Is Bobby Jindal Eligible To Become President If He Was Born Before Parents Were Naturalized?

[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.

[Red Steel]

“No, foreigners who gives birth to a baby on US soil is not a natural born citizen.”

I assume you misspoke here, because foreigners who gave birth wouldn’t be, no. But the babies would, because citizen from birth = natural born citizen.

Oh contraire, in both cases the foreign parents (of course) and the baby would not be natural born citizens...so the dangling modifier point is moot.

[Retired Intelligence Officer]

The Chart is right and nothing is made up and Jindal is ineligible to be president because his parents were not citizens when he was born here. They weren’t naturalized.

Now when it comes to Natural Born Citizenship, please read carefully so you can understand:

Attorney, Mario Apuzzo, contends that in defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789),” a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay’s History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,’’ Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”

Continue reading here:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html

[patlin]

The founders dissolved ALL political bands. Under English common law, they had NO right to do that so where did they acquire that right? From Nature's Laws. They shucked off the old and adopted ‘Natural Law’ according to Nature's God in which the power resided in the people, not the government or King. They formed a nation based on consent of the individual or tacit consent of the parent, not subjectship conferred because of chance of birth on the soil.

It is you that does not understand the heritage of our founders & English history. The Reformation & the civil war in England in the mid 1600’s has everything to do with our revolution. It set the stage for what was to come.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=299#299

[cynwoody]

Okay, so where does that put me: Born in a United States Army Hospital, Korea to Parents who were both American Citizens.

You are eligible to be president. Your parents were citizens, so you are, too. From birth. Which is why you are natural born.

Don't let the silly birfers confuse you.

[Tublecane]

“Ummm, once a person is naturalized, they ARE citizens, thus their children naturally follow that condition”

“Naturally”? If you say so. but I thought “nature” worked its way through blood. Knowing what we know about genetics, how can we say an adaptive characteristic like being naturalized passes on to the offspring? That’s not “natural”; it’s naturalization one step removed.

“If they are born prior to the naturalization of the parents, they become naturalized citizens themselves upon the naturalization of the parents.”

So they automatically become naturalized at some point *after* their birth, by virtue of the condition of their birth plus something that happened to their parents? Where do you come up with this stuff? Ark flatly contradicts it.

What do I care if someone named Schade counted the native born children of foreigners as foreigners. Talk about stretching. The 14th amendment and court precedent speaks clearly against this.

[Tublecane]

“But it is true that justice Gray did not conclude WKA a natural born citizen, but only a citizen”

He didn’t declare him a natural born citizen, no. He also didn’t undeclare him, either.

[Tublecane]

“You after would lose.”

Poisoned electorate. They are twisted by partisanship.

If libs were talking like this we’d be in hysterics. In fact, we were, back when they freaked out over the 2000 election, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, etc.

[chopperman]

Okay, so where does that put me: Born in a United States Army Hospital, Korea to Parents who were both American Citizens.

You are eligible to be president. Your parents were citizens, so you are, too. From birth. Which is why you are natural born. Don't let the silly birfers confuse you.

You might not be considered to be natural born if your parents were never residents.

[Tublecane]

“’If it’s the legal establishment, historians, the educated public, heck, even the conservative intelligentsia, no way.’

‘You would lose again.’”

Ha! You are so completely out of touch.

[Tublecane]

“Why does a President require to be a Natural Born Citizen and a Senator just a U.S.Citizen in the constitution? Why the difference?”

The presidency was considered a higher office and therefore deserving of stricter standards.

[Red Steel]

‘He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV,’

That's right. Kawikita's parents were foreign citizens just like Wong Ark's parents. Wong Ark was only affirmed by Gray as only a citizen.

“All natural born citizens are native born citizens but not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.”

At long last, according to what?!?!

Again, the 1898 Wong Kim Ark opinion. He was a native - and NOT a natural born citizen as affirmed by justice Gray.

“And we see in Kawikita’s case, he was ONLY a native born citizen”

Nothing you quoted demonstrates such a claim. The best you can say is that they didn’t use the term natural born. Which in itself is evidence of nothing.

Nothing? Evidence of nothing? LoL! You guys are clowns. I'm in pretty good company. We see that Kawikita v. United States is cited in a brief for the Supreme Court.

[Retired Intelligence Officer]

What are the stricter standards pertaining to citizenship between the two?

[Red Steel]

Ha! You are so completely out of touch.

I see you are at the wishing well again.

[Tublecane]

“My original post was to Presbyterian Reporter, not you”

Oh, sorry. Thought this was a forum.

“And as to your point about naturalized citizens not being eligible to run for the presidency, I already said that.”

But have you recognized that they are the only citizens who can’t run for the presidency? That’s the important thing.

“(see, I can be a rude, dismissive @$$hole, too.)”

I already knew that, back when you were serially calling me confusing and unable to piece together coherent sentences when everyone else and their mother has had little trouble understanding my points. Of course, I deserved it for my sin of...suggesting you were the confused one and...saying “that is all”?

Funny thing, too, that you suddenly snap back with cussing when I finally make myself as clear as possible. Be careful what you wish for.

[Tublecane]

By the way, this was your original post, right:

“There are many citizens who are not eligible to be President because they were not born on US soil.”

You were responmding to someone who said something vapid along the lines of being born in the U.S. makes you a citizen. My response to you was something along the lines of “But not ones who were born citizens.”

Yeah, I remember and regret nothing. If you didn’t find it helpful, hey, don’t respond. And try not getting huffy to people who at least attempt simplify themselves after several charges of incomprehensibility.

[chopperman]

Very good post. That seems to have have silenced WOSG.

BTW - I was also in Intell. It’s obvious he wasn’t.

[Tublecane]

“the supreme court has ruled that several times”

Do tell.

[Tublecane]

“Interesting indeed since they are dead wrong & SOOOO BUSTED!

Virginia Citizenship Law 1779:”

I’m gonna go ahead and assume that even if a state varies in various particulars from English common law it does not follow that it was not inspired by it, nor that it doesn’t still follow it on the whole.

[Red Steel]

He didn’t declare him a natural born citizen, no. He also didn’t undeclare him, either.

You remember your old argument in post 217 - right?

Here it is again,

- - - -
“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.”

YOU - Exactly. They weren’t deciding presidential eligibility in the Ark case, so of course they didn’t say whether he was or not.

- - - - -

Well as you should recall, I obliterated your point above by showing you that Ms. Elg was ruled (affirmed) to be a natural born citizen because her parents were US citizens when she was born and she was born in the US of A. Ms Elg's case had nothing to do with presidential eligibility, but nonetheless the Supreme Court ruled her as an NBC. And...and Wong Kim Ark was only affirmed by Gray to be a citizen - and not a natural born citizen.

One day, you may get out of the denial stage and get to the acceptance stage.

[Tublecane]

“Good luck on your running for office, Tublecane”

Hey, there’s guarantee of election. But to say I, as a natural born citizen (and not one of those fake ones whose parents are dirty foreigners, either), have a right to eligibility is to say that in the off chance I am elected, I cannot be denied the office.