Posted on 08/28/2019 1:08:58 PM PDT by rxsid
Citizen at birth was rejected by the founders as insufficient.
They chose the strictest standard, natural born citizen.
One is only NATURALLY a citizen if one CANNOT possibly be anything else.
Anyone born with more than ONE nationality is NOT NATURALLY a citizen.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
“They chose the strictest standard, natural born citizen.”
Actually, they were Natural Born Subjects of the Crown. When they became citizens, they borrowed the concept and rephrased it as Natural Born Citizens.
““Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.” - State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
“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, and 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. 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.” - U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,658 (1898)
There are two types of citizens: those born citizens, and those who become citizens thru the naturalization process.
I don’t expect you to agree. But every court has and does.
Those born here from an invading army - which most closely applies to those born to illegal aliens in the US - are excluded. IMHO. I don’t think it has ever been examined by the Supreme Court.
You’re wrong
It all comes down to Birthright Citizenship and activist judges, going back to the late 1800s, early 1900s, making up a law they had no authority to make....that and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I’m not.
I'd fire the guy that wrote this. It's ignorant.
IGNORANT is ... denying the TRUTH, because YOU don’t like it!
Which is precisely what you and all the birthers are doing.
True, but that is not a complete characterization of the use of the FS-240. I was born overseas (also in England) of parents who were both citizens. I am a natural born citizen. The posted USCIS clarification does not apply to me.
What bothers me is that the clarification was reported on as applying to all children of military personnel and was used as a goad to denigrate President Trump and his administration.
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.