Posted on 02/19/2021 5:30:31 PM PST by Beave Meister
Many of the founders did not need an English translation, can you say red herring?
The term “natural born citizen” does not appear anywhere in Vattel’s work. It certainly isn’t defined there. Your claim that the Founders used Vattel’s definition of a term he never defined is frivolous on its face.
This clearly indicates that there is a Jus Sanguinis component inherent to the term "Natural Born Citizen". As such, Britain would be able to claim natural born citizenship based on Jus Sanguinis and the United States could make the same claim based on jus Solis. Are we to believe that a person can be a natural born citizen of two different nations?
It's not reasonable. It's not logical. A child born of two non-citizen parents creates the potential for exactly the kind of mischief that the eligibility clause was designed to prevent-foreign influence over our government. They created an electoral college rather than have the legislators pick the POTUS because they knew that foreign countries would spare no expense in influencing the legislators to pick presidents that would not serve the interests of the United States but, rather, foreign powers. It would be an inevitable disaster for this country. For the same reason, they inserted the eligibility clause into our constitution.
Why would they go to this much trouble to keep foreign powers out of our government only to leave this giant glaring loophole for foreign powers to exploit? They wouldn't have and they didn't.
The constitution is, quite simply, being SUBVERTED.
I mean no disrespect to any American citizen. I simply recognize that globalist powers want to own this country, to diminish its sovereignty and to take away our power to control our own destiny and subverting the eligibility clause is one of the ways by which they will accomplish this and I find it very hard to believe that our wise forefathers would have left them the means to do this when it's clear they were trying to prevent exactly this.
That is exactly right. And, with that understanding, they chose to use the term “natural born citizen” when drafting the eligibility clause. The only existing public meaning of the term “natural born subject” or “natural born citizen” at the time of the Philadelphia Convention was the meaning under English common law. There was no existing meaning of the term that required a person born in the United States to have two or even one citizen parent. An originalitist is inescapably led to the conclusion that the meaning of “natural born citizen” is the same as that of “natural born subject” under English law.
This clearly indicates that there is a Jus Sanguinis component inherent to the term "Natural Born Citizen".
It also indicates there was a jus soli component. Under English law, one could be a natural born subject under either jus sanguinis or jus soli principles. One born in England to alien parents was a natural born subject of the British Crown. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence that the Founders intended a different meaning for “natural born citizen.”
As such, Britain would be able to claim natural born citizenship based on Jus Sanguinis and the United States could make the same claim based on jus Solis. Are we to believe that a person can be a natural born citizen of two different nations?
Of course. Why not? And wouldn’t the same issue exist even if the parents were naturalized US citizens? Or are you claiming the child even of naturalized citizens is not a natural born citizen if the parents are still citizens of their birth country under that country’s laws?
It's not reasonable. It's not logical. A child born of two non-citizen parents creates the potential for exactly the kind of mischief that the eligibility clause was designed to prevent-foreign influence over our government. They created an electoral college rather than have the legislators pick the POTUS because they knew that foreign countries would spare no expense in influencing the legislators to pick presidents that would not serve the interests of the United States but, rather, foreign powers. It would be an inevitable disaster for this country. For the same reason, they inserted the eligibility clause into our constitution. Why would they go to this much trouble to keep foreign powers out of our government only to leave this giant glaring loophole for foreign powers to exploit? They wouldn't have and they didn't.
The creation of the electoral college was a compromise made for a number of reasons. The prevention of foreign influence was not chief among them, even if it was any consideration.
The Founders were not as fearful of foreign influence as you suggest. There were proposals made in the Philadelphia Convention to allow only natives to serve as Representatives or Senators, as well as a proposal to impose a 14-year residence requirement on Senators. All these proposals were decisively rejected.
Whatever fear they have would be addressed by the requirement that a President be a citizen from birth and live in the US for the preceding 14 years. Would any reasonable person consider someone born in the US and who lived in the US for the last 14 years to be a foreigner, regardless of the citizenship of his parents?
The constitution is, quite simply, being SUBVERTED. No, it is being applied as written. A subversion would be to add a “two citizen parent” requirement that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution and has no historical basis.
I mean no disrespect to any American citizen. I simply recognize that globalist powers want to own this country, to diminish its sovereignty and to take away our power to control our own destiny and subverting the eligibility clause is one of the ways by which they will accomplish this and I find it very hard to believe that our wise forefathers would have left them the means to do this when it's clear they were trying to prevent exactly this.
I don’t see how our sovereignty is diminished or our control over own own destiny is threatened by the possibility that we might elect a President who was born in the US and lived here for at least 14 years, but might not have had citizen parents.
False.
