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.
I was not aware of the basis of the term “spurious” in Roman law. Still, your comedy was a stretch.
“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.”
Subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law, yes. i know what jurisdiction is, I know what laws are, and I know what it means to be subject to them. The fact that illegal immigrants—unlike people with qualified de jure or de facto immunity (diplomats, invading armies, native americans—are regularly passed through the U.S. legal system and treated like everyone else—who doesn’t have immunity—is a testament to their fitting the criteria.
“FYI.. if you don’t have the respect or appreciation of those that drafted the 14th, then you have nothing.”
I have respect for intent, but not above plain meaning. The actual words come first. For instance, I respect that the intended outcome of the interstate commerce clause was to make commerce regular, meaning to knock down trade barriers between the states. However, I also recognize that current federal laws controlling commerce that don’t exactly fit the intended meaning of “regulate” are nonetheless constitutional. They violate the spirit but not the letter of the law.
None but cranks, frankly, hold otherwise.
“they are not grounded in the truth, but pure progressive obfuscation”
You want obfuscation, check out the reems of nonsense written to hide what’s plainly obvious to the vast majority of humanity in the few words that make up the couple of clauses controlling who gets to be president. Ever wonder why the birthers are such an extreme minority? They have made obscure what to everyone else is pristinely limpid.
Right on spelling and right 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.
It is here and there, and in the Ms. Elg's SCOTUS case, her parents renounced their Swedish citizenship before they were naturalized. The United States wants only one allegiance, which is only to this country. We don't want other allegiances to other countries from around the world.
“You tuble are beyond help because if as you say, ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means merely soil, there wouldn’t have even been a need to put in the 14th.” “
Ugh. Don’t put words in my mouth. The “subject” part is a further qualification beyond being born on U.S. soil. “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” covers those who are born on U.S. soil but aren’t born citizens. Its necessary because groups like diplomats (who have qualified immunity), natives (who have their own nations within the U.S.), and invading armies (whom I trust I don’t need to explain) don’t count.
“Even Obama says ‘words have meaning’ & where the law is concerned, redundancy is frowned upon”
No redundancy involved. The “subject” qualification was necessary to answer those who might ask, “Yeah? What ‘bout Injins? They ain’t gonna be cit’zens now, ‘re they?”
“If soil was the main factor in determining citizenship of those born in the US regardless of parentage, then the 14th would have read:
‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States’”
Like I said, birth on U.S. soil is not the only factor. There are also certain groups that no country in history has allowed to bear citizens, for obvious reasons. I mention them above.
Well, if that is the case, the “T” should know this fact:
In 431 BC, a candidate for citizenship had to prove that he was a freeborn son of a citizen father and mother, which was the first test of birth citizenship. Then he had to prove that he was eighteen years old & of good moral character. (From: Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.1 & Fathers & Sons in Athens by B. Strauss pg 43)
“God didn’t write it, but he guided and inspired the founders of this nation to write the US Constitution.”
Including the 14th amendment?
“Natural born is a truism. The natural born citizen clause is a reference to natural or God’s law. It is an immutable law and is not artificial as are man made laws.”
Even if I grant that (and I don’t really), in order to be a natural born citizen, you have to be a citizen OF something. In this case the United States, which came into being by virtue of its man-made Constitution. People only became U.S. citizens because the Constitution existed in the first place.
Even if every citizen on down, from the beginning to the end of the U.S.’s existence, becomes a citizen the “natural” way (i.e., according to you, being born of citizen parents), original citizens became citizens by an act of law. If man had not made the U.S., it simple would not exist, and neither would its citizens (qua citizens). Nature would not have intevened. How can one be a natural and God-ordained member of an unnatural institution?
Well, if that is the case, the “T” should know this fact:
In 431 BC, a candidate for citizenship had to prove that he was a freeborn son of a citizen father and mother, which was the first test of birth citizenship. Then he had to prove that he was eighteen years old & of good moral character. (From: Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.1 & Fathers & Sons in Athens by B. Strauss pg 43)"
Oh, that's a slam dunk to the Tuble-obfuscate'r. LoL.
I hate to continue to respond to you, but you are absolutely wrong.
“The United States wants only one allegiance, which is only to this country”
You can psychoanalyze the U.S. all you want, but it is false to say it “wants only one allegiance.” It only cares in the case of naturalized citizens, who are asked to renounce their previous ties. For everyone else it could care less.
Why you excerpt a paragraph on “becoming a citizen” in a discussion about born citizens is beyond me. Soil babies are not required to do anything, much less renounce foreign ties. They possess citizenship by birthright, not by the whims of the naturalization process.
“In 431 BC, a candidate for citizenship had to prove that he was a freeborn son of a citizen father and mother, which was the first test of birth citizenship. Then he had to prove that he was eighteen years old & of good moral character.”
I’m at a loss as to what this has to do with anything we’re talking about.
In your mind it may be, but not according to SCOTUS:
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995) (”this Court will avoid a reading which renders some words altogether redundant”); see also Richard A. Posner, Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution, 37 Case. W. Res. L. Rev. 179 (1989).
Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire “subject to the jurisdiction” clause redundant. Anyone who is “born” in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Yet it is a well-established doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts, including the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results.
“Yeah? What ‘bout Injins? They ain’t gonna be cit’zens now, ‘re they?”
How insulting. You obviously don't have an ounce of morality in you. Prof Eastman, Chapman Univ School of Law, Dir. Claremont Institute for Constitutional Jurisprudence:
...if anything, American Indians, as members of tribes that were themselves dependent upon the United States (and hence themselves subject to its jurisdiction), had a stronger claim to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment merely by virtue of their birth within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States than did children of foreign nationals. But the Court in Elk rejected even that claim and in the process necessarily rejected the claim that the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, meant merely territorial jurisdiction as opposed to complete, political jurisdiction.
Such was the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause initially given by the Supreme Court, and it was the correct interpretation. As Thomas Cooley noted in his treatise, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States "meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government."[Thomas Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America 243 (2001) (1880).]
“Oh, that’s a slam dunk to the Tuble-obfuscate’r. LoL.”
It would hardly be possible to do a decent parody of Red Steel. He would shortly exceed it himself. I cannot for the life of me understand how what Aristotle describes as qualfications to be an Athenian citizen applies to us, let alone be a slam dunk against me.
Ancient Greek law has almost no bearing on modern U.S. law. It is a historical curiosity, and does contain nuggets of ideas which would eventually impact U.S. law. Through an infinitely more circuitous route than English common law, I might add.
We owe to the Greeks the concept of manslaughter, for instance. Other of their concepts are less popular. Slavery, for instance. The status of women, another. Electing political officers by lot, anyone? There’s the marriage of church and state, too. Do I have to keep going?
Yes, “T” and the other google degree recipients have limited resources. I on the other hand have a loving family that knows I LOVE to read & research, plus the grandchildren that are home schooled have an additional library for reference. This week brings yet another big milestone “B-DAY” & I had some new research materials on my wish list I am sure to be receiving. If you can get your hands on the Strauss book, it is really fascinating. Not only learning the laws of the day, but the history behind their development of civil law prior to the New Covenant.
A fanatic is a person who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
- Winston Churchill
Just as JR is kicking and zotting social liberals lately, the obots will have their day. If not zotted by JR, they’ll be zotted by the news.
:-)
No
“Anyone who is ‘born’ in the United States is, under this interpretation, necessarily ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.”
That is a gross misrepresentation of “this,” i.e. my, interpretation. Or do you keep missing me citing the children of diplomats, Native Americans, and invading armies as being excluded by the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase? I can keep on saying it, if you prefer.
“How insulting. You obviously don’t have an ounce of morality in you.”
Huh? Because I used slang? Big deal.
“if anything, American Indians, as members of tribes that were themselves dependent upon the United States (and hence themselves subject to its jurisdiction), had a stronger claim to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment merely by virtue of their birth within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States than did children of foreign nationals.”
Prof Eastman, Chapman Univ School of Law, Dir. Claremont Institute for Constitutional Jurisprudence can say what he wants, but he’s historically wrong. Native tribes were always considered “nations within nations,” possessing a measure of their own sovereignty, while obviously not being totally sovereign.
This prof’s personal opinion of how they’re more American than foreign nationals aside, they were not considered citizens under the 14th amendment. SCOTUS didn’t even consider them citizens if they voluntarily renounced allegiance to their tribes. U.S. law does not govern tribal land like it does the rest of the country. They have limited autonomy and qualified immunity. Ever notice how the EPA cuts them slack, for instance?
This is such a well-known part of U.S. history that I feel silly having to repeat it.
Wrong again Tuble.
You can psychoanalyze the U.S. all you want, but it is false to say it “wants only one allegiance.” It only cares in the case of naturalized citizens, who are asked to renounce their previous ties. For everyone else it could care less.
It is NOT "absolutely wrong" that the US does not want duel citizens if they can help it. There it is in black and white above the renunciation of foreign citizenship. Ms. Elg did not have duel citizenship at the time of her birth because before she was born, her parents renounced their Swedish citizenship. Ms Elg's parents could not pass on a jus sanguinis foreign citizenship to her before she was born since her parents renounced their former citizenship under oath. Your pal WOSG brought up MS Elg was a duel citizen, but when she was born in the U.S. she was not. I always have to paint the picture for you guys. The renunciation of foreign citizenship has been US law since the 1795 Naturalization Act.
Why you excerpt a paragraph on “becoming a citizen” in a discussion about born citizens is beyond me.
It appears much is "beyond" you
And oh yeah, the 14th Amendment did not change the natural born citizen clause in Article 2, Section 5 of the US Constitution. That is a fallacy perpetrated by the After-Birthers.
You could not be more wrong.
Sorry that I am three hours late to the party.
A “natural born” citizen is the produce of American citizens.
What part of the English language as written in the Constitution troubles you so much?
Have you ever even read the Constitution?
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.