Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy Cannot Be President

Hypothetically, would a declarative statement such as, "is hereby declared to be a citizen" do it?

I would think so. So long as they leave out the words "natural born" they are fine.

Were there any words that a free, sovereign and independent pre-Constitution state could use to naturalize a person into a citizen of said state?

They could naturalize them any way they chose, but naturalization would not make them "natural born." Naturalization is just adoption.

It gives the same rights and privileges, but it's not the same as being born as a member of the family or nation.

Does the Law of the Imagination™ consider all pre-Constitution naturalizations null and void?

Why are you going on and on about naturalization? Have we not yet grasped the distinction between "naturalized" and "natural born"?

As the State was the sovereign, what higher power prevented the sovereign State from naturalizing one of its residents into a citizen of the State?

Nothing, but "naturalization" has nothing to do with the requirements for the Presidency.

That requirement is "natural born."

This quote is essentially the "ad hominem fallacy", since it says nothing about the truth content of said opinion.

Res ipsa loquitur.

An opinion held out of ignorance can nonetheless be true...

If it is, it's an accident. People may hold opinions because they are *TOLD* them. I believe Mark Twain sums up this idea pretty well.

Now you're switching gears. Where have I ever spoken about loyalty?

What again was the reason for the "natural born citizen" requirement for the Presidency? If you are speaking on this topic, you are speaking of loyalty.

but there are plenty of citizens — even those who hold it due to "jus sanguinus" alone — who hold not a shred of loyalty to the country they belong to)

Be that as it may, the founders could only do so much to guarantee it as best as they could, and the desire to not have any foreign influence in the office of the Presidency could best be met by preventing people who owed foreign loyalties from occupying that position.

Loyalty is not an inherent quality of human nature:

It is, but it can be twisted by evil teachings, or an evil nature, which sometimes happens.

Be careful what you wish for. As you yourself stated in a recent thread: "...that would require a competent intelligent judge and we have a big shortage of those in this country."

This sounds suspiciously like another of those fallacy of false choice situations. Perhaps there exists a way to have better jurors and/or better judges than the current system. For years I have read about the desire among some to implement "professional juries." I haven't made up my mind on this topic, but I recognize it is a different way of doing things than what we have now.

Another method would be to telecast a trial and let the viewers decide. :) Not saying I advocate it, but it *IS* a different way of doing things. Could it do worse? I doubt it.

I sincerely disagree on this point; a direct blood relation as noted within a tribe is different not in degree, but in kind, from the sociopolitical relation that is citizenship.

As I have responded previously, it is now, but it's origins go back to blood relations. What our system is attempting to do is to extend the idea of family or "tribe" beyond it's normal boundaries and into a national system where blood ties are not essential.

It is attempting to make Christ's "brotherhood of mankind" a real thing, at least within national boundaries.

If you think about it, we are all related by blood if you go back far enough.

A father, by nature, can exercise certain duties insofar as his family is concerned because of his inherent authority; however, he cannot by nature exercise that same sort of role or influence over those who are not of his blood (which citizens are capable of doing through the legislative and judicial levers of society), because such powers and duties are not inherently his own.

In a society in which only males held political power, the distinguishing characteristic is a "Y" chromosome, passed down solely through fathers. So yeah, in such a society, which is what we were when this nation began, fathers did exercise that role over the rest of the population.

However, not only are the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a citizen different depending on what country you live in, but some classes of people (depending on time or place) weren't even allowed to be classed as citizens at all!

Yes, Denizens in England could not hold political power. Their children could not inherit their property because they couldn't own property.

That should suffice by itself to show that the natural ties among family cannot be equivalent in kind to the sociopolitical ties among citizens.

What societies other than Americans did, and what rules they followed has no influence over what American society did and on what foundation it was organized upon.

Our right to Independence derives from Natural Law, and all our subsequent rights descend through that.

We have a different foundation for our government than they did for theirs, and over time, they have moved theirs closer to what ours is.

