Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
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.
I'm an observer of Troll behavior and you fit it to a "T"
LoL. That’s a silly cut and paste job that even rivals the cut and paste jobs we get from the self-out troll Jamie.
I’m sorry but you keep missing the real point.
First, Minor v Happersett was about whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote. Waite rested his ruling on the fact that citizenship didnt confer voting rights. “natural born” was not at all important in the ruling, its mention was incidental in the discussion of the citizenship status of women.
It was even incidental whether women obtained citizenship via the 14th or via prior common law, but SCOTUS in Minor correctly pointed out the common law foundations for granting women citizenship status since the founding of the country. THOSE COMMON LAW UNDERSTANDINGS WERE ALSO USED IN WONG KIM ARK. Sorry for shouting but some are hard at reasoning. The common law connection was why WOng Kim Ark used the Minor quote.
“Minor’s argument that she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.” not so! “ His failure to do this means that it can ONLY apply to people”
NO! Minor’s argument was that the 14th Amendment confered citizens the ‘privilege and immunities’ of voting, and therefore women had the right to vote. Waite ACCEPTED that Minor was a citizen, but REJECTED the connection between citizenship and voting, showing how the voting franchise had been limited in many ways, so that not all citizens were automatically voters.
You are misreading this Supreme Court ruling completely ... don’t know whether it is desperation to distort this one quote, or you just havent read the whole thing, but give it a go. It neither helps nor hurts the birther case to get this one right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
“Waite had the perfect opportunity for resolving the doubt by accepting Minor’s argument that she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment.”
Again, no. Plaintiff argued over the privileges and immunities clause, insisting it gave the right to vote, not that at all.
” His failure to do this means that it can ONLY apply to people who are not born of citizen parents.”
... this is out to lunch, completely. As I stated prior, the 14th amendment’s birthright citizenship clause real reason was to correct Dred Scott and the decision that denied blacks citizenship. (Aint that a hoot, because of that racist decision we now have anchor babies to deal with!) “All persons” was used, and the rest of the 14th provided equal protection to people under the law, because the Dred Scott decision denied blacks even the right to sue.
What was THE SAME as prior law (common law for birthright citizenship, derived from English common law) was the framework for ‘natural-born citizen’ indeed the common law concept of being ‘born ... under the jurisdiction’ was codified, and what was IMPORTANT in the 14th was “ALL PERSONS”. Blacks no longer excluded.
Examples where it was recognized that children of aliens could be citizens - prior to the 14th amendment - are:
1829 -
“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)
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said, prior to the 14th amendment passage:
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.
There are others of course. Minor said “there were doubts” and that should be read at face value - Minor didnt decide IN ANY WAY the question we are debating, whether natural-born citizen includes the US born children of aliens. Using the Minor quote to advance the birther cause is ... WEAK.
“A bunch of legal dictionary definitions won’t override this decision.”
Of course not. the 19th amendment granting women suffrage did.
Vattel was a foreigner and “law of nations” was about international law. Fits what Scalia is talking about like a glove.
I dont read HuffPo,....
“you’re using a form of a quote that came from a Rat who lost too.”
There you go again...
Barack Obama, the British/Kenyan/Indonesian citizen, Ms. Triple foreign allegiances, and likely was born outside the US has Usurped the presidency.
Look, we dealt with the numerous court cases recognizing dual citizenship, what, about 400 comments ago.
Dual citizenship exists and is recognized in Federal law and in court decisions. It happens.
If you are bugged by it, write a letter to Congress.
Case closed.
Weight of evidence affirms my view, and you are just being an ankle biting attacker at this point.
... because of 14th amendment citizenship. It's in the decision in black and white. "The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, .." This is the exact language of the amendment. Waite IMMEDIATELY rejects this claim. "But, in our opinion, it [women] did not need this amendment to give them that position [citizenship]."
Waite rested his ruling on the fact that citizenship didnt confer voting rights.
He also said the 14th amendment didn't confer Virginia Minor's citizenship. "The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her."
Minor correctly pointed out the common law foundations for granting women citizenship status since the founding of the country.
The "common law foundations" were a nearly verbatim quote of Vattel's definition of natural born citizenship. He says nothing about English common law here. "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."
The common law connection was why WOng Kim Ark used the Minor quote.
The only common law Minor used was its Vattel definition. WKA also had to cite Minor because of precedence. "The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ..." WKA did not fit this definition. Gray used common law to prop up 14th amendment citizenship, not to redefine natural born citizenship. Of the few times it uses the term natural-born citizen, the final time is when it cites the definition in Minor. From there it doesn't use that term again ... because it couldn't.
You are misreading this Supreme Court ruling completely ... don’t know whether it is desperation to distort this one quote, or you just havent read the whole thing, but give it a go.
Sorry, but you're projecting. I've quoted quite liberally from throughout both the Minor and WKA decisions. You've quoted somebody else's talking points and otherwise responded in jibberish and huffery.
Are you sure? We all know you BS us.
“you’re using a form of a quote that came from a Rat who lost too.”
There you go again...
No, there you go again. BS'ing us again Obot.
You used the same form of a quote(almost the same) as VP candidate and Rat Lloyd Bentsen used on Dan Quayle in the 1988 VP debate:
You - "Leo Berman is a friend of mine.
Leo Berman is a great Texan.
And you, Red Steel, aint no Leo Berman."
Bentsen - "Senator,...I knew Jack Kennedy,
Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.
Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."
WOSG, you're vying for the gold medal for BS'ing on FR.
No, not if he was born before them.
LoL you wish. And what are you arguing with us if the case is closed? Oh that's right, it must be your scheduled time to troll eligibility threads. Bite your own ankle.
