Native Born vs. Natural Born (vanity)

[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.

[Puzo1]

You are forgetting that there is naturalization at birth and after birth.

[Puzo1]

You are correct that every country decides for itself who shall be its citizens and what class of citizens they shall be. That French couple’s child born to them while here on a visa is under the Fourteenth Amendment under an extending reading of Wong Kim Ark a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. But that child is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which class of citizen is not even mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.

[BigGuy22]

‘We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language ...’
__

So I’m right, yes? There’s not a single court ruling that agrees with you, and all you can do is repeat a cherry-picked sentence from a 19-page decision.

Of course, there’s this passage too:

‘Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.’

Now I understand, you think that the part you quoted undermines the part that I quoted. Now, all you have to do is find a judge who views it the same way.

How’s that going so far?

[Puzo1]

That you were born in a military hospital in Germany does not disqualify you from being a “natural born Citizen,” provided you were born to U.S. “citizen” parents who were in Germany serving the national defense of the United States. If this is true, you would have been born in Germany to parents who were U.S. “citizens” and serving in the armies of the state. Emer de Vattel at Section 217 of The Law of Nations (1758) informs that someone born under such circumstances is “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” We know from the historical record and case law that the law of nations became part of our national law and therefore part of “the Laws of the United States.” Article III, Section 2. There are several U.S. Supreme Court cases that have cited and quoted Vattel regarding matters of U.S. citizenship, especially on defining a “natural-born citizen.” Moreover, the First Congress in 1790 in the Naturalization Act of 1790 expressed a desire that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents be “considered as natural born citizens.” It is true that Congress, ever since 1795 with the Naturalization Act of 1795 changed the language from “natural born citizen” to just “citizen of the United States.” This shows that early Congress, many members of which were Founders and Framers, had every intention to carefully distinguish between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” revealing that, with the limited exception under the grandfather clause which expired with children born after the adoption of the Constitution, only the former were to be eligible to be President and not the latter. But again, the limiting language only applies to those children born out of the United States. Since a valid argument can be made under American common law that you were born in the United States, you do not fall into the “citizen of the United States” class, but rather into the “natural born Citizen” class.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

[BigGuy22]

‘But that child is not an Article II “natural born Citizen”...’
__

LOL, Mario, you of all people should be familiar with the list of cases I cited above! In fact, haven’t you been on the losing end of some of those cases?

[RegulatorCountry]

There’s no “I think” regarding an admission that the understanding upon which the court purports to rely does not exist in cited precedent. It’s there for anyone to read and understand.

Gloat all you want, you’ll have to live under the foreign despot to which this will surely lead, yourself. Rain falls upon the just and unjust alike.

[BigGuy22]

'There’s no “I think” regarding an admission...'
__

Now you're going off the deep end with a delusional claim that your opinions are facts, and that you don't just "think" -- you know.

Lots of luck with that approach. It sounds like loony-bin material to me.

[Puzo1]

You said: “Noone [sic] born in this country is naturalized!

During the debate on the Civil Right Act of 1866, these exchanges occurred: Senator Cowan, “ask[ed] whether [the Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” Senator Trumbull replied: “Undoubtedly. … [T]he child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. (1866).

So it looks like members of Congress unlike you understood that there is such a thing as being born in the United States and being naturalized.

[RegulatorCountry]

Careful, you’re falling off your high horse in being offended by the use of the term “moron,” lol.

You continue to rely upon the understanding of the Obama administration, I’ll continue to rely upon the Founders and early Supreme Court justices as well as the authors of the 14th Amendment.

There we part ways. Remember, gloat all you want, but you’ll live under it too. You’re paving the way for a despot who has no regard at all for the will of the American People. We’ve had a taste of it since 2008. It will only get worse if you have your way.

Have a good day.

[BigGuy22]

“You continue to rely upon the understanding of the Obama administration..”
___

Apparently your delusions include one that holds that all the courts I cited above were merely echoing “the understanding of the Obama administration,” rather than demonstrating the broad, unanimous agreement of judges with varying backgrounds and political affiliations.

You’re really grasping at straws now.

[editor-surveyor]

Look in your hand BG, it’s full of straws!

The only thing that matters WRT ‘natural born’ is the writings of the time, not leftist rants of winning bed wetters.

[BigGuy22]

"The only thing that matters WRT ‘natural born’..."
__

And yet another one trumpeting the delusion that a unanimous series of court opinions is of no value -- not compared to your own exalted opinion, anyway.

Talk about bed-wetters! Try winning a case instead of just whining about how all the judges are wrong.

[editor-surveyor]

Check my ‘links’ page here. You’ll find the links to the four SCOTUS cases that affirmed the definition of the founders.

Have your mommie change the sheets, you smell foul.

