Posted on 04/18/2012 2:29:47 PM PDT by TexasVoter
[B]irthers are focusing on U.S. Sen Marco Rubio, the budding Republican star from Florida.
“It’s nothing to do with him personally. But you can’t change the rules because you like a certain person. Then you have no rules,” said New Jersey lawyer Mario Apuzzo.
Forget about the alleged Photoshopped birth certificates; the activists are not challenging whether Rubio was born in Miami. Rather, they say Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution which says “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
“What would you say, if you were to learn that ‘soil babies,’ born to citizens in an unincorporated US territory, were found not to possess all the rights of natural born citizens, Tubalcane?”
If that were the case, they wouldn’t be “soil babies,” would they? Because they wouldn’t have been born on soil that qualifies under the 14th amendment’s “in the United States” requirement.
“The NBC clause was written in the US Constitution as a safe guard to prevent would be presidents to have other foreign allegiances”
This is my favorite birther non-argument. The Framers sought to forestall presidents with foreign loyalties, therefore “natural born citizens” can’t be born dual citizens. I could just as easily argue that because of the same intentions natural born citizens can’t have foreign grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc.
Except that asserts too much. We cannot infer from the fact that they intended the president not to be a foreigner that the phrase contains all the anti-foreign safeguards you can think up. Same goes for all the extra language birthers want to tack onto the 14th amendment. You don’t like “anchor babies,” so you pretend the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause excludes them. But it doesn’t, as should be obvious by how many illegal immigrants are daily subjected to the jurisdiction of local police, INS, ICE, etc.
The Framers, meanwhile, attempted to forestall foreign influence by ensuring presidents would be born citizens, that’s all. The 14th amendment’s Framers, as well, forestalled children born to diplomats, invading armies, injins, etc. being born citizens via the jurisdiction clause.
“Well the crackpots in the Senate put forward their ridiculous ‘birther’ beliefs by passing a resolution to declare McCain a natural born citizen after much discussion.”
If memory serves, the controversy was that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which didn’t qualify as 14th amendment U.S. territory. Which means it was not over whether or not soil babies can be president, but over whether McCain was a soil baby.
“They held the crazy position that two citizen parents were necessary to qualify as natural born”
McCain’s parents were citizens, which I presume is why the Senate—if memory serves—declared him eligible. If he had been known to have been born in the U.S., they wouldn’t have had to affirm his qualifications through parentage.
“If this is allowed, it means any foreign power can send over a male to seduce a teenager and then supply the financial means to place that male in the office of President of the United States of America”
The financial means is not the end. You still have to be elected. The Framers did not set it up so as to be impossible for people with foreign loyalties couldn’t be president. If you can’t rely on the electorate to see through a scheme like that, then this whole self-government thing was a bad idea.
“This. Pretty simple, really. No. Divided. Loyalties.”
That’s not true just because you want it to be. The truth is much simpler: Born. A. Citizen.
What you don’t seem to notice is that neither of those cases said native borns aren’t natural borns. Because they weren’t about presidential eligibility, and weren’t compelled to exhaust all the different ways you could be naturally born a citizen.
“The two types of citizenship are citizens by nature and citizens by law”
I’ll never understand this mindset, and I suppose that means arguing with birthers will always hit a brick wall. Soil babies are not citizens by law any more than blood babies. Both are citizens by law, viewing it from one perspective, in that there are no natural born U.S. citizens without the positive law that is the Constitution.
From another perspective, both are citizens by nature, in that neither are made citizens by law after birth. Both are born citizens, and as ought to be obvious being born in one particular country is just as natural a thing as being born because of the union of two people with specific legal standing.
“The Framers did not set it up so as to be impossible for people with foreign loyalties couldn’t be president.”
Let me try that again: the Framers did not set it up so as to be impossible for people with foreign loyalties to be president.
“there are no natural born U.S. citizens without the positive law that is the Constitution”
If this remains unclear, I mean by it that there would be no U.S. to recognize you as one of its citizens without there being a U.S. There would be no U.S. citizens without a U.S. to be a citizen of.
“The combination of being born in the country of two citizen parents is the only combination that is without argument.”
People argue about whether the right to bear arms exists, but that by itself does not mean no such right exist.
“All other combinations are defined by law, for instance the children of foreign diplomats born on U.S. soil are by law, not citizens.”
I don’t understand this for instance. You can’t be trying to say that the law can’t take away the children of diplomats’ right to NBC status. The law wouldn’t enter here, from your point of view. The children of diplomats would be excluded by Nature, and therefore couldn’t be NBCs.
What you’re looking for are people whom some consider NBCs but aren’t because they’re only so by law. Which would be 14th amendment babies, according to birthers.
Anchor. Baby. President.
