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.
Huh? Asked and answered. If you are so danged interested in the details of this question, which was answered already twice, go look up the US code on it. A link to it is in the thread.
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN: THE MOST CONCLUSIVE DEFINITION Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship. These are those whose parents are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth.
Natural-born American citizens are those born of American citizen parents, within or without the American Republic, provided in the latter case that one of the parents had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child.
Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions. A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law.
A natural-born citizen is defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be “a natural born citizen.” It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.
Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child.
Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.
“You cant.”
I just did.....lol
There are individuals born in U.S. territories to legal residents, who were born citizens but not natural-born citizens.
I suppose you knew that, what with all the wrangling to avoid a simple, straightforward yes or no.
You should recall it well enough, you guys used it to argue against the eligibility of John McCain. Unincorporated territories, The Insular Cases.
So there you have it, born citizens who were not natural-born citizens.
There is no basis for agreement unless you agree to the basic truth that ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘citizen at birth’ are one and the same. Without that, you know nothing, you understand nothing, and you can’t be trusted on anything on this matter.
Do you agree?
“if you were born to with one foreign parent, especially a father, you were considered an alien at birth and the 14th did not change that.”
The Supreme Court ruling in Wong Kim Ark says it did. They trump any of our opinions. Which court do you sit on?
“There are individuals born in U.S. territories to legal residents, who were born citizens but not natural-born citizens.”
NOPE. There is no such distinction in US law. Anyone born a US citizen is a ‘natural-born citizen’.
” You should recall it well enough, you guys used it to argue against the eligibility of John McCain. Unincorporated territories, The Insular Cases.”
McCain *IS* eligible. His parents were citizens and as per US law he was a citizen at birth. Anyone making a contrary argument was wrong.
This means that individuals born there to legal residents are citizens, but not natura-born. .
1)
“Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship.”
Ther is NOTHING in the US law that makes the latter clause of any use - it is an oxymoron. When you are born, you are a citizen or you are not. So the correction is:
“Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth.”
2)
“These are those whose parents are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth.”
- SCOTUS made clear in the Kim Wong Ark decision that being born in the USA is sufficient to establish that a baby is a natural born citizen, irrespective of the parents’ citizenship. The only exceptions are cases where parents are diplomats, invaders, or of some other class not subject to the jurisdiction of the US government.
3)
“Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions.”
Citizenship in the US is 100% defined in the Constitution and in US code. there is ZERO definition of citizenship outside our laws. It’s a contradiction in terms, as citizenship is a legal construct. That whole statement is hogwash and is ignorant of the basic fact that US legal system is based on our laws and on our Constitution.
Conclusion:
- citizenship by birth (as distinguished from citizenship by naturalization) is a synonym for natural born.
- When you are born, you are a citizen or you are not. You don’t have to do anything to become a citizen, that is what birthright citizenship means.
- It is all defined in law and the constitution, in particular the 14th amendment.
Your a fool to think Wong Kim Ark was declared to be a natural born citizen.
Justice Gray's holding in WKA:
The Supreme Court would have ruled Wong Kim Ark a natural born if he was an NBC. No, they said to repeat.
"...Whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have permanent domicile and residence...becomes at the time of his birth A CITIZEN of the United States."
Gray said he was "A CITIZEN" and not A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Your statement and those cases is irrelevent to the point I have made - that ‘natural-born citizen’ and ‘citizen at birth’ are one and the same. None of the Insular Cases rulings contradicted that basic point and in fact none made this claim - “individuals born there to legal residents are citizens, but not natural-born”.
A cite to back this spurious claim is welcome.
Ah ... one more time around the merry-go-round.
Was Wong Kim Ark declared to be a US citizen at the time of his birth by the SCOTUS? Yes or no?
It’s Gabriel Chin’s argument and a sound one, WOSG.
Yeeeessss, BUT as you know Ark was a double allegiance baby who never renounced his US citizenship. For having a double allegiance, one to China, the other to the United States, does not equate or is it synonymous of being a natural born citizen. Justice Gray, as we see above, ONLY "affirmed" him to be "a citizen".
You can juxtapose the Supreme Court holding 41 years later in 1939, Perkins v. Elg against the holding of 1898, US v. Wong Kim Ark as we seen below.
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the United States to naturalized parents who renounced their Swedish citizenships before they took the oath of US citizenship. In Ms. Elg's case, she matched the natural law of having two citizen parents and she was born in the country.
The Supreme Court here upheld or "affirmed" the lower court ruling that Elizabeth Elg was a "Natural Born Citizen" because of the fact she had two US citizen parents and was born inside the United States. You do see the difference between the two Supreme Court cases? You are blind if you don't.
Perhaps you should refer to the words of the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment rather than a dictionary website coded two years ago. But you’re just not curious enough to bother, obviously.
“made clear in the Kim Wong Ark decision that being born in the USA is sufficient to establish that a baby is a natural born citizen”
It DOES NOT say that. It says that the baby was “as much a citizen as a NBC” it DOES NOT say the baby was as much a NBC as a NBC.
“- citizenship by birth (as distinguished from citizenship by naturalization) is a synonym for natural born.”
Nope, It doesn’t work that way. A natural Born Citizen has citizen parents.
Analogy time. Susan is Costa Rican. Susan applies and becomes a US citizen in January. In February, she marries a Costa Rican man. Susan moves to Costa Rica. Susan has a baby in Costa Rica. The Law says that Susan hasn’t been in the US long enough before the birth to confer US citizenship. Now, answer these questions....
1......Is the baby Costa Rican?
2......Is the baby a US Citizen?
3......Is the baby A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the US?
If the baby was born in the US....
1......Is the baby a US citizen
2......Is the baby a NBC of the US
3......Is the baby a Native Born US citizen?
If Susan was never a US Citizen, nor her husband..and the baby born in the US..
1......Is the baby a US citizen?
2......Is the baby a Costa Rican Citizen?
3......Is the baby NBC of the US?
If you and your US citizen wife traveled to COSTA RICA and had a baby there, Would that baby be...
1......A NBC of the US
2......A US citizen
3......A Costa Rican citizen
For this last question, if you answered 1. or 2. , what is your rationale?? Citizen Parents I’m betting......lol
“Was Wong Kim Ark declared to be a US citizen at the time of his birth by the SCOTUS? Yes or no?”
Yes, but not a Natural Born Citizen.
“Elizabeth Elg was a “Natural Born Citizen” because of the fact she had two US citizen parents and was born inside the United States. “
Bears repeating... over and over I presume.
You have to pound a point over and over again on these eligibility threads. Repeated redundancy is a good thing here.
Was Wong Kim Ark declared to be a US citizen at the time of his birth by the SCOTUS? Yes or no?
“Yes,”
YES... there is no ‘but’ becuase there was no other question before the court.
They did NOT say he was not a Natural Born Citizen.
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.