Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Once again you are making a false statement by misrepresentation of what Vattel wrote. The “reputed” makes the clear distinction that the person is “reputed” and not actually a natural born citizen.
“Vattel 212 - indigenous or native citizens - translated after the Constitution to “natural born” - establishes the criteria - Vattel 217 shows how McCain fit the criteria because he could not be considered as anything other than born in country according to Vattel.”
Your statement is false and obviously so because “reputed” to be a natural born citizen clearly indicates the person is not a natural born citizen who is nonetheless treated and thereby “reputed” as if they were a natural born citizen.
“Another example going another way is English law - where the child of any parentage born under the authority of England was “natural born”. No translation needed for that one - they said “natural born” in the language and the law our founders were familiar with and the law our founders who were lawyers practiced under.”
Now there are statements so replete with your repeated ad nauseum falsehoods as to exasperate the most patient of people. As you have been shown so many times before, the English commentators such as Lord Coke, Blackstone, and others all recognized the differences between a subject made and a subject born while observing the subject made was “deemed” or as Vattel described “reputed” to be natural born citizens, whereas an actual or true natural born citizen was described as a subject born and not as a subject made. You are essentially attempting to deceive and lie by the omission of what the legal commentators fully had to say about the differences between an actual natural born subject or citizen versus a person styled as a natural born citizen despite not actually being a natural born citizen.
The lawyers of the United States were variously accustomed to practicing the customs and laws of the American colonies in North America. These customs and laws embraced first and foremost the customs and laws created in the American colonies separately and often uniquely from any European or other source of custom and law. Generally speaking, these American customs and laws were sometimes adapted from English, French, Dutch, Spanish, German, Swedish, and Amerindian customs and laws; but they were nonetheless continued forward with adaptations and inclusions of natural law and American innovations. To characterize the American jurisprudence as being dominated by precedents in English custom and law is a major falsehood and gross misrepresentaton of the reality of an independent American legal system.
“So where IS there an example of an authority establishing the concrete criteria you so desperately need that would render McCain ineligible?”
The irreducible fact requiring no sovereign order, public law, or legal statute to recognize the commonsense reality that a child born with no obligation of allegiance or loyalty to more than one sovereign is born in nature with only one possible allegiance to the one sovereign of the child's parents. Any condition in which citizenship is conferred by a man-made act results in an unnatural born citizen, whether or not the unnatural born citizen is afforded the courtesy title of being “reputed” or “deemed” as if the child were a natural born citizen.
“Vattel’s criteria were not as concrete as you wish - he showed where someone born out of country would fit the criteria under the natural law concept that one serving his nation overseas has not “quit” his nation in the same way as someone who went overseas for his own interests.”
That is nothing more than your false assertions based upon your own false statements and deliberate misrepresentations of the quotations.
American law when McCain was born was that he was a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.
Now see, you're digging on that hole again. What law are you talking about? The Immigration Act of 1924?
Natural born citizens need no "law" to be natural born citizens.
Yes, citizenship obtained by the act of a naturalization law is the definition of unnatural born citizenship, which is the exact opposite of natural born citizenship.
I see you’ve met the kneepad obamanoid who staunchly defends little barry bastard’s illegitimacy almost daily at FR. The plea will now be ‘just because I (insert latest version of the spittlegeist), you accuse me of being an obamnoid’, trying to cover its exposure.
Thanks for addressing his "concerns" at #361.
As you said, he can exasperate the most patient of people.
Did Vattel write 217 for no reason then? What was the purpose and meaning of 217 if not to recognize the natural law concept that a soldier or diplomat serving his nation overseas did not “quit” his nation and thus his children are to be considered under natural law as being born in country?
Does that concept of natural law not exist outside of time and space and above all law immortal and immutable in the same way as you think Vattel 215 does?
How do you ignore the natural law concept that a person serving their nation overseas has not “quit” his nation?
The same way you ignore English law and their concept of “natural born” - the same way you ignore American law - the same way you ignore everything and anything that contradicts your reading of Vattel 215 - even the passage two down from it - Vattel 217.
So WHERE and WHEN and by WHO is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?
While we may understand the concept, perhaps some people find the similarity of the words apply and applicable to be confusing.
The only way to rephrase it while still maintaining the meaning, IMHO, might be to say:
It "applies to" the parents but is "operable upon" the children.
Did Vattel write 217 for no reason then?
Did Vattel write 215 for no reason then? And why did he write it, and place it, before 217?
Does that concept of natural law not exist outside of time and space and above all law immortal and immutable in the same way as you think Vattel 215 does?
Which concept are you speaking about?
How do you ignore the natural law concept that a person serving their nation overseas has not “quit” his nation?
Where have I done so?
So WHERE and WHEN and by WHO is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?
