SvenMagnussen wrote:
Oh no! No, Brown Deer. If you don’t believe me, then I may lose all motivation to post on FR.
Please reconsider my commentary. It’s all about you, Brown Deer. If you don’t believe me, then no one will believe me.
Posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:07 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The bottom line is: Being born on US soil makes you a natural born citizen, unless your parents are foreign ambassadors or royalty, or member of an invading army.
And being born an American citizen overseas MOST LIKELY makes you a natural born citizen.
The latter has never been definitively decided upon by the Supreme Court. The former has.
And THAT, my friend, is natural born citizenship in a nutshell.
The 14th Amendment is the 21st Article of the Constitution. Any person who is a “14th Amendment citizen” is a Constitutional citizen.
Anyone who is a naturalized citizen receives a Certificate of Naturalization, whether they are naturalized at birth or later in life.
If you are a citizen at all and you weren’t issued a Certificate of Naturalization, then you are a Citizen of the United States at Birth.
There is no distinction in case law or in statute between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States at Birth.
Well, that settles it.
The Founding Fathers were stupid.
They specifically required Natural Born Citizenship, when born citizen would have sufficed. How ignorant they must have been.
“...Being born on US soil makes you a natural born citizen,..”
In that case, there would be no difference between being a (native born) citizen and being a natural born citizen.
The Constitutional Congress obviously believed otherwise.
I’ve read the case and you’re a troll, full of crapola.
Where did you study Constitutional Law and when did you get your degree?
Oh no! No, Brown Deer. If you don’t believe me, then I may lose all motivation to post on FR.
Please reconsider my commentary. It’s all about you, Brown Deer. If you don’t believe me, then no one will believe me.
“THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR...”
Where does this quotation come from? I googled it, and the only reference is to Free Republic. Can you point to this phrase in the Kim Wong Ark ruling?
In other words, you’re advocating that the status of the parents of a native born child, who’s parents are Ambassadors for a foreign entity and not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., is considered when determining the natural born citizenship status of the child.
Yet, the status of the Obama’s parents cannot be considered because he is native born.
This is an example of hypocrisy. According to OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers, SCOTUS is fine with considering the status of the parents on some occassions and ignoring the status of the parents on other occassions when it concerns natural born citizenship status.
The comments seem to be running decidedly against the authors.
SvenMagnussen,
You’re still calling FReepers who disagree with you “OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers.” In a previous post, you called me a liar. Well, let’s see if you man up to what you previously said and answer this post with no irrelevant legal answers.
What do you say to your last year’s claim that you’ll appear on TV in 10/2012 to parade your evidence?
Since I couldn’t get your original post where you posted that claim, but the mods could, I got the next best thing, you’re discussing that post. It happened that I also posted in the same conversation.
Here it is in a neat package:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2946139/replies?c=80
Are we going to get a direct answer from you, since your mouthpiece, Todd Rodriguez, was zotted?
Oh yes, if you’re in an answering mood, don’t forget to include answering what was posted to you below. (Edited for content.) Enough ducking and running.
“I DARE YOU TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, WHICH I COPIED FROM A PREVIOUS POST TO YOU:
Speaking of a TV soap opera, in the spring/summer of last year, you posted that your “precious” evidence will be unveiled on TV TALK SHOW APPEARENCE COME OCTOBER ‘12 and that your doubters and detractors would see you parading it on TV for all to see! You didn’t say a word then about the illegality of what you were about to do.
Snip......
Also, while you’re at it, what happened to your camarad-in-arms, Todd Rodriguez, Ret.? Do you have any explanation as to why would a FReeper in good standing (not a troll, God forbid!) such as yourself, resort to unacceptable behavior like that? Were you issued a warning instead of a ticket?
Who are the “OBOTS and ConcernedFreepers” [sic]? Care to name some of those faux Conservative FReeper trolls?
Snip....
Failure to answer ANY of the above questions, and I repeat myself, will speak volumes about what you’re doing here.
QUIT STALLING. I STILL DARE YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2995763/posts?page=97#97
You need to reread the entire post, carefully.
Don’t just skim over it. Read it slowly and carefully, and follow the chain of reasoning.
It’s not difficult. But you do need to think, rather than just skim.
There’s a lot to read on the internet, so folks have gotten into a habit of just skimming it.
No, it’s not hypocrisy. It is a clear and accurate explanation of the rules by which a person’s citizenship is determined.
The basic rule (and this rule has applied THROUGHOUT US history and even before, when we were English colonies, and even before that, in England, originated with the idea that God divided the world up into nations, and established authorities over those nations.
Those nations have geographical boundaries within them, and according to the ancient English idea of natural law, those geographical boundaries are part of the governmental realm.
And when a person is born within the geographical boundaries of that realm, he is born in relationship to and with a responsibility to adhere to, that particular realm and the governing authority over it.
That was the theory. That was the theory of natural law that established the original concept, and the original precedent. And it is derived from the writings of St. Paul.
But the English decided that that situation was not absolute. What if the child was born to, and raised by, a visiting queen from another country? Such a person was subject to the other realm, not this one. What if the child was born to the official ambassador of that queen? Such a child would always return to the other realm, and even here, by the rules of international relations, would always be subject to that realm and not this one. What if the child was born to an invading army? Similar situation.
Over time, the original reasoning of the rule was largely forgotten, but the descriptive name was retained: “Natural born subject.” When we changed “subject” to “citizen,” then “natural born subject” became “natural born citizen.” And both terms have the same basic rule and mean the same thing, except for the fact that a “natural born CITIZEN” is not subservient to a king or queen.
So I am not “advocating” anything. I am EXPLAINING to you the English-American rule of citizenship by birth within a realm AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
Again, this is not even QUESTIONED by any real legal authority. It’s not even controversial, except on the internet.
Thanks for the link. It seems my article with the Herb Titus video and my other thread have caught the attention of a lot of people outside of Free Republic. It is prompting them writing articles with the intent to obfuscate the true meaning of what a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. They have been given their talking points to omit the grandfather clause from their articles and stick with the fact that the first few presidents weren’t natural born Citizens in order to justify that Rubio, Haley, Cruz and Jindal are eligible. This is what the poisoning of liberal political correctness has done to America. It’s ripping our nation apart at it’s seams.
A key factor in the WKA case which found Mr. Ark to be a "citizen."
BHO Sr. was a foreigner who was simply a visiting student.
/As you know.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment has been bastardized in modern times.
Original intent of the 14th AmendmentThe United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." "
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
""[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..." "
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
...
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.) American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
SvenMagnussen wrote:
Oh no! No, Brown Deer. If you don’t believe me, then I may lose all motivation to post on FR.
Please reconsider my commentary. It’s all about you, Brown Deer. If you don’t believe me, then no one will believe me.
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.