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 don’t know what part of the Constitution says that.
Your ignorance of the Constitution is not surprising, given your hardcore anti-American beliefs. The Constitution gives the Congress only the power to write laws of naturalization. Thus, anyone which must point to the US Code to prove their citizenship is pointing to a naturalization and is there fore a naturalized citizen.
No such thing as naturalization at birth.
Yes there is. Anyone who points to the US Code to claim they are a born citizen is naturalized at birth.
That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. See above. If you are being disingenuous, I see why would you would lie and claim it doesn't. Perhaps you are just extremely stupid.
natural law does not have force of law in the U.S.
This is Communist bullshit. The Declaration of Independence states clearly that men have certain inalienable rights. That is natural law. Please stop lying and spreading Communist bullshit.
Please cite your example of Sir William Blackstone using the term of art "natural-born citizen" in his ponderous tome on feudal law.
You have a comprehension problem.
Yup, you sure are. Specifically, you made your claim that Justice Gray said foreign citizens and subjects residing in the US are somehow not under US Jurisdiction as per the 14th Amendment.
As to my assertions regarding the qualifier "political" jurisdiction, I stand corrected. Indeed, you are correct that Gray uses the term in Elk v. Wilikins. However, nowhwere in the entire opinion does he state that foriegn citizens and subjects are somehow not under political jurisdiction.
Furthermore, when you look at his definition, it becomes immediately clear that foriegn subjects and citizens residing in the USA are, in point of fact, under US political jurisdicition:
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.
Adult male resident aliens have to register for the draft, just like male citizens. They have been drafted in the past along side citizens. All resident aliens have to pay income taxes. They have to obey all laws. They are subject to the US court system and bound by its decisions. That's pretty much all that's required for direct and immediate allegience.
The words "complete and total allegiance" are not found in Gray's opinion. Rather, he says:
"completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
A foreigner residing in the US is completely subject to US political jurisdiction and also owes direct and immediate allegiance to the US.
Of course, this is only true so long as the foreigner remains on US soil. That's why children of resident aliens are not citizens from birth if they are born while their parents are travelling abroad. They only have citizenship at birth if born while their parents are on US soil, because it is only then that their parents are under the complete political jurisdiction of the US, and only then that their parents owe immediate and direct allegience to the USA.
No need for allcaps, I never disagreed with any of this words or other words.
You should disagree, since SCOTUS never said that "complete & total allegiance" are necessary for a person to be considered under US jurisdiction. All that is required is "immediate and direct allegiance," and given that resident aliens must register for the draft, I believe that is requirement is satisfied.
That is simply not true.
the 14th did not change that.
The 14th amendemnt did not change the citizenship status of free persons born to in the USA to resident aliens. They were considered natural born citizens before the amendment, and they continued to be considered such later.
What the 14th amendment changed was the citizenship status of people born as slaves on US soil. Now they are citizens, whereas before they were not, even if they were freed by their master at some point after their birth.
No it does not, and if you knew how to use a dictionary, you would know that. I highly recommend you go learn to use one. It's a skill that will come in handy in the future.
In point of fact we can and do. Male resident aliens must register for the draft, just like citizens.
“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.”
You’re wrong.
“Well, some people are just stuck on stupid I guess.”
You reveal that about yourself with every post. NBC’s are not born to foreigners. That would be the stupid part.
All you have to do to make your point is to show where specifically 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.
You can’t.
You can’t.
Are people born in U.S. territories citizens, WOSG?
“You should disagree, since SCOTUS never said that “complete & total allegiance” are necessary for a person to be considered under US jurisdiction.”
Sure, the WKA majority took a different view from what that quote implied. However, my simple point - that “natural-born citizen” and ‘citizen at time of birth’ - is a valid point that is orthogonal to the interpretation of ‘under the jurisdiction’.
Attempts to undermine my simple point with arguments about the meaning of jurisdiction don’t fly. “natural-born citizen” and ‘citizen at time of birth’ are one and the same.
As stated in #796...
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.
The challenge - to show where specifically 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 - remains unanswered.
You did not answer the question, WOSG.
Are people born in U.S. territories citizens?
Yes, or no?
Read 817, the answer is clear; under current US law, in general, yes.
I did read your reply #817, and you're still equivocating.
Let's take the opposite tack, since you're reticent. Are the children of all legal residents in U.S. territories born citizens?
Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.
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.