Posted on 03/18/2010 12:24:55 PM PDT by Polarik
There are two and only two ways of becoming a citizen; and under U.S. statute law and the Constitution - there are only two types of citizenship mentioned -both determined by the way in which citizenship was gained.
If one was, by the natural act of being born, granted U.S. citizenship; I see no reason under the Constitution or U.S. law, that that person would not be deemed a “natural born citizen”.
“You’re confusing the concept of native born with natural born.”
No, I’m not.
“They knew you could be native born and still not be a citizen ...which is part of the reason why the ‘sujbect’ clause was in the 14th amendment”
Yes, you obviously can be born on U.S. soil and not be a U.S. citizen. For instance, if you are the child of a member of an invading army or of a diplomat. I am well aware that not all native born people are natural born citizens. However, all native born *citizens* are. My point was that if the Framers thought what constituted a natural born citizen differed from what constitutes a 14th amendment citizen, it doesn’t matter, because the 14th amendment is now law (and citizen-at-birth = natural-born-citizen).
Ahh, but the birthers want to fit in a third group, with “natural born” being a poorly defined subset of “citizen by birth.”
I’m with you, two categories of citizen, by birth and by naturalization.
Whether Obama is a citizen by birth has never, for some obscure reason, been documented as thoroughly as it apparently could easily have been.
In your imagination, but not according to the Supreme Court definitions that have been cited.
My point was that if the Framers thought what constituted a natural born citizen differed from what constitutes a 14th amendment citizen, it doesn’t matter, because the 14th amendment is now law (and citizen-at-birth = natural-born-citizen).
Sorry, but this is wrong. The 14th amendment did NOT change the meaning of natural born citizen, else Minor and Wong would have cited the 14th amendment as the definition for natural born citizen. Instead, they acknowledged that the definition still falls OUTSIDE of the Constitution. You would need a Constitutional amendment that specifically addresses the concept of natural born citizen, which the 14th amendment does not do.
There are several other subsets of 'citizen by birth.' The immigration and nationality act list many that are not native-born citizens because the statutes apply to people such as John McCain who were born outside the United States. What you and the faithers want to do is oversimplify the issue and pretend that natural born means something other than how it's defined.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
don’t see anything about Maya’s COLB in your link. What exactly are you talking about??
“It’s crazy,” said Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health. “I don’t think anything is ever going to satisfy them.”
Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
“Vattel already recognized you could be a citizen at birth, but not be natural born.”
People sometimes pretend as if he did, but no, he didn’t. And I quote, from “The Law of Nations,” § 212. Citizens and natives,
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Such people, and only such, are citizens. The children of non-citizens can never be citizens, as described in § 213. Inhabitants,
“he inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country...These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers...”
As you see, inhabitants are not really citizens. They are an inferior class. And their condition is perpetual across the generations, unless male citizens enter the bloodstream.
“Vattel already recognized you could be a citizen at birth, but not be natural born. These people were the children of what he called ‘inhabitants.’”
Where do you get the idea that Vattel says children not born of citizen fathers, whether they are “native born” or not, can be citizens? “Inhabitants” are explicitly NOT citizens. He said, “inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens,” remember? Meaning inhabitants were not really citizens, and the only people who constitute full citizens are the children of citizen-fathers. The text contradicts you.
You might argue “inhabitants” are analogous to naturalized citizens, but they aren’t. Among other things, they are explicitly not citizens (”as distinguished from citizens”). True, he does say inhabitants “are a kind of citizens of an inferior order,” which is kinda, sorta indicative of the status of modern U.S. naturalized citizens. In the sense that the naturalized are inferior because they cannot be elected president.
However, it’s evident that Vattel has in mind much more substantially limited status for his “inhabitants” than their not being eligible to be crowned king, or whatever. Not being able to be elected president, by the way, hardly makes for a second-class citizen (or “citizen of an inferior order”). If we were to take the privilege away from 99+% of natural born citizens, they wouldn’t notice. That naturalized citizens are “inferior” in this respect is basically a technicality.
But fine, if you wanna stretch credulity, let’s say for argument’s sake naturalized citizens and “inhabitants” are both, in one form or another, inferior citizens. Nevermind, the analogy epically unravels when you consider that—instead of full citizens, as is currently the case—naturalized citizens (unless they bred with male citizens) would birth naturalized citizens if Vattel had his way. That’s a huge difference. Unlike being able or not to be president, people’d notice if you took away the ability to birth full citizens.
We are left with the 14th amendment describing citizens of a type that Vattel does not recognize, thus rendering him irrelevant to the post-14th amendment world.
Then why did you make it sound like you've seen Maya's certificate?? It's my understanding she doesn't have one. The state of Hawaii hasn't confirmed that Barack's alleged COLB is genuine, so we don't know if it says what it's supposed to say or not.
