Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
I'm sure you've seen the writings from Kent that were quoted as part of the Wong Kim Ark decision, so I won't bore you with those again. But let me direct you to this from Volume 1, Lecture 13, "Of the President":
"The Constitution requires that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he have attained the age of thirty five years, and have been 14 years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad..."
Kent uses the terms 'natural-born' and 'native-born' interchangeably when referring to the qualifications for president. Since he obviously believes that there are only two forms of citizenship, then the question becomes what he defines a natural born citizen as. In Volume 2, Lecture 25, "Of Aliens and Natives" it is clear that he believes that people born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
“I’m not really trying to change their minds, i’m just trying to make them look silly. I got the idea when I read about Muslim astronauts problem of how to pray towards Mecca while in orbit. Apparently it is a little difficult figuring out where Mecca will be relative to the Astronaut when you’re flying around the planet in a circle.”
That’s one of the funniest things I ever read. I’m still lol—thanks for citing it.
And you honestly believe that quote helps your side? Prior to the Cable act (1924) and the Women's citizenship act, (1934) native and natural did mean virtually the same thing. In those days Women were automatically naturalized upon marriage, so any birth to an American father was an automatic natural born citizen. It wasn't until foreign women could retain their original citizenship that children could be "native born" while not being "natural born".
The Cable act and Women's citizenship act caused the meaning of "native born" to diverge from that of "natural born."
Yeah, I thought it was pretty hillarious too. That's why I decided to use it to illustrate the absurdity of the jus soli argument for citizenship. :)
When you first posted it, I thought, ‘That’s not what the ‘soil only’ crew is talking about’.
Then I actually thought about it, and saw that it’s actually brilliant. For example, if it’s soil that imparts the magic imprimatur, how can a hospital birth count? What if it’s on the second floor? The tenth? That’s a bit removed from the soil, isn’t it? [The soil-only crowd is rolling its collective eye.]
Okay, then what about a woman in a plane? Let’s say it’s making its descent to the city where she plans to give birth. Is the child considered born on foreign soil unless the wheels touch down before it’s completely delivered?
Is a woman flying above US soil who gives birth a week or two prematurely, but is really high above the soil, giving birth to a possible future president or not? If yes, is there any limit to how high the plane can be flying? Is there somewhere in the Constitution that specifies, ‘It only counts as soil if it’s below x-number of feet’?
If not, then why *couldn’t* a future president be born in space? Surely the birth could be timed to be above some portion of the US. Let’s say it’s a Russian baby, with a Russian father. If it was born above US soil, is it not eligible to be president?
It’s absurd. They’re arguing that being born above US soil imparts some kind of special presidential pixy dust and from there on it’s A-Okay. If a child of foreigners is born above US soil and then whisked away to a country that rabidly hates the US—that is a future US president, baby.
Anybody who thinks that’s what the Founders had in mind....
Enough said.
It's another thing to think that hundreds, if not thousands, of people across both major parties are involved in a conspiracy (which is what Birtherism requires).
Our uber-PC/MSM-dominated climate precludes questioning of ‘the black man’ pretty much across the board. I don’t expect you to believe this. Anti-birthers never do. The Mt. Everest sized amount of evidence that Obama has been given a pass across the board means nothing to an anti-birther. Attacking, mocking and deriding those who want to see more of his hidden documentation is all that really matters.
So absurd that it’s actually been considered and addressed though not entirely settled.
Wow.
Can you believe it?
http://people.howstuffworks.com/air-birth.htm
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
Excerpt from the State Dept link:
7 FAM 1115 WHAT IS BIRTH IN U.S.
AIRSPACE?
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
a. Under international law, the limits of a country’s sovereign airspace
correspond with the extent of its territorial sea. The outer limit of the
territorial sea of the United States is 12 nautical miles from the
coastline. Airspace above the land territory, internal waters, and
territorial sea is considered to be part of the United States (Presidential
Proclamation 5928, signed December 27, 1988, published at 54 Federal
Register 777, January 9, 1989).
b. Comments on the applicability of the 14th Amendment to vessels and
planes, are found in Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8,
Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York: Matthew
Bender, 2007). This volume states:
“The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to
airplanes. Thus a child born on a plane in the United States or
flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at
birth.”
c. Under the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, articles 17–21,
all aircraft have the nationality of the State in which they are registered,
and may not have multiple nationalities. For births, the nationality law of
the aircraft’s “nationality” may be applicable, and for births that occur in
flight while the aircraft is not within the territory or airspace of any State,
it is the only applicable law that may be pertinent regarding acquisition of
citizenship by place of birth. However, if the aircraft is in, or flying over
the territory of another State, that State may also have concurrent
jurisdiction.
