Replies

A comment from http://back-spin.blogspot.com/2010/03/could-david-headley-have-become.html

Anonymous said...
YOu asked: “Is that really what the founders wanted? “

They wanted the voters to have the choice. They also allowed the voters to vote for criminals and Tories (Remember the Tories? They were the Americans who fought against the Revolution. Yet there is no mention of them not being eligible.)

So, what you are asking is whether the child of illegal aliens is worse than a criminal. Or, if not, why are criminals eligible and the children of illegal aliens not eligible?

The fact is that the writers of the Constitution believed that a person born on US soil became different from people born elsewhere. That is why Naturalized citizens are not allowed to become president. But all citizens at birth, especially all who were born in the USA are eligible.

That does not mean we have to vote for them, of course. So, you have every right to vote against the child of an illegal alien. But that does not mean that she or he should not be eligible, and there is certainly no evidence that the writers of the Constitution thought that such a person should not be eligible.

Courts have already ruled that the children of two non-US citizens and the children of illegal aliens are Natural Born Citizens.

For example:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Is this the intent of the founders?

YES. Here is what Madison says about it:

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, Madison said:

“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

There is only one criterion of allegiance, he says, and that is the place of birth. He does not say that you have to have two US parents to be loyal, or that the citizenship of the parents affects loyalty. He says that the only criterion is the place of birth.c