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 ...
Naturalized citizens. Congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization so that there was only ONE standard for a foreign national to become a U.S. citizen.
There is also mention of one other type of citizen that one could currently be - that being “natural born”.
Thus under the clear language of the U.S. Constitution - one is currently either a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.
Nothing in Article 1, Section 8, clause 4 establishes a category of citizenship from birth that is not “natural born” thus differentiating a U.S. citizen at birth from a “natural born” citizen.
A Uniform rule of naturalization differentiates those that are natural born citizens from those that must be naturalized. It does nothing towards establishing “native born” as a category of U.S. citizenship under the Constitution.
Must have gotten that one from penumbras and emanations.
Because if we go by what the U.S. Constitution actually says - it mentions “natural born citizens” and “naturalization”.
It wasn't the only aspect/concept considered as many nation's aspects/concepts were considered.
And British law wasn't the only place where "legal terms", or such similar concepts, such as “natural born” and “naturalized” were used.
That's like saying neither France nor Germany had a law governing armed robbery, murder or rape.
That alone says something.
Most of our founders were born as natural born subjects of England. Many were lawyers who used and studied English law. The terms of law they were most familiar with - and utilized - were terms used in English law - those being “natural born” and “naturalized”.
But that is not the crux of my argument.
The U.S. Constitution only makes mention of two types of U.S. citizens that one could currently be - natural born or naturalized.
Are we going with what the U.S. Constitution ACTUALLY says - or what you want it to say via penumbras and emanations?
The U.S. Constitution only makes mention of two types of U.S. citizens that one could currently be - natural born or naturalized.
Have I contended otherwise?
But that is not the crux of my argument.
I have no idea what the "crux" of your argument is other than that "native born" seems to be a problem for you when it shouldn't be a problem at all.
Or is it a problem since somebody claimed to be a "native born" citizen instead of "natural born" citizen.
There certainly WOULD be a need - if the founders intended for there to be FOURTH category of citizenship there most certainly was a need for it to be included - but it was not.
The U.S. Constitution makes mention of only THREE types of U.S. citizen - those who were citizens at the time of adopting the Constitution - those who were natural born - and those that must be naturalized.
The difference between the last two (and currently the only two) between that those who are natural born and those that are naturalized is this......
A natural born citizen is born a U.S. citizen and has no need of a legal process to establish citizenship - a naturalized citizen is not born as a U.S. citizen and has need of a legal process and sworn oaths to establish U.S. citizenship.
The clear meaning of the Constitution is that currently there are two types of U.S. citizen - natural born and naturalized.
It is very telling to see you argue the Constitution and rule of law do not matter. The founders of the Confederate States of America argued that they had the right to reinterpret the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in support of their overthrow of the U.S. Government with the secession of their States from the United States of America. After the decision by force of arms reestablished the authority of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) made a decision in a lawsuit involving the question of whether or not the contracts and acts of the rebel governments could be relied upon in a court of law after the end of the war. SCOTUS decided all of the acts of the unlawful rebel governments were without a lawful authority or basis and thereby null and void.
Likewise in a case in which a state governor was found to have been ineligible to the office of the governor at the time he was elected and inaugurated into the office of the governor, the state supreme court decided all of the ineligible governor’s accts of signing legislation into law, appointing officers and judges, and making executive orders were null and void, without effect in law.
Based on such historical precedents in law and other such precedents, it appears that the ineligibility of Obama implies all of his acts, appointments, and executive orders should be rendered null and void as a matter of law. If that isn’t a worthwhile expenditure of time and effort, nothing else can be.
What exactly is your issue?
Something to do with "native born"?
“Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.”
That is a false statement. There was an English law in effect during one time period in which a natural born subject of the King of England whose parents were not born as subjects of the King of England was ineligible to hold offical office, but natural born subjects of Englishmen born in England were eligible.
U.S. Federal law is not English common-law and never was.
How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?
I contend that two citizen parents are needed, not just one. What say you?
YAY! Somebody 'gets it'.
View of the Constitution of the United States
Fifthly. …That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.
You'd think simply reading the Constitution would be enough for some people. The only authority Congress has is to make rules for naturalization.
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."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
-----
Natural born citizenship isn't a birth-right citizenship, it's a blood-right citizenship. If it's not in the parents blood, it's can't be in child's blood, either.
-----
[Sigh]
Such a simple concept. Keep telling them and maybe they'll listen. :-)
One need only be born a U.S. citizen under U.S. law (which should always be in accordance with natural law) to be a natural born citizen.
So where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention any fourth category of citizenship?
There are only those at the time of adoption.
Those that are natural born.
And those that must be naturalized.
Why are you here wasting time then?
“In 1604, Parliament granted “denizen” status to English-born children of alien parents. Such children had the same property rights as natural-born subjects, and could be referred to as natural-born subjects, but they were not fully or completely English in other respects.”
“To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise. (House of Commons Journal, Volume 1, 21 April 1604)”
That is a fact as the English House of Commons Journal bears witness.
So where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention any fourth category of citizenship?
Have I claimed anywhere on this thread that the U.S. Constitution mentions a fourth type or category of citizen?
How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?
Surely it isn't that hard of a question, is it?
What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course. This is not avoiding answering your question - it is answering it directly.
One need not have any citizen parents at the time of birth to be a U.S. citizen at birth - as is the case with Marco Rubio - whose parents were legal residents of these United States.
If there are currently only two types of U.S citizen, then a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen; and the other category must be naturalized via a legal process and sworn oaths of allegiance as outlined under Congressional power to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization.
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.