Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Marco Rubio is not a Natural Born Citizen


Razorsharp
04-30-2012, 08:50
The Republicrats are crowing over the possibility of Marco Rubio being Romney's running-mate.

Something is going on. It's just a little bit too much of a "coincidence" for the question of a candidate's "Natural Born Citizen" status to come up in successive elections.

Not only that, but the qualifications for Natural Born Citizen status have also evolved. When it was Obama's status that was being scrutinized, he attained his "natural born" citizenship through the citizenship of his mother.

Now, since neither of Marco Rubio's parents were citizens, all that is required to be recognized as a Natural Born Citizen is to be born on U.S. soil.

If that's the case, then Anwar Al-awlaki, the terrorist that Obama killed in a drone strike, would have been recognized as a Natural Born Citizen.

The Founders deliberately used the term "Natural Born Citizen" as a qualification for, not only President, but for Commander in Chief, because, according to their understanding of the term, it would insulate America from foreign influence and intrigues. And the qualification of Natural Born Citizen that the Founders recognized that would insulate America from foreign influence, was the requirement of citizen parents.

The evidence is in - today, there are many born here who hold allegience to the country of their parents, rather than to America.

Cavalry Doc
04-30-2012, 08:57
What is the current legal definition of "natural born citizen". Pretty sure it would have nothing to do with having a c-section.

I tend to agree that it should be both parents being citizens, and born on US soil. But what I think really doesn't matter much.

If he is not qualified, better to hash it out now than in October.

Razorsharp
04-30-2012, 09:20
In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

Razorsharp
04-30-2012, 09:26
What is the current legal definition of "natural born citizen".

Evidently, it's whatever the powers-that-be wish it to be.

Must be part of that "the Constitution is a living document" thing.

kirgi08
04-30-2012, 09:27
In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

tagged.

Hyksos
04-30-2012, 10:19
In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

Obama doesn't meet the definition of 'natural born citizen' according to that case law either. But, guess what? He's still president. Natural born citizen means born on US soil. Now, if you want to talk about the Court refusing to follow stare decisis, then you could write an entire book. They ignore precedent all the time and just make up some crap to get around it.

I don't think natural born citizen will ever mean what the Court said it meant in 1875.

eracer
04-30-2012, 10:35
In 1875, the Supreme Court heard a case (Minor v Happersett) dealing with citizenship. In the majority opinion, the term "natural born citizen" was defined.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".This is a subtle strawman argument.

Minor v Happersett did not 'deal with citizenship.' The case was about whether the Constitution expressly gave women the right to vote. In this case, they unanimously affirmed that it did not.

The court affirmed that the Virginia Minor did meet the definition of 'citizen,' but in no way defined (or tried to define) what 'natural-born citizen' meant.

"The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth."

Razorsharp
04-30-2012, 10:55
This is a subtle strawman argument.

Minor v Happersett did not 'deal with citizenship.' The case was about whether the Constitution expressly gave women the right to vote. In this case, they unanimously affirmed that it did not.
Matters not. The Happersett Court defined NBC in its majority opinion, and therefore could be citable in future cases, which is possibly why the Court refused to hear any challenges to Obama's eligibility.

Had they, they would have been confronted with the Happersett opinion.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 11:04
Matters not.Hmmm. I've never heard that context doesn't matter in law. Do you have more on this?

czsmithGT
04-30-2012, 11:14
Not this crap again. Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen and is entitled to hold the office of President. He was born in the United States. Any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements are Natural Born Citizens.

czsmithGT
04-30-2012, 11:24
Evidently, it's whatever the powers-that-be wish it to be.

Must be part of that "the Constitution is a living document" thing.

Bullsh**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


"In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[2] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[3] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally. Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted."

eracer
04-30-2012, 11:31
Matters not. The Happersett Court defined NBC in its majority opinion, and therefore could be citable in future cases, which is possibly why the Court refused to hear any challenges to Obama's eligibility.

Had they, they would have been confronted with the Happersett opinion.Can you cite the part of the decision that defined 'Natural Born Citizen?'

G29Reload
04-30-2012, 13:22
Can you cite the part of the decision that defined 'Natural Born Citizen?'

14th.

First sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…

So, if your parents are not here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Which skewers the argument about "anchor babies", which is a complete fraud.

So, if Rubio is born here and his parents were here legally, or somehow sought to become and did become legal, then he's probably ok. Lets see the birth certificate.

G29Reload
04-30-2012, 13:28
Any child born "in" the United States, even to alien parents

Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.

czsmithGT
04-30-2012, 13:35
Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.

If that is what yuu believe then you will have to prove it in court.

eracer
04-30-2012, 14:02
14th.

First sentence:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…

So, if your parents are not here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Which skewers the argument about "anchor babies", which is a complete fraud.

So, if Rubio is born here and his parents were here legally, or somehow sought to become and did become legal, then he's probably ok. Lets see the birth certificate.The 14th Amendment predates the court decision we are discussing. I asked for a citation of the definition in the Minor v. Happersett case (since Razorsharp claimed that the court defined NBC in that case.)

The Happersett Court defined NBC in its majority opinion...

engineer151515
04-30-2012, 14:09
Obama successfully obfuscated and delayed the issue until a birth certificate could be produced.


At this point, I think Arnold Schwarzenegger could probably get away with being the POTUS.

Gundude
04-30-2012, 14:24
So, if your parents are not here legally, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".Really? Illegal aliens can't be arrested, tried, and jailed by US government entities? I wonder how all those defense lawyers missed that?

series1811
04-30-2012, 14:52
Really? Illegal aliens can't be arrested, tried, and jailed by US government entities? I wonder how all those defense lawyers missed that?

There are a lot of things you can't require of an illegal alien. You can't require them to register for military service, for instance.

Uh oh. Who can we think of who probably didn't register for selective service, because the document he produced has a number that is completely out of sequence for the year it supposedly happened in?

Ruble Noon
04-30-2012, 15:04
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link (http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg).
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

brickboy240
04-30-2012, 15:25
Is Rubio's citizenship really more of a mystery than Obama's?

At least Rubio likes the country he wishes to represent.

- brickboy240

Rob1109
04-30-2012, 15:36
As much as I like Rubio, I like the Constitution better! Did I miss if Rubio was born here?

Just checked and it appears he was born in Miami.

Razorsharp
04-30-2012, 16:05
Can you cite the part of the decision that defined 'Natural Born Citizen?'

Sure, I'll do it again.

From the Court's majority opinion:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,..."

