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 ...
How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?
What US law in particular are you talking about?
Or is it the answers that you might give, of necessity, be the problem?
My question to you is OBVIOUSLY a problem.
How many types of citizenship, as a matter of fact, are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
How many types of U.S. citizen are there currently?
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention or make provisions for a different category?
Do you often interpret the clear meaning of the Constitution to include things that are not there?
Please re-read the last line of Post #13...
It is enough to make a patriot cry that you believe that the distraction is more important than the constitution.
Where do you find another category mentioned?
Did I claim there was another category mentioned?
What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course.
Well what law in particular is that? It must not be "the Constitution" else you would have said so. Isn't citizenship only "granted" under naturalization laws?
One need not have any citizen parents at the time of birth to be a U.S. citizen at birth...
I agree. They're naturalized under USC 8, the section of uniform rules of naturalization Congress was empowered to write, because the parents are aliens. Oh, the parents have to be here legally as well for that section of law to apply.
Is USC 8 the US law which you believe makes someone a natural born citizen?
If there are currently only two types of U.S citizen, then a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen...
How many citizen parents must that person being born have to qualify as a natural born citizen?
A direct answer would be appreciated as you've not directly answered it as of yet.
From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions:
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
Having read this, I wonder why the SCOTUS never referred to it when they felt challenged to "look elsewhere" for the meaning of natural-born citizen? The portion I cited makes it clear that the Natural-Born clause was intended to keep "half-foreigners" from becoming president, and only allow those with "full natural connection with the country" to the highest office. Someone who reads that entire chapter cannot help but see that the Framers were very well aware of what the governments of England and France were like, due to centuries of the politics of inter-marriage between royal familes and its impact on divided loyalties amongst the citizens.
A nation's posterity is its natural-born children. They are the next generation who carries forward the culture that defines being an American. When the Framers said that they established the Constitution to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to... our posterity," they meant to create a nation that can be handed down to their children, and their children's children.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.
Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
-PJ
How many types of citizenship, as a matter of fact, are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Why are you trying to use distraction instead of getting to the heart of the matter?
What makes someone a natural born citizen?
How many types of U.S. citizen are there currently?
How many citizen parents does a natural born citizen need?
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention or make provisions for a different category?
What relevance is your question in regards to how many citizen parents someone needs to be a natural born citizen?
allmendream
Saying something over and over and with different angles does not make it correct for me. Just twisting the question does not create a valid response either.
How do you explain the wording being different for the presidents qualification than other elected officials? You don’t accept this was a purposeful designation and purpose? This does not show a desire for more stringent rules for the highest office?
How does any of your argument help Obama, with a foreign father of record? Do you totally throw out the requirement for a child of citizen parents and believe the birthplace takes precedence?
Remember we only have forged instruments to even prove that for Obama. Have none of his actions as President made you question his total dedication to the US? Maybe the “old guys” knew what they were trying to protect us from?
36, FYI
First, you are confusing the differences between “natural born” and “subject born,” which cannot be equated in definition.
“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. Parliament had to enact new laws in the 17th Century and 18th Century in order for the those children born in England while having foreign parents to become subjects made by act of mand-made statutory law, whereas the children born in England whose parents were English were by natural law and circumstance subjects born.
The 1790 act regarded foreign birth only, because citizenship was determined by state laws, and the United States of America did not have uniform citizenship Federal laws until many decades to follow.
No Federal statute is required to establish “natural born citizenship,” because natural born citizenship is a fact of nature and natural law, whereas citizenship arising from a staturoy act is man-made and thereby unnatural citizenship wherever the nativity occurs. Attempts to deny natural born citizenship ibecause it does is not established by a statutory act is illogical and irrational by definition of what is natural and what is unnatural. Conferring citizenship by the act of a statute is unnatural birthright citizenship as in the English subject made at birth versus subject born at birth.
Native born did not need to appear in the Constitution, because citizenship and definitions of citizenship was the subject of state laws and not Federal laws when the Constitution was drafted and adopted.
Exactly!
Exactly!
Have I been sent to time out in the corner? LOL
“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.”
That is a false statement. Marco Rubio’s parents were foreign citizens and what are known as aliens in amity, and their son was born with natural born Cuban citizenship and statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. Statutory citizenship at birth is generally comparable to being an English subject made at birth, rather than a subject born. Under the English laws at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and earlier, an English subject made was a form of naturalization at birth by the man-made and therefore unnatural act of a statute from Parliament.
What US law in particular are @you talking about?
Or are you just going to slink away without answering?
I had to take a few minutes off to watch the BIG Atlas rocket take off. Beautiful blue sky and bright yellow “burn” from the engine.
A billion dollar Navy(?), I think, satellite is on it’s way into orbit. Things are still active down here in the commercial and private market. I never get tired of watching the flight accelerate. Waiting for the sound to reach me is always a treat! ( windows and sliding doors did not shake much this time!)
The meme seems to be - Better to run away to fight again than be caught out today.
One need not have any citizen parents to be a natural born citizen - as is the case with Marco Rubio.
All U.S. law pertaining to U.S. citizenship at birth is what I am talking about.
Now are you going to slink away without answering where in our Constitution or U.S. law you find any basis for there being U.S. citizens at birth that are not natural born?
Where is “native born” mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Where is there anywhere in U.S. law a procedure for naturalization that includes the mere act of being born?
Being born a U.S. citizen is not a naturalization procedure as spelled out under the Constitutional power granted to Congress to have a uniform rule for naturalization.
Naturalization procedures, as outlined under the granted power in the Constitution - include a legal procedure and oaths sworn.
Would you have me believe that Marco Rubio being born a U.S. citizen was him being “naturalized” as a citizen?
Where is the law pertaining to naturalization that includes automatic naturalization at birth?
I'll just experience it vicariously through you if that's all right with you.
Blue skies and bright yellow “burns” I've seen aplenty and my experience of a CA earthquake will give me an idea of the shaking.
I'm content...enough. LOL
Natural Born citizen = one who was born a citizen - not a naturalized citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
The stringent rule for the highest office is that naturalized citizens are not eligible.
I don't give a s*it about 0bama - unlike the birthers who discovered Vattel sometime late in 2008 - I have consistently (from when McCain's eligibility was questioned back in 2004) believed that there are currently only two types of U.S. citizen.
Natural born or naturalized.
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.