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.

[VADoc1980]

Don’t cite foreign law.

[VADoc1980]

Does it? The Founders didn’t intend for the Commerce Clause to be perverted the way it has been. Look what’s happened. That’s what you get when you aren’t clear enough. Contrast this with the 14th, where the text speaks for itself. If you’re born here then you’re a citizen.

[patlin]

The problem is judicial activism. Heard of it? The crux of the 14th does NOT rest in the word born, it rest in the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction’. But I wouldn't expect ignorant drones who claim to be some sort of DR to know that since they obviously haven't spent a minutia of a minute in the history books studying the subject.

[VADoc1980]

I can’t believe he thinks the majority of the uneducated public buy the birther arguments.

[VADoc1980]

The fact that you have probably spent DAYS reading the birther websites says more about you than it does about me, and not anything good. You really do remind me of the 9/11 truthers. They insist that the towers didn't fall correctly and that it must have been a controlled demolition. No way a 767 could have hit with enough force to knock the towers over. Likewise, the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane, and our government covered it up. Don't argue with them on it, either. They've read the research and done 10 times more studying than anyone else on the matter.

Similarly, you pride yourself on being very educated on the conspiracy theory. I do think you have the talking points largely memorized. You obviously have a great memory to be able to keep all of the irrelevant court cases straight and all of the secondary sources that have no relevance as well.

[patlin]

US citizenship is no conspiracy, especially to those Justices in the Dred Scott case that gave birth to the Civil Rights Act which became the 14th Amendment upon its ratification:

Justice Peter Daniel arguing that black slaves were not persons & thus did not qualify for US citizenship according to the law adopted by the US determining who were the born citizens:

Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: ...The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

cited from British law textbook: “America & the Law of Nations 1776-1939” Janis, Oxford University

Your problem is that you think the states all signed the same declaration at the same time, when in fact, each & every state signed & sent its own declaration of independence to the Brits prior to the federal one of July 4, 1776. The federal declaration made it known to all that the individual sovereign nation states had formed a union(confederacy), thus the law of nations was vital. The federal govt is not sovereign, never has been, it is merely a vessel of representatives from each of the sovereign states to promote commerce & protect life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness & conduct foreign relations for the federal Union with other nations. To think the founders wanted someone with immediate familial foreign relations conducting that business is just plain admitting to being ignorant of American history that has its roots in the laws of many nations. The Brits weren't the only inhabitants, but I guess your prejudice in favor of the Brits who the founders fought against clouds your judgment, thus reason of law is beyond your comprehension.

[omegadawn]

The Congressional Research Service is a far left group that supports obama , everything it writes is heavily biased and false.

At the time the Constitution was wrote only the father could pass on citizenship, the mother had citizenship by virtue of marriage to the father. If it is your claim that both of the parents is not required then obama’s citizenship must be that of his father. There is no law on the books that allow citizenship to anyone without allegiance to our nation.

[jamese777]

The problem is judicial activism. Heard of it? The crux of the 14th does NOT rest in the word born, it rest in the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction’. But I wouldn’t expect ignorant drones who claim to be some sort of DR to know that since they obviously haven’t spent a minutia of a minute in the history books studying the subject.

---

Nearly every person visiting or residing in America is “subject to the jurisdiction” of US law, even if they are not citizens. We routinely arrest, try, convict and deport illegal aliens because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of our immigration laws. Our prisons are filled with illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the US and are “subject to the jurisdiction” of our laws

The only persons who aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity and members of a foreign occupying military such as General Santa Ana’s forces during the Mexican-American War and the Japanese occupying the Aleutian Islands during World War II.

The following is from the “us constitution online” web site:
Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

[arthurus]

You are conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen.” The reason for the clause in the Constitution was the desire of the Founders that anyone with allegiances other than to this country should not be eligible. Conservatives are like liberals in this. They want strict rules followed but not for their own guy. I think the law actually on the books says there needs to be at least one born citizen parent.

