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.
You have radically different definitions of the terms “destroyed” and “slam dunk” than the rest of us.
You wish. You got easily stomped.
See my post #265. If native means soil, then why is the place in which we are born make us natives of that place?
If we could have an objective vote about my posts on this subject versus yours, no way you win.
“As we see again, Ms. Elg was ‘Affirmed’ a natural born citizen and that Wong Kim Ark was NOT.”
Once again, they were not under any compulsion to decide presidential eligibility in the Ark case, and as such their failure to do so is proof of nothing. Furthermore, various quotable passages support the citizen at birth = natural born citizen case, as you know. In order to convince yourself otherswise, you have to bend over backwards and invent a previously non-existent seperate category for the “native born,” which just won’t fly, Elg or no Elg.
That sounds like a lot of gobbledy-gook. Specifically, native, natural, national have all the same root source.
“There is a distinction between citizen and natural born citizen”
Yes, there is. And it involves recognizing naturalized citizens as seperate from those who were citizens all their lives.
“There are two kinds of citizens.
1. Naturalized or born on US soil to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent = citizen.
2. Born on US soil to two citizen parents = natural born citizen.”
That dog won’t hunt. Born citizens are not of the same status as naturalized citizens. The citizenship of the naturalized is conditional, whereas soil babies possess citizenship through birthright. That is, it is inalienable. Cannot be taken away from them. The naturalized, contrariwise, have to jump through hoops to gain privileges. The government expects things of them it cannot possibly demand of soil babies.
Therefore, in order to exclude, along with naturalized citizens, soil babies from the presidency, there’d have to be at least three classes of citizenship. Since that’s never been the case, you might wonder why no one’s noticed this phantom third category before. Then you might realize that, perhaps, you were wrong all along. That, after all, the two kinds of citizens that get that way via birth belong in the same category. That naturalized citizens, with whom soil babies had nothing in common, rightly belong on their own.
“No, it’s obvious to everyone but to the trolls that you’re the ‘Duh’!”
How many posters have to agree with you before you stop being a troll? 80%? 90%?
“People need to separate what amounts to being a citizen of the USA, and what amounts to being eligible to be President of the Untied States.”
Actually, everyone has a pretty firm grasp of this concept. We are all familiar with the existence of naturalized citizens.
No, the chart clearly defines those born overseas as citizens if one of their parents is a citizen.
The United States INS & Homeland Security recognizes three types of citizenship: native born citizen (born on U.S. soil); citizen by statute (citizenship because of citizen parents); and naturalized citizen (foreign born but became legally a citizen).
‘Natural Born Citizen’ appears only in the U.S. Constitution. It is an Article II eligibility requirement for the Presidency. It is not in and of itself a form of citizenship but a combination of two: born in the U.S.A. of parents who are citizens.
No one has the right to be President of the U.S. Why? Because it is an eligibility requirement, like being of a certain age, or having a certain length of residency before running for the office. ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is not required to be a Senator; only citizenship, being of a certain age, and having resided in the U.S.A. for a certain length of time before running for office is required
“The Founders put Natural Born Citizen in the clause and then put citizen in for the grandfather clause. That’s two different citizens”
Yeah, I know. People born before a country exists naturally can’t be citizens from birth of said country. You realize, I trust, that this no longer has any bearing on anything, as no one alive was born before the ratification of the Constitution. Which makes me wonder why you bring it up.
You have shown not a single cite of US law or any US court ruling to back up the bizarre claim that there is some category of citizenship for those who are born US citizens but not natural-born citizens. None of your SCOTUS cites back up the claim, and mere silence in a court ruling about whether a case is or is not ‘natural-born’ doesnt count.
Such a category does not exist in US law, and it would be easy to show it if they did exist, as US law on citizenship is detailed. You cannot cite any law or ruling, because the two - citizen at birth and ‘natural-born citizen’ - are synonymous..
” There is no laws that naturalizes natural born citizens. There is no need to as that would be silly. “
Not naturalization, but definition. If you read earlier in the thread, there is US law that defines the cases where US citizenship is acquired at birth.
Of course, there is no ‘naturalization’, there is simply the definition of who has rights of citizenship at birth, and all such would be natural-born citizens.
This has been clear since the 1790 naturalization act, which has two paths for citizenship - citizens at birth aka ‘natural-born citizens’ and naturalization - and NOTE CLEARLY, they do define in law how citizenship at birth aka ‘natural-born citizenship’ is acquired:
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
“native refers to soil; natural refers to nature, as in it flows through the blood naturally”
How, persay, could U.S. citizenship pass to children through the blood if the parents were not born U.S. citizens? I realize they were grandfathered in, but how would that affect their blood. If, as another poster said, Van Buren was the first natural born president, and if, as I assume, his parents weren’t born U.S. citizens, how did he get his citizenship through their blood? And how do naturalized citizens produce citizen offspring if they weren’t born citizens, and therefore don’t have citizenship in the blood?
“The framers wanted it clear that anyone sitting in the Presidency would not have any foreign allegiances”
They did a pretty poor job of that. Might’ve said so, at least.
“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.”
No they didn’t. They insisted a presidential aspirant be born a citizen. Which may or may not have been implied at the time to be children of citizen parents. But that’s not the case anymore, per the 14th amendment.
“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.”
I’ve never understood how an oath makes its way into the blood.
If precedent has any bearing on this issue, then this link shows there were at least 6 presidents who were born in this country but whose parents were immigrants.
Federal territory? You mean to tell me that the Federal government owns all the land? All our local & state governments are now mere entities of the Federal government?
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.
Oh my, “indications & probability” is what you finally rely on? You really are on a stretch there now aren't you? You mean to tell me that after the Declaration the founders still deemed themselves Englishmen? Please give a cite for that as well as the indications you speak of that they weren't afforded the usual protections of international law since foreign nations came to the aid of the US both militarily & monetarily under the rights afforded to the US according to the Law of Nations.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
NOPE! No Englishmen there & no indications or probability either, but lots of Nature, Nature's God as well as the founder's Creator. "Liberty": the right to remove themselves & their families from one society and attach to another in their pursuit of their's & their family's happiness. It's called Expatriation & it is the sister Act to the 14th Amendment. It states that the US does NOT & NEVER has recognized dual allegiance.
And in case you have trouble understanding the Law of Nature & Nature's God, here's a lesson from a most notable Englishman that was published in 1708 & a common book in American households as well as libraries in America prior to the revolution.
What I said flies with the best of them. Yours however, gets easily shot down. As an example:
I show you the Elg case where this lady was not running for president and she was declared natural born by the Supreme Court in post 224.
Here is the silly argument of yours in post 217.
- - - -
To: r9etb
“There are some around here who see this as inadequate, as it doesn’t say ‘natural born,’ so he must not be a natural born citizen.
Which is hooey.”
Exactly. They weren’t deciding presidential eligibility in the Ark case, so of course they didn’t say whether he was or not.
- - ---
- - - - -
birth = natural born citizen case, as you know.
No, foreigners who gives birth to a baby on US soil is not a natural born citizen. Go find the chart above in post 277 and enlighten yourself.
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.