Posted on 12/07/2008 10:47:56 PM PST by The Watcher
You are wrong about the two citizens part, natural born citizen simply means citizen by birth. Birth by two or one citizen is not required, the son of two illegals is still natural born.
But the law is defined, in large part, by precedent. The Fourteenth Amendment, by its language, allows for birthright citizenship, subject to the requirement that the parents be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was left undefined, and was first considered by the Supreme Court in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) - that’s the first authoritative statement construing the relevant language of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Court pretty clearly laid out the basis for birthright citizenship, even where the parents are not themselves U.S. citizens.
We could argue for days over whether Wong Kim Ark was correctly decided - there are certainly arguments to be made on both sides (just as there were likely “framers” of the Fourteenth Amendment who believed different things about the breadth of the Amendment’s grant of birthright citizenship). But, at this point, 110 years later, the law is what it is.
The British used natural law as a determining factor of citizenship. Anyone, born anywhere under a British domain was considered a British subject, just like Obama’s father.
We fought the Revolutionary War to gain our independence from Great Britain, to not be considered subjects under the Crown. By pledging allegiance to the United States, all former subjects were naturalized citizens. Dual citizenship was not an option, remember at the time we were dealing with the British.
During the War of 1812, the British were forcing American citizens into fighting for them because of the “natural born” law.
It is quite clear that allegiance was of the utmost importance. The 14th amendment was ratified after the War of 1812 where the British tried to pull the dual citizenship card.
And as for anchor babies, I don’t think they would be considered citizens at all. Their parents are not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States. They still are under the jurisdiction of their native countries, that is why they deal with their consulates while here. Like that cheesy marticular card.
The Framers did not want to emulate Britain, they wanted their laws to be based on the freedom of individuals. It was a choice to become naturalized and it still is. If it was not the case, why have the law to begin with?
That is simply wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, not the War of 1812, and it was intended largely to ensure citizenship and (somewhat, at the time) equal rights for former slaves. It had nothing to do with British dual citizenship.
And as for anchor babies, I don’t think they would be considered citizens at all. Their parents are not under the complete jurisdiction of the United States. They still are under the jurisdiction of their native countries, that is why they deal with their consulates while here. Like that cheesy marticular card.
Again, we can argue over and over about whether "anchor babies" should be citizens. However, under the 14th Amendment, they are. The 14th amendment does not say "subject to the complete jurisdiction," it simply says "subject to the jurisdiction."
You are so right. I cannot understand why people cannot wrap their mind around what a natural born citizen is. It even says in the Amendment, children of aliens are exempt.
What I meant was that we had previously saw what could happen when dual citizenship came into play during the War of 1812. I know that the 14th amendment was ratified after the Civil war which occurred from 1861 to 1865.
The laws right now with regard to the 14th Amendment are interpretations from the Supreme Court, which like it or not, does not always interpret the Constitution as it was written. Again and again I go back to the Heller case which should have been 9-0. That is my most recent proof that the Supreme Court is fallible.
No, you’re just making all the unreasoned and illogical arguments of a modern liberal.
You said:
The argument I have been making, over and over again, in this thread is that there has never been a class of citizens who were (a) citizens from the moment of birth and (b) not natural-born citizens. That I am aware of, the only legal distinction that has ever been drawn between different types of citizens have been naturalized citizens and natural-born citizens. There has never been any sort of in-between, third type of citizen, as you seem to be suggesting Obama is.
LOL! The whole point of the use of the term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution is TO MAKE JUST SUCH A DISTINCTION!!!!
They did not say “naturalized” and “natural born” and intend to say the precise same thing. Quite the contrary. And indeed, the obvious point was to draw a distinction that applied SOLELY TO BEING QUALIFIED FOR PRESIDENT, and not for any other purpose was that distinction mentioned. And it does not mean “citizen”. It quite obviously means, citizens who have absolutely NO dilution of allegiance, having been born under American jurisdiction to people who are citizens.
It clearly means, if there is ANY possibility that the circumstances of birth could lead to being under anyone else’s jurisdiction, any other citizenship, any other loyalty, any other allegiance, then you’re not “natural born”. It meant that absolute allegiance, including having been born and raised American, even having a minimum number of years of having lived in the country, were to be required of the President.
This idea of applying this status to anyone who is a citizen by any means other than emmigration is just plain absurd.
No, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT state that children of aliens are exempt. It says that all persons who are born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language has NEVER been authoritatively interpreted as meaning that the children of aliens are not citizens under the Amendment.
You said:
the Supreme Court is fallible
Amen and Amen. You got it. Boy, can you say that again.
It may be the best there is, but it’s still darn weak.
Good, then tell the Kenyan Consulate to release Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.
Alright, when you are here illegally, who do you go to to intervene for you? Which government is your advocate? The United States or your native country?
No, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT state that children of aliens are exempt. It says that all persons who are born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language has NEVER been authoritatively interpreted as meaning that the children of aliens are not citizens under the Amendment.
But it should be.
I, hereby claim, sufficient wisdom, to read, understand, and make valid judgements about the Constitution.
I just interpreted it as saying that children of aliens are NOT citizens by mere chance of geographic position at birth.
The whole point of all of this was to NOT be like the British, who claimed all born on British governed soil to be subjects to the throne.
During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause described the clause as . . . excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Why is it we still don't allow children born to Ambassadors to be citizens, under your description they would be dual citizens no matter what.
Wow, I didn’t really realize that the USA had gone to War over the definition of “natural born citizen”. I guess that this issue was defined in American blood in 1812. Something a liberal wouldn’t understand.
No, the whole point of the term is to draw a distinction between "natural born" citizens and "naturalized" citizens.
They did not say “naturalized” and “natural born” and intend to say the precise same thing. Quite the contrary. And indeed, the obvious point was to draw a distinction that applied SOLELY TO BEING QUALIFIED FOR PRESIDENT, and not for any other purpose was that distinction mentioned. And it does not mean “citizen”. It quite obviously means, citizens who have absolutely NO dilution of allegiance, having been born under American jurisdiction to people who are citizens.
They said "naturalized" and "natural born" to mean two different things, correct. Naturalized citizens are citizens who were not citizens at birth, but subsequently became citizens through some act of legislation or other naturalization procedure (note that Congress was given the power to make rules of Naturalization). Natural born citizens, on the other hand, are citizens who were, as the plain language of the Constitution suggests, born as citizens of the United States. I have NEVER suggested that there is no distinction between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens; in fact, I have been saying all along that those two words represent the ONLY two classes of citizens that exist under the constitution - those who were born citizens, and those who became citizens after birth.
It clearly means, if there is ANY possibility that the circumstances of birth could lead to being under anyone else’s jurisdiction, any other citizenship, any other loyalty, any other allegiance, then you’re not “natural born”. It meant that absolute allegiance, including having been born and raised American, even having a minimum number of years of having lived in
This idea of applying this status to anyone who is a citizen by any means other than emmigration is just plain absurd.
That is a fair argument, but I simply do not see the historical or textual support for the proposition that "natural born citzenship" obviously MUST mean citizens born to two citizens. I also, once again, don't see any textual or historical support for the proposition that there has ever been a distinction drawn between citizens born in this country to citizen parents, citizens born in this country to non-citizen parents, and citizens born in this country to one parent who is a citizen, and one parent who is not a citizen (incidentally, what about single mothers - if we do not know the identity of the father, is the child a natural born citizen?). I see the logic of your argument, but I don't see the factual/legal/historical support for your argument.
One more point: We clearly disagree on the correct interpretation of "natural born citizen" (and, likely, the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth amendment). Although I believe that your reading is incorrect, I have repeatedly acknowledged that it is a reasonable interpretation, and I have been willing to engage it and explain my position. I would even go so far as to say that I would love to see the Supreme Court grant cert. in one of these cases, to settle what is a legitimate ambiguity in the Constitutional definition of citizen/natural-born citizen. I would ask, once again, that you refrain from resorting to name-calling ("liberal,") and calling my arguments absurd. We're supposed to be better than the libs, so I would hope that we can agree to disagree civilly.
There is a huge distinction, however, between immigrants (legal and illegal) and Ambassadors. Ambassadors (and, to some extent, their families) often have diplomatic immunity - that is, they cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the U.S., and cannot otherwise be held liable by the U.S. for their conduct while here (though they can be expelled). They are the clearest example of people who are here, but who are most certainly not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
So, while it is arguable whether or not aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., it is clear that Ambassadors are not - hence, it makes sense (at some level) to treat the situations differently.
Your source Jill Pryor just created one out of the thin air over Yale Law School:
"As historical and textual analysis has shown, a citizen may be both "naturalized" and "natural born." Under the naturalized born approach, any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility."
What, in God's name, is a naturalized born citizen???? Are you guys for real???
There are what, three paragraphs, on those pages 888-889 in that article that refer to the Jay and Hamilton letters? Moreover the Hamilton letter is not light shedding the way you seem to say. Hamilton uses the phrase "born a citizen". Well -- that is NOT the phrase, not the term of art that ended up being adopted. Jay meant something else! More restrictive -- natural allegiance, imo.
And speaking of opinion that legal review article is overweighed with it! Even the footnotes are opinions. It is an article very weak review of historic detail, and the why of that weakness is clear: The author forced fit facts to theory, and did so very myopically. Yale, eh?
When you become a naturalized citizen you take an oath in Public:
The oath of allegiance is:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
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.