Your Washington Independent citation is short on a few facts too:
"To push back against rumors that he was not born in Hawaii, the campaign reproduced a Certificate of Live Birth from the state’s Health Department."
The state's Health Department has never officially confirmed that it gave the campaign the Certification (not Certificate) of Live Birth. Wrong on TWO facts.
Spokesbabe Okubo, in all her ranting never specifically says that Obama's alleged COLB is real or that it's accurate. And interestingly, she says that someone born in Bali should have a certificate that says you were born in Bali. Did she say this realizing that Obama lived in Indonesia?? Was she implying Obama's certificate should say he was born outside Hawaii??
The problem with Vattel is that he was Swiss not American and no Supreme Court ruling on who is a natural born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility has used Vattel as a legal precedent. The current US Supreme Court has rejected hearing every one of the eight Obama eligibility suits that have been sent to them for Justices’ conferences.
If Vattel was cited in a relevant precedent, I’m sure that strong conservative, originalist, strict constructionist Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would not have written in their concurring opinion in “Miller v. Albright” 523 U.S. 420 (1997) that: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very 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.’ Ibid.”
Vattel says they were a kind of citizen ... inferior from natural born citizens.
As you see, inhabitants are not really citizens.
In my earlier comment, I was addressing the children of inhabitants, not so much the inhabitants themselves. Of course, Obama's father wasn't even an inhabitant by this definition.
You might argue “inhabitants” are analogous to naturalized citizens, but they aren’t.
I didn't make such an argument at all. I'm making them analgous to native-born citizens and distinct from natural born citizens.
We are left with the 14th amendment describing citizens of a type that Vattel does not recognize, thus rendering him irrelevant to the post-14th amendment world.
He's not irrelevant to the post-14th amendment world. His definition of natural born citizen was cited in at least TWO post-14th amendment cases.
“In your imagination, but not according to the Supreme Court definitions that have been cited.”
Of course not, as none of them were ruling on presidential eligibility. No SCOTUS definition, by the way, contradicts my imagination.
“The 14th amendment did NOT change the meaning of natural born citizen”
I never said it did. What I said is that it changed what constituted a natural born citizen.
“else Minor and Wong would have cited the 14th amendment as the definition for natural born citizen.”
Neither case (and no case, to my knowledge) defined natural born citizen. They weren’t about natural born status. What are you talking about?
“Instead, they acknowledged that the definition still falls OUTSIDE of the Constitution.”
Well, yes, and I wouldn’t disagree. Obviously, the Constitution itself does not define the term.
“You would need a Constitutional amendment that specifically addresses the concept of natural born citizen, which the 14th amendment does not do.”
No, you wouldn’t. If “natural born citizen” means, as most everyone in the world takes it to mean, “citizen at birth,” all you’d need to do is amend the Constitution to change who is a citizen at birth in order to change who is a natural born citizen. If the Framers thought of “natural born citizens” in the Vattelian manner, that’s probably because they thought only the children of citizens (or at least citizen-fathers) could be citizens at birth. Little did they know the 14th amendment would swoop in and make soil babies citizens from birth.
Those who wish to preserve the Framers supposed intent are noble, I guess, but the Framers screwed up. That is, if it was in fact their intention to limit the presidency to the children of citizens. For they didn’t say that. They used a term that, at the time, meant that. However, once the 14th amendment becomes law, soil babies are citizens from birth, which to my ears and the ears of most everyone in the world, is equivalent to natural born citizen.
“I didn’t make such an argument at all. I’m making them analgous to native-born citizens and distinct from natural born citizens.”
Alright, fine, but then native born and naturalized citizens are of the same class, in that neither can be president, which is the same thing. So why the quibbling?
“Vattel says they were a kind of citizen ... inferior from natural born citizens.”
Not inferior from natural born citizens, but inferior from citizens pure and simple (”inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens”). Or, if you like, inferior from those who are born of fathers who are citizens. Dubbing them “a kind of citizens of an inferior order” is not the same as saying they’re citizens, really. There is no level of citizenship akin to what Vattel’s describing in todays United States. Inhabitants sound more like resident alieans, to me.
“’As you see, inhabitants are not really citizens.’
‘In my earlier comment, I was addressing the children of inhabitants, not so much the inhabitants themselves.’”
Vattel says that the children of inhabitants and inhabitants are the same (unless, perhaps, if a female inhabitant has a baby by with a male citizen father; I’m not entirely clear on that point). I quote, “Their [inhabitants’] children follow the condition of their fathers...” Inhabitants, unlike native born U.S. citizens, cannot birth full citizens.
“His definition of natural born citizen was cited in at least TWO post-14th amendment cases.”
