Rubio and Birthright Citizenship

American Thinker ^ | 5/4/2012 | Cindy Simpson

[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.

[philman_36]

If you'd like me to stop pinging you to these posts, just let me know.
I might still be of some further assistance so ping away.

[philman_36]

For the pg 1117 quote enter that pg number here...@Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session

It starts at page 961.

[philman_36]

Note that some are House debates and some are Senate debates.
That means something to some and nothing at all to others given the years in question...aka it pertains to passage of the 17th Amend.

[Political Junkie Too]

There is no way you can justify the framers adding "a further requirement" to what was normally understood. Two parent citizens would have been mentioned specifically because it was a departure from common knowledge.

Thomas Paine makes it clear what the "natural-born" requirement meant. I added no further requirement than was is already written. Paine's example shows that "natural-born" was not a departure from common knowledge. It is the opinions of 100 years later that is the departure from original intent.

I think you know it, but cannot accept Paine as an authoritative source in the same vein as Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter defined the establishment clause.

-PJ

[Rona Badger]

This is sort of OT, but I'm still curious about your thought processes (since you don't have actual proof of the meaning of the term natural born citizen as was intended when written):

When Jefferson composed the phrase: "...that all men are created equal..." do you think he meant to include women? Or, at the time, did he consider women unequal to men? Why should we take his meaning of men to include women?

If he meant to include women, why wasn't the term "humans" or "people" used instead? Franklin tweaked Jefferson's wording for the final DOI and so he might have thought to include women, but he didn't either.

In 1776, were women equal to men in every regard? No. So do you agree that these Framers were very specific in choosing their words for these important documents?

[allmendream]

Men and mankind - when used in the general sense - is usually meant to include women.

But no - according to most views of the law back in the 1700’s women were inferior to men according to natural law.

Our view of natural law has changed, and equality under the law means that men and women are to be treated equally under the law.

Thus U.S. law is to always reflect our best understanding of natural law - and it is NOT the natural condition of women to be unequal and subservient to men - despite the protestation of most 18th century men otherwise.

As to what the term “natural born citizen” meant at that time - under English law the children of foreigners born in English territory were “natural born” - so the meaning as known and understood by our founders would not be confined solely to the children of citizens.

Vatell’s reasoning would not grant citizenship at birth to the children of foreigners born on the soil. It is not that he would grant them citizenship of a lesser kind at birth. They would not be citizens at all.

[MamaTexan]

For the pg 1117 quote enter that pg number here

Thank you kindly, philman. I actually tried backing up from the gif and tried to find the main search page to the Globe, but a techno wiz, I'm not.

-----------

In further research, I found what 'Sharswood's Blackstone' is. It's a memoir titled 'a Life of the Author by George Sharswood'. In Two Volumes. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1893). Vol. 1 - Books I & II.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1275&Itemid=260

And while HIS definition said Blackstone believed a natural born was born in the dominion of the King, what Blackstone actually said was natural borns were born within the dominion of the crown, OR ALLEGIENCE TO THE KING.

CHAPTER X. - OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

Big difference between the original Blackstone and Sharswood's 'interpretation'.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=2140&search=%22natural+born%22&chapter=198671&layout=html#a_3147310

------

I still can't see anything from a period that isn't distorted by someones interpretation of history say anything to change the orginal definition of natural born.

The country of the father is the country of the children.

----------

New Jersey Realist -

I've read the thread, and I understand your point of being concerned over the citizenship of your ancestors.

Take heart. I can't pinpoint it at the moment, but I do believe men who joined the military to fight for a country were naturalized by fact if not by law because they had proven their allegiance.

That being the case, their acts have naturalized them, and any of their children would be natural born.

I'll can look to see if I can find the specific part of Vattel that says it, if you like.

[New Jersey Realist]

You just don’t get it at all. I’m not browbeating anyone. I’m citing references that totally support jus soli. You and the birther movement are the ones who are rising up in protest because you don’t like the fact that obummer is president....you are the fringe element of society. You can’t get anyone to agree with you but you still beat the dead horse. You epitomize the meaning of insanity and you give conservatives a bad rep. Take your wares elsewhere, I’ll have no part of it anymore because obviously your mind is closed. Good luck with that!

