Vivek Ramaswamy Admits in NBC News Interview His Parents Were Not U.S. Citizens When He Was Born

The Post& Email Newspaper ^ | Oct 22 2023 | CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

[CDR Kerchner]

(Oct. 22, 2023) — Vivek Ramaswamy Admits in NBC News Interview His Parents Were Not U.S. Citizens When He Was Born. This was deduced and suspected previously but he has finally admitted it.

Vivek Ramaswamy admitted during live interview in Sep 2023 on NBC News that neither of his parents when he was born were citizens of the USA. Also, he admitted that although his mother later became a U.S. citizen his father never did. Watch the interview starting at about 26:08 into the full interview: https://youtu.be/toiiWWFsWOw?si=EMOuYOGT93CmiKP or see the relevant four minute excerpt of the interview at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4UpgZ6sQA.

Vivek Ramaswamy is thus NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. To be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States one must be at least a second generation Citizen, i.e., a person born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens when their child is born in the USA. Vivek’s mother became a U.S. Citizen several years after he was born. Vivek’s father has never become a U.S. Citizen. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/10/22/vivek-ramaswamy-admits-in-nbc-news-interview-his-parents-were-not-u-s-citizens-when-he-was-born/

[Gaffer]

That's not the law or how the US Supreme Court works. Again, interpretations. And, recall how that works. See Roe v Wade......

[Owen]

Not much to add to this absurdity other than to address something seldom addressed.

“Within the jurisdiction”

There are interesting consequences of this. A foreign diplomat with spouse gives birth to a child on US soil. No, that child is not a NBC because when a foreign citizen presents their diplomatic credentials to the State Dept they become a diplomat, and this places them outside the jurisdiction of the US.

It is why famously UN diplomats would park illegally near the UN building in NYC and never pay the parking tickets that accumulated to $1000s. They were immune. Not subject to local jurisdiction.

Also famously, but hushed up, was the father of the present King of Thailand. He was king before the present king. And he was born of royal parents who were students at Harvard. Thus he was born in Massachussets. His parents, though royal, never submitted diplomatic credentials to State. So their child was born within the jurisdiction of the US. He became King of Thailand, maybe the most popular and revered King they have ever had, and he was a natural born US citizen (which was hushed up because of the politics of it in Thailand).

Further, re jurisdiction, the Japanese in WWII temporarily occupied some islands in the Aleutian chain. Alaska at that time was US territory (not yet a state) like Puerto Rico. Being born there made the child a natural born citizen, within the jurisdiction of the US.

But not in the Japanese occupied territory. There were some babies born during that time and they were not natural born citizens because they were outside US jurisdiction — which is the only determinant for natural born citizen. Courts later ensured they were given “full” citizenship status, but since none ever ran for president, the totality of the loss of jurisdiction was never explored.

[Vermont Lt]

After the crap he said over the weekend about Israel/Hamas…he ie never going to be a dog catcher, let alone President. The point, as they say, is moot.

[vg0va3]

Being born in Cincinnati, OH is a natural-born citizen.

Regardless of parents’ status. He is a citizen and making a counterargument is absurd.

Why is this confusing?

[DiogenesLamp]

Except that the definition of natural born citizen is not spelled out as explicitly as the age requirement in the Constitution.

I am reminded of something I read awhile back. A guy said that he had a Polish dictionary from the 1880s. Under definition of "Horse", it said: "Everyone knows what a horse is."

So too was it in 1787. Everyone at the time knew what a "natural born citizen" was, and they didn't think they needed to define it, because everyone involved in putting it into the constitution already understood what it meant.

The 1700s usage of the term "citizen" all stems from Vattel. Prior to 1760, all the English dictionaries I could find defined "citizen" to mean "someone who lives in a city."

Only in Switzerland was the word used to mean someone who was a member of a nation state. It was Vattel's usage of the word which was adopted by Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence, and later by the framers writing the US Constitution.

The correct English word for the time period was "subject." They stopped using "subject", because they stopped using the system that produced subjects based on birth on the King's soil.

"Citizen", means Vattel's definition. It is inherent in the usage of the word.

And here is a page from a 1817 law book which specifically says that Vattel was the source for "Citizen".

[faucetman]

Reading that somebody (you) understands this, I jumped the gun stating that you were “exactly” correct.

You made a YUGE error referencing the Naturalization Act of 1790. In the act it inaccurately defines “natural born citizen”.

This was corrected by the Naturalization Act of 1795 by REPEALING the Naturalization Act of 1790.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intitled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

[DiogenesLamp]

People claiming someone born in the US and their parents aren’t citizens conducted their studies of the law that prestigious university know as Walmart.

Walmart University, eh? Maybe some of us know better what we are talking about than those who simply regurgitate what courts say. Specifically courts that do not know what the hell they are talking about and which are simply regurgitating what other courts said. This is from a Pennsylvania law book from 1817. (If I recall correctly.) It was created as a result of the work done by people who were actually involved in the creation and ratification of the US Constitution. It wasn't some series of repetitions by courts who do know know what they are talking about, it was from people who did.

[DiogenesLamp]

By the way—if you have to point to positive law, including, for example, the 14th Amendment, to prove your membership in the U.S. polity, you’re a Naturalized (i.e., Foreign Spice) Citizen.

NBCs are what’s left over after all Positive Law Citizens are filtered out. In the long history of the United States, hey never had to point to positive law to prove their membership in the U.S. polity.

Excellent way to put it. If you have to use the 14th amendment to be a citizen, you aren't a natural citizen.

Some weeks ago I actually spent some time going through the debates on the 14th amendment. The congressmen themselves describe it as a naturalization law.

[DiogenesLamp]

Right. I've been a Freeper for 25 years, a conservative activist for much of that, and a licensed attorney for (only) the last 5 of my 71 years. I try to avoid choosing to interpret law only on the basis of how it supports my political preferences. May you someday be blessed with such discernment.

It would be nice if Judges stopped interpreting law according to their own preferences.

[woodpusher]

I refer you to the Naturalization Act of 1790, adopted one year after the Constitution was adopted, directly defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.

I invite you to 1 Stat. 102-103 (March 26, 1790), An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

If you see a definition of natural born citizen, quote it. In any case, this act of 1790 was repealed, in its entirety, in January 1795.

[page 102]

Margin note:

Statute II.

Repealed by act of January 20, 1795, ch. 20.

Alien whites may become citizens, and how.

- - - - -

Chap. III. -- An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.(a)

Section I. Be it enacted byu 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;

(a) This act was repealed by an act passed January 29, 1795, chap. 20.

The acts relating to naturalization subsequent to the act of March 28, 1790, have been: "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," January 29, 1795, chap. 20. Repealed April. 14, 1802.

An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the Subject, passed April 14, 1802, chap. 28.

An act in addition to an act entituled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on the subject," passed March 26, 1804, chap. 47.

An act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization, passed March 22, 1816, chap. 32.

An act in further addition to "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject," passed May 26, 1824, chap. 186.

An act to amend the acts concerning naturalization, May 24, 1828, ch. 116. Act of July 30, 1813, ch. 36.

[Page 104]

[Margin note]

Their children residing here, deemed citizens.

Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c.

Exceptions

- - - - -

and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. (a)

Approved, March 26, 1790.

That does not provide a definition of natural born citizen. It provides an example of a natural born citizen. It only applies to births beyond sea, and is inapplicable to births within the United States; i.e., the vast majority of natural born citizen births. A dachshund is an example of a dog. Dachshund does not define dog. Not all dogs are dachshunds. Not all natural born citizens are born beyond sea. A child of two illegal aliens, born in a detention center in the United States, is born a United States citizen. The law of March 26, 1790 was repealed in its entirety on January 29, 1795. Why do you dwell upon a statute law that was repealed more than two centuries ago?

If the 1790 law is seen as defining citizenship today, then citizenship of persons born beyond sea is restricted to free white persons.

For domestic births, the relevant law is the 14th Amendment, that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, are born citizens of the United States, your personal vision of current law notwithstanding.

The Act of 1795 includes:

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain, during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, without the con­sent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

The words "natural born" were eliminated. As a natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, specifying "natural born" in this context was surplusage and could be omitted without change of meaning. Everyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen.

The children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States gave rise to disagreement whether that meant children of two citizen parents, or one citizen parent. That has been resolved in favor of one citizen parent.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep401815/

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 816 (1971)

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).

Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html

8 FAM 301.1-1 Introduction

(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)

a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:

(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and

(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

Back to that letter of John Jay to George Washington, stipulating that a “natural born citizen” only should be in charge of the American army.

Read the original for the first time.

