http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=778#778
Ya just gotta luv it when an obot steps in it & then puts that same foot in their mouth
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=778#778
Ya just gotta luv it when an obot steps in it & then puts that same foot in their mouth
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2001.05.0125:chapter=2.18&highlight=vattel
Ms. UnCurious is one of the more clownish after-Birfers.
She thought because I didn’t put up a picture on her after-Birfer thread of a commercial all jetliner from the late 1950s and/or from the early 1960s, she thought that flying was just about impossible for someone to get to Africa from Hawaii or from anywhere else in the world. Coocoo.
“...The only reason to ‘grandfather’ in the “citizens at adoption”, was for citizens born to foreigners. There can be NO OTHER REASON.”
Um .... NO!
Your ‘logic’ is laughably bad. The real reason was quite simple: Anyone born prior to 1776 could not be a ‘natural-born Citizen” of the U.S. since the U.S. didnt exist prior To allows people born beforethe formation of the USA, they added “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” fo religibility purposes.
‘natural-born citizen’ is a term of art in law meaning those born into their citizenship. Anyone who is a citizen at birth is a ‘natural-born citizen’. Nothing more, nothing less is needed.
“EVERYONE knew what a NBC was until this latest development.” -— Even back then ‘natural-born citizen’ was a term of art in law meaning those born into their citizenship. It was used that way by Blackstone and others. It was used that way in the US Constitution.
“know so much that isn't so”
Once again, a star witness for the birthers, Mr Justice Gray, when read HONESTLY, is actually telling us all the simple truth ... that "citizenship by birth" (as distinguished from citizenship by naturalization) is a synonym for 'natural born'.
“You will never be convinced that foreigners shouldn’t be President.”
Strawman alert! This is not about ‘foreigners’, this is about US citizens, people who are born US citizens ... and your claim that even someone who born a US citizen cannot become President.
Yet nowhere in the constitution or laws is it written that there exist a class of people that are born US citizens but are not ‘natural born’ citizens. Nowhere.
“Likewise, you will NEVER convince me that a Natural Born Citizen is not from Citizen parentS. NEVER”
Well, some people are just stuck on stupid I guess.
"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...""
You are oblivious to these words written by the Supreme Court. Justice Gray said not only are persons subjected to the US territorial jurisdiction, BUT they are also subjected to their political jurisdiction. If they are a foreign citizens (by jus sanguinis) or were not ["Political jurisdiction"] US citizens, they can only be naturalized.
Justice Gray is specifically speaking here about the 14th Amendment famous clause,
"The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” "
As it is very clear that the 14th Amendment only naturalized persons into citizens. The 14th Amendment did not make instant natural born citizens from persons who were not citizens of these United States.
...”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
COMPLETE & TOTAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE US AT BIRTH, the same that a naturalized person has upon renouncing their old allegiance and becoming completely under ONE allegiance, that of the US.
Nice try rookie, but you are going to have to do better than merely posting parsed SCOTUS decisions, leaving out the context of the opinion that defines the quote.
“COMPLETE & TOTAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE US AT BIRTH”
No need for allcaps, I never disagreed with any of this words or other words. I am merely stating the obvious that Gray makes clear - that ‘natural-born citizen’ and ‘citizen at time of birth’ are one and the same.
Gray has his view of what the 14th amendment meant, and clearly you can see that if this defines ‘natural-born’ and is a discussion parsing the 14th amendment verbiage, that all those claiming that 14th amendment has nothing to do with ‘natural-born’ citizens were wrong.
Actually, I didn’t miss ANY of that . Gray has his view and the WKA majority has their view - but BOTH agree on something very simple! and you conveniently miss the simple basic point:
Mr Justice Gray, when read HONESTLY, is actually telling us all the simple truth ... that “citizenship by birth” (as distinguished from citizenship by naturalization) is a synonym for ‘natural born’.
Last refuge of the birther - The ‘argument by silly graphic’ fallacy.
reality:
Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands)[1] and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship,[2] as are many (though not all) children born to American citizens overseas.
Jindal had an interview today with Frank Beckmann of WJR in Detroit.
After being disappointed with him due to his reply to the SOTU,
his response to the oil spill and this interview have gone a long way in redeeming him in my eyes.
The interview can be heard or downloaded via a link part way down this page...
http://www.wjr.com/sectional.asp?id=38702
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.