The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

aircarver
04-30-2012, 16:07
Is Rubio's citizenship really more of a mystery than Obama's?

At least Rubio likes the country he wishes to represent.

- brickboy240

The Obamamatons, who wouldn't give us the time of day about him, will demand full certifications and proof for Rubio..... :frown:

.

czsmithGT
04-30-2012, 16:12
As much as I like Rubio, I like the Constitution better! Did I miss if Rubio was born here?

Just checked and it appears he was born in Miami.

He was born here.

czsmithGT
04-30-2012, 16:16
Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.

Not according to the Supreme court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

You want to try to get the issue in front of the court again or get a constitutional amendment passed that does what you want, be my guest.

Razorsharp
04-30-2012, 16:18
Hmmm. I've never heard that context doesn't matter in law. Do you have more on this?
There is a tactic that the judiciary sometimes engages in, but never admits. It is called "burying bones".

Former Supreme Court Clerk, Edward Lazarus, in his book, "Closed Chambers", describes the tactic of "burying bones" as the deliberate insertion of words or phrases into court decisions, so they can later be dug up to be used to influence future cases.

Ruble Noon
04-30-2012, 16:29
Not according to the Supreme court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

You want to try to get the issue in front of the court again or get a constitutional amendment passed that does what you want, be my guest.

G29 is right and the case you provide supports his position.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.


http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

automatic slim
04-30-2012, 16:32
Rubio was born in Hawaii. That all you need to know.

Razorsharp
04-30-2012, 16:33
He was born here.

So was Anwar Al-Awlaki. That's why the Founders wanted the Presidency and Commander in Chief to be insulated from foreign influence.

They recognized that one born of citizen parents would be further insulated from foreign influence.

Like the Happersett opinion states:

"with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,

Gundude
04-30-2012, 16:48
So was Anwar Al-Awlaki. That's why the Founders wanted the Presidency and Commander in Chief to be insulated from foreign influence.

They recognized that one born of citizen parents would be further insulated from foreign influence.

Like the Happersett opinion states:

"with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, You cut off the sentence:These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreignersIs it your contention that the court is stating that unless both parents were also citizens, a person born here isn't a citizen at all? Because I see no distinction between "natural-born" and "regular" citizens. Only between citizens and foreigners.

Is it also your contention that since the court is saying "If 'A' is true, then there is no doubt that 'B' is true", that it is also saying "If 'A' is not true, then 'B' is not true"? I didn't see that second part in the opinion, and we know from Logic 101 that it doesn't follow logically.

I have an opinion: My dog is a mammal. If something is a mammal, then there is no doubt that it is an animal. Some authorities include as animals "birds" and "insects", but since my dog is a mammal, and thus is unquestionably an animal, the subject doesn't need to be explored in any greater depth.

Can you conclude from that opinion that birds and insects are not animals?

czsmithGT
04-30-2012, 16:48
G29 is right and the case you provide supports his position.


http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

No he isn't and no it doesn't. Read the whole thing here:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Syllabus
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Gundude
04-30-2012, 16:59
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,Also in there, G29, lies the real definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".

series1811
04-30-2012, 17:09
Is Rubio's citizenship really more of a mystery than Obama's?

At least Rubio likes the country he wishes to represent.

- brickboy240

If there is one thing the Obama presidency stands for, it is that having to prove that you are constitutionally eligible to hold the office is not really necessary.

That and not really needing to have the least substantive qualifications.

ChuteTheMall
04-30-2012, 17:17
Rubio doesn't look Chinese.

Al Gore was not born in the states, neither was John McCain, neither was George Romney. All 3 ran for President.

Worf is a different matter.

NMPOPS
04-30-2012, 22:38
No he isn't and no it doesn't. Read the whole thing here:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Syllabus
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

While that child is indeed a US Citizen, because his parents were not, the child is therefore NOT eligible to be President. Correct?

Sent from my Ally

czsmithGT
04-30-2012, 22:53
While that child is indeed a US Citizen, because his parents were not, the child is therefore NOT eligible to be President. Correct?

Sent from my Ally

No not correct.

holesinpaper
04-30-2012, 23:27
Hmm, I thought this "natural born" issue was about C-Section babies.

Razorsharp
05-01-2012, 08:09
You cut off the sentence:
And your point is?? Does the fact that I omitted, "as distingushed from aliens or foreigners", have any effect on my contention?
Is it your contention that the court is stating that unless both parents were also citizens, a person born here isn't a citizen at all? No.
Because I see no distinction between "natural-born" and "regular" citizens.The Framers of the Constitution saw a difference. That's why they made an exception for citizens, who were alive at the time of ratification, to be eligible for President. After that, one had to be a natural born citizen. So, there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.
Is it also your contention that since the court is saying "If 'A' is true, then there is no doubt that 'B' is true", that it is also saying "If 'A' is not true, then 'B' is not true"? I didn't see that second part in the opinion, and we know from Logic 101 that it doesn't follow logically.The Court is not saying anything like that.

I have an opinion: My dog is a mammal. If something is a mammal, then there is no doubt that it is an animal. Some authorities include as animals "birds" and "insects", but since my dog is a mammal, and thus is unquestionably an animal, the subject doesn't need to be explored in any greater depth.

Can you conclude from that opinion that birds and insects are not animals?
"No one except a BIRD, or a ANIMAL of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Any animal could be President if alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. After that, only birds can be President.

Bren
05-01-2012, 08:22
What is the current legal definition of "natural born citizen". Pretty sure it would have nothing to do with having a c-section.

I tend to agree that it should be both parents being citizens, and born on US soil. But what I think really doesn't matter much.

If he is not qualified, better to hash it out now than in October.

"Natural-born citizen" is generally interpreted to mean one who is a U.S. citizen at birth, under U.S. law. For example, the children of U.S. soldiers born while they are stationed in Germany, Korea, Panama, etc., are natural born citizens, because they were born U.S. citizens.

If Rubio was born on U.S. soil, then the U.S. Constitution says he was a U.S. citizen, at birth, as a matter of law. (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV - "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."). Therefore, he is a natural born citizen.

Even when the tinfoilers were arguing about Obama not being a citizen, it was because he allegedly wasn't born in the United States and did not become a citizen at birth. They didn't deny that people who are born in the U.S. and are citizens at birth are not "natural born citizens."

Bren
05-01-2012, 08:28
Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.

The baby is a citizen, because the constitution says so. The parent is not.

However, illegal aliens and their children are both subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Ask some of the illegal aliens currently in our prisons. Diplomats would be an exception under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.

