Posted on 01/02/2024 6:27:51 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who served as managing editor of Reuters from 2011 to 2016, Paul Ingrassia, has reignited the fiery debate over what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the U.S. Constitution—a debate with significant implications for potential presidential candidate Nikki Haley.
Published on American Greatness, Mr. Ingrassia, a Law Clerk, a two-time Claremont Fellow, and a member of President Trump’s National Economic Council, meticulously examined the constitutional provision that has been at the heart of eligibility controversies involving political figures from John McCain to Kamala Harris.
At the core of his argument is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which Ingrassia insists unambiguously mandates that only “natural born citizens” of the United States are eligible to assume the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The distinction between “natural born citizen” and “birthright citizenship” is central to Ingrassia’s analysis. The former term, he reminds us, is expressly reserved for those born on American soil to U.S. citizen parents, a requirement not emulated for other federal offices. This stringent criterion traces back to the Founding Fathers’ fears of foreign influence at the highest level of government.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
So Barron Trump can never be president of the U.S.?
Bookmarking! I read article on Twitchy about some Turkey-born citizen, who said he was going to run for president. He said he had a lawsuit to file that would make it clear. Article was written by Twitchy resident attorney, who said it wasn’t legal & cited the Constitutional amendment. I didn’t truly understand. All I remember is comment asking, “What defines a natural born citizen anyway?” Finally, the answer!
Justice Thomas disagrees. Puerto Ricans aren’t natural born Citizens via Article 2 Section 1, the only clause that states the term, natural born Citizen.
Link, source, quote missing. Do you ever research your statements or do you just take another laxative and let your crap flow? You have not provided a single word allegedly said by Justice Thomas to support your claim that he is demented.
Show your source striking down the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 236, or the codified provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1402; "All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth."
2021 US Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter III - Nationality and Naturalization
Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
Sec. 1402 - Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 18998 U.S.C. § 1402 (2021)
§1402. Persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899
All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.
Source Credit
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §302, 66 Stat. 236.)
Publication Title
United States Code, 2018 Edition, Supplement 3, Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 236
PERSONS BORN IN PUERTO RICO ON OR AFTER APRIL 11, 1899SEC. 302. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth.
Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, P.L. 853, October 14, 1940
AN ACTTo revise and codify the nationality laws of the United States into a comprehensive nationality code.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the nationality laws of the United States are revised and codified as follows:
TITLE I
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the Nationality Act of 1940.
CHAPTER I—DEFINITIONS
SEC. 101. For the purposes of this Act—
(a) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(b) The term "national of the United States" means (1) a citizen of the United States, or (2) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. It does not include an alien.
(c) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.
(d) The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
(e) The term "outlying possessions" means all territory, other than as specified in subsection (d), over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty, except the Canal Zone.
(f) The term "parent" includes in the case of a posthumous child a deceased parent.
(g) The term "minor" means a person under twenty-one years of age.
SE0. 102. For the purposes of chapter III of this Act—
(a) The term "State" includes (except as used in subsection (a) of section 301), Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.
Which poster are you from the Commie forum “Fogbow”?
None.
Which poster are you from Democratic Underground?
The parent doesn't have to be a natural born citizen, just a citizen at the time of the child's birth.
-PJ
I read article on Twitchy about some Turkey-born citizen, who said he was going to run for president.
You almost certainly speak of Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Turkish born, his parents immigrated to the U.S. when he was eight years old. He would have obtained derivitive citizenship when his parents were naturalized.
His application to appear on the Arkansas Democrat ballot was denied because he was not born a citizen of the United States. He was born a citizen of Turkey.
-PJ
Yeah, after I posted I realized that Eric & Ivanka were out too. Don, Jr. out too??
-PJ
-PJ
“or even HR director for a big corporation.”
Oh yes! Perfect. Her pigment is correct, and she’s as dumb as a stump.
Yep, it was Cenk Uygur, although I’ve never heard of him. I just found the article, but it’s VIP, meaning one must have paid membership to read.
“It wasn’t until AFTER the US Constitution was written that an American translation decided to translate “indigene” - an English word as well as French - with “NBC”. So that definition was NOT what the Founders had in mind!”
Not only are you incorrect, you’re WRONG!
“Obama - even though he served up a forged birth certificate in my view, the easy argument here is that he was born to an American mother.”
BUT, she was not old enough to be able to convey citizenship to Obama. Besides it has to be BOTH parent”s”.
“But the short version is that his mother wasn’t old enough to confer citizenship on any foreign-born child of hers. At the time, the law stated that a mother only conferred citizenship on a foreign-born child of a non-citizen father if she had lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years after the age of 14.”
“The qualifications for Vice-President and President are identical.”
Since June 15, 1804 that is.
“AMENDMENT XII - Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.”
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
Once again, they’re citizens but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. You’re trying to conflate Citizen and Natural Born Citizen. They’re not the same.
Was there a “point” to all that?
“As established by judicial precedent, jus soli was the law of the colonies, and was brought forward into the States upon their inception.”
Upon the Declaration of Independence the “soil” in jus soli became AMERICAN soil not British soil. NO LONGER British subjects under the crown.
Upon adoption of the Constitution only “natural born citizens” (except those excluded) could be president.
ALL the framers and founders at the time were aware of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”.
NOT A NEW TYPE OF CITIZEN, rather a “status” at the time of your birth.
“There are two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.....”
THIS “part” of this statement is correct.
A natural born citizen “IS” “a citizen by BIRTH”, BUT under the Constitution the eligibility to be president requires other things. ALL citizens by birth do NOT meet those requirements.
The term “natural born citizen” by todays standards was a poor choice of words, but back then everyone knew what it meant.
I am right. It isn’t open to debate. No version of Vattel addressed NBC until a translation made AFTER the US Constitution inserted it where it didn’t belong. The books still exist so this is a matter of undoubted FACT.
Sine the post-US Constitution translation became the standard translation used in the USA, the wrong idea became commonplace, but it never was right. Vattel never, EVER wrote that NBC required 2 citizen parents.
Hawaii needs to revive their economy by advertising low cost forged birth certificates.
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.