[douginthearmy]

I highly doubt the good senator made his comments with concern that they would be semantically parsed 150 years later to justify a position which has no standing in law. To any non-birther, the statement clearly reads that the Act would make citizens from their time of birth, any person who had been previously denied that birthright citizenship for reasons of strict racism which was predominant at the time (could care less about that, its a side issue). Clearly children born of European parents were already birthright citizens. And clearly my statement was refering to the present not, pre-1866.

Excepting diplomats, there is no mechanism to naturalize a person born in this country. The State Department has no such form. It cannot be done. There is no entry for citizenship of parent at the time of birth on any long form birth certificate. There is no separate identifier for natural born citizen on the U.S. passport. There is absolutely NO LEGAL STANDING for the birther position. Even if there were a historical leg to stand on it cannot be legally upheld in court today because it cannot be equally applied to all children since there has been no tracking of the citizenship of parents for the lifetime of anyone alive today. And that doesn't even take into consideration the equal protection rights of children who have no ability to track the citizenship of their unknown father.

To put it simply, the birther argument is made up, aka make-believe.

[BigGuy22]

“You’ll find the links to the four SCOTUS cases that affirmed the definition of the founders.”
__

I’m sure I’ll read all about it when your opinion prevails.

Any day now, right?

[DiogenesLamp]

What amazes me is how much more birthers know about the Constitution than anyone else. In fact, birthers know more about the Constitution than Its very authors!

Every time I see your name I think "Oh boy! Another chance to wrestle with a pig in a pile of sh*t."

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. - James Madison

I prefer this quote from James Madison:

"A man must be naturalized to make his children such." -James Madison.

And of course, everyone, except the 13 brothers of the Holy Order of Internet Birthers, knows that the 14th amendment doubles down on this.

And this is where I explain the basic facts of life to an idiot child. Anyone who requires the 14th amendment cannot be a "natural born citizen." The 14th amendment did not exist in 1787, so it was not required for the creation of a "natural citizen." The very fact that it requires a special act of law to make someone a citizen is absolute proof that they are not a "NATURAL" citizen.

Noone born in this country is naturalized! The only exception is a child of a foreign ambassador born in America who later naturalizes. There's no point in arguing with you guys. I will end on this note so as to erase all uncertainty and ambiguity of my position.

Your position is very well understood. It is that of an ignorant fool and an idiot who continuously mouths off about concepts he does not understand, and in so doing makes it harder for reasonable people to learn what is the truth.

Even if you are correct, which you are not but I am absolutely certain that you will maintain that you are, my finem respice is that noone, not a single person of note, nor of any social or political influence of any sort in any real world scenario where flesh touches substance other than a cheetos infested keyboard supports your position.. I repeat.. absolutely NO physical manifestation of your fantasy world will EVER occur.

And if that should eventually be the case it will be thanks to brain dead stupid idiots like yourself who keep mindlessly repeating something which is incorrect so often that eventually people accept it as true. Yes, history has it's fools, and they only contribute dissonance and stupidity.

Here is another bit of proof that you are wrong. James Monroe. July 4, 1795.

A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle.

It won't matter how much proof is shown to you. You have a mind that isn't moved by proof. You think what you think, and the facts be d*mned.

[DiogenesLamp]

Really?

Yes, really. I would go over all the evidence, but I am actually tired of pointing it out to people. If you are actually interested in hearing it, let me know, otherwise i'm not going to waste my time.

[DiogenesLamp]

LOL! Another one of those well-reasoned arguments that we’ve come to expect from you!

Anyone that cites Ankeny is not movable by reason. It is a litmus test for dysfunctional thinking.

[DiogenesLamp]

My "theory," thoroughly supported by long-standing international law, is that every country on earth has the absolute right to decide whom it considers to be a citizen of that country.

And that statement has nothing to do with your theory which is that anyone born within the geographical boundaries of the nation is a "natural" citizen of this nation. OWN your own d@mn theory!

Your theory produces the preposterous result that most other nations can draft our President into their army. This obvious conflict of allegiance just does not seem to sink in with you folk.

What's yours? Do you want French law to tell us who's allowed to be a U.S. citizen? The French sure as hell don't want us telling them who can be a French citizen.

And here you go with another dodge. Jus Sanguinus is the majority position of the entire world. It was established Roman and Greek law going back thousands of years. The United States recognizes Jus Sanguinus as the basis of citizenship for most nations of the world. We have always recognized Jus Sanguinus as a legitimate claim on citizenship and allegiance. It is the majority position of international law, which is that body of the law which deals with citizenship, ergo it cannot be ignored because people like you wish to close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.

A natural citizen is one who owes sole allegiance by the accepted norms of International law, to the United States, and no other nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

You pretend that Ankeny exists in a vacuum while ignoring the fact that several other courts have ruled similarly and not a single court has ruled otherwise. The Supreme Court of Indiana refused to reverse it, and the plaintiffs failed to take the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ankeny decision is as logically/legally valid as Roe v Wade. Just another attempt by Liberal Judges to push their agenda without any concern for what is the truth.