The problem with Rubio isn't his eligibility - it is the fact that, when Republicans are already turning against Romney and preparing to let Obama win, Rubio would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

porschedog
05-01-2012, 08:33
I'd love to see the Democrats pick up this fight since it would open the gates to re-examine O'Bozo's roots.

Gundude
05-01-2012, 09:09
And your point is?? Does the fact that I omitted, "as distingushed from aliens or foreigners", have any effect on my contention?Yes, because the opinion doesn't distinguish between "natural-born" and "regular" citizens. Only between citizens and foreigners. See below.


"No one except a BIRD, or a ANIMAL of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Any animal could be President if alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. After that, only birds can be President.Nope:

Animal = Natural born citizen (or simply citizen, the opinion doesn't distinguish)
Bird = Somebody born in the US (without regard to parent's citizenship)

"No one except an ANIMAL, or an ANIMAL of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"

Do you see now the relevance of the Happersett opinion not distinguishing between natural-born and regular citizens?

The bottom line is the Happersett opinion does not, in any way, define "naturally born citizen," any more than it defines what an "animal" is. All it does is state that in that case, my dog (mammal = born in US of US parents) is definitely an animal, and then specifically states that the question of why its an animal "doesn't need to be explored in any greater depth."

What it explicitly refuses to do, is explore the question of whether creatures who are not mammals are or are not animals. In other words, what it explicitly refuses to do, is explore the question of whether people who are not born in the US to US parents are or are not citizens (natural-born or otherwise).

When an opinion explicitly refuses to define something, it's pretty hard to argue that it defines something.

The Court is not saying anything like that.Exactly. That's why the Happersett opinion is 100% irrelevant here.

But it was a fun study in ornothology, zoology, logic and metaphors though, wasn't it?

eracer
05-01-2012, 09:17
Don't waste your time, gundude. Razorsharp's solipsist argument is tangential to the truth. We all see that. He's scrambling to justify his argument when it's obvious that the argument has no merit.

I'm still waiting for the citation from the M v. H case that shows where the court defined 'Natural Born Citizen." I won't get it, because it isn't there, no matter how desperately he wishes it were.

No offense, Razorsharp.

kirgi08
05-01-2012, 09:20
Heard something today.A guy I work with said "Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires that every citizen prove they are insured,but not everyone prove they are a citizen."

I don't know where he got it,but it's spot on.'08.

Bren
05-01-2012, 09:24
I'm still waiting for the citation from the M v. H case that shows where the court defined 'Natural Born Citizen." I won't get it, because it isn't there, no matter how desperately he wishes it were.


czsmithGT posted it, above, along with a link to the case.

eracer
05-01-2012, 09:37
czsmithGT posted it, above, along with a link to the case.No one has posted a citation to anything in M v. H that defined NBC. Razorsharp uses M v. H as the basis for his argument.

The court (in that case) cited Common Law and the 14th Amendment and used them in a very narrow manner to validate their decision that in the particular case of the plaintiff she was indeed a citizen, and thus her citizenship was not a factor for dismissal.

Nothing in their decision addressed the definition of NBC, and in fact (as I cited earlier) they refused to address the issue beyond the scope of how the plaintiff's citizenship affected their decision.

Gundude
05-01-2012, 11:19
No one has posted a citation to anything in M v. H that defined NBC. Razorsharp uses M v. H as the basis for his argument.I think Bren simply confused the "M v. H" case with the "US v. WKA" case czsmithGT posted.

The M v. H case serves no purpose in this thread other than to confuse and misdirect, so its lifespan in this thread should probably, mercifully come to an end at this point.

The US v. WKA case czsmithGT referenced is actually relevant, unless one happens to believe that what applies to immigrants of Chinese ancestry is fundamentally different in the citizenship definition than what applies to immigrants of any other nationality.

Hyksos
05-01-2012, 11:22
The US v. WKA case czsmithGT referenced is actually relevant, unless one happens to believe that what applies to immigrants of Chinese ancestry is fundamentally different in the eyes of the law than what applies to immigrants of any other nationality.

The Court will just "distinguish" that case from one that doesn't have an immigrant of Chinese ancestry. They "distinguish" stuff all the time to get around stare decisis.

Gundude
05-01-2012, 11:31
The Court will just "distinguish" that case from one that doesn't have an immigrant of Chinese ancestry. They "distinguish" stuff all the time to get around stare decisis.I'm sure certain judges can attempt it, but it'd be a tough sell, given the more general language used throughout the opinion.

However, I'd never put anything past any lawyer, judge, or court, so I wouldn't actually bet money on it...

Hyksos
05-01-2012, 11:48
I'm sure certain judges can attempt it, but it'd be a tough sell, given the more general language used throughout the opinion.

However, I'd never put anything past any lawyer, judge, or court, so I wouldn't actually bet money on it...

Seriously, stuff like that happens all the time. Dissenters either 1) frequently accuse the majority of failing to follow precedent; or 2) state why they think the case should be distinguished.

After all, where else do dissents come from? Judges disagree on how to interpret prior case law. Some may believe certain facts are spot on, while others may believe the proposed case law does not comport with the current facts. The result is a majority of the Court may feel that a somewhat similar case is good precedent, while the dissent feels that the case doesn't even apply to the set of facts in front of them.

Bren
05-01-2012, 12:23
No one has posted a citation to anything in M v. H that defined NBC. Razorsharp uses M v. H as the basis for his argument.

You are correct, I was looking at United States v. Wong Kim Ark. While Minor v. Happersett discusses who are citizens and says that "[s]ome authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents[,]" that is not the subject of the case - what they decided is whether being a citizen automatically includes the right to vote and they held that it does not, so we needed a constitutional amendment to guarantee that right. The case does discuss the history of citizenship, but doesn't directly answer the question of "natural born citizenship."

HarlDane
05-01-2012, 16:03
The Framers of the Constitution saw a difference. That's why they made an exception for citizens, who were alive at the time of ratification, to be eligible for President. After that, one had to be a natural born citizen. So, there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen.We have two forms of citizens in this country: natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth (gained by being born within the country or being born to American citizens abroad) and naturalized, those who attained citizenship after being born . There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.

The concept and definition of natural born citizenship is based in English common law and has been the same since colonial times.

czsmithGT
05-01-2012, 16:21
We have two forms of citizens in this country: natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth (gained by being born within the country or being born to American citizens abroad) and naturalized, those who attained citizenship after being born . There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.

The concept and definition of natural born citizenship is based in English common law and has been the same since colonial times.

