Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: noinfringers2
Based on my own recent research, I've been moving away from the absolute idea that NBC means children of citizen parents, only because I can't find any historical documentation where this assumption was clearly stated.

I've already suggested that it may have been an inculcated understanding due to the remoteness of America at the time and the assumption that people born here were born to natives of the land, given that travel from Europe took so long. Also, the Preamble to the Constitution refers to establishing the Constitution to secure liberty to "ourselves and our posterity," meaning the citizen people and their citizen children.

That said, from the argument that a born citizen is one who is born in the jurisdiction of the country (and not just on the soil), a legal alien would be under the jurisdiction of the country, but I think that an illegal alien is still under the jurisdiction of their homeland, so their child born on USA soil one day after illegally crossing the border should not be a citizen.

-PJ

786 posted on 03/10/2013 12:41:48 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies ]


To: Political Junkie Too; noinfringers2

FWIW, the court in WKA said:

” Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.”

Someone here illegally is not here “in amity” with the government, and thus would not give birth to NBCs. IMHO.


788 posted on 03/10/2013 12:54:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies ]

To: Political Junkie Too

There is a specific tie of citizen parentage and place of birth in Vattel’s references which were very much known to the Founders. However the knot or blank so to speak in the debate about NBC as to a Constitutional requirement is that there is no specific wording that incorporates Vattel’s words exactly or some other corresponding expression into the requirement for POTUSA. My take is that with the records of deliberation of the Congress and the fact that Articles I and II address two different categories of citizen, the Founders intentionally wanted POTUSA to be a special kind of citizen. At the time their actions were in consonance with their words, I believe they thought so. I find it very easy to accept such even though my only brother who died on Okinawa in WWII and myself who also served in the Pacific would not qualify for POTUSA because of immigrant parents not being naturalized at our birth.


816 posted on 03/10/2013 2:31:11 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson