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 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.”
Apparently, none of your books ever told you ancient Greek law and modern U.S. law are not the same thing. Nor that there was and is such a thing as federal territory in the U.S. which belongs to none of the states. Nor that the Founding Fathers viewed themselves as transplanted Englishmen whose ancient rights, as provided by the common and constitutional laws of English history, were being violated by a tyrant king.
Come to think of it, your wide reading and voluminous library don’t teach a lot, do they?
“It is NOT ‘absolutely wrong’ that the US does not want duel citizens if they can help it.”
I might say po-tay-to, po-tah-to, in that one man’s “if they can help it” is another’s they don’t care outside the naturalization process. Because unlike naturalized citizens, born citizens can’t be made to jump through hoops. What I want to know is, if the subject at hand is born citizens, why are we talking about naturalization hoops?
“There it is in black and white above the renunciation of foreign citizenship.”
That’s for naturalized citizens, and you know it. Irrelevant for everyone else. Holding foreign citizenship makes no difference under U.S. law if you are also a U.S. citizen. Nothing you say changes that.
“And oh yeah, the 14th Amendment did not change the natural born citizen clause in Article 2, Section 5 of the US Constitution”
It didn’t change it the way you’re probably thinking. Just changed who it applied to. Perhaps. I dont know for sure, and don’t care. As I said, it’s moot point whether soil babies were at the time of the Constitution’s ratification natural born citizens. What matters is that they were at the time of the 14th amendment’s ratification.
Apparently you don't understand that a Liberal Arts education is the 1st step for any person who actually wants to learn constitutional & civil law. You said you read Aristotle, yet you mocked me when I quoted him. Want to moock our founding fathers too?
Just a very short list of the books archived by the founders & framers. I wouldn't want to overwhelm you all at once:
Journals of the Continental Congress, FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 1783
The Committee [Mr. James Madison, Mr. Hugh Williamson and Mr. Thomas Mifflin] instructed on the motion of Col. [Theodorick] Bland to report a list of books proper for the use of Congress, recommend that the Superintendt. of Finance and the Secy. of Congress be empowered to take order for procuring the books enumerated below: the same when procured to be under the care of the said Secy.
Encyclopedie Méthodique.
Dictionaire de l’homme d’État.
Law of Nature and Nations
Cudworth’s Intellectual System.
Cumberland’s Law of Nature.
Wolfius’s Law of Nature.
Hutchinson’s Moral Philosophy.
Beller’s delineation of universal Law.
Ferguson’s analysis of Mor: Philosophy.
Rutherforth’s institutes of Natural Law.
Grotius’s Law of Nature and Nations.
Puffendorf’s Law of Nature and Nations with notes by Barbeyrac.
Puffendorf de officio hominis et civis.
Vattell’s Law of Nature and Nations.
Vattell’s Questions in Natural Law.
Burlamaque’s Law of Nature and Nations.
General History
Universal History.
Modern History.
Raleigh’s History of the World.
Voltaire’s Historical works.
Abbé Millot Histoire generale.
Dictionaire of Bayle.
Burnett’s History of his own times.
Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History.
Goldsmith’s History of Greece.
Stanyan’s History of Greece.
Potter’s Grecian Antiquities.
Coussin Histoire Romaine.
Histoire de Constantinople.
Goldsmith’s Roman History.
Hooke’s Roman History.
Vertot’s Revolutions of Rome.
Gibbon’s on the decline of the Rom: Empire.
Kennet’s Roman Antiquities.
Plato's Republic by Spend.
Aristotles do.
Sidney on Government.
Locke on Government.
Macchiavelli’s works.
Father Paul on the Venetian Republic.
Montagu’s rise & fall of antient republics.
Montesquieu’s works.
Beccaria’s works.
Ferguson’s History of Civil Society.
Miller on distinction of Ranks in Society.
Steuart’s principles of Political economy.
Smith on the wealth of Nations.
WOW, it seems even our founders were intrigued by ancient Roman & Greek history. Well those and the history of ALL the other nations whose people settled in America and who's laws & customs they needed to accomodate in order for a Federal Union of sovereign nation states to co-exist, let alone survive being conquered ever again. As Tucker said in his commentaries "Tucker's Blackstone(1803):
Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.
(snip for length)
3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.
And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.
So, who were NOT the US citizens according to the 1st American dictionary:
Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (both 1828 & 1846 editions):
ALIEN: 1. Foreign, not belonging to the same country, land or government; 2. belonging to one who is not a citizen
ALIEN: 1. Foreign, not belonging to the same country, land or government; 2. belonging to one who is not a citizen
Webster wasn't talking about furniture or other material possessions here.
“Equating it to “citizen parents on US soil” is found NOWHERE in the Constitution”
It says a Natural Born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of......
I don’t care what that means to you. I know what it means to me.
“Anchor babies are citizens from birth. Citizens from birth are natural born citizens. Therefore, anchor babies can be president”
You’re wrong.