Clear, concise and irrefutable.

G29Reload
05-01-2012, 17:19
Really? Illegal aliens can't be arrested, tried, and jailed by US government entities? I wonder how all those defense lawyers missed that?

If they are citizens of another country, they are subject to that country's jurisdiction. YOu can be a violator of our laws without being one of our citizens.

G29Reload
05-01-2012, 17:21
There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.

Correct. There is no third citizenship status because if you were born here to illegals, you are an ALIEN. NOT a citizen.

HarlDane
05-01-2012, 18:11
If they are citizens of another country, they are subject to that country's jurisdiction. YOu can be a violator of our laws without being one of our citizens.As it's been pointed out in this thread previously, the U.S. government has jurisdiction over just about everyone within our borders. The only exception are foreign diplomats who are not subject to our jurisdiction and therefor can not be charged with crimes (or make their children eligible for citizenship). This has been hashed out in a number of court cases, some of which have been noted in previous posts of this thread.

series1811
05-01-2012, 18:27
We have two forms of citizens in this country: natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth (gained by being born within the country or being born to American citizens abroad) and naturalized, those who attained citizenship after being born . There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.

The concept and definition of natural born citizenship is based in English common law and has been the same since colonial times.

Clear, concise, and not one hundred per cent correct. Being born in a foreign country, even to American citizens, does not keep you from being a citizen, but it does keep you from being defined as a natural born citizen.

Except for the fact that the Panama Canal Zone was American territory at the time, John McCain would have had this problem (and strangely enough, the media asked him a lot of questions about that).

But, as I said before, if there is one thing the Obama Presidency will stand for, it is that apparently, none of that pesky stuff about Constitutional qualifications matters any more.

HarlDane
05-01-2012, 18:45
Clear, concise, and not one hundred per cent correct. Being born in a foreign country, even to American citizens, does not keep you from being a citizen, but it does keep you from being defined as a natural born citizen.This is simply not true.

czsmithGT
05-01-2012, 18:47
Clear, concise, and not one hundred per cent correct. Being born in a foreign country, even to American citizens, does not keep you from being a citizen, but it does keep you from being defined as a natural born citizen.



Not correct.

series1811
05-02-2012, 04:48
Before you start quoting and citing court cases to make points, you might want to understand stare decisis a little better.

Gundude
05-02-2012, 08:51
If they are citizens of another country, they are subject to that country's jurisdiction. YOu can be a violator of our laws without being one of our citizens.Being subject to another country's jurisdiction doesn't prevent them from being subject to ours as well.

What happened to Logic 101 these days, seriously?

hamster
05-02-2012, 09:33
I've always understood there to be two types of US Citizens.

Naturalized - Anyone who was born abroad and went from having a non-resident or resident alien status to citizenship via applying for citizenship.
and
Natural Born - Any person born on US soil and having US birthright citizenship, or any individual born abroad with a US citizen parent who can obtain their US passport via declaration for foreign birth abroad.


The whole thing is somewhat silly anyway. The concept the founders were after was allegiance to the US. They basically didn't want some rich guy loyal to the crown to become president.

Bren
05-02-2012, 10:04
Correct. There is no third citizenship status because if you were born here to illegals, you are an ALIEN. NOT a citizen.

That seems like a legal question and since the constitution expressly says those people are citizens, your opinion or wish to the contrary doesn't mean much.

Bren
05-02-2012, 10:07
If they are citizens of another country, they are subject to that country's jurisdiction. YOu can be a violator of our laws without being one of our citizens.

You seem to think being subject to our jurisdiction and being a citizen are the same thing. They are not. Any person within our country is subject to our jurisdiction unless they have something like diplomatic status (diplomatic immunity). If a person on vacation from England or Mexico commits a crime here, they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction - if they have a baby while they are here, it is a U.S. citizen, natural born and all, just the the 14th Amendment says.

steveksux
05-02-2012, 18:01
Not true.

If you are an illegal alien, you cannot self-bestow citizenship by giving birth to a baby here because the illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and would not be covered by the 14th Amendment.

Anchor Baby is a fraudulent concept.Seemed to be a lot of Republicans who thought anchor babies were a very real problem.

Randy

steveksux
05-02-2012, 18:10
Correct. There is no third citizenship status because if you were born here to illegals, you are an ALIEN. NOT a citizen.Do you have something more than opinion which supports that? Like a court case? Seemingly everyone else in the country sought to CHANGE the laws because currently babies born to illegals ARE citizens.

Otherwise there'd be no outrage over anchor babies, because they don't exist.

Randy

steveksux
05-02-2012, 18:13
Clear, concise, and not one hundred per cent correct. Being born in a foreign country, even to American citizens, does not keep you from being a citizen, but it does keep you from being defined as a natural born citizen.
Completely wrong. US citizens have babies overseas who are citizens all the time. Had Obama's mother been slightly older, she would have bestowed citizenship upon Obama even if he HAD been born in Kenya even with his father being a Kenyan. She hadn't lived in the US for enough years after having turned 14 to qualify for that. So had he been born on foreign soil, Obama would NOT have been eligible for POTUS.

Randy

steveksux
05-02-2012, 18:16
The whole idea that both parents have to be US citizens and drop the kid on US soil to be a natural born citizen is probably by far the stupidest birther theory out of a whole bunch of stupid theories.

Think for a moment. What nationality was Obama's father? Kenyan. Common knowledge. Never been denied. Everyone knows. If that disqualified him, why do you suppose the GOP didn't bother contesting it? It would be a slam dunk.

So unless you think the entire GOP is engaged in a conspiracy to put and keep an ineligible Democrat in the White House, you can't possibly believe that nonsense.

Randy

czsmithGT
05-02-2012, 18:27
you can't possibly believe that nonsense.

Randy

You would think, but people can believe some bizarre stuff.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
H. L. Mencken

Bren
05-03-2012, 04:55
Completely wrong. US citizens have babies overseas who are citizens all the time. Had Obama's mother been slightly older, she would have bestowed citizenship upon Obama even if he HAD been born in Kenya even with his father being a Kenyan. She hadn't lived in the US for enough years after having turned 14 to qualify for that. So had he been born on foreign soil, Obama would NOT have been eligible for POTUS.

