Posted on 03/26/2013 7:02:12 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Seriously?
Of course not. It came directly from "natural born subject," which came from natural law derived from the Bible.
Romans 13:1: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
By the historical English understanding of natural (and divine) law (see Coke in Calvin's Case, 1607), all persons born within a realm were naturally members of that realm. This was the law of nature and of nature's God.
The rare exceptions were children of foreign ambassadors and invading armies, who were clearly subjects of a foreign realm.
So the children even of aliens were natural born subjects. And in America, they became natural born citizens.
Although some have tried very hard to obfuscate the issue, it isn't really rocket science.
That word means the opposite of “NATURALIZED”
Yes, it has a meaning for those who are willing to understand that meaning.
We have TWO forms of Citizenship, “Natural Born” and Naturalized” -— you are either one or the other, period.
It's not true. No court has ever ruled that someone born in the US was not a natural-born citizen (except for the children of ambassadors etc.). And more than one has ruled that they are. So tell your sons to go for it, if they're interested.
“1. Rawle was a major authority”
Rawle provides no authority for his definition of what is a natural born Citizen. Rawle’s claim to fame in our Supreme Court decisions is on the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms), not citizenship.
“In for a penny, in for a pound. As the English say.”
You’re even quoting common British lingo. Are you even American?
The “anchor baby” issue can probably be cured by simple majority vote of Congress.
If illegal alien parents split up, would a divorce court or child custody court, in the United States, handle any custody fight, or would the couple be told to go back to their home country to resolve the matter?
Clearly, the child is NOT “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in that case, huh?
Congress can simply pass a law stating the obvious, that those born on United States soil be fully subject to US Court Jurisdiction, at all levels of government, in order to obtain Citizenship at Birth, and that the children of illegal immigrants obviously do not meet that standard.
Thanks for dropping by, troll. Like the little "we won, we won" stinger at the end. Nice touch, something Chrissy Tingles or Sid the Squid might do.
Tell your America-hating homeboy to go French Reggie again and then go screw himself. He still isn't a citizen.
....which diverged from the usages of the Continent, which followed the citizenship of the father.
This is all about the fight people cite Vattel in, about jus solii.
The Framers -- or at least "Publius" -- clarified their frame of reference in The Federalist, which is what we should be repairing to, and to the string of Supreme Court cases such as Minor vs. Happersett referenced above, and Wong Kim Ark, to clear these questions up. Not Vattel, not English common law either, from which we have diverged.
Numbers of PRC types have a strong interest in bringing in foreign-born nationals to help run the United States, for precisely the reasons proscribed by the Framers.
“The 14th Amendment did change things.”
Not when it came to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
de Vattel:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“[P]arents” and “citizens” is plural so that means two citizen parents to make one natural born citizen.
Judge Samuel Roberts:
“The children of aliens, born within the United States are aliens: they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of the parents.”
“[A]liens” and “parents” is plural so he is talking about children with two alien parents. What if they had one alien and one citizen parent?
Just kidding or not.
Wrong. Neither the 14th Amendment nor it's precursor, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 altered the meaning of *natural-born citizen*.
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham , March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866) [page 1291]
Sorry – the Library of Congress disables active links
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
'Subject to the jurisdiction' and 'born within the allegiance' mean exactly the same thing.
Yes, I'm certainly American.
Born in the United States, of two United States citizen parents. If you must know.
Am I allowed to watch James Bond movies? Or drive a Toyota?
Which means, perforce, that Jeff is working precisely against the Original Intent of the Framers, pro bono unnamed beneficiaries of his reasoning, such as it is.
So .... who are you working for, Jeff? Inquiring minds want to know. You a McCainiac, an international banker, a GOP-E consultant, a Michael Medved staffer, a White House henchboy? A RatRooter and AnkleBiter?
Or buy cheap Chinese-made goods from the local Wal-Mart?
If you people have any actual evidence instead of meaningless ad hominem attacks. this would be a good time to present it.
And I’m not talking about the 40 or so different fallacious and/or extremely-weak arguments that I’ve already documented.
At some point I intend to post those, along with the information as to WHY they are fallacious and/ or extremely weak.
Thanks again for the link to this fascinating site. I had more time to spend on it today. Just the quotes alone are great. Here is my favorite:
“I saw a movie where only the military and the police had guns: Schindler’s List.”
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/
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.