I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
“What hackneyed tripe?”
Anything that disagrees with their theories is tripe to them, and anyone who utters it is cast out ... nice way to hang on to a theory more full of holes than Vattel’s favorite Swiss cheese, just ignore the massive weight of contrary evidence and attack any and all who share it.
On Red Steel’s enemies list: James Madison, the first Republican Justice of the Supreme Court, Blackstone, Indiana Judges, Congressional Research Service, numerous SCOTUS Justices, fellow freepers, etc.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”- James Madison, 1789
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.”
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
- Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
- Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana Ct of Appeals, 2010
“Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the l700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth”or” by birth.[1]” - Congressional Research Service,
” Red Steel referenced an article from the Law Review that contradicts your legal opinion.”
“Now, are we to discard the opinion of the Law Review because “WOSG” knows better? “
My opinion is not relevant, the only relevant thing is what facts and evidence I bring. Is Red Steel (or you) to discard the ruling of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny?
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2009/11/ind_decisions_r_34.html
Here’s how poorly the non-credible birther side held up in that court: “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
A fair person, seeking the truth, would consider the Law Review, the Indiana Court ruling, the Justice Swayne citation, Liacakos v. Kennedy, the Black’s law dictionary definition, Bancroft’s History of the U.S., Albert Orville Wright’s definition, and the dozens of sources and citations that confirm the common understanding of “natural-born citizen” which includes the children of resident aliens born in the USA.
The ability to discover the truth of this issue is available to all who wish to seek it.
It’s a simple truth, expressed in MULTIPLE legal references and evidenced in many court rulings the same way:
- citizens are either (1) naturalized or (2) natural-born citizens.
- natural-born citizens are citizens who acquire citizenship at time of birth, and natural-born citizenship is acquired by either being born ‘under the jurisdiction’ of the United States by being born in the US itself (whether to citizen or alien parents), or by statute whereby children born overseas to US citizen parents also acquire citizenship at birth.
THE END.
Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” That definition does not require citizens to be parents.
“The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
Black defines “natural born” as “In English law one born within the dominion of the King.” Black defines “naturalize” as “to confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same, in regard to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.”
Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876) VI, xxvi. 27, states. “Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”
As stated in Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, pp. 32:
“It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law. It is very doubtful whether the common law covered the case of children born abroad to subjects of England. Statutes were enacted in England to supply their deficiency. Hence, it was deemed necessary to enact a similar law In the United States to extend citizenship to children born to American parents out of the United States.”
In Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308, 100 Reprint 1031, Lord Kenyon stated:
“The character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any or the statutes, was incidental to birth only; whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born in the allegiance of the King, constituted a naturalborn subject.”
In Dicey’s Conflicts of Law (1896) It is stated: (pp.173).
“Natural-born subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of birth.
“A naturalized British subject means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject. (pp 175) Rule 22. Subject to the exceptions herinafter mentioned. any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.”
Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):
Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.
“Subjects are of two kinds: Citizens and Aliens. A citizen is one who owes to the state, of which he is a citizen, an universal and perpetual allegiance. Citizens of the United States are of two classes: Native born and Naturalized. A native born citizen is one who was born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States is co-extensive with its territory, and embraces all persons resident therein, except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states. The allegiance of the United States includes all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and all other persons, *except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states,) who are permanently domiciled within its jurisdiction. The persons born within this jurisdiction and allegiance are the following: 1) Those born either at home or abroad of parents who are citizens; 2) Those born within the territory of the United States of alien parents (Indians and the official representatives of foreign states excepted) who are permanently domiciled within the United States.” - William Callyhan Robinson, Elementary law, 1882
This is from the Congressional record 1967:
” To summarize; a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth. ”
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at page 655, the court said:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also calling ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’ of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -as expressed in the maxim, protecti trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience or the power, or, as would be said, to this day, within the jurisdiction Of the King.” (Thus, a child born In Mexico of English parents was not a natural-born subject, despite his automatic naturalization by Act of Parliament). Later In the same opinion (l.c. 658) the court said: “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 an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
The Court further held:
“The same rule was in force In all of the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continues to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“”1. Citizenship Defined.—The question of who are and who are not citizens had been left somewhat vague till this amendment (14th Amendment) was adopted. And the exact position of free negros was in doubt. The thirteenth amendment had made all negroes free persons. This amendment now made them citizens. Hereafter there can be no question as to who are citizens of the United States.
All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements. [28] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, prepared for the United States Senate by this agency, agrees with the majority of scholarship on the issue, noting that “[ w ]hatever the term ‘natural born’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized’,” that is, one who must go through the legal process of naturalization and, after discussing historical and legal precedents and arguments, concludes that “[t]here is reason to believe … that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. [29]
[28] Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1145-1146 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Jill Pryor, “The Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach to Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty,” 97 Yale LJ. 881 (1988); Charles Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. I (1968); Michael Nelson, “Constitutional Qualifications for President,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. XVII, Number 2, at 384-391 (Spring 1987); Warren Freedman, Comment, “Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents,” 35 Cornell L.Q. 357 (1950); Alexander Porter Morse, “Natural Born Citizen of the United States – Eligibility for the Office of President,” 66 Albany LJ. 99 (1904); Akil Amar, “Natural Born Killjoy, Why the Constitution Won’t Let Immigrants Run for President, and Why That Should Change,” Legal Affairs, 16, 17 (Mar-Apr. 2004): ” … the presidency and vice presidency were reserved for citizens by birth.” For the opposing view, see Isidor Blum, “Is Gov. George Romney Eligible to Be President?,” N. y’LJ., Oct. 16 & 17, 1967, at I. In a more restrictive analyses one author would include children of U.S. citizens who are born abroad when one or both of the parents are abroad under the direction of and officially representing, or on duty for, the United States Government, either in the military or in a civilian governmental role. Lohman, Christina. “Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause,” 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 369 (2000/2001).
[29] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. 108-17, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. at 456- 457 (2004). The United States Senate has also stated its opinion by way of unanimous consent, in S. Res. 511, 11 Oth Congress, that “natural born citizens” include those persons who are citizens “at birth” by statute by virtue of being born abroad of United States citizens.
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.”