"All children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects", are now natural-born subjects themselves
William Blackstone, 1765-23 years before the eligibility clause was inserted in the United States Constitution.
Natural born citizenship descends from the King to the father to the child. The soil is irrelevant. It is a matter of, first and foremost, allegiance to a particular sovereign and, secondly, parentage.
Kamala Harris's father and mother were both British subjects at the time of her birth. They owed their allegiance to Britain, not the United States.
It also indicates there was a jus soli component. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence that the Founders intended a different meaning for “natural born citizen.”
The Naturalization act of 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens
Kamala's parents weren't even citizens at the time of her birth. they were aliens. America's very first naturalization law, written a mere 2 years after the constitution was adopted by the very men who wrote the constitution and the eligibility clause, specifically states that the children of naturalized citizens are considered citizens of the United States and the Children born of citizens of the United States are considered Natural Born Citizens.
Her mother became a citizen 4 years after Kamala's birth. Her father's citizenship status is actively being suppressed and for good reason. Go ahead and try to find that date. Good luck. Her mother's is super easy to find.
They were both aliens who later became naturalized after her birth. She was born a Citizen of the United States and a Natural Born Citizen of Britain. She was and is a citizen of the United States just like any other child born of non-citizen parents on US soil.
The creation of the electoral college was a compromise made for a number of reasons. The prevention of foreign influence was not chief among them, even if it was any consideration...The Founders were not as fearful of foreign influence as you suggest.
Not Chief among them you say? Read on and pay close attention to what Hamilton had to say about this matter.
The most direct evidence comes from a statement made by Charles Pinckney to the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, the Senate was debating a bill “prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the United States.”(54) Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so “as to make it impossible … for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere.”(55) Pinckney then made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders “knew well,” he said
that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible
This statement by one of the Founders, thirteen years after the Constitutional Convention, therefore supports the interpretation, given earlier, that the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause were intended primarily as the two sides of a plan to protect the President from foreign influence.
Additional evidence can be found throughout the famous Federalist Papers, “a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788.
Essays number 2 through 5 were written by John Jay and they were titled “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence.” Although the main focus of these essays is on the need for a strong central government to protect a nation from foreign military action, they also suggest that a strong central government can help protect a nation from “foreign influence.” Concern about foreign influence also appears in essay number 20, written by Hamilton and Madison; essay number 43 by Madison; and essays number 66 and 75 by Hamilton. Moreover, the role of the presidential selection mechanism in limiting foreign influence is explicitly discussed by Hamilton in essay number 68. Here is what Hamilton says:
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
I don’t see how our sovereignty is diminished or our control over own own destiny is threatened by the possibility that we might elect a President who was born in the US and lived here for at least 14 years, but might not have had citizen parents.
I do, especially in an age where our borders are increasingly not under our control and when people come here for birth tourism. I see this all as a road map that leads to the enslavement of white Americans i.e. the majority of Americans and the only thing that really stands in their way.
The United States is big but the world is bigger and the world has it out for us. The world is not our buddy.
The subversion of the eligibility clause is just one part of a much larger campaign to reduce this country to slavery and of course it would be the democrat party leading us there while foolish Americans stand up and applaud.
So, good day to you sir.
That’s a rather selective quote of Blackston, and you ignore the “born out of the king’s ligeance” part. Jus sanguinis applies to those born abroad.
In the very same chapter, Blackstone also writes: “ The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.” Thus, jus soli applies to those born in England.
Blackstone goes on to contrast this with the French rule: “ In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”
If the Founders had chosen to abandon the English rule of nationality for the French rule of just albinatus, as you propose, I think they would have said so somewhere. But they didn’t. They used the English term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, not the French. They confirmed that they remained with the English rule when they adopted the original Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Not really. Blackstone is merely saying that a child of British parents is a Natural Born British subject regardless of where the child is born because Natural Born Citizenship descends from the king to the father to the child.
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.1
Sir William Blackstone
An illegal alien in this country has no allegiance to this country. were we to go to war with Mexico, there would be millions of Mexicans that would side with their homeland and this would not be treason as their allegiance to9 the United States is not formalized by an oath of naturalization which is, in fact, an oath of allegiance.
As such, the children of illegal aliens are born outside of the allegiance of the United States.
Blackstone also writes: The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.
England was a monarchy. If the subjects of England voted for a new king/queen every 4 years, I'm pretty sure there would be a different understanding of English Common law as it pertains to Natural Born Citizens and their rights. the king did not have to worry about foreigners undermining his kingdom through naturalization. That is an entirely different situation than what we have in America.
