Posted on 10/19/2012 11:59:50 AM PDT by NTHockey
I visited the Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Wednesday. While on the tour, one of the staff members came up and asked me if I wanted to be President. I said that I was ineligible, since my mother was naturalized after I was born. He argued that since I was born here that I was born here that I was natural.
We went back and forth; he not knowing the difference between native born and natural born and I refusing to back down.
I plan to write the head and tell him that their staff needs to be a) better informed and b) less combative. Comments.
ignorance is one of the primary tools they are using to undermine our nation
Since you have opened that can of worms, ;)
If you are born in the US to legal residents who are NOT govt officials of another country or the child of a foreign occupier, you are a natural born citizen. If your parents were here legally, then you are nbC.
Less combative, maybe. But just because they disagree with you doesn’t make them less informed.
You are correct.
It is totally amazing how people do not understand the difference between “natural born” and “native born”. Heck, even on the GOP side we have a lot of people stuck on stupid with the issue...this election would not be as close if people understood it better.
I was not born in the USA, but was born in a military hospital in Germany. I have to explain to people that I am not natural born....and the Senate RESOLUTION that was passed when McCain ran is just a RESOLUTION...it is not a BILL or LAW. I also have Naturalization papers, yet people still insist I would be “natural born” because I was born on US military installation
As for writing a letter...maybe just explain to the supervising person the difference between “natural” and “native” born....and not so much on the deportment of the staff member. Sometimes those staff members are there only for a paycheck
C’mon—they’re just doing to history what the feminists did to language: “Everyone will now take their seat.” No big deal; it’s simply slipped into the vernacular, the news, and the history books. And all of a sudden it’s common usage, correct.
You know that, I know that, the State Department knows that, the Supreme Court knows that, but several FReepers do not believe that.
Not true.
No operation of law (statutes or amendments) can make a natural born citizen out of a person who would otherwise not be a natural born citizen.
Natural born citizens are people who have NO ALLEGIANCE to any other place.
They have NO ALLEGIANCE to another country because their parents may happen to be citizens of that country.
They have NO ALLEGIANCE to another country by virtue of being born there.
They are citizens of the soil by being born here, and citizens by birthright by having parents of citizens.
No other description meets the true, intended meaning and criteria of Natural Born Citizen.
Yes, because NEITHER side actually provides links, documents and proof to support their side which would be useful to us idiots.
Yeah, you were wrong.
For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this idiocy is popping up now, but once again:
Emmerich Vatell did not define “natural born” or “native born,” let alone “natural-born citizen.” He defined, in French, “Les naturels.” This was NOT translated to “native born” or “natural born” in the translations of Vatell from the days of the founding father, and, in fact, would be better translated, “natives.”
Further, Emmerich was arguing against the citizenship of those born with a country whose parents were not born in a country. This is in direct opposition to American concept of birthright citizenship, so cannot be seen as defining it!
Jefferson, on the other hand, wrote this: “A Natural subject is one born within the king’s allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person’s being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.”
If citizenship is granted at birth, thus, is not allegiance to a nation owed at birth? Have we given people citizenship who do not owe allegiance? If so, how can we possibly argue that being born a citizen does not make someone naturally born?
So why say, “natural-born,” at all? The alternative is not “unnatural-born” but naturalized! If, as some would suppose that there are who are not natural-born to start with, and have not been naturalized, how are they made natural? Is there another alternative to “natural from birth,” “made natural after birth,” and “never made natural?”
Since this has been such a hotly argued topic as a result of Obama’s ascension to the office of President, I think that it would be useful if the SCOTUS would define, once and for all, the difference between Natural and Native born citizens and to lay out the criteria necessary to qualify for POTUS.
I think you are correct, but there are many who argue differently. If the country wants the criteria changed, then we should have a Constitutional amendment to do so. Then we might see President Jindal, or President Rubio, or President Haley inaugurated.
You are purposly misleading people the way they tried to carting out our Senator Marco Rubio. However, he ALWAY ducked the question because he KNOWS he’s not eligible!!!
No need for a link. There is no entry on a long form birth certificate for current citizenship of parent at time of birth. It is also possible to have a long form birth certificate without the father information completed.
If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.
-PJ
Whether or not Obama was born within the boundaries of the United States has been a hotly argued topic by maybe 10% of the population. In my opinion the jury's still out.
Whether he is a "natural born citizen" even if born in the USA is a hotly argued topic by perhaps 0.05% of the population. No one else really cares. Not even Donald Trump went there.
..there many who argue differently. If the country wants the criteria changed...
Those who "argue differently", (including me) see no requirement that any criteria be changed. I'd happily vote for Jindal for president any time he's on the ballot.
I’ll try to find it. One of my favorite exchanges on FR, was the poster who told me that children of unknown paternity (such as in cases of rape) were not eligible to be president. I still chuckle at the mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion.
For fear of reopening up an old conflict, I'd answer that point this way.
At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, communities were small enough that people knew who the others were. Lineage was not in doubt, because travel was difficult, and the influx of new people was recognized.
Someone who ran for the highest office in the land would be expected to offer affirmative proof that they qualify, not argue that others should prove that they do not qualify.
For the person of unknown parentage, I recognize that it is a life hardship to have been born under that circumstance, but life is not always fair. If someone has difficulty affirmatively establishing that they meet the criteria for becoming President, then the citizenry should not look favorably on that candidacy, even if it is of no fault of the person.
-PJ
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.