Randy

You are right - a baby born overseas to American citizen parents is an American citizen at birth, by law, so he is a natural born citizen - the prevailing legal theory is that one who is a citizen at birth is a "natural born cittizen" as opposed to anturalized. Even the title "natural born citizen" doesn't say "born here," it says "born a citizen."

series1811
05-03-2012, 05:43
Completely wrong. US citizens have babies overseas who are citizens all the time. Had Obama's mother been slightly older, she would have bestowed citizenship upon Obama even if he HAD been born in Kenya even with his father being a Kenyan. She hadn't lived in the US for enough years after having turned 14 to qualify for that. So had he been born on foreign soil, Obama would NOT have been eligible for POTUS.

Randy

You are getting naturalized citizen and natural born citizen mixed up. And, to tell you the truth, I just don't have the patience to explain it, with cites, one more single time.

Ignorance got us into this mess, it's not going to get us out.

It's a case of first impression (that means stare decisis doesn't mean crap here). And, it's a Constitutional issue. And, that means there is only one way to settle it. And, anyone here who has ever done a lot of litigation knows one simple rule that is pretty much absolute.

Those trying to get into court and a obtain a final determination of an issue, almost always believe they can win, and that's why they want to be there and get that.

Those trying to stay out of court, and avoid a final determination of an issue, almost always believe they will lose, and that's why they don't won't to be there, and get that.

Ask any lawyer you know if that is not true. That's why its so hard to bluff in court. It's not so hard to bluff in the media.

If you don't know the next question to ask, you are not even on the race track.

hamster
05-03-2012, 07:04
http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

State Department Website plain as day. For children born abroad all it takes is one US Citizen parent and the child is at the time of birth a US Citizen.

Any child born abroad to a US Citizen parent is a US Citizen at birth and therefore "Natural Born"

Many countries have similar laws, without which you'd have people being born stateless.



You are getting naturalized citizen and natural born citizen mixed up. And, to tell you the truth, I just don't have the patience to explain it, with cites, one more single time.

Ignorance got us into this mess, it's not going to get us out.

It's a case of first impression (that means stare decisis doesn't mean crap here). And, it's a Constitutional issue. And, that means there is only one way to settle it. And, anyone here who has ever done a lot of litigation knows one simple rule that is pretty much absolute.

Those trying to get into court and a obtain a final determination of an issue, almost always believe they can win, and that's why they want to be there and get that.

Those trying to stay out of court, and avoid a final determination of an issue, almost always believe they will lose, and that's why they don't won't to be there, and get that.

Ask any lawyer you know if that is not true. That's why its so hard to bluff in court. It's not so hard to bluff in the media.

If you don't know the next question to ask, you are not even on the race track.

HarlDane
05-03-2012, 08:06
You are getting naturalized citizen and natural born citizen mixed up. And, to tell you the truth, I just don't have the patience to explain it, with cites, one more single time.
You're the one that is mistaken and refusing to listen to those in the thread (which include at least one attorney) explaining the simple legal facts. Natural born simply means "born a citizen". It comes straight out of English Common Law and has never been changed by either statute or court decision. It has however been upheld a number of times.

Razorsharp
05-03-2012, 10:06
I'm still waiting for the citation from the M v. H case that shows where the court defined 'Natural Born Citizen." I won't get it, because it isn't there, no matter how desperately he wishes it were.

No offense, Razorsharp.

I am reminded of the legend of the indigenous natives who could not see the Spanish ships when they first arrived, because they could not comprehend that such things existed.

You can play the semantics game over "defined" if you want, but the Court's opinion plainly states that what the Founders considered to be a natural born citizen, was one born in country to citizen parents.

That, by its very nature, is a definition.

MZBKA
05-03-2012, 15:24
As I've pointed out several times to the birthers, Presidents Jackson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, and Hoover all had foreign born parents.

Still, in July, another thread will pop up citing the natural born citizen nonsense, and the exact same posters will ignore America's history to insist that Obama is ineligible to be president.

Razorsharp
05-03-2012, 16:18
We have two forms of citizens in this country: natural born, who are citizens at the time of birth (gained by being born within the country or being born to American citizens abroad) and naturalized, those who attained citizenship after being born . There is no third citizenship status for those born in the country to foreign citizens.
Yet you say that children born abroad to American citizens are natural born, and in doing so, admit that natural born citizenship follows the citizenship of the parents.

You say there is no third citizenship status, but you just created three.

1. Anyone born here.
2. Anyone born to American citizens.
3. Naturalized.

The concept and definition of natural born citizenship is based in English common law and has been the same since colonial times.
The Founders were seperating from England. George Mason, in the Virginia ratifying debates stated, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

Which raises the question, "What legal code would the Founders have relied upon?"

Evidence suggests that the Founders relied greatly on a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, entitled, "The law of Nations or the principles of Natural Law".

Benjamin Franklin and fellow signatory to the Constitution, in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775, spoke of the importance of Vattel's work in the creating of the Constitution.

Franklin wrote:

“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”.

As to natural-born citizens, The Law of Nations notes:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

This definition of a natural born citizen is mirrored in the 1875 Supeme Court case of Minor v Happersett.

But I suppose that's just a coincidence. [/sarcasm]

HarlDane
05-03-2012, 18:30
Yet you say that children born abroad to American citizens are natural born, and in doing so, admit that natural born citizenship follows the citizenship of the parents.

The citizenship of the parents only matters when there is a foreign birth and the 14th amendment does not apply.

You say there is no third citizenship status, but you just created three.

1. Anyone born here.
2. Anyone born to American citizens.
3. Naturalized.

1 and 2 in your list are the same. A more accurate list of the categories would be:

1. Anyone born a citizen.
2. Anyone born a non-citizen who attains citizenship at a later date.



The Founders were seperating from England. George Mason, in the Virginia ratifying debates stated, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.”

Which raises the question, "What legal code would the Founders have relied upon?"We have always used English Common law as the basis of our legal system. I'm sure Mr. Mason had some great reasons why we shouldn't, but that doesn't change the simple fact that we did at that time and still do today.



Evidence suggests that the Founders relied greatly on a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, entitled, "The law of Nations or the principles of Natural Law".

Benjamin Franklin and fellow signatory to the Constitution, in a letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775, spoke of the importance of Vattel's work in the creating of the Constitution.

Franklin wrote:

“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”.

As to natural-born citizens, The Law of Nations notes:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
Mr. Vattel describes the system that was in place in much of Continental Europe at the time. Unfortunately for your argument, our country follows the English Common law tradition which has a different definition of "natural born".

If you still can't grasp how our legal system relates to/is based in, English Common law, I'm afraid I can't help you.

This definition of a natural born citizen is mirrored in the 1875 Supeme Court case of Minor v Happersett.

