Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56
I did understand...that’s why the LOL
Sometimes over the years I think I have helped a person to go back to their research and even they have convinced me I am wrong, occasionally...we’ll see this time. I agree with anyone who says no court is going to address this current issue. We may have riots without this issue to add to the “heat”.
I miss the many civil discussions I have had here on FR over the past 15 years or so. I have been around since before the current site was established and then after new computers for me, I got back in...They were often heated, but the heightened level of personal attack is more recent.
“Freeping” rallies at the White House, Capitol and Memorials on the Mall were new then. Rallies for Judicial confirmations, budget hearings, veteran’s support, and the Clinton impeachment fiasco are just a few things I got to enjoy over the years.
Protesting the “Baptists” who insult our troops at Arlington Cemetery and funerals are very rewarding events. All the tourists going by are so thankful someone is there to counter them and their signs of hate filled meaning. Often they ask to join us. I bet they have great vacation/tourist memories of the afternoon.
I have made such good friends here on FR. It has given me an interest and “hobby” between years of Presidential Election frenzy!
My mama always taught me that “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
Rubio isn’t a natural born citizen, just as Obama isn’t.
Though Rubio would be running for VP, he could wind up as President.
I won’t vote for anyone not meeting the qualifications under the Constitution.
On this issue, the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats. Sad, sad, sad.
I sat down and cried when I tried to get a bucket list written. It was blank. I finally found a list of 100 things to do and only a couple of them I had missed. Boston Patriot Walk and Seattle.
I realized I wanted to go to a Freedom Concert...I went! I went to 8-28 and am planning to go to Dallas this summer...I have to keep adding to the list...I am not ready to check out!
I think visiting Ireland may be the one I fail to do. (McCleary-father) I got to England. ( Windsor-mother ) The one to NOT miss? The Grand Canyon, without a doubt.
In regards to my second question...What US law in particular are you talking about?...you replied in this manner.
What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course.
I said "in particular". And you didn't even bother with my follow-up question to that answer...Isn't citizenship only "granted" under naturalization laws?
Because your reading comprehension skills are sub-par I will repeat my answers.
And so you give another dodge instead of forthrightly engaging in debate.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with my reading comprehension. You didn't answer the questions.
All U.S. law pertaining to U.S. citizenship at birth is what I am talking about.
Well, once again, which law in particular is it that you're talking about? Can you at least give me the USC Title where that law is at? Or do you not know what law you're even talking about? You claim it's the law yet you don't know which one it is?
Where is “native born” mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Why does whether or not “native born” is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution even matter to the issue at hand, that being how many citizen parents a natural born citizen must have?
Being born a U.S. citizen is not a naturalization procedure as spelled out under the Constitutional power granted to Congress to have a uniform rule for naturalization.
Then where, and how, is it spelled out?
Naturalization procedures, as outlined under the granted power in the Constitution - include a legal procedure and oaths sworn.
Doesn't that only apply to people of a certain age?
Would you have me believe that Marco Rubio being born a U.S. citizen was him being “naturalized” as a citizen?
I would rather have you comprehend that he isn't a natural born citizen, but that seems beyond your ability.
Where is the law pertaining to naturalization that includes automatic naturalization at birth?
Are you implying that there isn't a law that grants automatic naturalization at birth?
You claimed there was such a category as a “native born citizen”, and that this category was not natural born.
Where is this category “native born” spelled out in U.S. law or the U.S. Constitution?
Naturalization procedures include the naturalization of adult foreign nationals and the naturalization of children adopted by U.S. citizens - it is in all described cases a legal procedure.
If you claim there is a law that naturalizes a citizen at birth without legal paperwork or procedure - please show it to me.
You will never convince me that the children of illegals are natural born. I can not imagine that at this time anyway.
Citizens they are, by decree and that creates another category. Maybe even just puts a name to add to your list. Citizen, not Natural born or Naturalized. Children of foreign parents born on American soil have been granted citizenship, even dual is possible, since it became legal...haven’t they? Is this not the anchor baby citizenship type? Not either of the other two types maybe? Citizens based on physical location at birth.
Rules change, but the Constitution is not a “living document” that can be interpreted without legal amendments, as far as I am concerned...
I do not mean to insult you, please do not use coarse language with me, it gains nothing.
VP must meet all the qualifications to be president...so you are correct in my opinion...
Nice to see you with a clear understanding. ( that I agree with...!)
If you want to try to invent things in the Constitution that are not there clearly spelled out - knock yourself out.
The Constitution as written by the men who wrote it - included only three types of citizenship - at the time of adoption - naturalized and natural born.
The framers obviously didn't worship Vattel like birthers began to late in 2008. The view circa 1790 was that the children of U.S. citizen parents born overseas were natural born citizens of the USA. Vattel thought they had to be diplomats or soldiers to convey that status - our founders disagreed.
YOU seem to have the reading comprehension problem as is evident.
You're the one reading something into what isn't even mentioned.
Do you agree with me then that there IS no such category in U.S. law?
Or are you attempting to carve out a category of citizenship that the Constitution made no mention of?
If we agree that currently there are only naturalized and natural born citizens of these United States that is EXCELLENT.
Now you just have to show me where U.S. law specifies that naturalization law covers one who is a U.S. citizens at birth.
It takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Thanks.
Paine makes it clear that the Framers intended natural born to be a child of two citizen parents. Anyone else was either a "foreigner" or "half a foreigner."
-PJ
This thread is about Marco Rubio.
My arguments have been about Marco Rubio - whose parents were legal residents.
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.
Both 3D-JOY and the author tried to conflate Marco Rubio and “anchor baby” children of illegal immigrants.
Why the need to try to conflate the two?
Obviously our founders didn't care what Vattel thought when they extended natural born status to those born OUTSIDE the USA.
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.
“Why do you keep citing dicta to support your argument?”
Because every court in the country will follow that ‘dicta’ which, unlike the dicta in Minor, is critical to the court’s argument.
“Few American jurists had any access to any written English common law and precedents”
That is a stupid and utterly false statement.
“The rule didn’t apply to American nationality”
Not hardly. The case, after all, had nothing to do with British nationals living in the USA.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Now you just have to show me where U.S. law specifies that naturalization law covers one who is a U.S. citizens at birth.
Why would you ask me to show you what you know already exists?
One need only be born a U.S. citizen under U.S. law (which should always be in accordance with natural law) to be a natural born citizen.
What US law in particular are you talking about?
What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course.
What U.S law are you talking about anyway?
I certainly never said the Rubios were illegals...we were discussing categories of citizens.
His parents came...before the Castro revolution and the later laws created for those who had to leave or be persecuted in Cuba.
They may have been in the process of applying for citizenship when he was born...if so it took a long time. They did not receive citizenship for several years, as I remember the facts. Original stories about his candidacy did not tell the truth. They bragged that the family were citizens even when he was conceived. They must have known they had a problem.
I still believe the question is one of allegiance. He is a skilled speaker and fine American...he does have deep roots in the South Florida community. He and I disagree on his positive statements about the UN and definitely we disagree strongly on integration rules that are proposed for the future. Continuing to allow people to not speak the language or become part of the larger American family is a recipe for deep and continuing divisions.
His largest constituency is South Florida. That’s fine and why we have 2 senators. I wonder if it can be said that the entire US would be treated equally. That is what the writers of the Constitution wisely tried to promote.
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.