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 smell ZOT.
I am keeping up. That still doesn’t make him a natural born citizen under Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution. He can’t qualify to be president.
You cant “know” something that is obviously untrue.
Jindhal has been a US citizen his whole life, a natural-born citizen. Jindhal, and anyone who is a US citizen at birth, is eligible to be President of the US.
And he would make a great President.
Suggested reading, WOSG: Dale Carnegie "How to Win Friends and Influence People"
Actually, if you read the whole .pdf, you will note that Vattel is explicitly called out. Page 19 specifically refers to Vattel, as does Pages 20, 21, and 29. Vattel is recognized as a legal source.
“May sound harsh, but the children of slaves would bear too great an animus to the nation which enslaved their parents.”
What you reason to be sufficient grounds for assumed loyalty is not the same as what’s in the law. I’m sick of these tired arguments. “Obviously,” you might say, “anchor babies and the children of legal aliens alike can’t be relied upon to be loyal.” And just as obviously, I guess, “Grandchild[ren] would be fine.” I’m glad it’s so easy for you to predict who would and would not be loyal, but what on earth does that have to do with the law? Nothing.
I smell cinnamon buns, yum yum!
“There are citizens, native citizens, and NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”
Only in your imagination.
So you are saying anchor baby’s are eligible to become President?
If his parents were here illegally or on a tourist visa and he happened to be born here, then the "subject to" test fails a strict constructionist test, let alone worrying about the natural born part.
Nice guy, good conservative, smart as a whip? Yes, yes and yes. Presidential material? I'd need a lot more convincing on his upbringing.
Look, when were were all 5th graders memorizing: "North Dakota, Bismark; South Dakota, Pierre ..." Obama was learning the 57 states of Islam. An automatic DQ in my book even if that isn't the legal definition of "natural born." In fact, it is the spirit of the natural born requirement. The press has squandered their First Amendment privileges by failing to properly vet a Presidential candidate.
John Kerry with his Swiss education and perhaps even John McCain if his education when deployed with his parents was not at the appropriate "American School" should make voters say "no thanks." That goes beyond the Constitutional requirement but look at what choosing someone whose allegiance to America is questionable has done.
put down the crack pipe? That is a weak way to start your discussion. Read the SCOTUS decision and then we can talk.
“where Wong Kim, San Francisco born, was deemed a ‘citizen,’ but not a ‘natural born citizen’”
That’s so because his elligibility for the presidency was not at issue. But, as everyone with common sense and without an ideological axe to grind knows, born citizens are natural born citizens, and as such Wong Kim Ark could’ve been president (had anyone bothered to vote for him).
The birthers are out peddling their mis-representations of the Constitution again... sigh.
“Natural-born citizen” means citizen from time of birth.
Jindhal is that.
“The 14th Amendment has ZERO to do with it, fwiw.”
Wrong. 14th makes it clear that if you are born in the US, you are a citizen from birth. It ended second-class citizenship and de facto slavery. There is NO distinction between ANYONE born in the US, we are all EQUAL citizens.
The only ones excluded by Article II are naturalized citizens.
Is Jindal a naturalized citizen? NO. Citizen from birth, ergo eligible.
Your attempt to create a distinction is ANTI-14th-amendment, antithetical to the point of the amendment.
The Constitution trumps your opinion.
“I strongly doubt that if a freed black slave’s child ran for President that they would be considered natural born. May sound harsh,”
Not just harsh, but totally wrong.They would be eligible - as would ANYONE who was a citizen from birth.
Then why is there no comment in any of the annotated copies of the US Constitution that say NBC is superceded or defined by Amendment 14?
“The longer answer is yes, because his parents were in the US legally and seeking citizenship.”
Neither of those reasons matter, actually. But your short answer, yes, is correct.
Let me ask you something. What’s the difference between Citizen and Natural Born Citizen?
From the same Wong Kim Ark case, the SCOTUS held:
"The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Further the Court holds:
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."
Secondly, this issue, if there even is one, would have to be settled by the Supreme Court. I don't see the current SCOTUS deciding a political question such as Jindal's qualifications to be President. The best the "he's not a natural born citizen" crowd has is the SCOTUS dicta in Minor v. Happersett (written before the Ark case) where the Court quips that, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."
Some 135 years ago the SCOTUS punted on the issue. I see the Court punting on the same issue if it came before the Court.
Looks like some people here have really retired their intelligence.
1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of 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 such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
I think he qualifies by para (a)
“’If he was born here, he’s a citizen.’
‘This is where you are confusing ‘citizen’ for ‘Natural born citizen’ There is a big difference’”
No, if anything they were confusing born citizens with natural born citizens. But since there’s no difference, there’s no confusion. Obviously, there is a difference between citizens and natural born citizens, since as everyone knows naturalized citizens exist. You ought to have noticed the previous poster’s use of the word “born,” though, and realized they weren’t talking about the naturalized.
“This subject has been discussed here out the wahzoo with reference to back up the argument. “
Yes, and some still don’t get how simple reality is. If you are a US citizen, you are either:
1) A citizen from birth, aka natural-born citizen
2) A naturalized citizen (via immigration process)
Everyone in category #1 is eligible to be President.
As per the 14th amendment, Jindhal is in #1. Thus he is eligible to be President.
There is no need for a complex falsehood when the truth is simple and clear.
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.