Interesting 4 statements on the Birther Issue

self

[Ray76]

I have read 90. Your opinion appears to be that Bellei, although his citizenship was stripped, could be/is NBC.

Which is absurd.

[Jim W N]

Issue: Your argument is the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization which is true.

Right?

Rule: The Constitution distinguishes between a “naturalized” citizen (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4) and a “natural born citizen” (NBC) (Art II, Sec I, Cl 5). A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as an NBC. By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth.

So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this. Obviously Congress cannot “naturalize” an NBC. However, since the Constitution does not define NBC, Congress and/or the courts need to.

Right?

Argument: Nevertheless, Congress HAS legislated that an NBC MAY be in some cases born on foreign soil. Congress has NEVER legislated that an NBC may NOT be born on foreign soil. And for the above reasons, the naturalization statute in Bellei may not apply when the issue is NBC.

That still reasonably leaves open the issue whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil. And again, IMO, either Congress needs to expressly clarify whether an NBC may be born on foreign soil and/or the courts need to tackle individual NBC cases of this sort.

Additional about Bellei: Bellei did not specifically address the issue of his NBC but one can probably infer that he was not an NBC if he was ruled to not be a U.S. citizen.

[Ray76]

> Your argument is the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization which is true.

No. My position is that the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization.

> The Constitution distinguishes between a “naturalized” citizen (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 4) and a “natural born citizen” (NBC) (Art II, Sec I, Cl 5). A “naturalized citizen” is not the same thing as an NBC. By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth.
>
> So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this. Obviously Congress cannot “naturalize” an NBC. However, since the Constitution does not define NBC, Congress and/or the courts need to.

Let’s examine that more closely.

Your recitation of Art I, and Art II is correct.

Your claim that “By definition an NBC doesn’t have to be “naturalized” as a citizen because he is automatically a citizen upon birth” introduces the notion
that NBC means “automatically a citizen upon birth”, which is not accurate. NBC means one who is a citizen without operation of law.

> So there’s some vagueness and ambiguity in the Constitution about this.

There is no vagueness or ambiguity.

> Bellei did not specifically address the issue of his NBC but one can probably infer that he was not an NBC if he was ruled to not be a U.S. citizen.

It is a certainty that Bellei is not NBC. Suggesting that there is any possibility whatsoever that a person who is not a citizen is a natural born citizen is absurd.

The consequence of asserting that the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen for Article II purposes is absurd, for that child - as in Bellei’s case - may not be a citizen.

[Jim W N]

OK, so your issue restated is because the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization, foreign born children of citizens require naturalization.

There is no vagueness or ambiguity [in the Constitution about "naturalized" versus NBC].

the notion that NBC means “automatically a citizen upon birth”, which is not accurate. NBC means one who is a citizen without operation of law..

The consequence of asserting that the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen for Article II purposes is absurd

These are unsupported conslusory assertions without supporting evidence and rationale.

You continue to fail to address the difference between a "naturalized citizen" and an "NBC" other than the fantastic notion and unsupported assertion that "natural born citizen" does not mean what it is called: a citizen who is naturalized upon birth.

Waving Bellie around is not a rationale. You must explain yourself to make this a coherent discussion.

[Ray76]

To support my position I’ve referenced several Supreme Court cases, laws, and history.

To support your position you have referenced nothing.

I’m not going to waste time with a person who “restates” my position and turns it into hash, who claims that NBC is a “citizen who is naturalized upon birth”, or who brings no facts to support their opinion.

When you’re willing to take my stated position as is, when you’re willing to reference Supreme Court cases, laws, and history to support your claims, when you’re willing to answer simple questions directly and without evasion, perhaps then discussion can resume.

Barring that however, you’re not worth my time.

[Jim W N]

Sorry you’ve decided to start being nasty here.

When you decide to put together a REAL argument that is supported by more than just conslusory assertions and off-point case names that never address the issue of NBC, maybe we can talk.

In the meantime you have utterly failed to rationally address the difference in the Constitution between “naturalized citizen” and “NBC” which seems to be the core of your problem. Rather, you continue to talk past me and this issue. You seem to think there is no difference between “naturalized citizen and “NBC”. You certainly do a lot of bobbing and weaving to get around it.

Anyway, I’m done, especially if you decide to be nasty instead of rational.

[Ray76]

Examples of your distortions and evasions

Example 1:

Me:

the foreign born children of citizens required naturalization. This is underscored by Burke’s statement. It is doubly underscored by Madison’s statement. (82)

Without that act they would not be citizens. A framer of that act said so. So does Madison. Rogers v. Bellei explains that the foreign born Bellei starts from a position of non-citizenship, that statute permits him the possibility to gain citizenship. (85)

My position is that the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization. (103)

You:

OK, so your issue restated is because the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization, foreign born children of citizens require naturalization. (104)

I repeatedly stated (82, 85, 103) that the reason the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization is because they are alien. To support my position I referenced statements of the framers of the 1790 & 1795 Acts and a Supreme Court opinion. NEVER did I state that the reason the foreign born children of citizens require naturalization is because Congress has that power. Yet that is the hash you've made of my clearly and repeatedly stated position.

Example 2:

I asked you several times if your position is that Bellei is NBC (97, 99)

Rather than answer you accused me of not wanting to have "a good-faith discussion" (98).

I asked you to please clarify your position regarding Bellie by responding with a simple "yes" or "no". (99)

You refused. Rather than tell me what your position is you said "the court didn’t address that issue".

Example 3:

I asked "If the foreign born child of a citizen is a natural born citizen then by what power was Bellei’s citizenship stripped?" (91)

Rather than answer you told me I need to "address the difference between a “naturalized citizen” and a 'natural born citizen'" (93)

You distort my position. You avoid answering questions.

When you are willing to behave honestly then perhaps we could have a discussion.

[Jim W N]

YOU (not the Bellei court) need to reasonably, concisely, and clearly explain what you say is the difference or not between “naturalized citizen” and an “NBC” and why. Until you do that, we’re playing ring around the rosy.

[angryoldfatman]

“Negro” was certainly preferred over some other racial epithets in 1961,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was not an epithet. It was an accurate descriptive term in 1961.

As a comparative example, “Asian” was not used either.

“African” and “Asian” are decriptions of continents in 1961, not race.

I repeat: until I see a pre-1964 Hawaiian birth certificate with “African” as a racial designation, I deem Obama’s 2007 birth certificate to be fake, fabricated by someone like yourself who has no idea about 1961 American culture.