Posted on 09/29/2009 4:09:26 AM PDT by Man50D
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obots website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!
Justice Ginsburg:
My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Justice Ginsburg again:
There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the childs loyalties lie?
I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburgs children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesnt mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
I agree that there seems to be no “smoking gun” quote. There are quotes that imply agreement with the Vattel view on citizenship, and there are other quotes that extoll Vattel in general.
But, if not the Vattel view, then what? The English Common Law view? I think not. There is overwhelming evidence that the Framers held the English position on citizenship to be absurd and not worthy of emulation.
And, it is clear from the unadorned usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” that the Framers felt that it needed no further elaboration.
I think that applied reason leaves no other conclusion than that the Framers meant what Vattel meant by the phrase.
All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.[note the word citizen, not natural born citizen]
Rep. Bingham(a framer of the 14th Amendment) commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between natural born and born citizenships under the 14th Amendment:
It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
Natural born citizen is ONLY mentioned in "1" place in the constitution, in the qualifications for President! also...
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible for the Office of President,
c. The Constitution does not define natural born.
The Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.
FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.
The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.(this correction, however, was not retroactive to the time Obama was born)
ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?
The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
I highly recommend the discussion of the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” at the link:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
The cite is exactly on point, which is the point.
Of course, the birthers would think it was "lamebrained". They don't like it. Too bad.
"The HOLDING of the case does not support your views in any case. Wong Kim Ark was not trying to establish that he was a Natural Born Citizen, and the court did not reach that conclusion, either."
The holding certainly does support my view. What do you think the court held? You do know what the result was for Wong don't you?
obumpa
You can quote the section of 8 USC 1401 that uses the term "natural born" or even the word "natural" ... can't you?
....
Of course, I know you can't.
Yes, but not a natural born citizen unless born in the country, or as it turns out, if he parent was "in the service of the country" at the time. Could be military, could be diplomatic. Diplomatic is well recognized, but in "Law of Nations" there is an "exemption" for children born "in the armies of the state". Section 217 , while the basic rule is in section 212.
You are correct.
Actually they may be. If one is using Vattel's rule in "law of nations" for what a natural born citizen is, one should also use the exception for children born in the armies of the state, which also includes the diplomatic service.
Book II
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are 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.
So while a military base in a foreign land is not US territory, and a child born of a non-citizen on such a base is not a citizen of the US, children born to parents "in the service of the state" are natural born.
That's true, but not natural born citizenship. Natural born citizenship requires more than being born in the country. The parents must be citizens as well. Under some circumstances birth in the country isn't even required. But in general it is.
Not quite all. Children of diplomats have long been recognized as natural born citizens, or subjects as the case may be. Under the rules laid out in the "Law of Nations", that exception applies to the children "born in the armies of the state" but outside its boundaries.
Bump what you said re: your son....And neither are my nephews born in Britain, though my Sister and Husband are both American citizens.
What were the circumstances that caused the birth to be in Indonesia? Diplomatic corps? or private business? Makes a difference.
Thanking you for the blinding clarity! Keyword: blinding....which has occurred repeatedly in this issue.
Go to your link, click on "Notes" look under Amendments and find:
1986Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99653 substituted five years, at least two for ten years, at least five.
Pot meet kettle... ; ~ )
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.