The Constitution enumerates the EXCLUSIVE authority over immigration to Congress. If you dont like the current law, lobby Congress to change it. If that does not work, change Congress.
The phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ appears in the constitution, the phrase ‘Citizen at Birth’ does not.
It will hurt his feelings and get the entire MSM to launch attacks on you, you racist, xenophobic bigot.
When and how does a citizen at birth become naturalized?
Nice, plain English summary.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be a 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 case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
“all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves , upon their birth, citizens also.”
Hotlips Harris's Father was a citizen of Jamaica when she was born in Oakland. Literal interpretation would indicate that she is a citizen of Jamaica since a child assumes the citizenship of the Father.
This is why pelosi gave obambam a pretzel twisted waiver so he could ascend to the throne....He is actually a citizen of Kenya, as he and his grandmother proclaimed.
Old chestnut I agree regarding obambam, worth noting regarding Heels.
Why don`t they just ask families who have been here since 1620? ...As if people are actually stupid or something? My family knows exactly what the terms mean. We been here since 1620.. These people are idiots...
Obama pretty much eliminated the reason for a discussion or debate.
I regard the 1862 Bingham quote as definitive, but this makes for interesting reading:
https://www.kamalaharrisineligible.com/
This guy gets it. Huge difference between Citizen at Birth and Natural Born Citizen.
But no one cares.... “diversity” is the national religion thanks to LBJ and drunkard Ted Kennedy, and if that means trashing the constitution then so be it.
“The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)”
EMMERICH DE VATTEL
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
Natural born was also defined in British statutes of 1709 and 1730.
Citizen does not equal natural-born citizen. Anyone who believes that it does has a thinking problem.
Why did the Founders require that a Representative be a citizen but the president be a natural born Citizen?
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
The little information I did find suggests that the reason was the fear of a president with divided allegiance if both parents were not citizens.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “ .....John Jay letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787
Citizen at birth?
How about a few days before birth?
Still a citizen?
Still a live human?
You see where I am going, right?
Citizen at rape?
I wish I knew how-to post an image. It would be the aww jeez not this again guy.
These debates are 400+ deep mental masturbation. It’s all moot why because SCOTUS has and will refuse to give standing for a case to define the NBC reference and that’s all It is as reference. Standing legal precedence is that someone born on US soil is a citizen regardless of their parents sovereignty. Don’t like it fine, but that’s what the court’s have ruled. Since we had the Big O and now a sitting VP that were born on US soil too one citizen parent and two noncitizen parents this sets a precedence that only the top Court can address. Since they refuse they are letting stand the defacto legality of the matter. Since Congress and Congress alone has the authority to define immigration and citizenship they can and should define what the term NBC means the Supremes would uphold their explicit authority to do so. Congress has dropped the ball not the court’s as the should grant standing and then tell Congress it is your enumerated job to define citizenship and immigration that much is in the constitution itself. Until then it’s all jerking it on the internet as the current legal precedence is born on US soil if the Supremes take a case it will be to return it to Congress as fix it but the current precedence stands until you change it by statue law. Again which makes all the blowharding moot.
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, 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.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Wong Kim Ark,, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"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,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, California, 21 Fed R 905 (1884), Opinion of the Court by U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1863-1887) Stephen Field, sitting as a Circuit Court justice.
At 21 Fed R 906:
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “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.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.
At 21 Fed R 908-909:
With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.
Ludlam v. Ludlam, 84 Am. Dec. 193, 26 New York 356 (1863), first Headnote at 193,
Common Law at Time of Adoption of Federal Constitution Determines Question of Citizenship, in the absence of any other law upon the subject.
Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. 383 at 384 (1858) headnote states,
“A child born in this state of alien parents, during its mother’s temporary sojourn here, is a native born citizen.”
At 400-401, Opinion of the Court
It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father's domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. His mother was temporarily there—without any actual change of residence, either on her part or that of his father. It is argued that, at common law, a natural born subject was one whose birth was within the allegiance of the king. (Bac. Ab. tit. Alien, A. Com. Dig. A. and B. 7 to 18. Bl. Com: 336, 74.) The cases of children of ambassadors, born abroad, and of children born on English seas were considered exceptions. Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, defines a native born citizen to be- a person born within, and an alien one born out of, the jurisdiction of the United States. (2 Kent's Com. 37—50.) In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. B. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth.
Giving away citizenship simply because someone happened to be born here is retarded. We’re not a colonial nation that needs the massive population boost. There is literally no reason to do it. Natural-born citizenship should be defined specifically as a child born of citizen parents. That’s it.
I’m not interested in Venn diagraming the issue, frankly. I don’t think that just because some foreigner drops a kid here that kid is a citizen. I believe that one or both of the parents should be established citizens for that privilege to transfer down.