Whoever made that chart is a dope...
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.
“There are 14th Amendment citizens according to the Supreme Court, which is naturalization (by law) at birth.”
I never can understand this weird distinction between citizens by nature and citizens by law. Maybe if we lived as subjects in a divinely-ordained kingdom, you could say that citizenship passes down from God to the baby through the blood of the parents. And this would be perfectly natural, not at all man-made. One could imagine the state as having existed for all time, and stretching into the infinite future.
However, you must be aware that there was no such thing as the United States, and therefore no natural U.S. citizens before passage of the man-made law known as the Constitution. How does that jive with your system? How do you deal with those (which includes everyone) who became citizens not by nature (which would have dictated their status as British subjects) but by law, as well all their offspring, who received their birthright upon the ratification of the Constitution? Aren’t we all naturalized?
I posted this to you once, but apparently you didn't read it. So, again:
Natural Born Citizen - The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
Any why stop there? Why not insist on a bloodline that goes back to the Mayflower?
LOL ...I didn't live back then and I didn't write any of the Constitution or definitions, I'm giving you info of those who did. Don't get in a snit.
“There are 4-5 categories of citizen in this country.”
Really? Why not 100 or 1,000,000 while we’re at it?
Please specify.
No Tublecane. The Founders put Natural Born Citizen in the clause and then put citizen in for the grandfather clause. That’s two different citizens. The president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States (or a citizen of the United States at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted). Again that is distinguishing the difference between two types of citizens. Martin Van Buren was the first natural born citizen president.
Look at the Citizenship Chart to see the difference. Its very explanitory.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/naturalbornchart07292009.jpg
native refers to soil; natural refers to nature, as in it flows through the blood naturally
Noah Webster, 1828:
In many cases, the nature of our governments, and of our civil institutions, requires an appropriate language in the definition of words, even when the words express the same thing, as in England. Thus the English Dictionaries inform us that a Justice is one deputed by the King to do right by way of judgment—he is a Lord by his office—Justices of the peace are appointed by the King's commission—language which is inaccurate in respect to this officer in the United States. So constitutionally is defined by Todd or Chalmers, legally, but in this country the distinction between constitution and law requires a different definition. In the United States, a plantation is a very different thing from what it is in England. The word marshal, in this country, has one important application unknown in England or in Europe. A great number of words in our language require to be defined in a phraseology accommodated to the condition and institutions of the people in these states, and the people of England must look to an American Dictionary for a correct understanding of such terms. The necessity therefore of a Dictionary suited to the people of the United States is obvious ; and I should suppose that this fact being admitted, there could be no difference of opinion as to the time, when such a work ought to be substituted for English Dictionaries...
I do not indeed expect to add celebrity to the names of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...
Now when the soil is able vote in national elections & give birth to a living breathing baby that wants to be President, you will have your winner.
Can someone copy and paste this chart up for everyone to see. It describes the differences between Natural Born Citizen, Citizen and Native Born Citizen with case law by the Supreme Court. I think you all will be pleased with this.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/naturalbornchart07292009.jpg
Whoever made that chart is a dope...
You can cite Justice Gray all you want about natural born SUBJECT which is not the same as a natural born citizen.
Justice Gray also cited Mr. Binney who made the distinction between citizens and NBCs, and cited who were natural born citizens without a doubt in Minor v. Happersett...that would contradict what you guys think that he proclaimed Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen. Gray only affirmed him a citizen.
And common law of England is not recognized as the law of the land but a distinctive American domestic law that took its place, which recognizes the law of nations.
From a previous post.
- - - -
You can argue common law but that would still make him a natural born citizen.
I can go better. The common law of these United States is the Law of Nations for over 200 years, and the Supreme Court of the United States has acknowledged as such
The Supreme Court Opinion Sosa v. Alverez-Machain et al.
No. 03–339. Argued March 30, 2004—Decided June 29, 2004*
That's NOT English Common law as "Domestic Law" that the Supreme Court has said here.
What are you, then? And don’t say native born, because that doesn’t count.
You are a citizen............but not a "Natural Born Citizen".
The framers wanted it clear that anyone sitting in the Presidency would not have any foreign allegiances. In order to assure that to be the case they insisted that both parents of any presidential aspirant would be.....themselves, full citizens of this country. They (the parents) could have been born elsewhere....and then naturalized, but their progeny, hoping to attain the office of president would have been required to have been born after they (their parents) received that citizenship.
