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 ...
That's right, it isn't. Nor should it be as the definition of natural born is ultra vires, or outside the legal scope and authority of Man, and thus, Man's creation known as 'government'.
-----
The naturalization process is about granting citizenship, isn't it?
Yes the process is, but the general government was never granted the jurisdiction over the entire 'process' of naturalization. Only to make a uniform Rule for it. By the wording of the constitutional article itself, there must have already been a 'process' for naturalization in place, and their was.
By the common law of England, only the King could make denizens, but in America, we have no King.....but we did have Sovereign States.
A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. In the states of Kentucky and Virginia, the privileges of alien friends depended upon the constitution of each state, the acts of their respective legislatures, and the common law; by these they were considered, according to the time of their residence, and their having complied with certain requisitions pointed out by these laws, either as denizens, or naturalized citizens. As denizens, they were placed in a kind of middle state between aliens and natural born citizens; by naturalization, they were put exactly in the same condition that they would have been, if they had been born within the state, except so far as was specially excepted by the laws of each state. The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever.
St. George Tucker
The making of the rule for naturalization is a process that can begin only after the State has made them denizens.
-----
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?
Yes. Although again we have the difference between rule making and rule implementation.
------
However, I'll always be a Texan in my heart no matter where I live due to being born here.
There are probably a lot of us that feel that way. :-)
-----
So am I not a U. S. Citizen as well as a Texas Citizen or a Citizen of whichever State in which I live?
It's more like -
Because you are a Citizen of the State of Texas, you are a citizen of the united States.
Well you've certainly got me on the Roman history part, but I was speaking more on the conceptual origins of the terms as they immigrated from England.
The law of nature by contrast is applied in the absence of and contrary to man-made and unnatural laws.
I wasn't speaking of the laws of nature as meaning that of base humanity, I was speaking of the Laws of Nature and Nations by Vattel, i.e. Natural Law.
There is a natural and a positive law of nations. By the former, every state, in its relations with other states, is bound to conduct itself with justice, good faith, and benevolence; and this application of the law of nature has been called by Vattel, the necessary law of nations, because nations are bound by the law of nature to observe it; and it is termed by others, the internal law of nations, because it is obligatory upon them in point of conscience.
James Kent, Commentaries
LOL! They were both fine, but you're welcome.
“Well you’ve certainly got me on the Roman history part, but I was speaking more on the conceptual origins of the terms as they immigrated from England.”
The terms are Latin and are common to everyplace and every society which at one time was subject to and the inheritor of Latin custom and law. The North American Colonies inherited some of their customary law and statutory law from English, French, Dutch, German, Spanish, and Swedish colonies and communities incorporated tinto the United States, while much of the common-law and statutory law was original to the American Colonial and later State and Federal courts and governments. Although Vattel was an important contributor of the natural law concepts, he was by no means the only source of the natural law concepts. No small part of the natural law concepts arrived in America along with the first English, French, Dutch, Swedish, and German colonists and their first colonial charters. The United Provinces of the Netherlands of the Dutch republic were a notable inspiration for these earliest colonists. The Dutch even to this day do not have a national citizenship, relying instead upon municipal forms of citizenship. The concepts behind jus soli and jus sanguinis were applied with varying specifics by ancient Rome and ancient Greece just as they were by the later societies of England, the rest of Britain and Europe, and America. It is because these are man-made and unnatural laws that they are subject to so many variatons in specifics and applications.
So-called natural law too has been the subject of many schools of thought and application over the millenia from Plato and Aristotle to the Framers of the Constitution of the United States. The differences in opinion and application, however, was reduced to a simple and easy to understand application by the reliance of the Framers of the Constitution upon legal commentators as Vattel, Blackstone, Coke, and others in their efforts to implement their intent to exclude any person whose allegiance at birth could potentially compromise loyalty to the sovereign People of the United States to the exclusion of all other sovereigns. Due to the nature of fealty and feudal law with respect to jus soli and jus sanguinis, there is but one possible definition which accomplishes the intent of the Framers. The legal doctrine of jus sanguinis, being a law in the civil code, can and often does authorize the granting of citizenship to a person born outside the allegiance of the sovereign and the soil of the nation granting the citizenship, which is contrary to the intent of the Framers, whereas true natural born citizenship does not permit by its very definition the possibility of conflicting allegiances and loyalties. at birth.
The only difference between them is 'jus sanguinis ' is only inheritable by blood, and 'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws.
