Rubio and Birthright Citizenship

American Thinker ^ | 5/4/2012 | Cindy Simpson

[Menehune56]

Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.

The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Sometimes over the years I think I have helped a person to go back to their research and even they have convinced me I am wrong, occasionally...we’ll see this time."

I don't see that happening here. Nice post.

Any definition of Natural Born that doesn't act to reinforce the likelihood that the presidential aspirant has loyalty to, and loyalty ONLY TO the US is a flawed definition, no matter how many times Jus Soli adherents posit to the contrary.

It flies in the face not only of the cautionary words of the Founders (Paine, Jay et al) but of logic itself.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

Born on US sovereign soil to parents who are themselves citizens represents the Gold Standard. No person who can claim dual citizenship should be legally eligible to aspire to our nation's highest office. It's a matter of presumed undivided loyalty.

Notice that the relevant language in Minor states "were natives, or natural-born citizens" rather than "include." Lawyers and judges are very, very careful about each and every word that they pen when handing down a ruling. You can bet that this wording was intentional and is a good example of judicial restraint.

[WhiskeyX]

“How could anyone know if my parents are U.S. citizens? By looking at my BC? I think not and this is where I believe the birther movement fails. The ONLY thing a BC proves is where and when you were born”

“Birther movement”? You mock people who demand nothing more than compliance with the rule of law, rather than defy the law at the expense of the genuine Citizens of the nation. You make law abiding citizens sound like a bowel movement, which is extremely offensive.

Next, a birth certificate “proves” nothing whatsoever. A birth certificate is nothing more than a document which purports to indicate some of the facts of birth of a child as a rebuttable presumption for any court of law. Birth certificate fraud is a common crime for which enforcement of the law and punishment for the crime a nearly non-existant. This rampant birth certificate fraud was the subject of a U.S. Government report in the year 2000.

The problem of the father being misreported by the mother on a birth certificate and in various legal proceedings was recognized as a problem ages ago and resolved in law by the simple ancient expediency of assuming for the purported legal father is the father for most purposes of law, regardless of whom the natural father make actually be. So, for purposes of determining citizenship, the legal father’s citizenship is used to determine the citizenship of the legal father’s child, whether or not they are related by blood kinship.

The Framers of the Constitution had no need to include definitions of citizenship in the Constitution, because citizenship was determined by the laws of each state at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Some states conferred citizenship upon children born in the jurisdiction of the state with alien parents and some did not. The Constitution did not define who was a natural born citizen, because a natural born citizen was a person whose natural birth to two citizen parents in the jurisdiction of a state or territorial government of the United States required no law or statute to make or naturalize the child as a citizen at birth. The only persons who need to have their status as a national or citizen defined by public law are those persons who are born within or without the jurisdiction of a state or territory as an alien until the public law makes and naturalizes these person at birth. A true natural born citizen is a person who is a born as a citizen without the need for a public law to make the person a citizen, such as the child of two citizen parents born in the jurisdiction of the state or territory.

Since a natural born citizen exists without the need for a public law to make a person a natural born citizen, there was no need or purpose to define it within or without the Constitution. Indeed, using a public law to define a natural born citizen would have the effect of making it naturalized citizenship at birth instead of natural born citizenship.

[philman_36]

Prepping early for the “that wasn’t really his Daddy” story?

[philman_36]

I don't see that happening here.
Me either, the same failed argument since 2008 proves that.

[Mr Rogers]

“To avoid an opportunity for misunderstanding, perhaps you would care to describe exactly who you meant when you used the word, “they.””

Again, if you could read, you would know “they” referred to the Supreme Court.

The problem with birthers - which is not a pejorative unless you believe being a birther is evil - is that they cannot read simple English sentences, and thus cannot understand a court opinion. Thus you wrote:

“Justice Gray, other jJustices, and the Indiana justices deserved to be impeached for their inexcusable false statements...” and cite as evidence:

“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)”

But the WKA decision explains, clearly, that it is not based on FOLLOWING English common law:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

[allmendream]

Except this is not “naturalization” it is governing who are citizens at birth.

It is not as if there is a section under the law that is not covered. Every circumstance that results in citizenship at birth is covered. It is not as if there is a blank spot in U.S. law covering citizenship at birth.

Both ways of becoming a U.S. citizen (and the corresponding type) are covered under the law.

Naturalization is covered in one section of the law.

Who is a citizen at birth - and thus natural born - is covered in another section of the law.

Now WHERE - ANYWHERE is there language in U.S. law saying a citizen at birth of any type is considered “naturalized”?

Good luck finding it.

[allmendream]

And the meaning of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is in alignment with the laws governing a uniform rule of naturalization - because our founders didn't suffer under the delusion that a citizen at birth was in need of any sort of naturalization.

