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.
“Soil babies’ citizenship is conditional on whatever the US Code is at the time.”
I suppose it could be altered if, say, Congress were to declare illegal immigrants, or some other group, “beyond the law.” Certain laws do have the potential to change who fits the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the 14th amendment which now applies to people who fit the conventional “beyond the law” categories (diplomats, Indians, invading armies). There is a potential, surely, but a basic practical impossibility. Because there’s little reason ever to exclude groups from U.S. law. Even diplomats have immunity in limited circumstances. The U.S. government likes to control things.
The important thing is that the 14th amendment largely controls who becomes a citizen at birth, not statutory law.
“The US Code can only confer naturalized citizenship, per the Constitution.”
I don’t know what part of the Constitution says that.
“They are naturalized at birth, a condition entirely conditional on statutory, not natural, law.”
No such thing as naturalization at birth. That makes no sense. By the way, except perhaps through the 9th amendment, natural law does not have force of law in the U.S. It is something for philosophers, not lawyers.
“The Constitution I have a copy of specifically requires a ‘natural born citizen’ NOT just an ordinary ‘citizen’ as noted in the 14th amendment”
Didn’t they teach you english in school? Read it again.
“It doesn’t matter what the framers of the 14th amendment’s intentions were. It only matters what the amendment says, in plain English”
Bingo!
I can only assume the framers of the 16th and 17th amendments intended them to destroy federalism and establish Empire America. But I don’t read them that way, because they each say distinct and particular things.
“Ah..you brought out the word spurious..which means not natural..not genuine”
Not genuine, yes. In other words, fake, false. But unnatural? That’s a stretch, and so is your attempt at comedy.
“How can he be a natural born citizen when his parents were both foreign nationals and they weren’t even naturalized yet?”
Because he was born on U.S. soil and his parents subject to U.S. law, duh.
“Because he was born on U.S. soil and his parents subject to U.S. law, duh.”
If a foreigner drives down the highway and sees a speed limit sign, you consider this to be SUBJECT TO US LAWS....lol you’re a riot.
“All citizens cannot be a natural born citizen.”
Why is it you people consistently forget about the existence of naturalized citizens? They represent the difference between citizens and natural born citizens.
“The 14th Amendment gave citizenship to former slaves. Nothing more”
Nothing more? Really? You mean they couldn’t thereafter run for president? Does that mean Obama, unlike other black (or half-black) people, is president because his father came from Kenya instead of being the offspring of the offspring (etc.) of former slaves?
not this tinfoil hat junk again....
he was born on US soil he is a us citizen eligible to be president.
“What an arrogant idiot. Intent has EVERYTHING to do with interpretation”
Oh, really? Did you read your own quote? Because something comes before intent:
“The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to THE SENSE OF THE TERMS” [caps added]
The plain meaning of the language trumps an incorrect contemporary explanation.
“You need more re-education than I have time for.”
Send him to the camp!
“The crux of the 14th does NOT rest in the word born, it rest in the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction’. But I wouldn’t expect ignorant drones who claim to be some sort of DR to know that since they obviously haven’t spent a minutia of a minute in the history books studying the subject.”
Anyone who thinks legal and illegal foreigners aren’t subject to U.S. laws obviously doesn’t have the comprehension skills necessary to understand a history book. Or any book, really.
““You need more re-education than I have time for.”
“Send him to the camp!”
No, I believe in freedom, including my own freedom not to get trapped in a fruitless conversation.
No, it is you that knows better. Looks like I know more about the law and the founding fathers than do you. You birthers have made up the rules as you go along. I’ll repeat it for you. Native born and natural born are the same thing. You are confused with the status of parents’ citizenship if one is born on foreign soil. You are a native of the place in which you were born. Therefore, you are natural born of that place. You say you no the difference between native and natural. But you actually don’t. Matters not where your parents are from. I’ve read your previous posts, and frankly, they are nothing more than gobbledy-gook, designed to muddy the waters from the same playbook as the commie libs.
“The reason for the clause in the Constitution was the desire of the Founders that anyone with allegiances other than to this country should not be eligible”
What about people with strong ties to foreign grandparents? Or someone who was educated abroad? Or lived abroad for an extended period of time (while still fulfilling the residency requirements)? Or who perhaps served in a foreign military for some reason? Or maybe just someone whose deeply-held ideology is anti-American?
All such people stand against the intent of the clause. Yet, if they have two citizen parents and were born on U.S. soil, they are according to you eligible. You see, there’s a difference between the general intent of the law and the result of its specific application. Just because they feared split loyalties does not mean the framers ipso facto outlawed presidents from having foreign parents.
“You are not getting away that easy because as YOU & ALL OTHER DRONES have repeatedly stated that soil of birth WAS the common knowledge of acceptance defining citizenship.”
My case has all along been grounded in an appreciation of the language of the 14th amendment, you obfuscator. I only ever talked about English common law to negate your and others’ mistakes about the revolution arising out of nowhere, colonists not thinking of themselves as transplanted Englishmen (not counting the ones who weren’t of course, like natives, blacks, Dutch, etc.), “the law of nations” being central to U.S. law and Blackstone being irrelevant, and so on. If you think I brought it up in other contexts, you haven’t been paying attention.
In fact, I specifically and repeatedly said that I don’t care what made for a natural born citizen when the Constitution was ratified. Remember when I called it a “moot point”? The 14th amendment is the thing. That’s what tells us who’s a natural born citizen.
It’s not doublespeak to take a breather from repeating my main point in order to correct utterly mistaken psuedo-history.
This may have escaped your attention, but Patlin is one of the most noted Constitutional scholars on the planet. If you don't believe me, ask her. She holds court at her kitchen table and passes down brilliant and insightful opinions that cannot be challenged by anyone, because they are all formed out of whole cloth within her inquiring mind. They must be true because she says so.
She and the others of her ilk have abandonded the LTC Lakin threads because they have been whipped like a rented mule on both the facts and the law. With their arguments sitting in tatters in that case, they have turned their attention to Bobby Jindal. Why, how dare he pretend to be anything but a pool boy. Doesn't he understand who he is and who they are? Pay her no mind, she's just playing a fantasy game along with the rest of the birther crowd.
“Sorry, but the language of the 14th Amendment doesn’t nullify the language of the requirements for president.”
No one’s saying it does. Or, rather, no one who knows what they’re talking about. People apparently cannot get their heads around the notion that a clause’s application can be determined by a future clause without it’s meaning or language changing a jot. The 14th amendment set who gets to be a citizen at birth, and therefore automatically set who fulfills the NBC requirement in Article 2. Simple as that.
“Duel citizenship is frowned upon in this country”
Wrong (on spelling and meaning)! Dual citizenship is ignored in this country. At least for born citizens. It matters, of course, for the naturalization process. But that’s neither here nor there.
What it comes to is you as a conservative are making the Leftist argument using leftist principles. There are laws. They are for me to control you and do not apply to me. When leftists make those implied claims conservatives protest. When conservatives turn right around and make the same sort of claims it knocks all thought of principle off the table and turns it ALL into Us vs Them power and nothing more. Constitution be damned. Exceptionalism be damned. Principle be damned. Power is everything.
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.