We'll just have to disagree on the jus sanguinis/jus soli aspect then as, to me, it appears that both apply.
I defer to Mario Apuzzo...'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is (if you haven't read it before...it's long)
Yes, the Framers were very specific about the Presidential qualifications.
The rest of your post contained some interesting information. I'd only researched the law of nations concept as written by Vattel, Pufendorf, and Grotius.
Yes, the Framers were very specific about the Presidential qualifications.
The rest of your post contained some interesting information. I'd only researched the law of nations concept as written by Vattel, Pufendorf, and Grotius.
MamaTexan's rephrasing at #367 works much better than mine.
I would agree. That doesn't make your suggested usage any less "applicable". {;^)
Some people may not understand no matter what is used.
One of the rather interesting implicatons is the way in which the Framers so confdently consulted varous legal authorities, analyzed the basis for their commentaries on citizenship, and then concluded the natural born citizen clause as their own unique application of the natural law principles in a basic definition accomplishing the exclusion they intended. I’d wager they would be shaking their head sin disbelief to see their straightforward thinking being so badly misrepesented and misapplied today.
And yet this is where you've got me confused on your view of the jus sanguinis/jus soli aspect.
You say...'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws. and yet I don't see that in action here.
Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law.
LOL! It is loong, and yes, I've read it.
I still don't agree. Tucker specifically stated otherwise, and honestly, I can see no difference in Vattel's and Blackstone's definitions.
Besides, Apuzzo IS a lawyer, so I really don't expect an Officer of the Court to ADMIT the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional, do you? ;-)
LOL! I know. I was just being persnickity about your having the federal citizenship before the State one.
-----
Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law.
Assuming your parents are citizens, you'd be a jus sanguinis one.
From my understanding, the Original Intent was that jus soli citizenship was just the naturalized kind of citizenship and the intention to BE naturalized had to be consciously made....which means children couldn't be naturalized without their parents appling for citizenship.
No the framers are shaking their heads because you birthers have no clue. They didn’t define NBC because they thought it would be obvious. Minor v. Happerset had it exactly right:
” The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar...”
If the Framers of the Constitution didn’t rely on our ENGLISH heritage and the common law for the meaning of “natural born citizen,” then why the heck did they choose to use a specific legal term which was found in the common law and no place else?
And if they were referring to Vattel’s concept, then why the heck didn’t they use Vattel’s terms — and state that the President had to be “a natural,” or “an indigene?”
I'm not a Texan because I'm an American.
I'm an American because I'm a Texan. (second sentence is key as it places Texan first)
Assuming your parents are citizens, you'd be a jus sanguinis one.
IMO you've evaded with that reply. You've evaded once already and I've let you slide. Not again.
I'm not asking about jus sanguinis. I don't want a comment on jus sanguinis. I'm asking only about jus soli.
Because you are a Citizen of the State of Texas, you are a citizen of the united States.
You say...'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws. and yet I don't see that in action here.
Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law? (I've made it a question this time)
What "law" made me a jus soli Citizen of Texas"?
You have the handle MamaTexan so show me in our Texas statutes which specific law that is.
Who even bothers any more to learn that they used @THE SPIRIT OF LAWS by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu as one of their references? Not too many.
And that's just from one man. They used the works of over thirty different peoples.
But, in continuation of the 'taking the condition of the father', minor children become naturalized citizens when the father becomes a naturalized citizen....just like Rubio was.
Interesting. I’ll have to look again at my father’s naturalization document, I’ll pull it out of the safe deposit box when I have time. But I do not recall seeing anything in that document regarding my brother. You would think that if my brother was indeed an alien resident at birth, he would have some sort of naturalization papers in his own right and in his possession as legally it would be important for him to prove his citizenship if he didn’t have it from birth. And if my mother had been the resident alien and my father the born US citizen, are you saying that my brother would have been a born citizen and wouldn’t require any sort of naturalization after birth? I don’t see that, the paternal vs. maternal clause anywhere in the Constitution or in the 14th Amendment.
What you are referring to as to “the minor children become naturalized citizens when the father (parent or parents) becomes a naturalized citizen” pertains only to the minor children of the naturalized citizen who were born outside of the US before the parent’s naturalization, not those of the children born in the US. Those born in the US do not require naturalization. Yes, if my brother had been born in Norway and while he was still a minor, when my father became naturalized, then yes my father’s naturalization would apply to his non-US born children and in that case, my brother would possess his own naturalization documentation and papers to that effect.