[DiogenesLamp #361] Natural citizens cannot lose citizenship because they failed some residency requirement, or some other requirement specified congress in creating their naturalization act.

Yes, they can.

Birth abroad to a U.S. citizen can result in a natural born citizen; however, there may be conditions subsequent imposed to retain citzenship. These conditions have been challenged and found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no naturalization involved. If the conditions are satisfied, the child is eligible to be President.

As Scotus said in Bellei:

Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with 'second-class citizenship.' That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of non-citizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not 'second-class.'"

That you disagree with a law does not make it any less the law.

The child born abroad has no constitutional right to citizenship.

Citizenship for those born abroad may be acquired pursuant to the Federal statute in effect at the time of birth.

Oh I believe they could "get him",

How are you going to get him? Do you think we can send a secret mission into Russia and kidnap him? Snowden is a Russian citizen.

We obey immoral wrong laws when we are forced to do so, but the rest of the time we ignore them if we are able.

Something can be the law whether wise or stupid, right or wrong. Such are still the law. The law applicable to McCain's birth was plain stupid. It was still the law. We entrust Congress to write the laws and then we elect drooling idiots or worse.

So, perhaps a majority of persons born in Massachusetts are not citizens, and their children are not citizens, and they are just a bunch of non-citizen non-aliens. The horror!
You will have to ask your strawman how he arrived at that conclusion, because you certainly can't get there from anything I said.

[DiogenesLamp #353] "Deemed, adjudged, and taken to be," mean "lets pretend."

[DiogenesLamp #364]

[woodpusher] Again, just asking for a friend. Does a naturalization actually create a citizen, or is it just pretend?
[DiogenesLamp] It creates an adopted citizen.

Is a naturalized citizen a citizen? Not an adopted citizen or a pretend citizen or whatever qualifier you use, change and remove to label them as the other. I did not ask if they were natural born citizens. I did not ask if they were eligible to be the president. I asked if after the naturalization the subject is a citizen.

Is the child of two of your pretend citizens a natural born citizen?

Is the child of your adopted citizens a natural born citizen?

We have two classes of citizen, and two only: natural born and naturalized. Citizens are either born citizens, or naturalized at some time after their birth.

The U.S. legal system is derived from the English common law legal system.
The boring, routine, drudgery of ordinary legal doings was derived from English common law, but the core essential of American law is based upon a very different foundation than that the King Rules by Divine Right.

The King did not make common law. Common law is made by the courts. The Federal legal system is the common law system. 49 of the 50 states use the common law system. All of the original states use the common law system. Our legal system is not based on the natural or divine anything.

The exceptional aspects of American law comes from "natural law" and the rights of man based on it.

That's only in your Law of the Imagination™. In the real world, there is real law.

Since the United States was founded, the law of citizenship has been jus soli for domestic births and jus sanguinis for births abroad.
So you would have us believe, but the evidence I have shown you in these threads demonstrate that your position is but one opinion from two possible options, and the evidence for your position appears to be weaker.

Mine comes from the U.S. Government, its laws, courts and regulations; and yours comes from your Law of the Imagination™.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CITZ-50; 01-21-2021)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person's birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes; and
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person's citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called "citizenship by descent" or "derivative citizenship", is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

Common Law doesn't deal with "citizens", it deals with subjects. When they left the British monarchy's laws, they left behind that aspect of British common law.

There you go again with the Law of the Imagination™. Jus soli is a rule of common law going back to 1290. It determines the citizenship of the vast majority of American citizens—all persons born in the United States. Your statement is nonsense.

Where did they get this word "citizen"? They got it from Vattel. There is no other more obvious source for it than him.

More nonsense. The words citizen predates Vattel by centuries. International Law is not the domestic law of the United States. American Law did not come from a book written in French by a Swiss guy who died before the revolution.

The belief system upon which the nation was built was not enacted into law.
You are like the fish that doesn't believe in water because he is so surrounded in it he can't see it.

The law of the United States is not a belief system. Is your belief system the Statutes at Large?