[philman_36]

You just don’t get it at all. I’m not browbeating anyone.
I do get it and you are attempting to browbeat others into submission.

I’m citing references that totally support jus soli.
Understandably so. Yet you disregard jus sanginis as it conflicts with your desires.

I was stationed in England (Navy building across the street from the American Embassy) in 1966, married an English girl and had 2 children while still stationed there.
You desire your children to be natural born citizens. It appears that they aren't due to your decisions.

Were your children, by chance, born in a London hospital?

[philman_36]

I’m glad I could be of help and I thank you for your comments and insights.

[philman_36]

Take your wares elsewhere, I’ll have no part of it anymore because obviously your mind is closed.
Poor you. Things suddenly aren't going your way so you claim I'm the one whose mind is closed?
My two children were born right here in good old backwater Texas, not England.

As the rub goes, timing is everything.

[New Jersey Realist]

Yet you disregard jus sanginis as it conflicts with your desires.

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

I don't disregard Jus Sanguinis. My children are NBC because of Jus Sanguinis.

Jus Sanguinis applies to children born OVERSEAS of U.S. parent(s). My children are NBC because I meet the requirements. How do I know they are NBC?

(1) Because they are not naturalized; they received a U.S. Birth Certificate from the American Embassy; Jus Sanguinis.

(2) They were born on U.S. soil (USAF Base in England); That qualifies them under Jus Soli as well. They would have still qualified under Jus Sanguinis even if they were born in a London Hospital. I though you knew Vattel?

(3) I met residency in U.S. requirements before being stationed in London. I was born in the U.S. making me NBC via Jus Soli.

Get your facts straight. Jus Sanguinis applies ONLY to children born overseas of two parents....that is clearly spelled out. Jus Soli confers citizenship to native born citizens regardless of parents unless they are diplomats and hopefully illegal immigrants. That is clearly spelled out.

You and all the other misinformed people are getting the two confused. You can't apply Jus Sanguinis if you are born in the U.S.; only if you are born outside the U.S. of U.S. parents. Can I be clearer than that?

Lastly, I don't appreciate the comment you made: (You desire your children to be natural born citizens. It appears that they aren't due to your decisions.)

My decision? Since when do military personnel decide where they are stationed? Obviously you have never served your country. What are you a draft dodger? A Conschie? You disgust me. If you never served in the military I don't even want to hear back from you. How dare you insult me like that?

[New Jersey Realist]

Here is my reference to my post 292:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

[Jane Austen]

This question should be raised. Also, Rubio’s position in illegal aliens are scary.

[philman_36]

Here is my reference to my post 292:
When you use this...

...as your reference you show you don't have a leg to stand on.
Your diatribe in 292 is worthless.

Be sure to read this page...
@The LAWS section includes several legal resources linked on the left of this page. These links include information on:
Published USCIS regulations in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR)
Statutes governing immigration law in the Immigration Nationality Act

Everything the USCIS covers is via statute. Natural born citizens need no statutes to make them such.

Perhaps you should have read this before mentioning where you get your concepts from...
@Citizenship for Military Personnel & Family Members
Members of the U.S. armed forces and their dependents (spouses and children) may be eligible for citizenship, to include expedited and overseas processing, under special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). (@Immigration and Nationality Act)

The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158.

BTW, keep this in mind when you're arguing against naturalization at birth...
@Citizenship
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.

Remember, natural born citizens don't need statutes (like the INA/USC 8) to make them natural born citizens.

[philman_36]

This is probably the page you went to since you say you were in London when they were born...
Citizenship Through Parents
If you were born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents, you may be a U.S. citizen.

Biological or Adopted Children Residing Outside the United States
Biological or adopted children who regularly reside outside of the United States may qualify for naturalization under section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Child Citizenship Act (CCA).
The CCA doesn't count as it wasn't enacted till 2000.

They don't say you're a natural born citizen, do they?

[philman_36]

You're now paying the price of your youthful ignorance of the law and it just doesn't "sit right in your craw" that the laws could be so contrived against you, a veteran, who so proudly served his nation.

And instead of accepting what is you fight solely for what you desire and that fight is from a biased and jaundiced perspective.

[New Jersey Realist]

Hey, wake up, pay attention here.

