Posted on 02/05/2015 6:37:16 AM PST by wtd
Aldo Mario Bellei was born in a Foreign Country to a Foreign Father and an American Mother. Aldo Mario Bellei lost his conditional US citizenship for failing to adhere to the conditions which granted it.
Does anyone believe that a "natural born citizen" must adhere to conditions to remain a citizen?
The Supreme Court’s holding in Rogers v Bellei is not too significant nowadays, since the provision under which Bellei lost his U.S. citizenship was repealed in 1978 (Public Law 95-432).
How is it tortured? There was a well known definition in a well known book of international law which explicitly spelled it out. One of the most famous ever Chief Justices of the Supreme Court cited this very passage in this very book and said it was the best explanation for citizenship which had ever come into his hand.
The only thing obvious would be that the meaning of "natural born citizen" parallels the meaning of "natural born subject", which surprise surprise, the courts have already said is precisely what it does.
Funny enough that same body of English Law says that "subjects" owe perpetual allegiance to the King. Last I heard, our founders deliberately and explicitly rejected the character of "Subject" and replaced it with the character of a "Citizen." Concepts which are built on very different foundations.
Why would anyone think that they would adopt the feudal bondage principles of Monarchical governance? It seems to me that went out with "Primogeniture" and "Corruption of blood." (Other English common laws if you didn't know.)
Doctrines which are not compatible with the "laws of nature, and of nature's God" were tossed out.
And that means being born in the country is enough.
Well it wasn't enough for the Children of British Loyalists born after 1776, and it wasn't enough for slaves or Indians. Apparently something *ELSE* was necessary, because all of these people were born here, but none of them were citizens.
As a matter of fact, I daresay that throughout this period of history, probably more people were born here who were *NOT* citizens, then people born here of alien parents who were.
Your theory has more exceptions than actual beneficiaries of this rule.
“Does anyone believe that a “natural born citizen” must adhere to conditions to remain a citizen?”
Natural born citizenship was lost by woman who married aliens under the Expatriation Act of 1907. Isn’t that adhering to a condition?
What is "tortured" is the belief that the founders wanted to make citizens out of the anchor babies of illegal immigrants. Now *THAT* is tortured.
So if congress passes a law defining "arms" as "gumballs", for that brief period of time that it takes to get it to the courts before they strike it down, you regard it as valid?
Suppose they pass a law calling for an immediate execution. After the courts rebut it, does the person come back to life?
No, the court's aren't the only word on constitutionality. If you would have read that article about Jefferson's Opinion on the topic, you would be better informed.
If it was an “unnecessary redundancy” at some point in time a person who didn’t have two U.S. citizen parents would have been ruled not to be a natural born citizen. That has never happened.
Every slave. Every Indian, and Every child of a British Loyalist. They didn't get a court ruling on these, because the conditions of all of the above was so obvious that only an imbecile would have thought such a ruling would be necessary.
And do the parents have to be natural born citizens themselves or can they be naturalized citizens?
You are really going to patronize me over this? You ask a question that has been explained about a billion times, and believe me, we all know how you've been hovering on these eligibility discussions since you got here, and you are going to pretend ignorance by asking such a question?
If you do know the answer and are just being obnoxious, that is one thing, but if you don't know the answer after having waded through all these discussions, then you are unteachable. I personally don't think you are that stupid.
For example, what if, as has been speculated by some, Frank Marshall Wright is Barack Obama’s true biological father? If that were determined by paternity testing, that would make Obama a natural born citizen by any standard since Frank Marshall Wright was born in Arkansas City, Kansas and Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Wichita, Kansas.
Ha! You like to quote the "Law" at me, but what does the "Law" say about the Children of a Marriage? Especially that ole English Common law?
The latest being Roger Calero of the Social Workers Party who ran for president in 2004 and in 2008 and who was born in Nicaragua and who needed to have a substitute candidate run in his place in some states.
Am familiar with Roger Calero. Have cited him numerous times myself. The fact that some states kicked him off the ballot for lacking the qualifications to hold the office has long been my proof that states *CAN* do such a thing, and therefore have an *OBLIGATION* to do such a thing, your legal "running around in circles" arguments notwithstanding.
How many times have you told me that States don't have that power? That only the Electoral College can do such a thing?
There you go with that "Congress routinely overrides the Constitution" argument again.
If congress can place conditions, this means the status is not rigid, but flexible according to the will of Congress. The fact that they removed the conditions doesn't alter the fact that they can put them on there in the first place.
They cannot do such a thing for a Natural Citizen, therefore that kind of citizenship cannot be "natural."
I know this is just going to go in one ear and out the other, but for what it's worth, i'm going to cite that Congressional Research Paper regarding George Romney.
Perhaps you will believe "Experts" who tell you the exact same thing that I tell you.
Whatever else can be said about the meaning of the term "natural born", it can fairly be concluded that it includes no one who is "naturalized". To conclude that Governor Romney was a "natural born citizen", the first thing the Court would have to do is hold that the Fourteenth Amendment does not exhaust the ways in which persons can become citizens. As we have seen, the first sentence of that Amendment provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens. If that sentence describes the only ways persons can become citizens, then , to be a citizen, anyone born outside the United States would have to be naturalized. There is no other constitutional alternative. Under this theory, the statute making citizens of children born abroad to American Fathers would be a naturalization act and such children would not be eligible for the presidency.The Supreme Court, in dictum, has lent support to this theory.
