All it says his parents were Indian.
Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not a single word in the 844-page "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" introduced by Senator Marco Rubio and the "Gang of Eight" addresses the controversial practice of "birthright citizenship."
Birthright citizenship is the common description given to the automatic grant of U.S. citizenship to babies born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Many experts agree with the verdict of law professor Lino Graglia -- that the practice generates "perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
The failure of Congress to confront the subject is nothing new. The "four pillars" of the reform framework floated by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham back in 2010 also avoided mention of the gaping "hole in the fence" created by the "magnet" of the birthright practice.
While Rubio touted the newest bipartisan proposal and appeared to "backtrack" on the border fence as illegals continue to climb over it, our government creates even more incentives for illegals to have children here. Besides potential ObamaCare benefits, many provisions in the Gang's new package increase the allure and impact of the birthright magnet.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter penned a scathing analysis titled "If Rubio's Amnesty is So Great, Why is He Lying?" Near the end of her litany of damning facts and figures, Coulter wrote: "The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment."
The insanity, however, goes beyond the "illegal" argument. Coulter noted statistics and dollars relating to the children of illegals; however, she didn't mention that the practice also awards citizenship to the babies of virtually anyone legally but temporarily present, including "birth tourists."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It's not "core reasoning" if it yields a result that's different from the reasoning. The Supreme Court DECLINED to rule Wong Kim Ark a 'natural born citizen' even though they could have done so.
There's no appreciable difference at all between the core reasoning and the final declaration.
If someone is a natural born citizen, then they're a citizen.
Your utter determination to deny what they law says is showing.
Let me reword that, as that might be, in one sense, overstating the point a bit.
The case asked the question of whether Wong was a citizen.
The Court examined the question at length, and quite clearly found that he was a natural born citizen.
So in the final declaration, because the question before the Court was, "Is Wong a citizen?" they answered, "Yes, Wong is a citizen."
But the entire core reasoning of the case was that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Since the entire core reasoning of the case determined that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, and that core reasoning was... well, THE CORE REASONING, completely and absolutely central to the outcome of the case, then that CORE REASONING - and its CONCLUSION, that anyone in Wong's situation is a natural born citizen, is absolutely binding precedent.
I hope that's stated a bit better.
In a limited way, yes. However, they are NOT under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S., which is what both Trumbull and Howard, the originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, specifically stated in the Congressional Record was required.
Case in point: some children born to aliens in the U.S. are born SUBJECT TO a foreign country's nationality law. Prime example: Obama.
That is PRECISELY why U.S. Secretaries of State and the International Arbitrator determined that those born in the U.S. to alien parent(s) WERE NOT U.S. citizens. They were SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER and OWED ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN POWER at birth via their alien parent(s).
Incorrect. Gray stated the exact question very specifically in the ruling.:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
I suggest you review further up the thread and examine the evidence already provided.
I don’t see how that’s pertinent to the issue at hand. There’s a higher standard for the presidency than there is for someone acquiring citizenship.
Folks tend to err on either side.
They either apply the conditions of the presidency to everyone else (which we see here in this thread), or they assume the Presidency requires the exact same thing, (it doesn’t).
Why is this so hard? President requires NBC - which means Born in America over 35 and two citizen parents. Everything else - does not. Cruz doesn’t meet this standard.
When I mentioned Jindal’s name, it was not in relation to his possible run for the Presidency, it was in relation to his being a citizen by birth.
My point was if he did not acquire citizenship at the time of his birth, and he never applied for naturalization, then I don’t know how he qualifies to even be Congressman ( which he was ) or governor ( which he is ).
Being a Natural Born Citizen is another matter altogether.
In the sense in which both Trumbull and Howard used the phrase, they ARE subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.
The phrase was used in regard to INDIANS. There was a good deal of discussion about INDIANS IN TRIBES. These were considered subject to the PARTIAL jurisdiction of the United States, because they lived on United States land.
Aliens "in amity" were always considered subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States. Nobody ever said differently. If you maintain that's the case, then produce the quote that says aliens here in amity were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. NOT from someone who thought otherwise LATER, but from the Senators and Representatives who introduced the 14th Amendment.
YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE THAT QUOTE DOESN'T EXIST.
You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Incorrect. Gray stated the exact question very specifically in the ruling.:
No, it's not "incorrect." It's simply a SUMMARY of the longer text you just wrote.
The Court was asked the question of whether Wong was a citizen, or not. What are you, an idiot? Or just an obtuse know-it-all? Which is it?
The Supreme Court didn't rule on a "summary." Gray stated the exact question asked and answered very specifically in the ruling.:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
The question asked and answered, Jeff. The question asked and answered.
Parents' status matters for birthright U.S. citizenship.
Indeed, they DID say differently, Jeff. U.S. Secretaries of State said differently and so did an International Arbitrator.
Jindal was born in the U.S. to parents who had green cards at the time via his father's profession. He was born a citizen. That doesn't necessarily make him a natural born citizen for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.
Read the CONTEXT, genius. I was speaking in the CONTEXT of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES.
In that CONTEXT, nobody ever said differently.
RE: Jindal was born in the U.S. to parents who had green cards at the time via his father’s profession.
Where did you get that piece of news?
His mother came via student visa, which means his father came here as the spouse of someone with a student visa.
Eventually they secured green cards, but that was AFTER he was born.
See here:
http://freakoutnation.com/2010/08/03/bobby-jindal-was-an-anchor-baby/comment-page-1/
In that CONTEXT, nobody ever said differently.
You can't possibly be serious. How on earth did you miss, "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
If the intent instead was to exclude only anyone "owing allegiance to an Indian Nation," they would have said that. They didn't. The exact stipulation is:
"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
U.S. Secretaries of State understood that. An International Arbitrator understood that. And that was shortly AFTER the debates and ratification took place. They knew EXACTLY what it meant.
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_bobby_jindal_releases_his.html
Friedrich de Bourry, born in New York on December 4, 1862, to an Austrian citizen father who was only temporarily in the U.S.
The U.S. Secretary of State ruled that he WASN'T a U.S. citizen at birth because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen, never made the requisite declaration of his intention to become a citizen, or in any way signified his intention formally to abjure his Austrian allegiance.
Citizens of India can have Green Cards. A Green Card establishes permanent residence according to the U.S. CIS.
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.