d. Cases of citizenship of persons born on planes in airspace above the
United States land territory or internal waters may be adjudicated by
passport specialists at domestic passport agencies and centers or
consular officers at posts abroad in accordance with 7 FAM 1116.
e. For cases of persons born on a plane in airspace above the U.S.
territorial sea (12 nautical mile limit):
(1) Posts abroad should refer the case to CA/OCS/PRI
(ASKPRI@state.gov) for decision, upon consultation with L/CA; and
(2) Domestic Passport Agencies and Centers should refer the case to
CA/PPT/L/LA (CA/PPTAdjQs@state.gov) which will confer with
CA/OCS/PRI and L/CA.
f. Cases of persons born on planes in airspace outside the 12 nautical
mile limit would be adjudicated as a birth abroad under INA 301 (8 U.S.C.
1401) or INA 309 (8 U.S.C. 1409) as made applicable by INA 301(g).
-end excerpt-
When babies start being born in space, the issue will get argued about and there will be a legal approach for that too.
You missed the point. The point is that being born within a certain number of feet from American soil doesn’t turn the baby of foreign enemies of the US into NBCs...except in the minds of the ‘soil only’ crowd. To them, there is some type of magical wave that emanates from US soil up to a certain point, imbuing babies born within that limit potential POTUSs. It’s just silly. Rules for citizenship are fine. To claim the Founders intended to define NBCs as the babies of foreigners born within a certain number of feet from US soil is...words escape me. Absurd doesn’t cover it, but it will have to do.
Exactly the point! :) (Argumentum ad absurdum.)
They’re arguing that being born above US soil imparts some kind of special presidential pixy dust and from there on it’s A-Okay. If a child of foreigners is born above US soil and then whisked away to a country that rabidly hates the US—that is a future US president, baby.
Anybody who thinks that’s what the Founders had in mind....
Enough said.
When their argument is boiled down to it's salient component, (Place of birth) what is left is ridiculous.
Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. That’s pretty vile, and if you keep it up you’re signalling that you don’t want a discussion, you just want to smear me. No thanks.
So you think I am putting words in your mouth by asking you a direct question?
People who think that being born of foreign enemies of the US, on US soil, and then raised as a foreigner and taught to hate the US, makes a person a NB[American]C have no conception of what a true American citizen is. They are so caught up in legalism and endless, increasingly absurd labyrinthine nitpick-style argumentation they’ve lost all sight and conception of the Founders’ goal. It was to protect and preserve this great nation. Thank goodness the Founders had greater wisdom than the soil-only crew.
Twice now you’ve asked me to explain things I never said. Stop it, if you want me to continue to engage with you. I’m not asking you to explain or defend or otherwise account for things you never mentioned. Stop doing it to me.
Thank you for your thoughtful and well written posts. You certainly refute the jus soli crowd much better [and probably at lot faster] than I ever could.
But I had to tell you that the particularly far-fetched scenario you posted above made me LMAO!
Keep up the good work.
Agreed. I and others have argued that "jus soli" (peculiar to England mostly) is a great system for grabbing servants, but not so much for a free society. It is a feudal based system of perpetual allegiance that is incompatible with American concepts of freedom. (In the absence of jus sanguinius)
But I had to tell you that the particularly far-fetched scenario you posted above made me LMAO!
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for the kind words!(I get plenty of the other kind often enough! :) ) It was intended to be humorous. Nothing makes a better argument then full fledged laughter at other people's foolish ideas.
My post (rather the discussion it provoked) had the further benefit of making me realize that citizenship based on emerging from the womb in a specific place is very much like the liberal argument regarding unborn children. Their argument is that they are not persons UNTIL they are born. This is like the argument of the birth inside the borders crowd. To them, a person isn't a citizen unless they are born somewhere or other. Carrying it out to it's logical conclusion makes it a ridiculous argument, while the Citizenship given by parents only looks all the stronger. Again, thanks for the comments.
Nothing really to ponder. U.S. territory is U.S. territory regardless of whether it is dry land or territorial waters. Children born in U.S. territory are U.S. citizens, so long as their parents aren't in one of the excluded categories. The 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation further states that every country has complete and sovereign control of the airspace over their territory. Since no limit on airspace was defined, then it could be argued that a spacecraft orbiting over the U.S. was in U.S. territory and a child born under those conditions is a U.S. citizen.
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.