In Wong Kim Ark the Court said:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that "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". contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization act.
And weren't you always the one that liked to cite "Wong Kim Ark"?
How do you like it now? :)
Voluntary expatriation. At least that is how it was regarded at the time. For most of our History, the wives were automatically naturalized into her husband's allegiance upon marriage. That act merely formalized what was the common law at the time.
No one had their citizenship removed forcibly, they could chose whether or not to relinquish it. It was thereafter felt that it was unfair to put women in the position of having to chose between their husband or their allegiance, so the cable act and the citizenship act of 1934 created the potential for split citizenship marriage, and thereby creating this weird logical paradox of a "duel citizen" offspring (like Barack Obama) who's allegiance cannot be completely pinned down. (Except in Obama's case where even Rudy Giuliani noted that he doesn't love America.)
In Bellei's case, it was revoked against his will.
Many years ago when i was an old man, my young mother taught me to drive. But one day, while breastfeeding on her, the gear shifted and we hit a small blade of grass. The blade fell over and hit a small elephant which died instantly. Later that morning before the cock crowed, i laid down in my pillow for the night. The moon shone darkly upon my little dead elephant. Oh how i miss how he use to stand at attention at her presence at the doorway.
this proved to me that cruz is a us citizen!! beyond any doubt my friends.
My God, your ignorance of even the most basic processes of our government is embarrassing. Congress passes laws and the Supreme Court can then rule on their constitutionality, if challenged.
Wong Kim Ark remains the landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the applicability of the 14th Amendment to citizenship of the United States at Birth. That holding has been the primary cite for all subsequent determinations that Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen. No court ruling and no act of Congress has contravened the holding in Wong as applied to Obama.
A contemporary ruling, based on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark:
Voeltz v. Obama, Judge John C. Cooper, Leon County, Florida Circuit Court Judge: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, 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.”—September 6, 2012
Thank you for posting again the exact same passages from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that I have posted on many occasions. There are only two forms of U.S. citizenship: born and naturalized.
And yes, without the Wong decision, my point of view wouldn’t have a constitutional leg to stand on.
What you are forgetting is that the Founders and the Framers made provision for ANY of their original thinking on ANY constitutional issue to be changed by subsequent generations and much has indeed been changed.
Today natural born citizens and citizens of the United States at birth are one and the same.
You think that citation of Wong Kim Ark supports you and you call *ME* ignorant?
It blows your whole George Romney argument completely out of the water. And here's what's so funny. *I* never claimed to accept "Wong Kim Ark" as the final word, but *YOU DID*! Ha ha ha ha ha...
Congress passes laws and the Supreme Court can then rule on their constitutionality, if challenged.
And as Jefferson said, this is an usurped power. You really should have read that article I sent you.
There are only two forms of U.S. citizenship: born and naturalized.
Sure, and those born under the 14th amendment, or by Congressional statue, are "naturalized." Again, the President must be "natural born."
Sure, and when they pass an amendment for the sole purpose of removing the "natural born citizen" requirement, you will have a point. Till they do that, you don't.
Today natural born citizens and citizens of the United States at birth are one and the same.
There you go again arguing that Congress can change the constitution by statute.
No they can't.
The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution. The definition of Citizen of the United States At Birth has been used to define the term since adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1865.
SCOTUS: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
“This [citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment] section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”’
Congressional Research Service
Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.
The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution ...” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”
In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens “at birth” or “by birth,” and are “natural born,” as opposed to “naturalized,” U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.
Although the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term “natural born” in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s may have included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent).
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.
fhttps://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
“There you go again arguing that Congress can change the constitution by statute.
No they can’t. “
“....While we’re at it, I would suggest that what Barack Obama Sr. was doing in Hawaii at the time he was there can be construed as a diplomatic mission. He was brought here for the purpose of receiving an education so as to better serve his own country, and he was therefore an agent or representative thereof. He did go back and serve in his government thereafter.”
And the children of said diplomats aren’t citizens (of any sort) of the u.s.
Re: 0 SR being brought here by State department
He wasn’t part of the Mboya program, 0 SR came a little later.
Nero Germanicus said:
“The latest being Roger Calero of the Social Workers Party who ran for president in 2004 and in 2008 and who was born in Nicaragua and who needed to have a substitute candidate run in his place in some states.”
DiogenesLamp said:
Am familiar with Roger Calero. Have cited him numerous times myself. The fact that some states kicked him off the ballot for lacking the qualifications to hold the office has long been my proof that states *CAN* do such a thing, and therefore have an *OBLIGATION* to do such a thing, your legal “running around in circles” arguments notwithstanding.”
Many thanks for this point!
Very important; the first year calero ran was -before- 0 did.
Trial run?
If Calero was a trial run, the trial was a failure since Calero was not allowed on the ballot in nine states in 2004 and only appeared on the ballot in five states in 2008.
What happened in the 2004 election, which states did Calero get on the ballot? All except nine?
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.