“You’re calling the 14th amendment a “statute.” Okay, then what is Article 2, section 1? What is the whole Constitution, for that matter?
Why is it that birthers imagine the United States of America is somehow naturally occuring? It didn’t exist before there was a man-made Constitution. People didn’t become citizens of it by an act of God. There is no such thing as a non-”statutory” U.S. citizen.”
A Natural Born Citizen is NOT born of foreigners. Sorry.
“God just appeared to me and told me soil babies are natural citizens. So phooey.”
Lol. Don’t make it so. Natural Born Citizens are NOT born to foreigners. Sorry to burst your bubble.
“Subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law, yes.”
You missed the whole point. I knew you would. Natural Born Citizens are NOT born to non-citizens.
“I don’t care what that means to you. I know what it means to me.”
Wow. You have no cite or source in the constitution or US law, just ‘what it means to me’. It matters not what the law says, it only matters what YOU want it to be. Judicial activism!
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.
“A “natural born” citizen is the produce of American citizens.”
“A “natural born” citizen is anyone who is a citizen from birth. According to 1th amendment and US law, may be the produce of American citizens or of non-citizen residents in the US.
What part of the English language as written in the 14th amendment troubles you so much?
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There you go again making stuff up, like a typical birther.
Never in his entire career as a justice did Gray claim that citizens and subjects of foreign states residing in the United States were not subject to US juristidcion. Nor did Gray every claim that natural born citizenship required citizen parents.
So you are just flat out wrong.
Nope. That would be you. If you want to claim otherwise, please produce a citation from one of Gray's opinions asserting that foreign citizens or subjects, other than diplomats, residing in the United States are somehow not subject to US jurisdiction.
When one travels to another country, they are by the laws of nations & international law, subject to the laws of that nation.
Yes, that's what subject to jurisdiction means.
They, however, are NOT subject to its political jurisdiction.
Niether the 14th Amendment nor Justice Gray assert that "political" jurisdiction is required for birthright citizenship. There is a reason they omit the "political" from the text.
Are you going to now claim that the framers of the amendment meant to put in "political" and just forgot, or that justice Gray just did another "chop job?"
So do you consider Justice Thomas a crank?
“Wow. You have no cite or source in the constitution or US law, just ‘what it means to me’.”
It has been cited numerous times. You will never be convinced that foreigners shouldn’t be President.
Likewise, you will NEVER convince me that a Natural Born Citizen is not from Citizen parentS. NEVER
“”No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
Go ahead, torture yourself....lol
The liberals mindset is..we let the flood of illegals from the South continue..because it will make the US a better country. Obama wants to give them citizenship.
My question is..how can people who we defeated make this country stronger.
Hmmm... making stuff up, ‘eh?
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Decided November 3, 1884
Page 112 U. S. 98
MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court...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.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 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 ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually...
It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992...
The Act of July 27, 1868, c. 249, declaring the right of expatriation to be a natural and inherent right of all people, and reciting that “in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship,” while it affirms the right of every man to expatriate himself from one country, contains nothing to enable him to become a citizen of another without being naturalized under its authority. 15 Stat. 223; Rev.Stat. § 1999...
Now just who is the one making stuff up? Why curiosity of course. Some things will never change.
““”No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution””
Let’s see. What can a thinking person can deduce from this...
1...... A citizen of the US, at the time of the adoption, etc. is NOT a Natural Born Citizen
2..... A citizen who was born in the US, is not necessarily a Natural Born Citizen (Certainly foreign born citizens were never considered for the position, so that means that US born citizens were the ones that were CITIZENS AT THE ADOPTION, etc. Therefore, US born citizens were not all NBCs,....this fact in itself blows ALL of your claims out of the water. (anchor babies are NBCs..what an outrageous claim)
3.....The only reason to ‘grandfather’ in the “citizens at adoption”, was for citizens born to foreigners. There can be NO OTHER REASON.
4.....One can ONLY find that Natural Born Citizens are born of CITIZENS on US soil
5.....Allegiance is the determining factor. The founding fathers weren’t stupid.
on a side note.....Time changes definitions and perceptions. EVERYONE knew what a NBC was until this latest development.
An example....I have my thesis in my notebook. The mouse is on the desk. <totally different meaning during the founding...
(I hope you can see, time changes definitions. You’re using current definitions to explain away things that EVERYONE knew the meaning of during the founding.)
It's not a matter of defeat, it's the character of the persons who are allowed to enter. If the 1st act of entering is to enter illegally, it shows a lack of moral character & lack of respect for the nation they have illegally entered. And while some pc elites like to use the “slavery” defense, assuming these illegals have no brain or moral character of their own, I only have one answer:
Philemon 1-27 & the story of Onesimus. Regardless of how these illegals got here, it is their moral duty to return from where they came. Once they had done their repentance, they are free to apply to reenter legally. Our country's survivl depends on the strong moral character of ALL, citizens & immigrants alike.
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.