Posted on 01/31/2012 4:03:01 PM PST by sourcery
His father, George, was born in Mexico but never applied for U.S. citizenship. He didn’t have to. The laws of citizenship in 1907 conferred U.S. citizenship upon him.
Thank you very much. Quite a bit of work and thought here; I look forward to a careful read.
It is clear one of the ways to change an organization is to change the values it assigns to its traditional concepts; e.g. political correctness. That effort has intensified in the United States in very recent years, subtlety or otherwise. A quick skim suggests you address the unmistakable intent of the founders when they used the term; which is, of course, the most relevant point.
Very interesting link, thank you, SERKIT.
Now, lets focus on how best to spread the message. Try focusing on the definition provided in the Minor vs. Hapersett case and keep it short and sweet. Less than a page, if possible.
Sham
I had to highlight all of your comment, to make sure there wasn't a "</SARCASM>" concealed somewhere therein... '-)
Great job, Sourcery! Thanks!
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause defines both a) those born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, and b) those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, to be citizens of the US, and does so using a single sentence with a single phrase that is the subject of the sentence and a single phrase that is its predicate. The subject phrase is of the form "<A> and <B>", and the predicate phrase is "are citizens of the United States." That single predicate phrase, "are citizens of the United States," must intend to apply that exact same meaning of the word citizens to both noun phrases in the conjunctive phrase that is the subject of the sentence, since it's but one predicate phrase applied to but the one conjunctival phrase that is the subject of the sentence. Therefore, the semantics of the word citizens in the 14th Amendment must encompass both those born in the US (and subject to its jurisdiction) and those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. That is flat-out impossible unless the intended semantics of the term citizen in the 14th Amendment is that of general citizenship, and is not intended to signify any other, more specialized meaning.
I have not yet finished reading the whole thing because I stopped at one place where I thought I might assist you in improving it with the addition of a salient fact.
The term "sujets naturels" was translated into American English as "Natural born Subjects" in 1781 by Charles Thomas. Note Article III.
And the location where to find this information. The French part begins on the next page.
Thanks...for both reference and the kind words!
Let me set you straight on this. I have been arguing this on another thread, and you are referring to the Edmunds-Tucker Act. It DOES NOT strip people of their citizenship. It fines them, Takes away their property, and puts them in prison, but it does not strip away their citizenship. I don't believe any act of Congress can strip someone's citizenship. Congress can stipulate who may BECOME a citizen, but they cannot take someone's citizenship away. The Romneys that went to Mexico remained Citizens, and therefore their son "George" was born as a citizen.
You are an annoying fellow, and here you are again polluting the thread with that horrible mess you always post. Nobody bothers to read it.
Sven, it doesn't seem as though you READ his essay. He pointed out quite persuasively that no man made law can define "natural" citizenship. That is defined as a characteristic of nature.
It is tantamount to asserting that Congress can pass a law making everyone's hair blond. As hair color is a characteristic of nature, no such law will change anyone's hair color. Therefore, no such law can change anyone's natural born citizen status. It is a function of the laws of nature, not man.
save for later
I have in the past. This time, I just skimmed it to see whether or not he had anything new to say. He didn't as far as I could tell.
Worse, it's clear his post was not a specific response to my essay, and that it was written without reference to it.
However, the core of his argument is his interpretation of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment given in Wong Kim Ark, which my essay utterly demolishes (I crafted that text based in part of the claims made by Mr. Rogers, after all.) And that's why I challenged him with the following:
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause defines both a) those born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, and b) those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, to be citizens of the US, and does so using a single sentence with a single phrase that is the subject of the sentence and a single phrase that is its predicate. The subject phrase is of the form "<A> and <B>", and the predicate phrase is "are citizens of the United States." That single predicate phrase, "are citizens of the United States," must intend to apply that exact same meaning of the word citizens to both noun phrases in the conjunctive phrase that is the subject of the sentence, since it's but one predicate phrase applied to but the one conjunctival phrase that is the subject of the sentence. Therefore, the semantics of the word citizens in the 14th Amendment must encompass both those born in the US (and subject to its jurisdiction) and those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. That is flat-out impossible unless the intended semantics of the term citizen in the 14th Amendment is that of general citizenship, and is not intended to signify any other, more specialized meaning.
That's not in my essay. I'm saving certain points for later. That one I was specifically saving for Mr. Rogers :-) I have more....
Firstly, the sentence you quoted in my essay was not about the classes of citizenship that US law may or may not recognize. It was about the ontological categories of citizenship used to define the semantic space of citizenship applicable to any and all countries. It was presented very early in the document as an aid to understanding historical and legal texts that use those terms in discussing citizenship.
Secondly, the fact that US law requires all citizens to be treated exactly the same is a completely separate issue from whether or not different conceptual classes of citizenship exist in peoples's minds, and whether US law will use each one in different cases in order to determine whether or not someone is or is not a citizen. There is more than one way to qualify as a citizen. How one does so is a separate issue from the privileges and immunities that citizenship bestows.
US courts absolutely will use jus sanginuis but not jus soli to rule that someone is a citizen. They have done so. And they will also use jus soli but not jus sanguinis to rule someone else to be a citizen in a different case. They have done that, too. And in Minor vs. Happersett, they used both principles to rule that someone was not just a citizen, but a natural born citizen.
The reasons or principles by which citizenship are legally determined is a completely separate issue from the privileges and immunities provided by citizenship. You are almost correct that US law recognizes no differences whatsoever between the citizenship of one person versus that of another as far as the privileges and immunities of citizenshp are concerned, regardless of the principles by which a person's citizenship was acquired. The one exception is eligibility to be President. The courts have no choice on that: It's a Constitutional requirement. And Constitutional requirements cannot, by definition, be Unconstitutional.
Either you are a citizen of the U.S. or you are not. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which invalidated a law that treated naturalized and native-born citizens differentially under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Federal and state laws can be invalidated for such reasons. Constitutional prohibitions cannot.
When discussing rights of US citizenship, SCOTUS will acknowledge the manner a person acquired his/her citizenship. For example, the WKA case held he was a citizen of the U.S. and acquired his citizenship as a Natural born citizen would acquire his citizenship. In other words, WKA’s US citizenship was of the same dignity and co-extensive with the rights of any other Natural born citizen.
There is no statement in Wong Kim Ark that states that someone born in the US to alien (permanent resident) parents is a natural born citizen eligible to President. If that's false, it should be easy to prove. Please provide the exact words from the majority opinion that say what you claim.
No person has a right to be classified as a Statutory citizen, Naturalized citizen, Native born or Natural born citizen. See 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at 827-28, “[The naturalized citizen] is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
By "the law," the Court meant Congressional statutes. But it acknowledged that the Constitution does make such a distinction by using the phrase "except so far as the constitution makes the distinction." Which it in fact does, as all can easily see by reading Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
Natural born citizenship status is undefined and will remain undefined until a Constitutional Amendment is passed.
The Constitution cannot define that term without creating a logical contradiction, as my essay makes clear. But the Supreme Court can. And did, in Minor vs. Happersett, as my essay also makes clear.
All citizens within the jurisdiction of the United States have the same rights under the Constitution. All except one right, and that is the right to be eligible to the position of the President of the United States.
The Supreme Court can be overly-verbose in its definitions until paper runs out in Washington. Nothing will change this simple, elegant fact.
bookmark
Placemark.
This reasoning is flawless, in my humble opinion.
"I may not respond immediately to comments."
Hope you get to take a well-deserved break, after that epic! :)
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.