Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Nor does it preclude the possibility of dual citizenship.
Where do you get that definition of “natural born” citizen?
The difference is that the McCains were in Panama on military assignment. So there is no question about McPain being “natural born”. Otherwise, military persons would be discriminated against.
"This encompassed many classes of individuals beyond those described."
But several SCOTUS rulings cited on this thread disagree, or at least disagree with the claim that Obama is not a citizen on the basis of his father's citizenship status alone. We can argue that a SCOTUS ruling was wrong or misguided, but we cannot arbitrarily wave them away. Perhaps, had I been on the SCOTUS for Wong Kim Ark I would have agreed with the dissenting minority, or perhaps not. I know for sure that I would have been on the other side of Roe v. Wade. That doesn't and won't change the law of the land.
Maybe there should be a law - or better yet, a Constitutional Amendment, since such a law would likely not survive a Constitutional challenge - to define in no uncertain terms who is eligible to be President, since the definition we have now has apparently lost clarity.
“Please, journalists, PLEASE — learn the difference! They are NOT the same.”
Don’t you think it is being reported this way on purpose? Journalist are telling 1/2 truth just the way the media loves to report.
And THAT is where the other side’s argument will go if Zero is found to be an illegitimate candidate. What happens then? Would that mean that Bush stays on or would the unthinkable occur? (see Pelosi)
Good citing, unfortunately Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy do not fit the definition.
So what is the difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen at Birth?
Ping.
They certainly ARE, under current law. The thing for Congress to do (which it has refused to do so far) is to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as excluding those in the country illegally. This would do an "end run" around the 14th, which was written to avoid declassifying blacks as "persons" and not to grant citizenship willy nilly to anyone here.....
However, in saying so, it is important to note that in the 19th century we had NONE of the ridiculous rules for entering this country we now have. The vast majority of the immigrant parents/grandparents of proud freepers who prate about "coming here legally" simply got on a boat with NO PAPERWORK AT ALL. Ellis Island (and scores of other immigrant sites) simply procesed them through, with papers or as WOPS (without papers, the origin of this Italian slur). The idea of passive eager immigrants lining up to get their "visa" outside the slovokian embassy is so idiotic as to be absurd.
Our immigrant problems are NOT the result of Mexican peasants who are lawbreaking goldbricks, eager to exploit our federal grabbag of giveaways. The problems stem from our welfare system and endless "programs" themselves. We are afraid to admit people who, even with unemployment tickling 7%, without whom large sections of our service industries would simply collapse. If we admitted them legally, they will be swarmed by "social" organizations pumping them to ride that gravy train. I have seen it happen.
Immigrations should be EASY to get here legally, and HARD to get here illegally. Once here legally, no "benefits" to non citizens. Of course, our federal gov't has the situation reversed. Natch.
Yes they are. Subject to the jurisdiction means subject to our laws. Regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally, the immigrant can be arrested if they violate the law. Contrast that with a foreign representative protected by diplomatic immunity and not subject to the laws.
And where is that defined by law exactly?
Is that why he never raised the issue during the campaign???
That's Donofrio's arguement.
If he was born in the U.S. then yes he is.
He was born to two Americans in a hospital in Colon, Panama. By law he is a natural born U.S. citizen. By any logical definition of the word he is a natural born U.S. citizen. But by Donofrio's definition, he is not because he was not born on U.S. territory.
"Because I won't allow it, and I am going to move the goalposts!" he continued.
And likewise, if you are not part of a well-regulated militia, you'd better turn your guns in right now.
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.