Posted on 05/11/2020 5:18:01 AM PDT by blam
Thank you. So many people need to know this.
“Our son was born in West Germany while I was stationed there on official orders. He is , under laws at the time, a US citizen born abroad, a natural born one at that. However, if we had been vacationing on a vacation visa, he would be a US citizen born abroad, but not exempt from claim of allegiance by that country if there were no agreements or treaty exempting him.”
Were you the Ambassador to West Germany at the time?
Yeah, dude, an infantry soldier ambassador for peace through superior firepower to the DDR and USSR.
Single-handedly ended the cold war and all.
Lovin’ it.
The reason I asked:
If we are to concede that the late Senator John Sidney McCain III, born in the maternity ward of a local hospital in Colon, Panama (not IN, as some have mistakenly believed, but rather only NEAR the U.S. controlled Panama Canal Zone) to his U.S. citizen/U.S. Navy Admiral father and his U.S. citizen mother, was a constitutionally-valid natural born citizen, then it would seem that your son should be counted as being among our country’s POTUS eligible elites as well.
But boy did the circumstances surrounding McCain’s elevation to the Republican party’s nomination stink to high heaven.
According to all accounts of the Law of Nations, and probably also fully consistent with all reliable presentations of the Natural Law, and as no doubt would be acceded to by the U.S. Supreme Court were the question ever to be raised in contested proceedings there, a child born to an official Ambassador in the state (country) to which he is formally assigned to perform his unique diplomatic function is a natural born citizen.
Also universally recognized as natural born citizens are individuals born in the United States (i.e., within the border of one of the now 50 U.S. states) to parents, both of whom whom are/were full-fledged U.S. citizens as of the moment of that birth, regardless of the manner in which such parents became U.S. citizens (e.g., parents were NBCs, parents were both naturalized as children but without oaths, parents were both naturalized as parents with strict oaths, etc), or where either of such parents were born (parents wete both emigrants born and raised in Russia, parents were both born in Europe but were nevertheless automatically U.S. citizens at birth or if not were at least eligible to claim such status as per U.S. statutory law through some kind of quick administrative process (mere paperwork) based on the documented circumstances of their birth abroad, parents both born in U.N. refugee camps in the Middle East, etc., etc.).
Believe it or not, all other U.S. citizens are, in at least some small way, sketchy when it comes to whether the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately recognize them as constitutionally-valid NBCs. In other words, their status as NBCs can quite rationally be said to be “in doubt” for one valid reason or another.
For that reason, if the U.S. Supreme Court were ever prevailed upon, in a contested proceeding in which a particular individual’s POTUS eligibility hangs in the balance, to arrive at, determine, formulate or confirm, for the first time squarely and without nit-picking debate in an actual decisive holding rather than in connection some argually peripheral aspect of another type of case, or via what is informally referred by lawyers and judges as “dicta”, a formal definition of the term natural-Born Citizen as set forth lo those many years ago in the U.S. Constitution, I believe it is quite likely to exclude each and every one of said “sketchy” U.S. citizens.
Including your son, regrettably.
As well as Obama, Harris, McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Haley, Goldwater, etc., ... exotics all!
...as ADULTS with strict oaths...
Sorry, bad editing.
[ClearCase_guy #17 to blam #1] And, while we’re at it, we might want to explore a precise definition for “natural born citizen” and why the most restrictive meaning of that term is the best meaning of that term. You’re less likely to have your president commit treason if he is an NBC.
A natural born citizen is one who acquires citizenship at birth. That would include all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, regardless of the status of their parents. It would also include all persons born outside the territory of the United States who became U.S. citizens at birth by virtue of the Federal citizenship law applicable at the time of their birth.
See, I disagree. I think the status of the parents is always important. But what does my opinion matter? What does your opinion matter? The Constitution is vague and the courts have not made a definitive ruling on the meaning of the term. That’s why people disagree. I would like the term clarified, and I think we need Congress to do so.
Or we could just pay attention to Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section.In the United States House on March 9, 1866 commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
Representative John A. Bingham had nothing to do with writing the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The reason for the 14th Amendment was that the CRA of 1866 was largely felt to be unconstitutional, beyond the authority of Congress to make, and unable to withstand judicial scrutiny. In any case, the CRA of 1966 was certainly superceded by the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment as largely drafted by John Bingham had no citizenship clause. The citizenship clause was added by an amendment to the Amendment, written by Senator Jacob Howard.
A child born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States at birth. This includes the child delivered in a detention center of two illegal aliens awaiting deportation. The 14th Amendment concerns the status of the child at birth, and only the child. The child of accredited dipomats or visiting royalty is covered by immunity from our laws and is born a citizen of his diplomat or royal parent's nation.
