(Vivek Ramaswamy was born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, so he is a natural born citizen.)
He’s not a natural born Citizen. He’s a statutory citizen via the 14th Amendment. If you have to have a statute to make you a citizen, that’s not being natural born. It’s you type people who don’t want to adhere to the farmers original intent. You’re trying to conflate Citizen with a natural born Citizen. They are not the same.
The Constitution is not a statute; it is Supreme Law of the Land.
I understand the 14th amendment argument, but I think it's a fairly recent argument to say that we just discovered that it negates the NBC clause of Article II Section 1.
At the time, the authors said it was only meant to recognize the citizenship of former slaves. Then it became birthright citizenship, and now it is natural born citizenship, they say.
-PJ
He’s not a natural born Citizen. He’s a statutory citizen via the 14th Amendment.
14A: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
14A is not a statute. 14A did not effect any change to United States citizenship law. From the DoI to 14A, the same birthright citizenship was in effect by the common law. 14A placed it in the Constitution and beyond the legal capacity of Congress to change.
At no time have two citizen parents been required. The words speak only of the status of the candidate, not his or her parents.
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
Chester Alan Arthur
Barack Hussein Obama II
Kamala Harris
Fifteen terms served as President or Vice President without two citizen parents. The grandfather clause did not mention parents. The qualifications clause did not mention parents. Such requirement is not in any of the statements or writings of the framers of the Constitution, or in the entire record of the ratification debates of the United States Constitution.
Art. II: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
No addition, deletion, or change of the stated conditions can be made without a constitutional amendment.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Vivek Ramaswamy, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and Kamala Harris are all natural-born citizens; born in the USA and subject to its jurisdiction, they were automatically citizens at birth which is the definition of a natural born citizen.
A child born to two illegal aliens who are in a detention center awaiting deportation is born a natural-born citizen.
As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that;
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.