Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56
Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.
The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
So where does U.S. law contradict the above and state that naturalization covers those who are U.S. citizens at birth?
Don't try to weasel out of it.
According to the founders and the law of 1790 - a child born to U.S. citizens while they are in France is a natural born citizen of America.
So native born isn't a subset or category of U.S. citizenship. Marco Rubio is then - according to you - a U.S. citizen at birth - a “native born” citizen - and yet somehow NOT a natural born citizen - but a naturalized citizen.
Under what provision of U.S. law was Marco Rubio naturalized under?
My arguments have been about Marco Rubio - whose parents were legal residents.
And yet you've somehow, and unknowingly to your own mind, managed to venture into birthright citizenship.
I do not think the children born of illegal residents should have U.S. citizenship at birth as their parents are in defiance of rather than subject to U.S. law.
Good for you. Ummm...while we're on the subject...what exactly is an illegal resident and where is that defined in U.S. law?
Both 3D-JOY and the author tried to conflate Marco Rubio and “anchor baby” children of illegal immigrants.
Then provide the snippet of the article and the portion of the reply that does so.
Why the need to try to conflate the two?
You've yet to establish that such was done so why ask.
you have been very forceful in saying only 2 categories of citizens. That does not mean that there is only one way to get to those groups. No such thing was inferred about the Rubios...we were discussing the methods and categories of citizenship standards...please do not add meaning that is not in the words used.
There is plenty of room for opinions without trying to “stretch” each others careful wording.
Well, we may have exhausted debate for today.
Just for the record, the eligibility requirements for the Office of the Vice President are the same as for the Office of the President. Marco Rubio, Jindal, and even perhaps Romney are ineligible.
The statute was repealed for reasons which are not clear. Nevertheless, the statute was in error, at least in respect to the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. Any form of law with respect to citizenship which grants citizenship is by definition a man-made act of conferring citizenship at birth, rather than a natural consequence of birth requiring no statute of law to grant of confer the citizenship at birth. In the parlance of the English jurists any grant of citizenship at birth as the consequence of an act or statute is a form of naturalization at birth. Consequently, any attempt to use a statute to grant natural born citizenship constitutes instead the exact opposite of statutory citizenship in the form of naturalization by law at birth.
Under what part of U.S. law was Marco Rubio supposedly naturalized at birth?
Minor v Happersett
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Clear - either new citizens are born or they may be created by naturalization. Naturalization doesn't cover those born as citizens. Those who are born as citizens are natural born citizens.
Natural law is not one man's view in one book. U.S. law should always reflect our best understanding of natural law - OUR best understanding - not the best understanding of an 18th Century Swiss philosopher.
“To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution’s eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future. Surely, that is not what we want.”
TWO WORDS: Bovine Excrement.
Or in the more acceptable vernacular: BULL SHIT!
SEE: "Why They Still Call Him President"
(http://www.rightsidenews.info/2012050316169/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/why-they-still-call-him-president.html?utm_source=Right+Side+News&utm_campaign=4ceb0ddcd0-daily-rss-newsletter&utm_medium=email)
“Under what provision of U.S. law was Marco Rubio naturalized under?”
The Public Law and statute naturalized Marco Rubio at birth and made him a U.S. Citizen under the authority of the man-made law:
8 USC §1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
In the absence of the above man-made statute Marco Rubio would have been born with only his natural born Cubann citizenship as the child of Cuban parents. Citizenship which exists only by the authority of a statute is statutory citizenship and not citizenship by an act of nature. Citizenship by an act of nature requires no law or statute to authorize or unauthorize it.
Let's just cut to the quick and settle what you're unwilling to state again here and now 'cause I've got dinner to fix.
@Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:” December 16, 2008
Section 1401 is in USC 8. The Title is Aliens and Naturalization. That is naturalization law as you well know and anyone claiming that as the basis of their citizenship is in no manner a natural born citizen.
You're an after-birther. You've always been an after-birther. You don't want to understand. All you want to do is make a bloody mess of things.
As for me , I am not afraid of anyone being barred from POTUSA because there is a misdirected interpretation as strained as it could be of the more evident intent of the Founding Fathers to make a special designation of NBC for POTUSA as apart from a BC designated for other offices of the USA government. I reflect as to my own personal siuation as a WWII vet and that of my brother who was killed on Okinawa. Think about the consequences of just birth of a person on the soil of USA without any parent responsibility for allegiance to the USA in any form or at any time. Rubio’s parents were not citizens with any allegiance to the USA when he was born. There could have been a provision made by the Founders that parents who subsequent to the child’s birth had a period of time to become naturalized to give the child status as NBC. This was not done in/by any form. I can only guess as to why the Founders chose not to make such a provision in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment does not remedy this choice of the Founders.
That is your problem. You simply refuse to understand the blindingly obvious: using a law to confer any form of citizenship is an act of naturalizing a person who woould not but for the act of law otherwise be a citizen. By contrast, a person is a natural born citizen requires no statutory law or act of government to be a citizen. This is the difference between being a subject made or citizen made versus a subject born or a citizen born. A person who was a subject made at birth is not a natural born citizen simply because they were naturalized at birth by the intercession of a man-made law.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. No doubt you'll simply disregard it yet again.
Vattel was neither the first nor the last to write a treatise discussing the definition of a natural born citizen. European governments had been applying the concept of a natural born citizen for centuries prior to the drafting and adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The Romans insisted upon the Citizen of Rome being born and educated only by Roman Citizen parents:
Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. (Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII)
It meant a citizen at birth - as it does now - and it INCLUDED those born on the soil of any parentage.
The concept had indeed been applied for centuries. And natural born citizenship has in all cases been calculated on either parentage or place of birth - sometimes both - and sometimes not.
English law said one thing, Vatell said another. I don't really care what either said - I follow our Constitution - which - as I keep pointing out - includes only TWO types of citizen currently - natural born or naturalized.
It is an interesting concept that our law is inferior or dependent upon the views of an 18th Century Swiss philosopher - but so far it seems that most American jurists are of the opinion that being born a citizen means you are a natural born citizen. I have yet to see anyone besides birthers advance the idea that a citizen at birth is a naturalized citizen.
Your sources were utterly wrong. Justice Gray, other jJustices, and the Indiana justices deserved to be impeached for their inexcusable false statements while knowing full well they were denying the plaintiffs any opportunity to impeach the false and unsupported statements of the courts with vrfiable case law and historical precedents to the contrary.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)”
“It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Wheaton vs Peters)
You are relying upon blatantly false dicta that is easily impeached and refuted.
Your sources were utterly wrong. Justice Gray, other jJustices, and the Indiana justices deserved to be impeached for their inexcusable false statements while knowing full well they were denying the plaintiffs any opportunity to impeach the false and unsupported statements of the courts with vrfiable case law and historical precedents to the contrary.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)”
“It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Wheaton vs Peters)
You are relying upon blatantly false dicta that is easily impeached and refuted.
No, they were not. The justices outright lied knowing they were denying the plaintiffs any opportunity to protest, refute, or impeach the court’s lies, other than Fuller’s dissenting minority opinion.
What’s clear is that the GOP decided the best way to draw a clear contrast between their ticket and Obama’s in the election this year would be to nominate candidates who signed an individual health care mandate into law, were raised under an exotic minority religion, and just might be constitutionally ineligible to be president. I’m not sure if this is a form of party-wide Stockholm syndrome or if it’s a more general form of insanity.
Section 1401 is named “Nationals and U.S. citizens at birth”.
Those who are born citizens are in no need of naturalization.
What section of the law are you saying Marco Rubio was naturalized under?
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.