WOSG, Please address what red Steel has written here, as follows:
“If naturalized US citizens have to renounce their foreign citizenships — you have come to the inexplicable conclusion that a US President can legally have double allegiances by having a foreign citizenship. Totally unbelievable.”
I too have asked this same question as Red Steel.
If a naturalized US citizens has to take an oath to COMPLETELY renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, does it make logical sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” could enjoy dual citizenship — at birth?
If so, it would follow that a naturalized citizen would be more trustworthy to be POTUS than a Natural Born Citizen — or “Born Citizen” — as you put it!
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
STE=Q
I gotta hit the sack.
Good night everybody!
STE=Q
Yeah, the US does recognize double allegiances exist but those are factors outside of their control; however, when foreigners want to be naturalized as US citizens, the US can control the process, whereby by law, the would be naturalized persons have to renounce their foreign citizenships before they take the oath of allegiance to the United States.
If you are bugged by it, write a letter to Congress.
Not necessary since I schooled you again.
“Qualification..for the President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiances BY BIRTH to foreign states;””
That's a very interesting article but sadly it's not a Law Review. The correct title is simply the New Englander and Yale Review and that particular volume (Vol III) includes such subjects as:
Biographical Sketch of Gen. Joseph Palmer, - - 1
Elements of Power in the Preaching of the Rev. George White-
field, ....... 24
The Ministry favorable to the Highest Development of Mind, 44
Tennyson's Poems, - - - -57
Poems by Alfred Tennyson. In two volumes.
“He also said the 14th amendment didn’t confer Virginia Minor’s citizenship.” OK, you are just repeating what I said to you, so we are on the same page ... but
“He says nothing about English common law here”
Ahem... you aren’t readin clearly. It says “At common-law”
At common-law!
There is only one source of common law in the United States and it aint the Ottoman Empire, Switzerland, or the Emperor of China.
And never mind that this precious “Vattel quote” is nothing but a basic non-exclusive declaration of something that is agreed and not at issue. Basing one’s case on a mis-reading of that simply quote is ... well, hilarious.
“WKA also had to cite Minor because of precedence. “
ROFLMAO! Of course not! The cases wer on different questions entirely.
Minor of course said there were ‘doubts’ on the very matter WKA decided, the situation of children born to non-citizen parents. WKA quoted this ruling, but also quoted dozens of other cases, to determine that case. Minor was of ‘minor’ importance in it.
Quibbling over quotes misses the mass of evidence that blows the birther POV out of the water.
For example -
The Supreme Court has found children who are born in the US of alien parents to be natural-born citizens. see Mandoli vs Acheson. Mandoli was born in the US to Italian parents, and the Supreme Court found he had the rights as a natural-born citizen not to be denied citizenship in the ways that naturalized citizens could:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=344&invol=133
“Under the Expatriation Act of 1907, a United States citizen by birth who by foreign law derives from his parents citizenship of a foreign nation held not to have lost his United States citizenship by foreign residence long continued after attaining his majority. Pp. 135-139.
(a) In such case the native-born citizen, by continuing to reside in the foreign country after attaining his majority, cannot be deemed to have elected between his dual citizenships in favor of that of the foreign country; and, when he attained his majority, he was under no statutory duty to make an election and to return to this country for permanent residence if he elected United States citizenship. Pp. 135-139. “
LOL, you are a legend in your own mind.
Speaking of schooled, here’s a case that will blow your mind.
The Supreme Court not only said that Mr Mandoli, born in the US to Italian parents (not US citizens) was a native-born citizen, but that he was entitled to maintain his US citizenship even after moving to Italy as a child and living there, serving in Italian armed forces and maintaining Italian citizenship.
And they cite laws very much in the US control that allow that to happen.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=344&invol=133
MANDOLI v. ACHESON, 344 U.S. 133 (1952)
344 U.S. 133
MANDOLI v. ACHESON, SECRETARY OF STATE.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 15.
Argued October 17, 1952.
Decided November 24, 1952.
1. Under the Expatriation Act of 1907, a United States citizen by birth who by foreign law derives from his parents citizenship of a foreign nation held not to have lost his United States citizenship by foreign residence long continued after attaining his majority. Pp. 135-139.
(a) In such case the native-born citizen, by continuing to reside in the foreign country after attaining his majority, cannot be deemed to have elected between his dual citizenships in favor of that of the foreign country; and, when he attained his majority, he was under no statutory duty to make an election and to return to this country for permanent residence if he elected United States citizenship. Pp. 135-139.
(b) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 , is not to the contrary. Pp. 138-139.
(c) The dignity of citizenship which the United States Constitution confers as a birthright upon every person born within its protection is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts except pursuant to a clear statutory mandate. P. 139.
2. One of the grounds of decision relied on by the District Court, based on the citizen’s having served in the army of the foreign country and taken an oath of allegiance to that country, was abandoned by the Government, the Attorney General having ruled that such service and oath had been taken under legal compulsion amounting to duress. P. 135.
90 U.S. App. D.C. 1121, 193 F.2d 920, reversed.
“does it make logical sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” could enjoy dual citizenship — at birth?”
This has been asked and answered many times on this thread, but if you want a refresher, read Elg v Perkins as a start, and I’m finding Mandoli v Acheson instructive as well in debunking the claim that natural-born citizens cannot be dual citizens.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=344&invol=133
LOL.
You are now reduced to explaining my jokes.
As for your bogus ad hominem attacks on me, for merely trying to correct errors in logic and law ...
I wear your scorn as a badge of honor.
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.