Abraham Lincoln said he was the last President that would ever be elected by the people. He knew that the money of powerful people would decide who wins on election day.
Don’t try to tell me you don’t see this from the local level on up.
Watching the media, I have become convinced that all the hype from both liberal and conservative media folks is just to keep us divided so it isn’t so obvious what is going on. We are duped by these talkers into thinking we are playing a part in the process when we are not. If they were true to their ideals it would be more like an 80/20 difference in the polls instead of always so close.
I see very little difference between a Romney or Obama presidency. I see GREAT difference if Ron Paul were President, but the media will not allow him to be heard by the people. He doesn’t have enough money to go around the media and make his message heard.
The rich and powerful buy up media to make sure they control the message. So called Conservative media like Fox, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh are not going as far as a real conservative media would go if they really want a real conservative to win. They are only going far enough to keep us divided and make sure their guy (one from either party) wins.
Yes, they did set it up to make it impossible for a person with foreign loyalties to be President.
That was their intention and it makes perfectly good sense to me.
“The two types of citizenship are citizens by nature and citizens by law”
By the way, I’ve never checked, what is the birther answer to why we call citizens created by law post-birth “naturalized.” To me that term means “made natural.” How is that possible, when it’s done through the law, instead of God acting via the union of male and female gametes, or whatever you think makes for natural born citizens? Is it merely a term of art, with no real meaning?
“Anchor. Baby. President.”
You do realize that terrm, “anchor baby,” does not inspire sudden horror in regular people like it does birthers.
“Watching the media, I have become convinced that all the hype from both liberal and conservative media folks is just to keep us divided so it isn’t so obvious what is going on. We are duped by these talkers into thinking we are playing a part in the process when we are not...”
And so on. Yeah, I know, of course it never was supposed to be about every single individual playing a significant role. In fact, it was the very opposite of that. We need not go over the subtleties of the electoral process, though. Suffice to say that if the people are too lazy, ignorant, duped, or whatever, not to elect people with foreign allegiances, the answer may be to take decisions out of their hands. But then we wouldn’t be a republic, as designed.
The Framers took some decisions out of our hands, but not all of them. Just because they didn’t want us electing presidents with foreign allegiances does not mean it is unconstitutional for citizens bron with the ability to be citizens of other countries to be president.
“I see very little difference between a Romney or Obama presidency”
Me too.
“but the media will not allow him to be heard by the people. He doesn’t have enough money to go around the media and make his message heard.”
One of the reasons he doesn’t have enough money is that he’s not popular enough. I’m sick of the media conspiracy rationale for why he’s a marginal candidate. His name is out there; he’s in the debates. At some point, he has to get support on his own.
“Yes, they did set it up to make it impossible for a person with foreign loyalties to be President.”
Are you serious? What about people raised by or spending extended time with foreign grandparents? What about people educated and/or living for a extended periods overseas (who have are sure to come back)? What about the countless people who irrationally hate their homeland and grow up as Anglophiles, Francophiles, etc., for no particular reason?
Or by “loyalties” do you mean strictly legal loyalties? Well, no, it doesn’t, unless you think “natural born” self-evidently means your parents can’t pass on the ability in you to claim foreign citizenship. But if so, why are we even arguing about this? It should be as self-evident to me as it is to you, and how are you going to convince me of what I should be able to immediately see unaided (except possibly by Vattel)?
“The rich and powerful buy up media to make sure they control the message.”
What about everything else that the Constitution leaves up to the representative republican process? Hasn’t that been corrupted beyond belief by Evil Corporations and Fat Cats with their bought and paid for Robot Candidates, too? What’s the point of electing loyal presidents when they’re just gonna do whatever their money-grubbing overlords tell them, anyway?
Oh, so long as they’re American plutocrats, I guess it’s okay.
“What about people educated and/or living for a extended periods overseas (who have are sure to come back”
Sorry about that awful sentence. I meant people who are educated and/or live for extended periods overseas who come back for long enough to reestablish residency.
No, it was "over" being a smokescreen for Obama, who cosponsored the bill.
the Senate—if memory serves—declared him eligible. If he had been known to have been born in the U.S., they wouldn’t have had to affirm his qualifications through parentage.
Well they didn't have to do anything, but they did, through a resolution which has no real value. They could have resolved that the Sun rises in the West, but that wouldn't make it so.
I don't believe the Senate has the power to declare anyone eligible or ineligible for the presidency. It wasn't real controversial at any time since his parents were serving in the US military at the time of his birth. Otherwise they probably would have been in the US.
"You do realize that terrm, “anchor baby,” does not inspire sudden horror in regular people like it does birthers."
If the thought of an Anchor Baby President doesn't inspire horror in you (you know, "regular" people like yourself, versus "irregular" or "abnormal" people like me), I posit that you are on the wrong forum. And by forum, I mean FR.
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.