Persons born outside the United States or outside its jurisdiction, are born either natural born United States citizens, or aliens, depending on the United States federal law at the time of their birth.
[Manly Warrior #79 to ASA Vet #39] States make claim on persons allegiance via many avenues, birth, blood, residence etc. A person unable to owe allegiance to another state is one born under all those above conditions, in my understanding of the issue.
United States citizenship is determined by United States law only. Whatever a foreign government may claim or bestow is irrelevant unless a parent is an accredited diplomat or foreign royalty.
Rudy needs to be on the tube every day.
[ASA Vet #80 to Manly Warrior #79] My 2nd son was born in the States, but his mom was Thai. He has US Citizenship via both place and because I was. He too is NOT a NBC.
Your son acquired U.S. citizenship at birth pursuant to the 14th Amendment and is a natural born citizen, assuming you or his mother were not an accredited foreign diplomat or foreign royalty with immunity.
[thecodont #81 to ASA Vet #80] Thank you. So many people need to know this.
What you really need to know is that these meritless birther arguments were taken to court ad nauseam when Obama was running and became President.
The Birther Scorecard reflects that the Birthers lost 224 lawsuits and won ZERO.
No birther lawsuit demonstrated sufficient merit to survive pre-trial challenge. All were dismissed on pretrial motions.
For historical perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont on October 5, 1829 to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland (who later became a U.S. citizen, 14 years after Chester A. Arthur was born). His mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, was a native of Berkshire, Vermont, who moved with her family to Quebec, where she met and married the future president's father, William Arthur, on April 12, 1821.
[one guy in new jersey #82 to Manly Warrior #79] Were you the Ambassador to West Germany at the time?
Ding, ding. You asked the relevant question. Add accredited.
[Manly Warrior #83 to one guy in new jersey #82] Yeah, dude, an infantry soldier ambassador for peace through superior firepower to the DDR and USSR. Single-handedly ended the cold war and all.
Infantry soldier ambassadors are not accredited ambassadors. Neither are consuls. At birth, your child born overseas did, or did not, acquire United States citizenship as specified by United States federal law at the time of birth. Whether German law would also grant citizenship is irrelevant. If the relevant Federal law required the birth to be reported to an embassy within a certain period of time to retain citizenship, that could be a problem. The status of a child at birth is binary: U.S. citizen or alien.
One more added to the NBC RETARD list.
If we are to concede that the late Senator John Sidney McCain III, born in the maternity ward of a local hospital in Colon, Panama (not IN, as some have mistakenly believed, but rather only NEAR the U.S. controlled Panama Canal Zone) to his U.S. citizen/U.S. Navy Admiral father and his U.S. citizen mother, was a constitutionally-valid natural born citizen, then it would seem that your son should be counted as being among our country’s POTUS eligible elites as well.But boy did the circumstances surrounding McCain’s elevation to the Republican party’s nomination stink to high heaven.
According to all accounts of the Law of Nations, and probably also fully consistent with all reliable presentations of the Natural Law, and as no doubt would be acceded to by the U.S. Supreme Court were the question ever to be raised in contested proceedings there, a child born to an official Ambassador in the state (country) to which he is formally assigned to perform his unique diplomatic function is a natural born citizen.
Also universally recognized as natural born citizens are individuals born in the United States (i.e., within the border of one of the now 50 U.S. states) to parents, both of whom whom are/were full-fledged U.S. citizens as of the moment of that birth, regardless of the manner in which such parents became U.S. citizens (e.g., parents were NBCs, parents were both naturalized as children but without oaths, parents were both naturalized as parents with strict oaths, etc), or where either of such parents were born (parents wete both emigrants born and raised in Russia, parents were both born in Europe but were nevertheless automatically U.S. citizens at birth or if not were at least eligible to claim such status as per U.S. statutory law through some kind of quick administrative process (mere paperwork) based on the documented circumstances of their birth abroad, parents both born in U.N. refugee camps in the Middle East, etc., etc.).
Believe it or not, all other U.S. citizens are, in at least some small way, sketchy when it comes to whether the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately recognize them as constitutionally-valid NBCs. In other words, their status as NBCs can quite rationally be said to be “in doubt” for one valid reason or another.
The citizenship status of John McCain at birth is questionable but your analysis is wrong.
He may well have been born in the Colon hospital, just outside the base. The base was the sovereign territory of Panama, not the United States. It was Panama soil, not United States soil.