[VADoc1980]

South Dakota... German descent? More recent immigrants (compared to some)? Am I in the right ballpark? My father is half Seneca. My ancestors on that side “met the Mayflower”, so to speak. The other side of my father’s family goes back to late 1770s Virginia. You don’t get any more natural-born than that. My mother’s ancestors fled anti-Jewish persecution in England and helped found the town of Newport, Rhode Island around 1700. So to answer your question, no, I have no “prejudice in favor” of the Brits. My mother’s family came to this country more than 300 years ago. My father’s family has been here for thousands of years. Do you have “prejudice in favor” of the Germans?

[VADoc1980]

Consistency is no substitute for accuracy. It doesn’t matter what the Founders wanted. That’s why we have an amendment process. The 14th essentially overruled any desire of the founders. They put the amendment process in the Constitution because they knew that times could change, and they wanted the people to have a remedy to make changes to the document.

[centurion316]

You have met your match, that noted Constitutional scholar, Patlin. Don’t mind his intemperate and illogical rants, ‘tis nothing more than a slight imbalance with his medications. Any day now he will be sallying forth from his Mother’s basement to get a real job, as soon as he has finished his eagerly awaited treatise on Constitutional Law. I’m sure that the book tour will be to die for.

[patlin]

Dred Scott decision: Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: ...The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. Gee, even the pro-slavery justices agreed that Vattel's law of nations definition was root definition of US citizenship & birth in a nation & subject to its laws does not constitute automatic citizenship, one must be born to citizen parent(S), no foreign allegiances allowed.

[patlin]

Planted in SD when I was an infant, born & bred English (maternal)Welsh MD in 1664 & (paternal)Saxon VA 1624 & eligible to join the daughters of the revolution. Revolutionary ancestors were Federal judge and a US Congressman on my paternal side and diplomat on maternal side as well as a host of fighting patriot soldiers for the US.

Any more questions?

[jamese777]

You are conflating “citizen” with “natural born citizen.” The reason for the clause in the Constitution was the desire of the Founders that anyone with allegiances other than to this country should not be eligible. Conservatives are like liberals in this. They want strict rules followed but not for their own guy. I think the law actually on the books says there needs to be at least one born citizen parent.

---

The 21st century term is “Citizen of the United States at Birth” and the requirements for that designation are spelled out in great detail in the US Code.
The Founding Fathers established a process to amend and change their thinking in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment altered their thinking on citizenship by establishing only two categories of American citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens cannot be president.
Here’s the current law of the land:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[VADoc1980]

Well you’re the one who brought up allegiance, but no I don’t have any more questions. Obviously my family has been here longer. :P And you’re still dead wrong about this issue. I’m not conceding anything.

[jamese777]

Dred Scott decision: Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says: ...The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. Gee, even the pro-slavery justices agreed that Vattel’s law of nations definition was root definition of US citizenship & birth in a nation & subject to its laws does not constitute automatic citizenship, one must be born to citizen parent(S), no foreign allegiances allowed.

---

21st Century US law of the land says that a “citizen of the United States at birth” is: (a) “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

Under current law, parents only come into play if a person was NOT physically born inside the United States.

The current four or five originalists on the US Supreme Court (depending on the issue) don’t appear to be interested. They have denied (without comment) hearings to all Obama eligibility appeals to reach them for Certiorari conferences.

[aruanan]

The Founding Fathers established a process to amend and change their thinking in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment altered their thinking on citizenship by establishing only two categories of American citizens: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, born citizens can be president and naturalized citizens cannot be president.

Sorry, but the language of the 14th Amendment doesn't nullify the language of the requirements for president. Both are still definitive law but the language of the 14th Amendment is subject to and defined in the context of Article II, Section 1. Chester A. Arthur was still very much concerned about the language of Article II, Section 1 in spite of the 14th Amendment passed about 12 years before he ran for vice president and went to great lengths to conceal his dual citizenship conferred on him at birth by his father's British citizenship.

[patlin]

ROFL, my husband & co-owner of our business will be surprised to learn he married someone of the same sex who gave birth to 3 children. You can attack my intellect all you want but keep the personal pejoratives pertaining to sex out of the debate please.

[aruanan]

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

No.