Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers

The Post & Email ^ | March 10, 2010 | Sally Vendée

[kyright]

Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.

The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.

The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

[kyright]

This article explains that Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship are not Constitutional, which was confirmed by a 2005 Congressional Hearing. It includes testimony from the Hearing and links to Constitutional experts. It shows that these members of Congress understood that Obama’s type of birthright citizenship/ dual citizenship was unconstitutional and therefore should have disqualified him as a “natural born citizen”.

[pnh102]

The problem is Dual Citizenship was made "Constitutional" by the Supreme Court with the Schneider v. Rusk case in 1964.

It would take a constitutional amendment to outlaw dual citizenship, and frankly, it is one that is definitely needed.

[Tennessee Nana]

When I became an American citizen I did not attain dual citizenship...

Before I could go through the ceremony to be sworn in as an American citizen,

I had to renounce my New Zealand citizenship...

It was difficult for me to do, but I did it...

When I was sworn in as a brand new American citizen I only had that one alleigence...

to America as an American citizen...

I dont understand dual citizenship...

I didnt think there was any such thing...

[glorgau]

beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality

Just like those people who were crazy because they believed the Earth circled about the Sun rather than vice-versa.

[celtic gal]

Thanks for that information. I wondered when dual citizenship became fashionable. I was always taught that when one became an American Citizen prior citizenship to another country was to be renounced. As far as I am concerned it should be. I thought too if we took out citizenship in another country we would lose our American citizenship. Who knew..and 0bama is counting on the majority of the American population to be completely stupid about this..so far he is getting away with this crime. The Supremes need to get on this now.

[trumandogz]

Perhaps you could offer some third world dictator a bribe for him to declare Obama a citizen of his country thus making Obama a dual citizen and not qualified to be president.

[AuntB]

“Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.”

She’s right!

“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Only one SP so far Ping

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Additionally, dual citizenship should NOT disqualify a person for any position within the US Government. Why? How can a person control the grant of citizenship from another nation? What if Hugo Chavez granted Venezuelan citizenship to Sarah Palin - would she now be excluded from seeking the Presidency?

Additionally, birth aboard a US Naval or Coast Guard vessel is considered birth on US soil. However, if that child is born in the territorial waters of Canada, the child is granted Canadian citizenship at birth, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

Some nations, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and most African nations - grant automatic citizenship to any young child adopted by one of their citizens. If you were born of two US citizens, on US soil, your mother dies and your father marries a Malaysian woman, you are now granted Malaysian citizenship. Does that cancel your “natural born” status?

The only thing that should matter in a logical (and as you point out in the 1964 Supreme Court case, legal) position would be grant of US citizenship at birth. Any other citizenship granted is irrelevant as the child - and in many cases, the parents - have zero control over the granting of that citizenship.

[sodpoodle]

***What if Hugo Chavez granted Venezuelan citizenship to Sarah Palin...****

I believe she would first have to request citizenship to make it a valid allegiance.

[sodpoodle]

Addendum:

This is the compelling reason for the US being a sovereign nation and not subject to the whims of the UN or other One World Order.

[allmendream]

Although there seems to be much confusion over what a natural born citizen means, or how many different types of U.S. citizenship there are; I think we can all agree that there are only TWO ways to become a U.S. citizen.

1) you were born and were granted U.S. citizenship due to the circumstances of your birth.

2) you underwent some sort of ‘naturalization’ process to become a U.S. citizen.

Nobody argues that the second group are anything other than “naturalized U.S. citizens”. Yet there seems to be much confusion over the status of the first group. For myself it seems obvious that if you were a U.S. citizen merely by the natural act of being born you are a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.A.. Yet some people seem intent on carving out some sort of third type of U.S. citizenship, besides that of either being “natural born” or “naturalized”.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So an infant granted citizenship by a foreign nation at birth is excluded? The infant requested citizenship?

The issue at hand is the granting of citizenship by a foreign power without any action or activity of the recipient of such grant. Such as if Hugo unilaterally granted Sarah citizenship.

[freedumb2003]

>>Yet some people seem intent on carving out some sort of third type of U.S. citizenship, besides that of either being “natural born” or “naturalized”. <<

It has already happened. That third type of citizenship is called “Kenyan” and is sufficient to hold the office of President of the United States.

[allmendream]

Obama was not naturalized.

Either he had U.S. citizenship conferred upon him at birth, or he is an illegal alien.

So still no exception. Obama is either a U.S. citizen by birth, or he would have had to be naturalized.

A naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. But are there citizens who were not naturalized who are also not natural born? Some say yes, I don't see where there is any sort of third type of citizenship spelled out in the law.

[sodpoodle]

Hypotheticals could fill the grand canyon - but in the case of an infant - generally speaking - the parents make a citizenship decision until the child reaches adulthood.

[Las Vegas Ron]

• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “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.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

“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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

[PugetSoundSoldier]

I’m with you 100%. If you gained citizenship by virtue of simply being born, then you were born a US citizen. Naturally born. Not naturalized.

The Hugo Chavez example with Sarah Palin is the ultimate example of the fallacy of granted citizenship from a foreign nation. What another nation does should be immaterial as far as what WE do considering citizenship. Otherwise we’ve just handed every 2 bit dictator to choose our President simply by granting citizenship to every person they do NOT want to be elected.

Imagine if in the Republican primary Chavez granted citizenship to every person in the primary except, say, Mitt Romney. Would we then have a single available candidate for us to vote for?

[Las Vegas Ron]

LOL...gotta love the Onion!