Your citation to the Law of Nations, implying some applicability to United States citizenship determination, implies you do not know what the Law of Nations is. It is an old term, not now in use, having been replaced by the more modern term, International Law. A law dictionary definition of Law of Nations is see International Law. United States domestic citizenship determinations are not relegated to Brussels, Belgium. While the Law of Nations is recognized in the Constitution, it is in an entirely different context, under the powers of Congress, Art. I, Sec. 8. Cl 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." The Law of Nations has applicability only outside the jurisdiction of the Laws of the United States and other nations, such as on the high seas.
International law or foreign law has no application to United States domestic determination of U.S. citizenship. Claimed, or claimable, dual citizenship is irrelevant. While some birthers claimed that a person capable of claiming dual citizenship could not be President, with Kenya or Indonesia in mind, they overlooked the law of unintended consequences. According to this nonsense legal argument, if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick were to pass a law bestowing citizenship upon all non-Black Americans, the only eligible natural born citizens left would be black. In similar fashion, Sweden could bestow citizenship to all Americans born with blond har and blue eyes. Then we would be left looking for an eligible Black person with blond hair and blue eyes.
Back to John McCain. He was likely born in the Colon hospital as the hospital on the base had not yet been built and did not exist. In his autobiography, John McCain attributed his birth to the Coco Solo Family Hospital on base. There has never been such a thing as a family hospital in the Navy. In a WAPO article, writer Michael Dobbs cited the attending physician as being Medical Director William Irvine, concluding Irvine was the director of a small medical facility. As opposed to Line officers (those who succeeded to command), Staff officers (Medical Corps, Supply Corps) had a different rank structure until 1947. The document cited by Dobbs showed that "Capt." Irvine held the rank of Medical Director which was the equivalent to the line rank of Captain. He was in charge of a small clinic which operated on the Submarine base, and tended to sub sailors.
More important was the Panama Canal Treaty and the U.S. law in effect at the time McCain was born. The treaty allowed the United States to exercise legal jurisdiction within the Canal Zone "which the United States would possess and exercise, if it were the sovereign." This is conclusive both that those born in the zone were born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and that the United States was not the sovereign of the zone, but rather Panama was. The United States exercised jurisdiction as if it were the sovereign, but it was not the sovereign.
The 14th Amendment covered Americans born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. The citizenship law of May 24, 1934 provided, "Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child come to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."
"Out of the limits and jurisdiction" leaves in limbo, those born out of the limits but within the jurisdiction.
The congressional dipsticks thought they had covered what the 14th Amendment did not. Their logic failed. If born in the Canal Zone as claimed, McCain was born within the jurisdiction but outside the territory of the United States. If born in Colon, he was born out of the limits and jurisdiction, but never took the oath by age 21.
With the Act of August 4, 1937, Congress stated, "That any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States is declared to be a citizen of the United States."
The question would be whether John McCain, in 1936 was born an alien, and could he, by virtue of a change in the federal statute law, have retroactively become a United States citizen at birth?
John McCain never produced his birth certificate.
A garbage argument has been the requirement for complete jurisdiction, thereby requiring two citizen parents. The Constitution, at Amendment 14, does not add any requirement other than for the child to be born within the territory and within the jurisdition of the United States. It says not a word about parents.
Explicitly, the child of two Chinese parents, neither of whom were citizens, neither of whom were eligible for naturalization per the Chinese Exclusion laws, was, if born in the United States, a citizen at birth.
Any and all birther arguments have been spectacular failures.
Wrong, citizen at birth as suggested by Hamilton was specifically rejected by the founders as insufficient.
They chose natural born citizen at the insistence of John Jay as the most stringent, excluding the possibility of foreign influence on the office of President.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
I’ve started to refer to those who advocate for foreigners in the Oval Office as anti-Constitutionalists.
Wrong, citizen at birth as suggested by Hamilton was specifically rejected by the founders as insufficient.They chose natural born citizen at the insistence of John Jay as the most stringent, excluding the possibility of foreign influence on the office of President.
Irrelevant nonsense.
What Hamilton did, or did not, say was not ratified by the people.
John Jay was not even a delegate to the Convention. The words in the Constitution are the law of the land. The words suggested by John Jay to George Washington were not adopted. Jay's emphasis provides a hint at his intended meaning. Saying the phrase with emphasis on the word born, as underlined by Jay, "natural born Citizen", emphasize is suggestion that it be a born citizen, and not a naturalized citizen.
The words of the Constitution are clear. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...."
There are no other qualifications and not can be added here, any more than anyone can add to the qualifications to be President.
Or we could just pay attention to Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section.
In the United States House on March 9, 1866 commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
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.