Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: woodpusher
“Both Harris and Ramaswamy were born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Both were born citizens of the United States.”


The language is clear. Both Harris and Ramaswamy are “Citizens”. That is indisputable.
They are however, not “Natural Born” citizens as defined..and therefore not eligible to assume the office of V/POTUS.
204 posted on 10/26/2023 4:42:41 PM PDT by AFret. (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]


To: AFret.
A person can not be both (1) born a citizen and (2) not a natural born citizen. That would create a third type of citizen, a "born naturalized citizen" which does not exist.

There are two types of citizens under our current systems of laws and court rulings. A person is either a natural born citizen or naturalized citizen. There are no other choices.

205 posted on 10/26/2023 5:36:38 PM PDT by Widget Jr (🇺🇸 Trump 2024 🇺🇸)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

To: AFret.
They are however, not “Natural Born” citizens as defined..and therefore not eligible to assume the office of V/POTUS.

Each was born in the United States. Each was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born. Each is a natural born citizen. Just like Vice President Chester Arthur, President Chester Arthur, or President Barack Obama.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845

It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all per­sons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.

[...]

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and,

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.


209 posted on 10/26/2023 7:16:40 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson