Replies

"I wish this matter would clear up soon. Let’s settle this “anchor” baby problem immediately and with certainty. When I was stationed in London I married an English woman and have two children by her. They were born in South Ruislip AFB, an American Base, which is considered American soil. I received the proper doumentation from the London Embassy stating that they were indeed American citizens. But are they eligible to be President? This discussion carries on and on here at FR most believing one needs two citizen parents to be considered natural born. So far the courts and society believe otherwise. I’m sick and tired of hearing opinions...and that’s what FR offers. I want the policy specifically spelled out by the Supreme Court - and I don’t mean just the Happerset opinion which was really a footnote. I want to know what the 9 judges today have to say.

As far as I'm concerned, by the standards of 1787, and in accordance with the correct meaning of the term "natural born citizen", your children are "natural born citizens."

Vattel wrote that a man stationed in a foreign land in the service of his country cannot be regarded as having quit his nation. He is there at his nation's bidding.

As for myself, I have always said that where go America's fighting men, there America is also. It is under their feet, wherever they may tread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question would come down to whether or not the children were 1) born on a base that was considered "sovereign territory" of the U.S. and 2) born with sole allegiance to the U.S.

Remember the reverse occurs in our country's case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother's U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).

As has been stated before, the natural born Citizen requirement for the position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces was really (and still is) a national security issue.

If one is born with divided citizenship (inheriting a parent(s) foreign citizenship) and therefore divided allegiance owed, it presents a conflict with not only being the Commander in Chief, but also when engaging foreign governments in treaties. The office of the President is in a singularly unique position.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors

Article. II. Section. 2.

Remember the reverse occurs in our country’s case. A child born to a U.S. citizen mother while in another country, assumes the mother’s U.S. citizenship by statue (assuming the mother meets the age/residency requirements).

That’s exactly right. My children at any time can apply for English citizenship! My wife later became U.S. citizen so my children meet the two citizen parent clause according to the birthers on this site. My children are eligible to become President and they are eligible to become British Subjects. How crazy is that?

My argument is that the mothers citizenship is irrelevant according to the standards prior to the Cable act, and as it was the consequence of an act of Congress, it has no bearing on the natural law argument understood by the founders.

I also point out that Vattel did not regard Soldiers deployed to foreign lands at the bidding of their nation as having quitted their nation. As we are arguing that the basis of article two is the principles described by Vattel, then just as much weight should be placed on his writings regarding this special case as his writings on the ordinary case.

And lastly, it is simply not equitable to penalize a man's child for his necessary service to the nation. I think the soil requirement is a leftover component of feudal law, and really ought have no basis for being a standard for American Law to follow. One is not a member of a family from simply being born in the family's house, but by being kin to the family, regardless of where born.

My reasons above may not be technically correct, but they are in accordance with natural law as I understand it, and as I perceive the founders would have understood it as well.

I would suggest that under such a circumstance of having a child not born on actual American territory, or born at an American holding in a foreign country, it should be left up to the voters to decide just how much foreign influence he has been contaminated with, and whether such a quantity is too objectionable. Unless it is egregious, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. (Unless he's a liberal, then the slightest whiff of foreign about him is a deal killer! :) )