The Constitution, ratified by the people, empowered the Congress to make an uniform rule of naturalization.
There's that "naturalization" word again.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8,

The Congress shall have power ... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

There's that word "naturalization" every time I read the Constitution. Does your copy have a different word?

Unlike the law made up of words, the Law of the Imagination™ is composed of vague ideas which come and go and morph.
In whatever manner the Judges dictate. Yes, it's been a long term problem for this nation.

The words in my copy of the Constitution don't just up and change. The words in the statute laws don't change either. Someone might construe them oddly, but nobody seems to come up with wholesale changes to the actual words.

The Imaginator™ has deemed and adjudged that subjects of naturalization are taken to be pretend citizens.
Naturalized citizens are naturalized citizens. This makes them not "natural born" citizens.

You have an excellent argument as soon as you find someone who claims naturalization makes people natural born citizens.

Is naturalization properly construed as the making of pretend citizens?
Adopted citizens. Not "natural born" citizens.

You seem to argue with yourself a lot about naturalized citizens not being natural born citizens. You even invent terms like adopted citizens. Actually, it is the naturalized citizen who adopts American citizenship. I guess that in the Law of the Imagination™ he is adopted by himself.

ALL PERSONS, BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
A statement that conspicuously leaves out "natural born".

The Constitution abhors surplusage—the inclusion of extraneous words serving no useful purpose. The provision only relates to persons BORN in the United States and SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION. All of those are natural born citizens by definition, and adding an unnecessary word will not add any additional meaning.

Yes, people who are only citizens as a consequence of the 14th amendment are naturalized at birth citizens.

NO. There is no such thing as naturalized at birth. Naturalization can only occur at some time AFTER birth.

People who become citizens as a consequence of the 14th Amendment are all born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Only aliens, lawfully present in the country, are eligible for naturalization.

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030108.html

8 FAM 301.8-1 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)
[excerpt]
b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever.”

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-i/sec-1101/

US Code
Title 8 - Aliens and Nationality
Chapter 12 - Immigration and Nationality
Subchapter I - General Provisions
Sec. 1101 - Definitions

8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)

(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Black's Law Dictionary 6th ed.

Naturalized citizen. One who, being an alien by birth, has received U.S. citizenship under naturalization laws. 8 U.S.C.A. 1421 et sec.

Clearly you do not know what the terms naturalized or naturalized citizen mean.

Your Law of the Imagination™ does not apply.

Hypothetically, would a declarative statement such as, "is hereby declared to be a citizen" do it?
I would think so. So long as they leave out the words "natural born" they are fine.

I was just doing due diligence for our good friend Lafayette.

1784 Conn. Pub. Acts 439 (1784)

Whereas the Right Hon the Marquis De La Fayette Mareschal De Camp of the Armies of the Armies of the King of France and Major General in the late Army of the United States of America in their late War with the King of Great Britain has exhibited his disinterested Attachment to the Liberties of Mankind in a very illustrious and disinterested manner—
Therefore Resolved by this Assembly that the Marquis De La Fayette, and his Son George Washington Esq be and they are hereby declared free Citizens of this State to all Intents constructions and purposes whatsoever.

As the State was the sovereign, what higher power prevented the sovereign State from naturalizing one of its residents into a citizen of the State?
Nothing, but "naturalization" has nothing to do with the requirements for the Presidency.
That requirement is "natural born."

Actually, the requirement to be eligible to execute the office of the presidency is to be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

1784 was before the adoption of the Constitution.

Yes, they can.

Birth abroad to a U.S. citizen can result in a natural born citizen; however, there may be conditions subsequent imposed to retain citzenship.

You and I clearly have a different understanding of what "natural citizen" means.

I believe the framers intended the meaning of "natural born citizen" to be Vattel's definition of citizen, and not that part of English Common law relating to subjects.

So far as Vattel is concerned, those born abroad to a military father are considered natural citizens, though our laws don't recognize them as such.

The one thing certain is that someone born inside the USA to an American father was always regarded as a natural born citizen, and these people cannot lose their citizenship for failure to meet any requirements set by congress, *BECAUSE* their citizenship is not derived from the powers of congress.

