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.
Correct. Chester Arthur’s father, born in Ireland, was naturalized in 1843, yet his son was born in 1829.
LOL. I just gave an explicit example that refutes your point - black slaves in 1857 under Dred Scott could not run for President, and today American-born blacks can do so, so clearly natural-born citizen was changed - and all you have is “nonsense”.
I am preaching what the law is, not what you want it to be.
And that was kept secret until after Arthur’s presidency.
“If your citizenship IS dependent on the 14th amendment, you aren’t a natural born citizen. “
Untrue. This is a claim and invention of your own. This invention is found nowhere in US law. Citizenship was and is defined legally, there is no way to define a legal construct like that outside of the law. natural-born citizen and citizen at birth are synonymous.
“It’s why Justice Waite declared Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of the 14th amendment, but clearly avoided declaring him to be a natural born citizen.”
You are suffering under the fallacy that absense of evidence equates to evidence of absense. It does not.
“Yes, I do. I also realize, according to your demonstrations, repeatedly calling people stupid is okay.”
Yes, poor debating form to name-call, but ... birtherism is as birtherism does.
At the time my parents were still legal citizens of the Netherlands with legal green cards to live here in the US. They have been here since 1954.
My mother has become a naturalized US Citizen in the last 10 years.
What difference does that make? His presidency could have been challenged and declared null and void. Why wasn’t it? Even if it was moot at the time of its discovery, it could have been challenged just to make the case for future persons wanting to run in the same circumstances. It’s not too late. It could be challenged now.
I still think he might be good VICE-Presidential material (for example, a Palin/Jindal ticket would marry charisma and brains (not that I believe that Palin is a dummy, but Jindal has "the rep" as highly intellectual)). With that as grooming, I think Jindal "could" still be presidential material, but not today.
If “soil” babies born to foreigners are US citizens at birth as you state, then why as of the 1892 was the US government still classifying these “soil” babies as foreigners at birth? To just claim this as crap is well, just plain stupid, irrational and void of common sense.
At issue would be legal claims upon you under the jurisdiction of The Netherlands. You would be subject to their law while in that nation. You could be drafted.
This is not acceptable for the President and Commander-in-Chief of the US military. Every other elected office is open to those who are other than natural-born citizens, with certain age and length of residency requirements that vary with the level of the particular elected office.
“It’s obvious that Jindal is not qualified to be president. “
It’s obvious that Jindal is qualified to be president.
“He was not a Natural Born Citizen at birth. His parents were not legal citizens yet”
They were legal residents, which is sufficent for Jindhal to be a citizen at birth, aka natural-born citizen. Jindhal has had only one country and one allegiance his entire life and that is to the United States.
“when he was born 3 months after they arrived and they didn’t meet the residency requirements yet as immigrants.”
This statement makes no sense, they were legal immigrants, of course they met legal requirements.
“Jindal is a citizen by statute”
ALL CITIZENS are defined by statute or some other provision of law... INCLUDING NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS! JUst read the 1790 naturalization act, which did that explicitly. Subsequent laws have changed provisions for citzenship-at-birth and those are ALL natural-born citizens.
Citizenship is defined by statute
... and if you are leaning on ‘common law’, then go back to the Wong Kim Ark, where under common law, children born of aliens WERE CONSIDERED NATURAL-BORN ...
“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark
See also: ” ...became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens ... “
“Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. “ - Minor v Happersett
It’s clear: If you are born a US citizen, you are a ‘natural-born citizen’.
Jindhal is a natural born citizen as required in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution.
A little history: The purpose of the Natural Born citizen clause of the Constitution was to prevent a foreign influence from controlling or affecting the Office of the President . This law affects no other public office. The founding fathers felt that if they required that both parents to be citizens at the time of birth of a President , it would limit any foreign influence. Contrary to what some people think , the 14th. amendment DID NOT affect or address the issue of Natural Born citizenship as required by Article 2. The 14th amendment did not give automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, it still required the allegiance of the parents( “subjects” of the jurisdiction) .
So what made the British-Americans free? Why were they called subjects & not citizens if as you say they were free? What was the political bond that was dissolved?
Hint...it wasn't English common law & FYI...a law that confers on a person a perpetual allegiance to a king without consent of that individual person affected & being required to get permission from the govt/king to relocate are not traits of a free man of any nationality
Oh, your a google graduate! Good for you, I just hope you didn’t pay too much for your google diploma.
I’ll stick to the history books that actually wrote the truth. You know, those dusty text books that were actually written by those old dead male & female patriots who actually lived during the revolution. You know, those dead people that you all like to dismiss because they didn’t actually know what they were fighting for.
Read Item 1 in post 460.
“There are not any “special” citizens as that all citizens are treated and respected the same. The subject about natural born citizens as there is no required law to make them citizens because they are without attachments or allegiances to other countries.”
Again, the 1790 naturalization law refutes your claim, wherein some types of natural-born citizens ARE defined. ALL forms of citizenship have to be defined in law, as it is a legal term.
Should have been a thread ender and exactly right.
I have & I have read the congressional testimony & speeches of those that actually wrote the law which you obviously haven't.
FYI...Gray didn't write the 14th & he issued an entirely different opinion in Elk (1884) wherein he quoted the framers of the 14th & the Slaughter-House case:
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Elk case held that the 14th was infact constitutional & even the dissenting Justices in Elk agreed with this. Sorry, but you are just miserably blinded by your shiney google diploma.
Oh, back to Blackstone now. Maybe you should have read Tucker’s entire discourse on Blackstone. He wasn’t promoting it as a guide for US law, he promoted quite the opposite. But then you wouldn’t know that because google doesn’t teach it.
I’m assuming you didn’t go to law school, otherwise you would’ve learned in the first week that treatises such as Vattel have no binding force whatsoever in our legal system. At best they called “persuasive authority” and may be consulted and cited where the law is unclear or there is no law. Only if the principles of a treatise become part of a published opinion, or become part of a statute, do the principles become law. Otherwise, a legal treatise on its own has as much force of law as a Batman comic book.
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.