
“The words posted there have no validity”
huh?!? Dont know who Dr Conspiracy is, I posed a quote from BLACKSTONE!
These were written 200 years ago in a law book that has been of great importance to American jurisprudence. They didnt just get created on a random website.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it… all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
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.