It's already before you and you've refused see it.
Asking your question over and over again isn't going to cure you of your self imposed blindness.
American law when McCain was born was that he was a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.
What law are you talking about? The Immigration Act of 1924?
It isn't USC 8 Section 1401 as you said earlier, as he was born before it was enacted, so which law is it?
So WHERE and WHEN and by WHO is “natural born” defined such that McCain would not be eligible?
Still waiting.
Since you believe that American law made McCain a natural born citizen I don't believe anyone could ever answer your question to your satisfaction.
Just one more in the long line of your many "gotcha" questions.
Or will yours be much quicker?
Yes, more than one, andand not the first time. The chores of Atlas.
I honestly don't think it's wrong so much as all of us have been mislead.
In your earlier post, when speaking of Vattel:
215 Children of citizens born in a foreign country... ...the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
That's quite true....BUT
The federal government is neither a civil or political entity, it is an 'administrative organ' [as Tucker put it] made to operate ONLY in designated areas.
One designated area is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
Nowhere in that clause is found the word 'citizenship'. That's because the citizenship the Constitution speaks of, whether natural born OR naturalized, does not emanate from the federal government, it emanates from the civil States.
So Vattel's words DO apply, they just don't apply to what most people think they do.....the federal government.
---------
Civil and administrative are two totally separate kinds of 'law'. The Founders used them purposefully to 'secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their Posterity'.
The only other option would be to believe that the Founders pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred Honor and then fought a War just to write down less than 5000 and trust the judgment of the people elected to do the 'right thing'.
------
Be that as it may [and IMHO] McCain would be eligible according to Vattel's § 217.
Natural born citizenship is inherited. The location of that inheritance doesn't matter.
Civil and administrative are two totally separate kinds of 'law'.
Neither type leap into existence of their own accord.
Be that as it may [and IMHO] McCain would be eligible according to Vattel's § 217.
Are you saying that he would be eligible only in connection to that one section and without the contextual reading of the other preceding sections?
Natural born citizenship is inherited. The location of that inheritance doesn't matter.
So to you only jus sanguinis applies to natural born citizenship and jus soli has no bearing at all?
That's because the citizenship the Constitution speaks of, whether natural born OR naturalized, does not emanate from the federal government, it emanates from the civil States.
It seems to me that the word "uniform" discounts your assertion. Don't naturalization laws have to be "uniform" from State to State and require a standard for all?
I understand a citizen of one State can move to another State. I also understand that I become a Citizen of that State as I'm domiciled there (unless I retain property in Texas and then I'm still a Texas Citizen). However, I'll always be a Texan in my heart no matter where I live due to being born here.
As I've said in the past...
@I'm not a Texan because I'm an American.
I'm an American because I'm a Texan.
So am I not a U. S. Citizen as well as a Texas Citizen or a Citizen of whichever State in which I live?
Got to take the opportunity to go run some errands. Back later.
Sort of. The Administrative authority is outlined by the Constitution. The only other authority is municipal, and is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)
The seat of the general government is not a civil 'State' as are the other States, it was designed on the Roman city/state. It's why it's called the District of Columbia.
In fact, the only place you could be a citizen of the United States PRIOR to the 14th Amendment was to be inside the District itself.
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
Neither type leap into existence of their own accord.
Well of course they didn't.
-----
So to you only jus sanguinis applies to natural born citizenship and jus soli has no bearing at all?
The only difference between them is 'jus sanguinis ' is only inheritable by blood, and 'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws.
My biggest point is that the federal government has no jurisdiction to pass those 'laws' concerning citizenship to begin with since theirs was authority over making a rule, not implementing a law.
-----
The entire nationalization of naturalization concept is unconstitutional, IMHO.
“The only difference between them is ‘jus sanguinis ‘ is only inheritable by blood, and ‘jus soli’ is only acquirable by laws.”
The doctrine of jus sanguinis arises from the man-made tradition in the civil code of Rome, whereas the jus soli doctrine arises from the man-made feudal law tradition made popular in the feudal societies. Both legal traditions and principles were man-made laws and thereby unnatural methods of determining the citizenship of persons at birth and/or after birth. The law of nature by contrast is applied in the absence of and contrary to man-made and unnatural laws. The legal doctrine of jus sanguinnis is sometimes less restrictive than the natural law of natural born citizenship, and its is sometimes more restrictive than the natural law of natural born citizenship. The application of jus sanguinnis sometimes contemplates only one citizen parent and/or birth not on the soil of the parent nation, and other times contemplates citizenship only for the great-grandchild or greater citizen great-granparents or even 5th generation great-grandparents. yet, the natural law only requires the parents to be citizens.
The natural born citizen doctrine is therefore neither the man-made common-law or statutory laws of jus soli or jus sanguinnis.
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.