Two cases which, by the way, weren’t about and didn’t bother to define natural born status. Anyway, it’s not as if I’m saying SCOTUS wouldn’t have, or wouldn’t now, dig into what the Framers thought natural born meant. I’m saying I, personally, don’t think it’s relevant (and I, though no expert, take umbrage at many things SCOTUS has decided over the years; their interpretation of ex post facto, their interpretation of regulation of interstate commerce, and their interpretation of the Dred Scott case, for instance).
However, if SCOTUS happened to define natural born status today, I have no doubt, after throwaway lines about what the Framers thought, they’d come down saying citizen-at-birth=natural-born-citizen, per the 14th amendment. And they’d use much the same, or at least similar, reasoning.
“Of course, Obama’s father wasn’t even an inhabitant by this definition.”
That’s hard to say. Obama’s father was a legal alien, which seems to fit Vattel’s saying, “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.” Depending, of course, on what he means by “stay.” Obama’s father couldn’t stay indefinitely, according to his status at the time of Obama’s birth. But he would have been able to stay, had he gone through the pertinent legal processes, so I say yes, he was an inhabitant.
Not that it makes any difference, since there is no such thing as a Vattelian inhabitant in U.S. law. As I said, not even naturalized citizens count, since their children can be natural born citizens.
Have you seen a copy of it, or even one of her Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth?
Ever hear of renting a house? The 61-62 Polk directory for Honolulu shows Gram and Gramps Dunham living at that address, and also Stanley Ann.. but not The Sperm Donor, who is shown at a separate address much closer to the U of Hawaii. The purchase was in '58, but the directory does not show the purchaer living there until '63, when it also shows Gram and Gramps at yet another address A Anna Obama is shown living in Seatttle WA in the '61-62 directory for that city. Ann's transcript from U of WA puts her there, taking night classes, NLT mid September of '61, although likely somewhat earlier for registration, buying books, finding a place to live, a babysitter, etc.
But, as Polarik says, even taking the CoLB at face value, with BHO Sr a foreign national, as the father, Junior is not a natural born citizen. (But as Polarik will tell you, the CoLB is fake).
He also said; in his commet to that “last post”, “Hasta la vista, Baby!”. That means, loosely translated, “See you later”. Well, now we are seeing him, and it’s later.
But, citizen at birth is not the same as "natural born". There are two ways to be a citizen at birth, be born in the country or be born outside the country, but eligible for citizenship at birth under the statutes. The Supreme court considers the later to be "naturalized at birth", and finds that such citizens do not fall under the "protection" of the 14th amendment, since they were not naturalized "in the United States". Just as there are distinctions between various sorts of citizens at birth, some being native born, some being naturalized, there are distinctions between native born citizens, some being natural born, some being "14 amendment" citizens at birth.
All citizens have the same rights, but being eligible for various elective offices is not a right. Each office has it's own eligibility criteria. Various age and residence requirements, and for the office of President, the "natural born citizen" requirement.
Then why did you make it sound like you’ve seen Maya’s certificate?? It’s my understanding she doesn’t have one. The state of Hawaii hasn’t confirmed that Barack’s alleged COLB is genuine, so we don’t know if it says what it’s supposed to say or not.
Your Washington Independent citation is short on a few facts too:
The state’s Health Department has never officially confirmed that it gave the campaign the Certification (not Certificate) of Live Birth. Wrong on TWO facts.
Spokesbabe Okubo, in all her ranting never specifically says that Obama’s alleged COLB is real or that it’s accurate. And interestingly, she says that someone born in Bali should have a certificate that says you were born in Bali. Did she say this realizing that Obama lived in Indonesia?? Was she implying Obama’s certificate should say he was born outside Hawaii??
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
No lawsuit any any level challenging Obama’s eligibility on “jus soli” (place of birth) grounds has gone forward since Dr. Fukino issued her definitive statement. While you may waste time parsing Okubo’s and Fukino’s statements, it is obvious that judges and justices across the nation do not engage in such parsing and paranoid speculation.
I’ll conclude with a quote from Linda Lingle, the Republican Governor of Hawaii and supporter of John McCain for President. The context of Governor Lingle’s statement is that she was advocating for Hawaii as the perfect place to host the Republican Party’s Winter Meeting due to the Republican Party’s resurgence in that state: “This was the place where the President was born, this is the place that represents the bridge between America and Asia-Pacific,” said Governor Linda Lingle to reporters last week.
http://www.frumforum.com/hawaiis-gop-resurgence
I think you'll find that some "citzen-at-birth" types are considered, by the Supreme Court, to be "naturalized at birth", because naturalization is the only power Congress has over citizenship. (those born outside the country, but qualifying under the statutes as citizens due to the status of their parents)
While that is true, there are still distinctions within each way. Such as between naturalized in the United States, verses naturalized at birth via the statues (8 USC 1401 primarily).
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.