When a person becomes a citizen they must take an oath to be loyal to the flag and it is assumed they would then pass on this quality to any.....and all offspring. And....that's what the framers had in mind with the requirement to be a natural born citizen.......not a naturalized citizen or one born of non citizen parents.
As an example...........my grandparents (all four) came from the old country.....and both my parents were born here. My Mom and Dad always had a closer affinity to the old country because they were brought up under some of the old traditions....spoke the language around the house and were generally more familiar with the old customs than I ever was. My father would not have been able to be president because my grandfather did not attain citizenship right away and my dad was born prior to that event. On the other hand, I could seek the office because my mom and dad were both citizens.......but my dad was not a natural born citizen because my grandfather (his dad) delayed his application. My mother was a natural born citizen because, even with the fact that her parents came here as immigrants, both of them had attained citizenship by the time she was born. Consequently.....my mom could have run for the office but my dad could not......and they were both born here.....but only my mom was natural born.
The Constitution refers to Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’. The below post explains it all:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2619619/posts#9
“I see you are reading challenged. I’ll give you a 2nd chance read what I actually wrote.”
Here is what you posted (annoyingly unnecessary caps included):
“BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO BABIES BORN TO ALIEN PARENTS in the USA, REGARDLESS OF THE PARENTS LEGAL STATUS, IS CITIZENHIP BY FIAT & NOT BY NATURE DUE TO JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, NOT ACTUAL LAW RATIFIED BY WE THE PEOPLE!”
Since the prevailing interpretation of the 14th amendment’s standards regarding the children of aliens born in the U.S. is, in my opinion, self-evidently accurate, I could only assume you were implying that the entire 14th amendment was somehow a judicial invention.
“By what form of law did the founders have the authority in which to revolt against England and break all ties with them?”
Well, the sources they cited in the Declaration of Independence might illuminate us. The law of nature and nature’s God. The traditional rights of Englishmen. The prerogatives of colonial self-administration. There are also indications that they weren’t afforded the usual protections of international law. Probably others.
“And FYI...no one is a citizen of the United States unless he is 1st a citizen of one of the 50 states”
Not true. Have you never heard of federal territory? Barry Goldwater, for instance, was born in Arizona before Arizona was a state. Therefore, he was not a born citizen of any state.
“or in the case of the ratification of the Constitution, one of the 13 states”
That is true, since there was a lag between when people stopped being British subjects and when the Constitution was ratified. i’m not sure how it applies to what we’re discussing.
“Geesh, my 10 yr old granddaughter even knows that one.”
Good for her.
“We’re a bottom up Federal Union, not a top down Federal Union.”
Irrelevant.
“Our Constitution was not written for an all sovereign & powerful central government much to you disliking.”
What? Neither side of this debate denies it’s the federal constitution that controls who gets to be president. Desiring a powerful central government is neither here nor there.
WOW, you can date the word native back to the 14th century. geez, now how did the bible ever got written if they didn’t have language back then in which to write the 1st laws of the world which were the laws of nature in which all positive laws of man are derived from?
FYI...positive law is NOT to be in opposition to nature, it is merely suppose to protect the laws of nature & the natural rights of man. The right of man to have his children follow his nationality until they come of age. The natural right of a family to be a single union under one set of laws. The natural right to NOT have some usurped powerful central government make children aliens to their parents who are the sovereign providers & protectors of the children during their youth.
“It means that she was 4 months pregnant when she arrived in the US...he was born 5 months later...neither parent were naturalized citizens so he is NOT eligible to run for president.”
We all already knew that. It was never in issue. The article clearly says they were here on a visa.
I’m just curious. Where were Martin Van Buren’s parents born?
Her 'immigrant" parents, knucklehead, were US citizens at the time of her birth in the United States. You're missing the point as trolls love to do or obfuscate and BS.
In the meantime, ponder the logical fallacy of confusing a declared category to be an exclusive limitation. Just because ms Elg *IS* a natural-born citizen, and was stated as such, doesnt mean every case where they didn’t make that same point was *not* also NBC, including Wong Kim Ark.
Talk about silly fallacies. Wong Kim Ark's parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and they were NEVER U.S. citizens, and as of consequence, he was never declared a natural born citizen by Gray. You do see the difference? I expect you to go on BS'ing your way around as usual.
“Since the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ does not exist in the text, this Amendment cannot possibly change whatever the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ meant at the time of it’s passage.”
Not if the words originally meant citizen at birth, as the vast majority of living humans (and an extreme minority of birthers) believes it does. In that case, any change in who constituted a citizen at birth would automatically change who was a natural born citizen.
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.