How quickly you abandon Vattel. In your haste and ignorance you post this reference -

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=02729c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD#

and claim it affects me. It is instead directed at NON CITIZEN military members; didn’t you read the very first sentence? You people use misdirection and have it down to a science. You take my reference which pertains to me (a U.S. citizen) and direct it over to a non-citizen section of the law that requires processing (naturalization). You are beneath contempt.

My reference requires no naturalization but going to the overseas consul to obtain the BC. It states:

“To become a citizen at birth, you must:
Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements”

Your reference pertains to naturalization procedures for non citizen military members.

By the way, did you serve in the military?

[WhiskeyX]

Now that is one of the most reprehensible examples of a strawman arguments tou could possibly have chosen to make. First of all, the “birthers” comment is objectionable, because you use it in a manner to suggest the people you accuse of being birthers are somehow supposed to be too irrational for a reasonable person to listen to. Your comment only succeeds in making yourself appear to be the irrational voice instead.

First, the notion that anyone arguing the issue of the Constitutional natural born citizen clause is somehow saying “he was never a citizen and according to some I am not a citizen either” is an outright falsehood with not a scintilla of truth to the false accusation. Your father was without a doubt born with U.S. citizenship provided he was born in the United States. Likewise, your birth in the United States with a father born a U.S. Citizen leaves no doubt of your own birth with U.S. citizenship. Your father was not legible to the Office of the President or the Vice President, but you are eligible to the Office of the President and Vice President. Your mother and uncles, if born in the United States, were without doubt U.S. Citizens, but they would not have been eligible to the Office of the President or Vice President, unless they were born in the United States after their parents were naturalized to be U.S. Citizens. Consequently, your accusation about someone saying something to the effect that yourself, parents, and uncles not being U.S. Citizens is false and egregiously so.

Second, the United States has often permitted the recruitment of foreign citizens to serve in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Air Force. Many have been rewarded for their sacrifices by the granting of U.S. citizenship for themselves and their family. Many such foreigners in the military service of the United States have chosen to retain their foreign citizenship while regarding their service to the United States as an honor and a privilege. The Marquis de Lafayette in the service of the Continental Army of the United States during the American Revolution is such a notable example. Yet, men such as the Marquis de Lafayette would have chosen to die rather than to risk what they sacrificed so much for to fall into the hands of a foreign or domestic enemy of the Republic and its Constitution. As it was argued or suggested by men such as John Jay, Thomas Paine, and others, it was preferred to protect the Republic by keeping people who were born, voluntarily or not, with potentially conflicting obligations of allegiance to anyone other than the sovereign people of the United States from commanding the American Army and otherwise executing the government of the United States. To implement such a policy for the protection of the People and their new Republic, it was considered whether or not to limit eligibility to the Senate offices in addition to the Presidential offices. In a compromise, they made the term of a Senator longer, and placed the eligibility restriction only upon the President and Vice President.

Now. you come along and complain the burden of forgoing eligibility for just one generation of the first immigrant families is just too much to ask of a foreigner naturalized as a U.S. Citizen or their U.S. Citizen children, while you would deprive all of the millions of U.S. Citizens, who were born in the United States with parents born as U.S. Citizens in the United States for more than two centuries, of the protection afforded by the exclusion from just these two Federal offices! You show no consideration whatsoever for the way in which there have been but 44 U.S. Presidents, and millions of U.S. Citizens have provided their own military service at the risk of life and limb with no likely prospect whatsoever that they or their own children would ever have any reasonable opportunity to serve as the President and/or Vice President of the United States. What makes you think that your own ambitions for yourself or your children should take precedence over the protection and defense of the Constitution, the Republic, and the People of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic who would use the office of the President to harm the Republic and the People?

[New Jersey Realist]

Oh, I see. You represent a blueblood citizenry. People like you are anathema to me. You try to maintain an aristocricy - problem is no one of importance believes you or supports you..

Give me one judge, politician or conservative commetator who agrees with you. Show me one court decision in your favor. Once again I say you really have no way of determining citizenship of anyone except for BC or Naturalization papers. There is no secret code for presidential timber.

Along comes a black man that you detest (as do I by the way) and you want to run him out of town. How’s that fight going for you? The only way you are going to win is start another revolution and your army will be you, philman and very few others. Good luck with that!