Posted on 04/29/2010 8:44:11 AM PDT by Thurston_Howell_III
A state lawmaker wants to make sure that any candidate on the presidential ticket from now on can show proof they were born in the United States
Because one is born in the U. S. does not necessarily mean they are natural born citizens.
I’ve always loved Texas!
That’s right.
Wait a minute......Birth in the USA is not the requirement...at least not alone......Birth to 2 citizen parents in the US is the Constitutional Requirement....Is Texas saying birth alone is sufficient to be on the Presidental ballot?
Woah Nelly! Not Good........NBC is needed to be on the Ballot........as reported they are leaving the impression that mere citizenship like Obama has is all that is necessary.....I ain’t buying it!
Do you realize that by that definition, that less than 1% would need to reproduce exclusively within that less than 1% or it would soon be less than 0.1%?
Your definition has to be the reducto ad absurdum of what it would take to be a “natural born citizen”.
Good luck with finding any support for your preposterous definition.
Awww shucks. If you follow my posts today, my frustration level at “This administration” has my blood boiling over today.
I am proud for Arizona. Great State!!
Texas will be voting on a similar bill when the lege convenses Jan 2011
Hook’em
and see you in Omaha
How many Americans have all of their eight grandparents, all of their sixteen great grandparents, and all of their thirty two great great grandparents, and all sixty four of their great great great grandparents, that were ALL natural born citizens?
How many American citizens have, going back to 1776 only ancestors that were born in America of American parents who had American parents, grandparents, etc?
Less than 1% was a conservative estimate, it might well be that, under your definition, there is not a single individual who would qualify.
Moreover, going forward, that individual or individuals would have to mate EXCLUSIVELY with other natural born citizens of ancestors who were ALL natural born citizens going back to 1776, or there would be no one who would qualify within the entire U.S. population.
But good luck getting anyone to agree with your preposterous definition; then the hunt will be ON for those vanishingly few who would qualify, as well as a breeding program that would need to be established so as to ensure they don't dare reproduce with anyone who might have had a great great grandparent who was an immigrant.
Sheesh.
Just, WOW! I hope the following explanation clears up some of the ambiguity for you.
What many people do not understand is that a person to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, must first be a native born citizen.
There are only three types of citizenship and ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS: native born citizenship; naturalized citizenship; and, citizenship-by-statute. Note: Natural Born Citizenship IS NOT a type of citizenship. It is only a circumstance of birth required for eligibility to be President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution.
Native born citizenship (jus solis) was created by the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
Wong Kim Ark was the child of two resident Chinese aliens unable to attain citizenship due to a treaty with the Emperor of China. Their son claimed U.S. Citizenship because of his birth on U.S. soil. He was vindicated by the Supreme Court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A. (jus solis) under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.) but it DID NOT extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” to those whose parents were not citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
Naturalized citizenship is granted to foreign nationals who apply for U.S. citizenship and go through the naturalization process. Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger is an example.
Citizenship-by-statute is granted to those born overseas to U.S. citizens (jus sanquinas). There is a whole array of legal statutes covering this, but this type of citizenship has the same rights as the other two types.
A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is born in the U.S.A. of citizen parents. No need to be ‘natural born citizens’ themselves.
Since there is NO RIGHT to be President, the eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegience for any President of the United States.
I think we can all agree that such is a ridiculous standard that almost no American could qualify under, as almost no American doesn't have an immigrant grandparent or great-grandparent or great to the nth power grandparent that wasn't an immigrant to the USA.
Yes, there are federal standards for birth certificates or so-called COLBs. What's not clearly established is whether Obama's alleged COLB meets these criteria. Such a document would be self-authenticating (and prima facie evidence) as long it passes the smell test in person. So far the only sniffers are amateur, self-declared factcheckers. The state of Hawaii has refused to affirm Obama's COLB as genuine or accurate.
I do, as does a majority of native born white southerners. It's even almost true for native born black southerners; that 3G grandparent is likely to be a 14th Amendment citizen, with successive generations being natural born.
Parents don't need to be natural born, however, and you certainly should know that by now, you've been told repeatedly for going on two years now. Parents just need to be citizens, by whatever means, when their child is born in the United States for that child to qualify without a doubt as a natural born citizen.
So far none of the laws have done anything to either ‘cut out the middleman’ and get the COLB directly from the issuing State, or to authenticate the document submitted to them as an authentic COLB from a State.
As such, this, and the other bills, do nothing to either “Free the long form”, establish the COLB on the internet as fraudulent, and they also seem to establish that any COLB showing U.S. citizenship at birth would be sufficient to be put on the Presidential ballot.
As such I wonder at these bills unalloyed support among the birthers.
If that 3G grandparent is a 14th Amendment citizen, then according to the ludicrous definition put forth by jarofants, none of their descendants would EVER be natural born citizens even until the ending of the world.
Moreover, anyone of the “pure” American bloodline would have to hunt high and low to find a mate of that “pure” American bloodline; or none of their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc; until the end of the world, would ever be natural born citizens.
The other extreme is another red herring, often put forth by trolls to confuse the issue. No one needs to have natural born citizen parents in order to be natural born citizens themselves. Those parents must be citizens, period, and naturalized before the time of the child's birth will suffice.
Minor v. Happersett states that children born of the soil of citizen parents are without a doubt natural born, and anyone else is in doubt. Any other definition is speculation without precedent, or deliberate twisting of legal decisions such as claiming that Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a natural born citizen, when he clearly was not. He was deemed a citizen, period, with no additional qualifiers.
Either was is, by the natural act of being born, granted U.S. citizenship. Or one gets U.S. citizenship via a “naturalization” process.
There are, we can all hopefully agree, only TWO ways of attaining U.S. citizenship; either one is born and via that natural process, becomes a U.S. citizen; or one must be “naturalized” as a U.S. citizen.
To me it makes perfect sense that those who were U.S. citizens at birth are “natural born citizens” while those that attain citizenship via “naturalization” are “naturalized citizens”.
That was my view of the law long before 0bambam made the scene, and I have seen no legal reasoning that would oblige me to change my view of the law.
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.