Are "anchor babies" eligible at 35 to be POTUS?

8/28/2009 | Kellynla

[thecraw]

If the libs can cook up an “Hawaiian CoLB” for them, you bet!!

Looks like the Obots are already hard at work "constructing" one for Hussein:



Link to this is here (among other barf-worthy items)

[The Sons of Liberty]

Hey, apparently if you’re born in a hut in kenya, you can be POTUS. At least an “anchor baby” is born in the US, even if they don’t qualify under the “natural born” provision.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Hey, apparently if you’re born in a hut in kenya, you can be POTUS. At least an “anchor baby” is born in the US, even if they don’t qualify under the “natural born” provision.

[trumandogz]

“No way!”
“Both parents have to be americans!”

Could you please cite the law that states that Both parents have to be americans in order for one to be a natural born citizen?

[uncle fenders]

From what I have heard that if you research the man that wrote the section about being born in the USA. He explains in some of his writings that it DOESN’T pertain to anchor babies, it was only written to guarantee that legal citizens kids would be automatically citizens. I am afraid I don’t have the authors name. But this is just another incident of laws being misinterpreted at our expense.

[bgill]

Fidel/Kim 2012!

[so_real]

To be clear, I don't believe that the framers intended "natural born" to include children of parents that aren't citizens. Then again, I don't think that the framers intended that the Fourth Amendment be a license for a mother to murder her unborn children, but that's what it's become.

And I would agree with you completely on that. My perception is that the contemporary court has overstepped its bounds on numerous occasions. This is a habit Congress could circumvent by means of checks-and-balances, but has failed to do so. (The Founders were not naive; they certainly foresaw the need for keeping the Branches in check.) Just because the SCOTUS has taken it upon itself to redefine and expand certain words, does not mean they had the authority to do so. In your summary you seem to take the tack that because they have done so, successfully, they are legally empowered to do so at will. Or, perhaps I misunderstand. Either way, I could not disagree with that premise more.

[r9etb]

they are citizens not natural born citizens, totally different.

Sorry.... A person born within the United States is a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment opens,

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.

Highlights added for your convenience.

Bottom line: Born in the US = "natural born." Not born in the us = "naturalized."

[MilspecRob]

Nope

[pissant]

No

[thecraw]

Bottom line: Born in the US = "natural born." Not born in the us = "naturalized."

False! Let's take the example of Hussein Obama who had one parent a US citizen and the other a citizen of the UK (as a British Subject).

Now let's think about this for a minute. Have you ever heard of ORIGINAL INTENT? Do you honestly believe that the Founding Fathers would in any way risk the election of a president of their new fledgling Republic who had dual allegiances and loyalties to England? A Revolution had just been won, and the King lost! Bottom line: I don't think so!

The founding Fathers knew full well the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and Vattel's Law of Nations specifically outlined the definition, of which Benjamin Franklin concurred: Born on US Soil to two US citizen parents. Period.

[wastoute]

It is high time that 14th A was changed. It was intended to prevent persons born in slavery from being denied citizenship. It has accomplished it's purpose long ago. It needs to be put out of our misery.

Μολὼν λάβε

[thecraw]

They still have race as “African”?

Yeah hilarious isn't it? I suppose they want to make SURE it matches that glorious, authentic and flawless COLB posted on Factcheck and Fightthesmears.

[Mr. Blonde]

What amendment to the amendment would you like to see? Hopefully not all of it gone.

[rolling_stone]

sigh,,,, anchor babies were outlawed by the 1996 immigration reform.

Custody follows the parents so when the illegal alien parents are deported the us citizen child goes with them but is able to return at 18. The children of that citizen are only citizens by birth IF the citizen has lived in the USA for 10 years continuously.

There are no more anchor babies under the law.

I think you must mean birthright citizenship.

1. How many of these illegals are actually being deported? There are at least 12 million illegals in the USA today.

2 Where did you get the information that for a child of a USC to have their children be USC's the parent must have lived in the US for 10 years continuously? What if the anchor babies child is born in the US?

There are still anchor babies under the law, the anchor is still there as the children could not apply to immigrate their parents until they were 21 anyway. They can also apply for their brothers sisters, spouses and parents to immigrate. At best it just delayed anchors for 3 to 10 years, all of which would have been eliminated with passage of the McCain Kennedy Amnesty.

[so_real]

True, almost. I would say one is either a natural born citizen *at birth*, or must be naturalized after the fact to become a citizen. "At birth" demarcates the point when the distinction is made. At birth, allegiance and jurisdiction must be in accord to assume the mantle of natural-born. However, several forms of naturalization exist after the fact for those whose allegiance or jurisdiction is not in accord, and Congress is empowered to establish uniform rules of naturalization as they deem necessary. New methods of naturalization may be introduced by Congress at any time. Equating birthright citizenship with natural-born citizenship parallels the doctrine of William Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England) a notion that the Founders repudiated soundly.

[rolling_stone]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person
who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and,
therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No
Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of
President;”
c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an
Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.
103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born ... 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.”
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not
included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that
someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not
necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

[r9etb]

To be clear, I don't believe that the framers intended "natural born" to include children of parents that aren't citizens.

Perhaps not ... but the 14th Amendment would to be the controlling Constitutional guide here: "All persons born in the United States ... are citizens."

The wording offers no basis by which Congress or the Supreme Court could deny citizenship to a person born in the US, other than a finding of "not a resident." The Ark decision supports that interpretation.

[Krodg]

If Gaddafi manages to pitch his tent here, he will win a lot of Dem support for a presidential run. I think our country is gone.