No, that's one thing that naturalized AND natural born citizens have in common....ALL their children are natural-born.
But what if my father wasn’t naturalized until after my brother got married and had children and grandchildren or my father never became naturalized or died suddenly before the naturalization process was complete. In that case, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that my brother, his children and all his grandchildren and all their children and so on would all be resident aliens and would all have to apply for US citizenship?
Because your brother was born with his father's natural born citizenhip (jus sanguinis), your brother was born with a natural obligation of allegiance and loyalty to the sovereign of Norway, but the man-made naturalization laws of the United States also granted your brother man-made or statutory U.S. citizenship at birth which only at the age of majority your brother could affirm as a U.S. Citizen or repudiate as a Norwegian Citizen.
BS! My brother was never a Norwegian citizen. And if you insist that he was then kindly describe in detail and with references to US law (and not just the typical birther navel gazing and quotations from Vatell, a Swiss philosopher who may have had some influence on the founders but did not write nor sign the US Constitution), exactly how my brother at the age of majority (21 at the time) should have gone about affirming his US citizenship and repudiating his supposed Norwegian citizenship. Would that have required him to swear an oath in front of a judge? Swear a notarized affidavit? Placed an ad in the local newspaper stating he really, really, really didn’t want to be a Norwegian anymore? Travel to Norway in person and personally refute his Norwegian citizenship? And if he traveled outside the US before this supposedly required affirmation of his US citizenship, would he have had to get a US passport or a Norwegian passport or both? When he got his draft notice during Vietnam at the age of 20, could he have gone to the draft board and claimed that as a Norwegian citizen and not yet attained the age of majority, that he was exempt? I somehow think that wouldn’t have worked.
This whole argument reminds me of what I experienced after my father died. His entire estate was valued at less than $10,000 and my attorney advised me that as a “small estate” and being that I was a signatory on my father’s account and his executor, I didn’t have to open an “estate account” with his bank. He even warned me that the bank might try to make me open one as there were some pretty hefty bank fees associated opening one, but that I didn’t have to and shouldn’t be pressured into doing so.
When I went to the bank to deposit an insurance settlement check (from a previous car accident unrelated to his death), the bank teller insisted that I couldn’t deposit the check as it was made out to the “estate of” and that I had to open a special estate account that my attorney warned me about. I presented the paperwork my attorney provided, the court filing that stated it was a “small estate” and explained to her why I didn’t have to open an “estate account”.
She just looked at me with a blank stare for at time and then said, “No, you have to open an estate account”. When I asked her to explain why, she said, and I quote, “Well, like it’s sorta, like kinda like a law”.
I politely schooled her on the fact that there is no such thing as “sorta, like kinda like a law”; it’s either a law or it isn’t, there is no grey area. And then I requested to speak with the bank manager. After she looked at the paperwork, she agreed that I was correct and that didn’t have to open an estate account.
Here is a pretty good explanation of citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The whole “birther” argument pinges on the “sorta, like kinda like a law”, but not on the actual law.
And furthermore, when my father took the oath of enlistment, IMO he became a citizen and the judge who presided in his naturalization, thought the same, saying it was merely a “formality” as my father proved and affirmed his US citizenship with his military service:
Oath of Enlistment:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Note that it is www.constitution.org, not www.constitution.net
.net has, IMO, some very questionable material there.
I wasn't trying to 'slide' on anything.I was under the impression you were asking about the differences.
-----
I don't want a comment on jus sanguinis. I'm asking only about jus soli.
Fair enough.
NEXT TIME however, you'd like to restrict the subject to a specific part of a specific topic, DO be kind enough to inform the other person instead of just copping an attitude about it, okay?
-----
You say...'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws. and yet I don't see that in action here.
What do you think the 'naturalization laws' are?
-----
Aren't I a jus soli Citizen of Texas, since I was born in Texas, and isn't that natural law, not man made law? (I've made it a question this time)
Under my impression of Original Intent, you are not a jus soli citizen of the State of Texas, and it is man made law because it is based on English common law and requires the process of denizenation.
-----
What "law" made me a jus soli Citizen of Texas"? You have the handle MamaTexan so show me in our Texas statutes which specific law that is.
I don't recall saying there CURRENTLY were any laws to make you a jus soli citizen of Texas, just that Constitutionally, that was the way it was supposed to work.
No wonder you're so screwed up in your thinking.
See comment at 398 pertaining to www.usconstitution.net.
Try visiting @www.usconstitution.org instead.
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.