That you disagree with a law does not make it any less the law.

If you mean what men with guns will force you to abide by, then you are correct, but this is often a very different thing from being factually correct.

I prefer my laws to also be factually correct.

Citizenship for those born abroad may be acquired pursuant to the Federal statute in effect at the time of birth.

Derived from the powers of congress, i.e. "naturalization."

How are you going to get him? Do you think we can send a secret mission into Russia and kidnap him? Snowden is a Russian citizen.

We wouldn't try to kidnap him, we would simply murder him.

And yes, we could do that, and probably would if he were a lesser known figure.

We entrust Congress to write the laws and then we elect drooling idiots or worse.

I used to believe congressmen were stupid. I now think corruption is the very air they breathe in Washington DC.

Is a naturalized citizen a citizen?

Yes. I think i've answered this several times.

Not an adopted citizen or a pretend citizen or whatever qualifier you use, change and remove to label them as the other.

A naturalized citizen is an adopted citizen. What is so difficult to understand?

Is the child of two of your pretend citizens a natural born citizen?

You are using "pretend" as a derogatory, but the child of naturalized citizens is a natural citizen, certainly if born within the USA, and in my understanding of the original intent, if born outside the limits of the US to an American father serving the nation.

Citizens are either born citizens, or naturalized at some time after their birth.

I assume you are familiar with the Calculus terminology "as it approaches zero"?

Well that's where you are with naturalized "at birth."

Any child who obtains his citizenship due to a law passed by congress is a naturalized citizen, even if that citizenship is declared to apply "at birth."

This is the difference between man made naturalization and natural citizenship.

Congress plays absolutely no role in the citizenship acquired by natural born citizens.

The King did not make common law. Common law is made by the courts. The Federal legal system is the common law system. 49 of the 50 states use the common law system. All of the original states use the common law system.

For routine and mundane things that are not in conflict with our system of governance. Common law does not apply to "citizen." Common law applies to "Subject."

When we changed the legal term from "subject" to "Citizen", we identified the legal source from whence it came, and which was chosen to comply with the needs of a Free Republic.

Mine comes from the U.S. Government, its laws, courts and regulations;

I don't care. Educated idiots expounding on "law" that they don't comprehend or understand, is no more correct because they hold power or because they are numerous.

The "courts" do not know what the f*ck they are talking about, and all they can present is "hearsay."

and yours comes from your Law of the Imagination™.

No my FRiend, yours comes from the imagination of judges and lawyers. *MINE* comes from searching for the origins of "natural born citizen", and finding better evidence for it than you have presented.

Your argument boils down to "argumentum ad antiquitatum, and argumentum ad populum."

More nonsense. The words citizen predates Vattel by centuries.

You could perhaps provide some examples of where Blackstone uses the word "Citizen"? When I looked, I think I found five, but it's been awhile.

Contrast that with how often he says "Subject."

I'm not sure there is any point for me to wade into the rest of your message.

Birth abroad to a U.S. citizen can result in a natural born citizen; however, there may be conditions subsequent imposed to retain citzenship.
You and I clearly have a different understanding of what "natural citizen" means.
I believe the framers intended the meaning of "natural born citizen" to be Vattel's definition of citizen, and not that part of English Common law relating to subjects.

Obviously we disagree. You may believe whatever you wish but that does not change the actual law.

You argued for naturalization at birth. That is impossible as the definition of naturalization which I quoted from the Foreign Affairs Manual and United States Statute law is that naturalization is a process that only occurs after birth the an alien born person. Naturalization only occurs in the United States, and the subject must be lawfully present in the United States.

If birth abroad cannnot result in a natural born citizen then John McCain could not possibly have been born a natural born citizen. Yet, you have argued that he was eligible to execute the office of the presidency.

Nobody ratified your belief of what the Founders may have intended. The effective words ratified in the Constitution are: "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." Citizens of the United States at birth cannot be naturalized.

For aliens to become citizens, they must be naturalized in the United States.