Say it along with John Jay. A "natural born citizen." Stress the word born. Say it to yourself over and over and eventually it will sink in.

[woodpusher]

Stop pushing Chester Arthur. You obviously do not know the history.

Stop questioning the relevance of Chester Arthur. You obviously fail to appreciate the history.

Chester Arthur was elected Vice President in 1881. Charles Garfield was elected President. A few months later, Garfield was assassinated and Chester Arthur became President. Arthur was the oath in New York and proceeded to Washington as President. Chester Arthur was born in 1829. His father was naturalized in 1842. Chester Arthur was never elected President.

Numerous candidates had foreign parents or were born outside the United States. The nitwits with the birther claims did not come out of the closet until 2008.

Hinman's accusation, as you stated, was that Arthur was a British citizen. The accusation that he was a British citizen was debunked. In fact, Arthur was a natural born citizen of the United States. Despite having a foreign parent, he was fully eligible to be first Vice President, and then President, just as Barack Obama was eligible. Just as Kamala Harris was and is eligible. Just as Vivek Ramaswamy is eligible. Like Chester Arthur, they were all born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. 14A says not a mumbling word about parents.

In any case, Arthur's father was an Irish citizen and Ireland was never part of Great Britain, and is not so now, not even Northern Ireland. The full title of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Arthur's father was born in County Antrim which is now part of Northern Ireland.

Arthur was born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and born after the 14th Amendment. His citizenship status at birth was controlled by the 14th Amendment.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't recall if I had seen that refutation before, but the evidence that proves Chester Arthur's father was not a citizen before his birth has only came out since 2008 when this one guy started researching it and discovered the truth.

I forget his name, but he was an attorney and he wrote a lot on the topic. It wasn't Mario Apuzo, who did excellent work on the subject. I forget the other guy's name, but he is the one that broke the story that Chester A Arthur's father was not a citizen before Arthur was born.

Anyone remember that guy's name? He also used to have a website. I also remember he fancies himself as a professional gambler at cards.

[woodpusher]

And here you are again quoting hearsay from the courts to prove something none of them has factual knowledge about.

Your wingnut nonsense is taken under advisement and filed with the thread author's lawsuit under frivilous filings.

[DiogenesLamp]

Never said they were, but Don, Jr., has been mentioned here on FR from time to time. I think he’d be good. Sad that the people who thought it was OK for Obama to run would be on Don, Jr., like white on rice if his name came up seriously.

What is the supposed issue with Don Jr running for President?

[HamiltonJay]

He’s a fraud, top to bottom... just a flat out fraud.

It’s a shame so many fell for his song and dance, even for a little while.

[TiGuy22]

I think this is fascinating, thank you for taking the time and sharing it. But, by our system of “precedent” it seems SCOTUS has effectively redefined the original intent.

[Wuli]

He should immediately step out of the race.

[woodpusher]

To be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States one must be at least a second generation Citizen, i.e., a person born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens when their child is born in the USA.

FALSE. The requirements to be Vice-President are the same as those to be President.

Chester Arthur was Vice-President and then President with a foreign citizen father.

Barack Obama was President with a foreign citizen father.

Kamala Harris is Vice-President born to two non-citizens.

14A: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." 14A takes precedent over all laws, real or birther imagined, prior thereto.

[DiogenesLamp]

Being born in Cincinnati, OH is a natural-born citizen.

Citizen, not "natural born citizen."

Regardless of parents’ status. He is a citizen and making a counterargument is absurd.

Yes, he's a "citizen." A naturalized citizen. That's it. That's all.

Why is this confusing?

Because people have worked hard to make it confusing. People deliberately conflate "citizen" with "natural born citizen" in an attempt to erase the distinction between the two.

The most significant person of whom I am aware who worked to create confusion on the issue of citizenship was William Rawle. He Deliberately lied about citizenship in the United States in his book "A View of the Constitution" which in the early 1800s became a widespread and widely read legal book dealing with constitutional issues.

This poison has polluted many legal minds that were influenced by it, and as a consequence, affected subsequent laws and court interpretations on the issue.

So yeah, it's confusing because some people worked to make it confusing. And now you are helping to sow more confusion.

[erlayman]

Arthur obviously was not born after the 14th Amendment although I suppose he could have been a citizen of Vermont as well as the British Empire as Ireland was ruled over for hundreds of years in actual fact.