But I suppose that's just a coincidence. [/sarcasm]The Happersett decision, as it's been pointed out to you already, does not state what you claim it does.

Bren
05-03-2012, 18:33
Yet you say that children born abroad to American citizens are natural born, and in doing so, admit that natural born citizenship follows the citizenship of the parents.

You say there is no third citizenship status, but you just created three.

1. Anyone born here.
2. Anyone born to American citizens.
3. Naturalized.



That's because you intentionally misdescribe the "three"

There are 2 kinds of citizen:
1. Naturalized - a person who becomes a citizen after being born a noncitizen
2. Natural born - a person who is a citizen at birth

Both the children of American citizens, born abroad, and the children of anyone other than a diplomat, born here, are natural born citizens.

Hyksos
05-04-2012, 05:07
The Immigration and Nationality Act determines who is a citizen at birth. You can be a citizen if you're born abroad to two US citizens. There's a couple other ways to gain citizenship at birth. Read the statute and find out for yourselves.

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

Cavalry Doc
05-04-2012, 05:36
So, just to cut to the end here. Rubio is a natural born citizen, and eligible to run as VP. ?Si?

Razorsharp
05-04-2012, 07:21
The citizenship of the parents only matters when there is a foreign birth and the 14th amendment does not apply.
The 14th does not apply with regards to what the Founders considered a natural born citizen. When the Court finds it necessary to interpret the Constitution, they are supposed to do so with regards to the Founder's intent. But, the 14th has also been corrupted with contemporary "interpretation". The Amendment states, "born here AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Being born here is just part of the qualification. One must also be subject to the jurisdiction. What makes one subject to the jurisdiction at birth, is lineage. That is why children of diplomats are not considered citizens at birth - their parents are citizens of another country, and not subject to the jurisdiction of America. The notion that a foreign national can illegally cross into America and deliver a child, and that child be considered, not only under the jurisdiction thereof (while a child born of a diplomat is not), but what the Founding Fathers deemed a natural born citizen, is "interpretation" of the liberal kind. The kind that would consider Anwar Al-awlaki a natural born citizen.

1. Anyone born a citizen.
So, you're saying that the Founders would have considered a bastard child, sired by a British Redcoat, a natural born citizen? Really??

The Happersett decision, as it's been pointed out to you already, does not state what you claim it does.
I contend that Happersett says:At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,
The identifying pronoun of "these" is used to make a distinction between natural-born citizens and others. And what made them distinct? Being "born in a country of parents who were its citizens".

Now, whoever has pointed out that the Court's opinion does not state what I contend, has a reading comprehension problem?

Razorsharp
05-04-2012, 07:37
Both the children of American citizens, born abroad, and the children of anyone other than a diplomat, born here, are natural born citizens.
And why is the child of a diplomat not considered "under the jurisdiction thereof"? It's because of that child's relationship to its parents. Right?

But a child of someone who has illegally crossed our border is under the jurisdiction, and natural born?

Do you really think that makes sense?

Razorsharp
05-04-2012, 07:54
Mr. Vattel describes the system that was in place in much of Continental Europe at the time. Unfortunately for your argument, our country follows the English Common law tradition which has a different definition of "natural born".

If you still can't grasp how our legal system relates to/is based in, English Common law, I'm afraid I can't help you.


"This week, after more than 200 years, authorities at the New York Society Library finally got their hands back on the copy of The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel, which the nation's first president checked out but never returned."

http://theweek.com/article/index/203282/george-washingtons-221-year-overdue-library-book-a-timeline

Don't need or want your help.

Hyksos
05-04-2012, 09:28
But a child of someone who has illegally crossed our border is under the jurisdiction, and natural born?

Yes. The very fact that you are calling them "illegal" signifies that they are "illegal" as opposed to "legal" and therefore subject to the criminal/immigration laws that go along with it.

Diplomats have full immunity and are therefore not subject to our laws.

HarlDane
05-04-2012, 12:08
"This week, after more than 200 years, authorities at the New York Society Library finally got their hands back on the copy of The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel, which the nation's first president checked out but never returned."And? I'm sure he read quite a few books. If the founders had intended to depart from common law on this issue, they forgot to include any mention of that in either the Constitution or federal law.

Razorsharp
05-05-2012, 06:46
Yes. The very fact that you are calling them "illegal" signifies that they are "illegal" as opposed to "legal" and therefore subject to the criminal/immigration laws that go along with it.

Diplomats have full immunity and are therefore not subject to our laws.
The concept of diplomatic immunity did not become codified as international law until the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in 1961.

As I previously pointed out, when Constitutional interpretation is required, it must be done with regards to "original intent".

Fed Five Oh
05-05-2012, 06:54
What a maroon.

Razorsharp
05-05-2012, 07:03
Man, that was a clever retort.

Razorsharp
05-05-2012, 07:09
There have been some who have said that just being born here puts one under the "jurisdiction thereof".

If that is what the framers of the 14th intended, then all that would have been necessary to say is, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". In that context, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", has no meaning.

Bren
05-05-2012, 07:20
And why is the child of a diplomat not considered "under the jurisdiction thereof"? It's because of that child's relationship to its parents. Right?

But a child of someone who has illegally crossed our border is under the jurisdiction, and natural born?

Do you really think that makes sense?

Yes. In fact, it is very obvious. One is, without the slightest legal dispute in the history of America, UNDER U.S. JURISDICTION, while the other is not.

Cavalry Doc
05-05-2012, 07:27
Anchor babies are a problem. I have a solution. It hasn't changed much in the last few years.


First, create an "I used to be an illegal alien" ID card that is verifiable over the internet. Make it a felony to assist an unidentified illegal in obtaining fraudulent documentation, punishable by $5000 and 5 years in jail per count.

Then allow 1 year for all illegals to get theirs. While educating everyone on what is to come.

After 1 year, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by 1 year in jail and $1000, to be, or to hire an illegal without the ID card.

After 18 months, it's a felony, punishable by 5 years in jail, or $50,000 fine for being an illegal, or hiring one without the ID card. Offer a $1000 dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of any duly identified illegals. $1500 per Illegal captured if the finder happens to be otherwise unemployed (putting Americans back to work) We have to watch spending, so cap it at say..... $100,000 per year per household.

After 2 years, all social services (food stamps, housing, public education etc) stop for all illegals & their non US citizen family members without the ID card. Schools found to have illegal aliens enrolled are fined $500 for each week that an illegal alien attended, per student. All Illegals found, regardless of how, without the ID card are deported.