The Constitution abhors surplusage—the inclusion of extraneous words serving no useful purpose.

If it were necessary in Article II, why would it not be necessary in the 14th amendment?

Do you really believe that the racist Northern states and their sock puppet governments in the South controlled by the US military, would recognize freed slaves as "natural citizens" when they were working to pass a law specifically to make them into citizens?

That doesn't even make sense with *YOUR* logic. They could not possibly declare the former slaves to be natural citizens without creating an uproar in both the North and the South. I think that would have been a bridge too far.

And as I have mentioned, when you look at the debates on the 14th amendment, they even say that what they are doing is "naturalization."

All of those are natural born citizens by definition, and adding an unnecessary word will not add any additional meaning.

The former slaves were clearly not "natural born citizens", and trying to declare them to be such would have likely prevented ratification of the document altogether.

If the former slaves were not, how can anyone else be as a result of it's action?

NO. There is no such thing as naturalized at birth. Naturalization can only occur at some time AFTER birth.

Here we are back to that calculus "as it approaches zero" concept.

It never reaches zero, it just gets infinitely close until it is the same as no difference.

That gay horse's azz is long out of the barn.

OTOH that's about all Soros got for his buying of Obama...

The King did not make common law. Common law is made by the courts. The Federal legal system is the common law system. 49 of the 50 states use the common law system. All of the original states use the common law system. For routine and mundane things that are not in conflict with our system of governance. Common law does not apply to "citizen." Common law applies to "Subject."
When we changed the legal term from "subject" to "Citizen", we identified the legal source from whence it came, and which was chosen to comply with the needs of a Free Republic.

Just think of all those common law marriages that didn't apply to citizens.

People v. Aaron, 409 Mich. 672, 713 (1980), "In Michigan, murder is not statutorily defined." It is defined at common law. The citizen can still be executed for the crime not defined in any statute.

Actually, the requirement to be eligible to execute the office of the presidency is to be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

1784 was before the adoption of the Constitution.

So because of that second clause. the Marquis de la Fayette could have served as President, but this doesn't really have anything to do with the real topic we are discussing, does it?

For you the topic is "What did the courts decide the founders meant by "natural born citizen."

For me, the topic is "What did the founders mean by natural born citizen."

I am trying to convince you that you should be more concerned with truth than precedent.

Your nonsense has been answered already. You do not know what you are talking about.

Birth abroad to a U.S. citizen can result in a natural born citizen; however, there may be conditions subsequent imposed to retain citzenship.

It isn't natural citizenship if congress can impose conditions. That ought to be a red flag for you to see the difference.

Obviously we disagree. You may believe whatever you wish but that does not change the actual law.

I believe Biden's corrupt minions rigged the election in the swing states, and that also doesn't change the law, but I will be d@mned if I am going to accept his corrupt election as legitimate in light of all the evidence against it.

You argued for naturalization at birth. That is impossible as the definition of naturalization which I quoted from the Foreign Affairs Manual and United States Statute law is that naturalization is a process that only occurs after birth the an alien born person.

"As it approaches zero."

Naturalization only occurs in the United States, and the subject must be lawfully present in the United States.

You should read the naturalization act of 1952 and educate yourself further.

If birth abroad cannnot result in a natural born citizen then John McCain could not possibly have been born a natural born citizen.

He was according to the common sense understanding of the term as described by Vattel. I believe his exact words were:

§ 217.
Children born in the armies of the state or in the house of its minister at a foreign court. For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

Citizens of the United States at birth cannot be naturalized.

The 14th amendment is a naturalization device. They even said so in the debates.

You are like the fish that doesn't believe in water because it can't see it even though it surrounds it.

For aliens to become citizens, they must be naturalized in the United States.

Exactly what the 14th amendment does.

Just think of all those common law marriages that didn't apply to citizens.

Marriage is a routine and mundane application of the law that is not in conflict with the fundamental principle on which this nation was created.

Applying "subject" law to "citizens", is.

We also got rid of "corruption of blood" you know.