Posted on 10/06/2012 12:09:40 PM PDT by Kleon
Paul Ryan has figured out a way of letting the birthers down gently.
Like many of his fellow congressmen, Ryan has been bombarded for years with letters from conspiracy theorists who believe President Obama was somehow secretly born in Kenya and so is ineligible to be president. The missives began even before Ryan became one of the president’s biggest foes on budget issues and more recently as he joined the GOP ticket alongside MItt Romney.
But unlike some in his party who have been embarrassed by their own clunky and awkward responses to the birthers, Ryan has come up with an easy solution to deal with them.
He simply sends them a copy of the president’s birth certificate.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
And under the Constitution there were three types of US citizen, those at the time of the adoption, those who were natural born, and those who are naturalized. Of the three only naturalized citizens are ineligible. There is no other category of US citizen. Currently one is either born a citizen or one must be naturalized as a citizen.
The Supreme Court recognized two classes of citizens who are not naturalized but who may be citizens by birth. One class were those children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The other class, the court said, is recognized by “some authorities” as citizens by being born in the country without reference to the citizenship of the parents. The first class were citizens with no doubts, while the second class have doubts about their citizenship that would need to be resolved. Only ONE of these two classes was characterized as natural-born citizens: those born to citizen parents. They said this in rejecting an argument based on a woman claiming her citizenship via the 14th amendment. By rejecting that argument, the court exclusively charactered those born to citizen parents as natural-born citizens. There would have been no doubts she satisfied the lesser requirements of the 14th amendment because she was obviously born in the U.S., but the court categorically said her citizenship (and by context, ALL persons born in the country to citizen parents) was NOT conferred through the 14th amendment. That exclusion makes the NBC definition exclusive and materially distinct from 14th amendment citizenship by birth. They used this definition to specifically satisfy the meaning of the term natural-born citizen in Article II in the Constitution, which is why 40 years later, the SCOTUS cited this decision specifically as precedent on presidential eligibility.
That is obviously your opinion of what it meant. The prevailing legal opinion is that of US citizens, only naturalized citizens are not natural born. The Constitution clearly only envisions three types of US citizen.
I think we are getting close with you admitting to three types of citizens. What needs to be clear is my belief that there is an intentional difference between a ‘US citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’ as explicitly given the Constitution in/for one specific case.
There are three and only three and there has only ever been three and thatbhas been my argument for YEARS. One category are all now deceased. The remaining two are naturalized and natural born. Any US citizen who was not naturalized, but who became a citizen via the natural act of being born is a natural born citizen.
Currently there are two and only two ways of attaining US citizenship, being born a citizen or being naturalized as a citizen.
"The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."Notice the part that is underlined ... it's talking about restoring the citizenship status of "whichever" status existed prior ... thus this language establishes a clear operational and statutory distinction between "native-born" or "natural-born." Here's a link:
As I stated before we are, I think, getting closer. I don’t believe the history of the Constitution or the Constitution words support same exact meaning to being ‘born a citizen’ and being a ‘natural born citizen’. My interest in this started in the 2nd grade in the 1920s. It took a few years of looking at the Constitution to convince me that my childhood thoughts of becoming POTUSA were not realizable because I was born of immigrant, not yet naturalized parents.
I think you better have the cold water of reality thrown in you face. Listen closely: NOBODY !!! in the Romney camp is going to bring this subject up. NOBODY!!!! So get off it. And get a life.
Why don’t you run for president and find out? I guarantee you nobody will stop you or inquire about your parents. Because nobody but a very small contingent of the population called Birthers cares.
How dare you bring rational thoughts to an emotional discussion. Let Donald Trump be the leader of the birthers. Obama can be beat without this distraction.
Where is native born mentioned in the Constitution?
From Kenyo?
If I understand your argument correctly, you think there are only two types of citizens: naturalized and natural-born.
US government (INS) published the following document: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
This document makes a distinction between a native-born and a natural-born citizen (in three places):
1) “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation...”
2) “The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922”, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired....”
3) “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss. “
And where is native born mentioned in the Constitution?
In 1795 the Naturalization Act from 1790 was changed and children born abroad to US citizen parents were considered as citizens (at birth). It is obvious that early legislators made distinction between the phrases: “citizen at birth” vs. “natural-born citizen”.
Why would they change the language of the law if two phrases had the same meaning?
Ask Obama campaign - they claimed Obama was a native-born citizen.
US government makes a distinction between a naturalized, native-born and a natural-born citizen.
How about you - do you think that there is a difference between a native-born and a natural-born citizen?
Reflecting on what has happened as to Obama you could be right. As for me running for POTUSA, as a child the thought occurred but was cancelled when I learned more about the Constitution. The change of heart didn’t bother me much. At least I was able to serve the Nation in the Pacific during WWII. My only and older brother who was in the same birth eligibility situation is buried in the Punch Bowl. Just mentioning these facts to show that there are many of us so called ‘birthers’ who have an abiding belief and trust in the Constitution as intended by the Founders.
Don’t you think inventing a category of citizenship not mentioned in the Constitution would be Judicial activism?
Equivalent language is used all the time. And someone born abroad with 2 US citizen parents IS considered a NBC - see John McCain.
Please feel free to coment on my post #93.
Why does US government consider native-born and natural-born citizens as different categories?
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.