We are not a monarchy. Our king is elected every 4 years and, as such, our government is made vulnerable to foreign influence by adopting a strictly English Common Law Jus Solis understanding of this term "Natural Born Citizen" and the fact remains, there are other definitions and understandings of Natural Born Citizen that our forefathers would have been fully aware of such as Vattel's definition for example:
Section 212 of Law Of Nations, defines Natural Born Citizen: “The Citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they participate equally in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”.
I'm not even suggesting that children born here aren't citizens or that they are in any way second class, I'm just saying that, in our system of government, this creates a doorway for foreign usurpation of our government and military, exactly the thing we have determined beyond doubt that our forefathers wished to prevent.
In 1778 however, America needed immigrants desperately, and our forefathers wrestled with balancing this need against national security implications. I suspect that's why there's no definitive ruling on this and the matter has been mired in ambiguity, ambivalence and equivocation for so long.
It would be one thing if the SCOTUS ruled on this matter. I'd more than likely accept their ruling whether I liked it or not. But they haven't. Instead, we are ruling by establishing precedents by having a person like Kamala Harris, who didn't win a single delegate in her party's primary, being made Vice President and, almost assuredly President via 25th amendment at some point. Now there will be a precedent and the SCOTUS will be in less of a position to have anything to say about the matter. The damage will be done. The door will be kicked open. I think I would prefer to hear their opinion on this law than see the matter resolved outside of the law. It's not only cowardice on their part, it's a gross abrogation of their duty.
It should also be mentioned that the eligibility clause requires that you be a resident of the U.S. for 14 years and 35 years of age. The average lifespan in 1788 was around 40 years. Today it is 78 years. 14 years is nothing by today's standard and 35 years old today is certainly not what it was in 1788. In 1788, a 35 year old man was nearing the end of his life.
The eligibility clause, originally intended to "insure experience and attachment to the country", has become an engine for just the opposite. As such, it really ought to be reevaluated.
Not really. Blackstone is merely saying that a child of British parents is a Natural Born British subject regardless of where the child is born because Natural Born Citizenship descends from the king to the father to the child.
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.1
Sir William Blackstone
An illegal alien in this country has no allegiance to this country. were we to go to war with Mexico, there would be millions of Mexicans that would side with their homeland and this would not be treason as their allegiance to9 the United States is not formalized by an oath of naturalization which is, in fact, an oath of allegiance.
As such, the children of illegal aliens are born outside of the allegiance of the United States.
Blackstone also writes: The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.
England was a monarchy. If the subjects of England voted for a new king/queen every 4 years, I'm pretty sure there would be a different understanding of English Common law as it pertains to Natural Born Citizens and their rights. the king did not have to worry about foreigners undermining his kingdom through naturalization. That is an entirely different situation than what we have in America.
We are not a monarchy. Our king is elected every 4 years and, as such, our government is made vulnerable to foreign influence by adopting a strictly English Common Law Jus Solis understanding of this term "Natural Born Citizen" and the fact remains, there are other definitions and understandings of Natural Born Citizen that our forefathers would have been fully aware of such as Vattel's definition for example:
Section 212 of Law Of Nations, defines Natural Born Citizen: “The Citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they participate equally in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are Citizens”.
I'm not even suggesting that children born here aren't citizens or that they are in any way second class, I'm just saying that, in our system of government, this creates a doorway for foreign usurpation of our government and military, exactly the thing we have determined beyond doubt that our forefathers wished to prevent.
In 1778 however, America needed immigrants desperately, and our forefathers wrestled with balancing this need against national security implications. I suspect that's why there's no definitive ruling on this and the matter has been mired in ambiguity, ambivalence and equivocation for so long.
It would be one thing if the SCOTUS ruled on this matter. I'd more than likely accept their ruling whether I liked it or not. But they haven't. Instead, we are ruling by establishing precedents by having a person like Kamala Harris, who didn't win a single delegate in her party's primary, being made Vice President and, almost assuredly President via 25th amendment at some point. Now there will be a precedent and the SCOTUS will be in less of a position to have anything to say about the matter. The damage will be done. The door will be kicked open. I think I would prefer to hear their opinion on this law than see the matter resolved outside of the law. It's not only cowardice on their part, it's a gross abrogation of their duty.
It should also be mentioned that the eligibility clause requires that you be a resident of the U.S. for 14 years and 35 years of age. The average lifespan in 1788 was around 40 years. Today it is 78 years. 14 years is nothing by today's standard and 35 years old today is certainly not what it was in 1788. In 1788, a 35 year old man was nearing the end of his life.
The eligibility clause, originally intended to "insure experience and attachment to the country", has become an engine for just the opposite. As such, it really ought to be reevaluated.
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.