So you believe the intent of the Founders and the clear meaning of our Constitution is secondary to the musings of an 18th century Swiss philosopher?

[New Jersey Realist]

A lot of words that say nothing. Let me ask again, how do you prove that you are the child of parents of U.S. citizens? Simple question just in case I want to run for president.

There are other things I take issue with in your diatribe but let’s get one issue resolved at a time....less confusion that way.

[MD Expat in PA]

The 14th Amendment never made anyone a citizen just because they were born on American soil, either

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

I don’t think the above means what you think it means. Note the very important comma and then the wording that follows: who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers….

What it is saying is that the children of foreign ambassadors or foreign ministers who are born here while their parents are serving another country in that capacity are not born citizens of the United States but that every other person born here is. The same applies to the children of our ambassadors and diplomats and members of our military who are born overseas while their parents are stationed in a foreign country – those children are naturally born US citizens at birth.

[New Jersey Realist]

I have discovered that you cannot reason with people who have an agenda and these birthers certainly have an agenda. For the life of them they cannot see that they are adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn’t there and never was there. They subvert the constitution yet consider themselves conservatives. They can’t get over that citizen parent thing and even when they find such mention they subvert the meaning - as in Minor v. Happersett. Another thing I discovered, never raise more than one question at a time because you’ll never get an answer.

But, for the rest of us, here are a few quotes (there are many more by the way) from the Congressional Globe circa 1860’s) that clearly define NBC and totally cause the birther movement to FAIL:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

“The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the “natural-born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to raceor color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection.” Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)

“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone ... Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision - of course they made none - for the naturalization of natural born citizens.... Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration....” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born....I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

[allmendream]

Indeed. They would also have us believe that Vattel is some sort of pre-Constitutional founder and that his words are sacrosanct and in force not subject to modification.

Well, one sentence of his words at least.

They are either completely ignorant of or ignore Vattel when they make arguments that McCain is not a natural born citizen.

[New Jersey Realist]

You are correct in your interpretation. The punctuation is a little confusing and throws people off but one must remember that the transcriber inserts punctuation. The words are the words and read in context with a few sentences prior to that statement quoted the Senator made very clear what he was saying.

[New Jersey Realist]

Indeed. I believe the ONLY thing of use to the framers were Vattel’s views on commerce. I never once thoughout my long life ever heard of Vattel - not until 2008 that is. No one brought it up with Chester Arthur who had a Canadian father as far as I know.

[allmendream]

Vattel was rediscovered and elevated (well one sentence anyway) late in 2008 as a back up argument in case a particular candidate really WAS born in Hawaii.

Quickly it became revisionist history that this was something everyone knew, was taught in High School, if not with their mother's milk.

And now they make the argument that his obscure and truncated out of any context one sentence trumps all U.S. law and IS the clear and unambiguous meaning of any legal phrase used in the Constitution and not English Common law.

[philman_36]

Except this is not “naturalization” it is governing who are citizens at birth.
With every reply you make you further prove how idiotic your stance is.
@Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter I › § 1101 - Definitions(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
@§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birthThe following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
First and foremost a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a national.

@§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth

Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:
Please do keep replying.

Now WHERE - ANYWHERE is there language in U.S. law saying a citizen at birth of any type is considered “naturalized”?
Isn't nationalization part of the naturalization process?

And since I've answered your question, though you'll inevitably say I didn't, how about answering mine...
So you believe that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is secondary to a naturalization law governing aliens that Congress created?

[allmendream]

Yes - all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are CITIZENS.

The second provision you cite says....

“They shall be nationals but NOT citizens of the United States.”

Obviously they are NOT citizens - this covers non-citizens of these United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1408

“Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:”

So how could a law covering those who are NOT citizens mean that one who IS a citizen at birth is naturalized?

Throwing up categories of NON-citizens hardly helps your case that U.S. law and the the U.S. Constitution are subservient to a Swiss philosopher and that ANY meaning of U.S. law describes a citizen at birth as being “naturalized”.

So again - where does it describe a U.S. citizen at birth as being “naturalized”?

It doesn't.

You think we wouldn't notice?

[RichardMoore]

The writers of the constitution knew what they meant by Natural Born Citizen since they also exempted anyone currently living here from the requirement. Otherwise no one would be able to serve as Washington, Adams or jefferson did. They had to include a qualifier because they meant what they said: a natural born citizen has no blood ties to any other country through his or her parents. Obama does not meet that test and neither do Rubio or Jindal.

[philman_36]

So again - where does it describe a U.S. citizen at birth as being “naturalized”?

Once again...
Isn't nationalization part of the naturalization process?

[nosf40]

“...Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

[nosf40]

“...Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/