Posted on 08/30/2023 10:02:25 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are not eligible to serve as president of the United States. Nor are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Why? They are not “natural born citizens,” which is one of the presidential requirements outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Making that claim, of course, immediately prompts a response of, “Of course they are natural born citizens! What are you, a racist?” But those who are eager to ridicule and condemn such a statement of ineligibility are merely demonstrating their ignorance of the term natural born citizen. What is important, however, is not what television pundits (or “pundints,” as they often incorrectly refer to themselves) believe the term means, but what the Founding Fathers understood the term to mean when they decreed the following:
“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.”
Probably close to 100 percent of Americans alive today believe the term natural born citizen simply means born in the United States of America. But that is not what the term meant to the authors of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
The qualifications for Vice-President and President are identical.
Chester Arthur (R) (1881) became Vice-President with an alien father.
Kamala Harris (D) (2021) became Vice-President with two alien parents.
Chester Arthur (R) (1881) became President with an alien father.
Barack Obama (D) (2009) became President with an alien father.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 698, 716.
The Convention between the United States and China of 1894 provided that"Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently or temporarily residing in the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens."
28 Stat. 111. And it has since been decided, by the same judge who held this appellee to be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth therein, that a native of China of the Mongolian race could not be admitted to citizenship under the naturalization laws. In re Gee Hop (1895), 71 Fed.Rep. 274.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
149 U.S. 704
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
Wong Kim Ark acquired citizenship by birth while being born to two Chinese aliens.
There are two classes of citizen, and two only: natural born and naturalized. Naturalization applies only to aliens at a time after their birth. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth, did not need naturalization, and as a citizen was not even eligible for naturalization. That leaves only the one other category possible, natural born citizen.
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
I never thought about DC.. some people want what is not theirs to have .. just like that bud light boy.
That is exactly the wrong conclusion. Vivek was a dual citizen at birth. He had Indian citizenship through his Indian citizen parents.
Not a natural born citizen.
Vivek was born in Cincinnati, making him a Natural Born Citizen.
It was a very important issue to the Founders and they documented their point of view.
They were correct to be concerned about dual loyalties in a POTUS.
“IMHO, that’s what “subject to the jurisdiction of” means.”
The problem is that it’s just your opinion. The plainest reading of the word “jurisdiction” is how we use it every day. If a country (or state, or county, or municipality) can charge you with a crime for disobeying their laws, then you are under its jurisdiction. That’s the “normal” meaning of the word, and absent any indication to the contrary, we don’t really have any reason to think the authors of the 14th amendment meant some other interpretation of the word.
Absolutely pitiful.
There is no question about Joe Biden’s eligibility to be POTUS, you could easily to say he’s not loyal to the country.
Two sources of information that should clarify the issue.
Are babies born in the USA automatically citizens?
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution directs that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a person’s parents
“Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.”
Not to diplomats, since they are not under the jurisdiction of US laws, since they have diplomatic immunity. But otherwise, you are in fact describing the situation as it currently stands, as interpreted by the courts.
“The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.”
Except they didn’t define it, at least not within the text that they made legally binding. If they had nobody would be arguing about it. Well maybe the left still would, but not reasonable people.
“and no other Government has any claim on their allegiance”
Now you’re introducing another condition, another wrinkle. Because “having no allegiance to another country” is a distinctly different thing than “no other country having a claim on your allegiance”.
India does not allow dual citizenship. So he’s not an Indian citizen. If he had it through his parents at one time, he doesn’t have it now.
This whole thread, with well over 100 replies, shows just how many different views there are.
Excellent question. If Boris grew up in America, and never went back to Russia, and didn’t claim Russian citizenship, who knows?
He had responded to someone saying that you had to be born in a U.S. state, to be natural born. Since the District of Columbia is not a state, the question came up.
Agreed, no one born of two non-citizen parents is eligible.
“Which means this NBC business is still a load of garbage.
Why can’t you people wake up to reality?”
And Joe Biden beat Donald Trump fair and square. /s
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.