Posted on 04/13/2011 9:17:46 AM PDT by Windflier
Just heard WBAP morning host, Mark Davis, say that only one US citizen parent is required for a person to be a Natural Born Citizen.
That is just blatant misinformation, and Mark needs to be called on it.
He went on to give the rest of his weird definition, but I was already so angry, I couldn't hear him. I went looking for a link to send him email, so that I could correct him.
Here's a link to his show, if any of you feel the urge to do so: http://www.wbap.com/showdj.asp?DJID=1397
Oops - I see you mentioned NBC concept already.
Thanks.
However, there is an argument that if ANY law was required to grant citizenship to the child, then the child was not a "natural-born citizen."
It seems to me three types of citizenship were recognized at the time the Constitution was enacted:
1. Natural-born citizenship -- this was citizenship that a child received at birth, not by operation of a grant of citizenship by a Sovereign (e.g., the Crown or a country), but by operation of the principle that no man is born state-less, therefore every man is born a citizen of his father's country. (Whether or not this was recognized as also flowing through the mother is a separate issue).
2. Citizenship at birth by operation of law --- this was citizenship that was granted at birth, but it's source was the operation of a law. I.e., the Sovereign made a law that all children born within the realm would be citizens (by the way, this was a bad thing, not a good thing -- it's purpose was so the Crown could tax, conscript and otherwise subject everyone to its jurisdiction). 3. Naturalized citizenship --- citizenship voluntarily applied for at some point after birth, according (again) to laws and standards set out by the Sovereign.
The only citizenship one was naturally born with was the citizenship of one's father. All other forms of citizenship are based on a grant of citizenship by the Sovereign, which could likewise be changed.
For example, the U.S. can change standards for citizenship at birth. But no country can change citizenship granted "naturally" by being born to a person with a certain citizenship.
Mark Davis is a complete phony. He'd be just as comfortable working in a solidly liberal radio market, and would probably play to them, the same way he plays to us.
He's the very definition of an opportunist entertainer, in my book.
I know that some on the internet make such claims, but there is nothing in US law to support them.
Fixed it for you. No need to thank me.
So remind me why Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible to run for POTUS?
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html
“”Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.””
That's all well and good, and your kids are US citizens. They're just not Natural Born Citizens.
I've got two brothers who were born in Japan to two US citizen parents, but they weren't born on US soil. They're not Natural Born Citizens, either.
When he subs for Rush I immediately turn the channel. he is horrible.
“The only way to get these points addressed is for a state to pass an eligibility law, define natural-born citizen some way, and then see what happens when it is challenged in court.”
One thing that has bothered me lately is the state eligibility law scenario. For almost a year I’ve heard state after state was going to pass an eligibility law that would force obama to finally prove his “status”, but from what I have seen so far, no state has actually passed such a law, at least a law with teeth in it. They either die in committee or the law gets watered down.
Will ANY state pass such a law before 2012? :-/
There was a time when Chris Matthews sat in for Rush...
Thanks for sending your thoughts to big head Davis. I hope that everyone on the thread does the same. I certainly will.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was not born a US citizen. He was born in Austria to Austrian parents and only came to the US as an adult and became a naturalized citizen.
Not that I’d supoport him, but I guess if I put a birth announcement in the paper for him, congratulating him for his birth in the US on [insert date of birth], that would be good enough for some people . . .
Here come the flames! :)
I even specifically asked the AG office official if my kids could run for president....., he just grinned and said, “Cf course, but why would they want to?”
The child is not a U.S. citizen because the father passes his citizenship to the child, not the mother.
Did you read Ann Coulter's comments about the bc issue from the Hannity show? Her lack of the most BASIC education on the subject is appalling, and frankly, embarrassing.
Same goes for nearly every talking head who I've heard broach the subject. You'd think that just ONE of them would take a few hours to brush up on the basics involved with this extremely important topic, but no.
Anyone who possesses even a passing familiarity with the subject will be shocked by listening to these people display their dismal lack of knowledge about it.
I'm open to the possibility. What is Davis' legal justification for this conclusion?
Seems to me that it's true, by operation of statute, that only one parent must be a U.S. citizen for a child to be, by operation of law, as U.S. citizen at birth.
But that citizenship by operation of law, even though it's granted at birth, may not be the same as citizenship one is BORN with (i.e., naturally) due to the citizenship of one's father and/or both parents.
Point is that a lot of monkeys are flying on this issue and that's because the SCOTUS has never plainly addressed who is and is not a person who is a citizen naturally (through natural law) and who is a citizen by grant of the Sovereign (through common or enacted law).
Here's a hypothetical: A child's mother is British. He was born here. Had no law been on the books making him a U.S. citizen because he was born here, he would have been a British citizen --- the citizenship he received NATURALLY from his mother.
By operation of law, based on his birthplace, he's certainly an American citizen. But was he BORN a U.S. citizen? Arguably not. The U.S. gave him that status at birth, but the U.S. could have just as easily not made that its law. Or it could have said he would be granted citizenship if he lived in the U.S. for five years or whatever. And had he declined U.S. citizenship, or had the law changed so that babies born here were not automatically American citizens, he would have still been a British citizen, because he was BORN a British citizen.
Let's say this hypothetical is correct. If a person has to have a law in effect to make him a U.S. citizen, even if that citizenship is granted AT birth, is the person BORN with that citizenship?
Wouldn't one think that "natural born citizenship" is the citizenship one is BORN with, that requires no law to make it go into effect?
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.