Replies

And here is Jeff repeating this absolutely absurd claim, which he oddly seems to believe despite the various examples we have shown him. He seems to think that if he repeats it, that will make it true. I'm not going to bother addressing all the numerous and sundry ways in which Jeff's claim is wrong, but I will point out one. (it's the least I can do.)

Another idiotic argument from you. This is getting to be a habit.

Since my interpretation of "natural born citizen" is supported by all known significant legal authorities from early America, our state courts and Supreme Court, and virtually every real legal expert in US history, and yours is genuinely supported by virtually NO legal authority in all of history, it's YOUR claim that is absurd. And yes, repeating it again and again doesn't make it true.

Here is a rebuttal under the Heritage Foundation's banner.

I have said again and again that there is some argument to be made against birthright citizenship for children of aliens only temporarily in the country, and especially against children of illegal aliens, but no case to be made that the children of resident aliens aren't natural born citizens.

What point is the author of the referenced article making? That exact point.

The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person entering the territory of the United States-even for a short visit; even illegally-is considered to have subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the United States, which is to say, subjected himself to the laws of the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States is therefore "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes...

Children of parents residing only temporarily in the United States on a student or work visa would also become U.S. citizens. Children of parents who had overstayed their temporary visas would likewise become U.S. citizens, even though born of parents who were now in the United States illegally. And, perhaps most troubling from the "consent" rationale, even children of parents who never were in the United States legally would become citizens as the direct result of the illegal action by their parents. This would be true even if the parents were nationals of a regime at war with the United States and even if the parents were here to commit acts of sabotage against the United States, at least as long as the sabotage did not actually involve occupying a portion of the territory of the United States. The notion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when seeking to guarantee the right of citizenship to former slaves, also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of the United States who were in its territory illegally is simply too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.

Not once does the author of the referenced article attempt to make the claim that the children born here of resident aliens here legally are not citizens or are not natural born citizens. Elsewhere, the Heritage Guide to the Constitution makes clear that such people ARE natural born citizens.

So once again, FAIL.

Another idiotic argument from you.

If the argument is idiotic, then it ought to make perfect sense to you.

And here he repeats himself AGAIN! It doesn't matter how many times you show him to be wrong, he repeats this over and over. He's Got Rawle, and he's got some ambiguity on the issue from Tucker (Neither were Delegates.) He's got some commentary from Joseph Story. (Also not a Delegate) And he's got an out of Context quote from Madison. That pretty much sums it up for Jeff's authoritative sources. Even with the ones he's got, I doubt any of them intended an interpretation based on strictly geographical criteria. I expect they meant "place" in the metaphorical sense which includes, but is not limited to geographical criteria. As Madison describes, birth within a community.

I've got Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, Justice Washington, Justice Marshall, John Adams, James Wilson, Thomas Smith, John Armstrong, Samuel Roberts, Pickney, Henry Lee, James Otis, and various other sources too numerous to list. In other words, Not a bunch of Pansy-@ss British trained lawyers, but men who were the ACTUAL FOUNDERS espousing on their intentions. The People who actually know what they are talking about. First hand witnesses, not third parties. All of those civil law authorities are just gossip mongers who failed to convey the intent of the founders to break with British Subject law.

Jeff, You aren't keeping up. The topic is NON-RESIDENT aliens. (See thread title.) I am already on Record as saying Rubio is probably good, even though his father waited a long time to naturalize.