We then get to decide how many we want to allow to stay, and how many should go. We also get to decide, on whatever criteria we'd like, who stays and who goes. I'm for automatically deporting everyone with more than two arrests for non-immigration misdemeanor offenses. Any convictions of any felony should get them an automatic ticket home.

We don't want to break up any families, so anchor babies must be considered. If it is decided that one or both parents must be deported, then the parents go, period, end of discussion on that point. The child will be allowed to go with his/her parents, or they can stay in the USA at the parents expense if suitable supervision can be arranged.

Since we will finally have access to demographics on this hidden culture, we can decide how much we should give them in the form of social services. How many non-working family members per worker will be allowed. What the illegal immigrant minimum wage should be. How much they will pay in taxes & If there should be limits on their stay.



There will be crooks among them, there will also be high quality people. We should consider a path to permanent resident alien (non-voting) status for the top performers based on whatever criteria we choose.


If you remove the financial benefits on both the supply and demand sides of the equation, and positively ID all of them, you can start to manage the population.

Bypassing a battle on the way toward your ultimate goal is not cowardly, it is victory. We could spend years trying to amend the constitution to try to fix the anchor baby problem. Why? Bypass it, and you can still fix the problem. Send the illegal parents home. The constitution says the kid is a citizen, he can be here, it says nothing about him/her being an anchor for the rest of the family.


The illegals are victims of the current situation too. The republicans don't want to do anything about it because their Big Business buddies like the cheap labor, and the Democrats don't want to do anything about it because they view them as potential (and on occasion actual) democrat votes.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

Bren
05-05-2012, 07:29
There have been some who have said that just being born here puts one under the "jurisdiction thereof".

If that is what the framers of the 14th intended, then all that would have been necessary to say is, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". In that context, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", has no meaning.

There is a good argument in favor of your point of view, although it is not the current legal interpretation. However, you aren't making that argument very well. If you want to see a good version of it, read this: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Like you, I would prefer to see that become the legal interpretation, but it isn't. Claiming it IS just undermines your argument that it SHOULD BE.

steveksux
05-05-2012, 09:24
You are getting naturalized citizen and natural born citizen mixed up. And, to tell you the truth, I just don't have the patience to explain it, with cites, one more single time.
Wrong. Naturalized citizens are foreigners who went through the legal process to become citizens. Period.

People born on us soil are natural born citizens. People born abroad with one US citizen parent who meet the other criteria are natural born citizens.

Ignorance got us into this mess, it's not going to get us out.
True enough, but God bless you for trying... :tongueout::supergrin:

Randy

steveksux
05-05-2012, 09:33
The 14th does not apply with regards to what the Founders considered a natural born citizen. When the Court finds it necessary to interpret the Constitution, they are supposed to do so with regards to the Founder's intent. But, the 14th has also been corrupted with contemporary "interpretation". The Amendment states, "born here AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Being born here is just part of the qualification. One must also be subject to the jurisdiction. What makes one subject to the jurisdiction at birth, is lineage. That is why children of diplomats are not considered citizens at birth - their parents are citizens of another country, and not subject to the jurisdiction of America. The notion that a foreign national can illegally cross into America and deliver a child, and that child be considered, not only under the jurisdiction thereof (while a child born of a diplomat is not), but what the Founding Fathers deemed a natural born citizen, is "interpretation" of the liberal kind. The kind that would consider Anwar Al-awlaki a natural born citizen.So you're arguing what the Constitution should be in your opinion trumps what the law actually says?

Interesting argument.

Do you realize the law that was posted spelling out in detail who are citizens at birth has not been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS? So you do realize it is the law of the land?

Randy

steveksux
05-05-2012, 09:36
There have been some who have said that just being born here puts one under the "jurisdiction thereof".No, that's not the argument anyone has made. BEING here puts you under the jurisdiction thereof, regardless of where you were born, diplomats and others with diplomatic immunity excepted.


If that is what the framers of the 14th intended, then all that would have been necessary to say is, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". In that context, the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", has no meaning.If that was, perhaps, but since that wasn't....

You can't start with a faulty premise, then "If that was true, then this" your way out of it.
Randy

steveksux
05-05-2012, 10:11
As I've pointed out several times to the birthers, Presidents Jackson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, and Hoover all had foreign born parents.

Still, in July, another thread will pop up citing the natural born citizen nonsense, and the exact same posters will ignore America's history to insist that Obama is ineligible to be president.Just because that's true doesn't mean that applies to Obama.

Or in this case, Rubio. You're wasting time arguing facts when what's important is the concept that the law is what you think it should be. After all, its a free country, right??? ;)

Randy

Razorsharp
05-06-2012, 14:00
There is a good argument in favor of your point of view, although it is not the current legal interpretation.
Because it has been deliberately mis-interpretated by those who wish to facilitate an agenda.

By pretending that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has no bearing on the first part of the clause, is exactly like those who pretend that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment. Both are dishonest.
However, you aren't making that argument very well.How much more can be added to it? The Amendment says, "...born AND subject to the jurisdiction. If being born here is all that is necessary, then the subsequent phrase has no meaning. But, the phrase does have meaning. Those who wish to distort the meaning to fit their agenda, claim that the phrase exempts the families of ambassadors and diplomats. Well, it does, but, according to those who authored the Amemdment, it also exempted foreigners and aliens. So, according to original intent, the child of a citizen of another country is not eligible for birthright citizenship. (Except in the mind of those who wish to subvert the meaning of the Constitution.)

Like you, I would prefer to see that become the legal interpretation, but it isn't. Claiming it IS just undermines your argument that it SHOULD BE.
So, just keep quiet about it?? You go ahead, I'm going to speak up.

"All that's necessary for evil to flourish, is for good men to do nothing."

Bren
05-06-2012, 15:41
So, just keep quiet about it?? You go ahead, I'm going to speak up.

"All that's necessary for evil to flourish, is for good men to do nothing."

No, argue your point - but if you know what the law IS and argue that it SHOULD BE something else, you make a point. If you claim that the law IS already what you think it SHOULD BE, you just convince people you don't know the law.

series1811
05-06-2012, 16:15
So, just to cut to the end here. Rubio is a natural born citizen, and eligible to run as VP. ?Si?

To cut to the chase, since Obama, I don't think it really matters anymore.

Razorsharp
05-07-2012, 08:03
No, argue your point - but if you know what the law IS and argue that it SHOULD BE something else, you make a point. If you claim that the law IS already what you think it SHOULD BE, you just convince people you don't know the law.
I know what the law is. The law is that birthright citizenship is passed on to those "born AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Just because the law has been perverted by those with an agenda, doesn't change the law.

By parroting those who have perverted the law, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know the law, and are part of the problem.

So you're arguing what the Constitution should be in your opinion trumps what the law actually says?
No, I am arguing what the law actually says by not omitting the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.
Do you realize the law that was posted spelling out in detail who are citizens at birth has not been declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS? So you do realize it is the law of the land?
What you fail to realize is that the law has been perverted from its original intent. Whenever it becomes necessary to interpret the Constitution, it is supposed to be with regard to "original intent".

Senator Jacob Howard, one of the drafters of the 14th addressed the Senate with regards to the birthright clause.

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virture 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 embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

Another drafter of the 14th, Sen. Lyman Trumbull declared:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 08:15
To cut to the chase, since Obama, I don't think it really matters anymore.

It would be interesting to watch Barry's campaign make an issue of it.

Personally, would like to see Condoleeza get a shot at VP.

series1811
05-07-2012, 08:28
It would be interesting to watch Barry's campaign make an issue of it.


They are stupid, but they are not that stupid.

And, obviously, from the way they have been handling the lawsuits, working to avoid getting to, or complying with, the discovery phase in any of them, they are not nearly as confident of what the ruling would be on his eligiblity as some of their supporters here are.

I've got over sixty jury trials as a litigator under my belt, and that's the way I would continue to handle them if I was representing Obama. He doesn't want this one to ever get to the fact finding phase. And, I don't blame him.

kirgi08
05-07-2012, 08:58
It would be interesting to watch Barry's campaign make an issue of it.

Personally, would like to see Condoleeza get a shot at VP.

I don't think she'd be interested,the maiming being as it is.

They are stupid, but they are not that stupid.

Granted.

And, obviously, from the way they have been handling the lawsuits, working to avoid getting to, or complying with, the discovery phase in any of them, they are not nearly as confident of what the ruling would be on his legality as some of their supporters here are.

They are not,deflection is their mantra.

I've got over sixty jury trials as a litigator under my belt, and that's the way I would continue to handle them if I was representing Obama. He doesn't want this one to ever get to the fact finding phase. And, I don't blame him.

He ain't stupid,just cornered.'08.

steveksux
05-07-2012, 18:40
I know what the law is. So you say.

The law is that birthright citizenship is passed on to those "born AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof".if only you knew what that last part meant. Just because the law has been perverted by those with an agenda, doesn't change the law.Oh, so now the law doesn't mean what you said it meant, it means something different, it's been perverted.

I told you you were arguing what the law is supposed to mean rather than what it does mean.

By parroting those who have perverted the law, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know the law, and are part of the problem.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Do you need to look up what "supposed to mean" means?


No, I am arguing what the law actually says by not omitting the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part. If only you knew what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

What you fail to realize is that the law has been perverted from its original intent. Whenever it becomes necessary to interpret the Constitution, it is supposed to be with regard to "original intent".

Senator Jacob Howard, one of the drafters of the 14th addressed the Senate with regards to the birthright clause.

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virture 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 embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

Another drafter of the 14th, Sen. Lyman Trumbull declared:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.If the law meant what you think it means, you wouldn't be *****ing that the law has been "perverted". If the law meant what you think it's supposed to mean, we wouldn't have had a handful of Presidents with a foreign national for a parent.

Randy

Razorsharp
05-10-2012, 06:08
If only you knew what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.
According to the words of those who authored the Amendment, I know what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean. It does not mean that a foreign national can illegally cross the border, squat down and squirt out a communist.

Now, I will, like so many before me, take advantage of the "ignore" function. I don't tolerate annoying pissants.

And one more thing, it's not steve k, it's YOU.

steveksux
05-10-2012, 06:49
According to the words of those who authored the Amendment, I know what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not mean. It does not mean that a foreign national can illegally cross the border, squat down and squirt out a communist.

Now, I will, like so many before me, take advantage of the "ignore" function. I don't tolerate annoying pissants.

And one more thing, it's not steve k, it's YOU.

You should go ahead and put me on ignore, obviously facts bother you. I'm trying to inform you, not cause you discomfort.

Seeing as how we've already had a handful of Presidents who have had a foreign national for a parent, and were still natural born citizens, plus a huge outcry over anchor babies doing exactly that, popping out little citizens with not only 2 foreign parents, but 2 illegal alien parents, so much so that there's a movement to change the law to prevent that, you are obviously wrong. Not that that slows you down any... :rofl: :rofl:

But seeing as how you have no way to refute facts such as that, better to insulate yourself from the truth and keep your fantasy world intact by putting me on ignore.

Seems like a waste of time though, you seem quite adept at ignoring facts that you are actually reading. Quite impressive. What you think those guys meant doesn't matter when the facts on the ground prove you wrong. Quite obviously you're stuck in a fantasy world of what you think the law should be instead of what actually is happening, repeatedly.

Randy

series1811
05-10-2012, 12:13
You should go ahead and put me on ignore, obviously facts bother you. I'm trying to inform you, not cause you discomfort.

Seeing as how we've already had a handful of Presidents who have had a foreign national for a parent, and were still natural born citizens, plus a huge outcry over anchor babies doing exactly that, popping out little citizens with not only 2 foreign parents, but 2 illegal alien parents, so much so that there's a movement to change the law to prevent that, you are obviously wrong. Not that that slows you down any... :rofl: :rofl:

But seeing as how you have no way to refute facts such as that, better to insulate yourself from the truth and keep your fantasy world intact by putting me on ignore.

Seems like a waste of time though, you seem quite adept at ignoring facts that you are actually reading. Quite impressive. What you think those guys meant doesn't matter when the facts on the ground prove you wrong. Quite obviously you're stuck in a fantasy world of what you think the law should be instead of what actually is happening, repeatedly.

Randy

Again, trying to reason with people that don't even understand the concept, is just more trouble than it is worth.

You're not even in the right ballpark.

steveksux
05-10-2012, 20:02
Again, trying to reason with people that don't even understand the concept, is just more trouble than it is worth.

You're not even in the right ballpark.I'm all ears.

You have a handful of Presidents with one foreigner parent, so both parents don't have to be citizens to pass on citizenship to the kids born on US soil.

You have anchor babies with 2 foreign born parents whose kids born here are citizens.

Looks like all you need is to be born on US soil, diplomats excepted.

Hence, Rubio, and Obama, are both natural born citizens.

Randy