Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
I understand that no court has found a distinction between “Natural Born Citizens” and “persons physically born in the USA.”
What I want know is if any court has explicitly ruled that these two things are identical?
“Yes, that is true, BUT “
There is no “BUT” ... you are confusing a basic and simple term of art with the legal satisfaction and requirements for that term.
“natural-born citizen” means ‘citizen at time of birth’.
Any arugments over who is a natural-born citizen are arguments over who gets to be a citizen at time of birth.
“A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government” is either a citizen or subject at time of birth.
Yes, a court has indeed ruled that those born in the US and acquiring citizenship via the 14th amendment birthright citizenship clause are “natural-born citizens” for purposes of presidential eligibility.
In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in a Barack Obama eligibility lawsuit which tried to invalidate Obama’s receipt of Indiana’s Electoral College votes: “...we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels—November 12, 2009
There has been no successful appeal of the Court’s ruling in Ankeny.
“No Court has ever ruled that there is a distinction between a “Citizen of the United States at birth” and a “Natural Born Citizen.”
“Sorry, but the Wong Kim Ark decision does note the distinction.”
Sorry, but you have misread/misstate Wong Kim Ark. It’s clear that even that court understood the terms to be the same.
As for why courts omit Minor, if they do ... “Minor says anyone born in the country to anything other than citizen parents (plural) is considered an alien or foreigner.”
Any such statement is a wrong interpretation of the 14th amendment and overruled by WKA and the numerous decisions that followed, that clearly give birthright citizenship to children born here of non-citizen residents.
“If the Supreme Court follows the intent and meaning of the natural born citizen clause as Jay and Madison understood it”
....
If the Supreme Court follows the intent and meaning of the natural born citizen clause as Jay and Madison understood it, they would use the common-law definition of ‘natural-born’ to be those who acquire citizenship by birth, (viz. Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”)
and following the framer’s language and intent, and folowing the common understand of the two ways to become citizen - by birth or via naturalization (Elk ruling, etc) - they would rule that any naturalized US citizen was ineligible, and anyone who acquired US citizenship at birth was ‘natural-born’ and hence eligible to be President.
And even WKA SCOTUS understood that children of aliens born in our country might be “natural-born”.
“Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” - US v Wong Kim Ark
“If England can claim foreigners who gave birth to children and claim the children as their natural born subjects, how can a birth overseas in England or any other country be considered a natural born US citizens? You can’t.”
This dilemmas is EASILY resolved.
Natural-born citizens are citizens at birth.
Each country has its own rules for citizenship at birth, and US law is clear that another country’s law HAVE NO EFFECT on our citizenship laws. That is, if some other other country grants citizenship to you for some reason, that has no bearing on whether you have US citizenship rights. In some cases that may lead to dual citizenship.
“Jindhal is a natural-born citizen of the USA.”
“Not if his parents weren’t citizens at his birth.”
You are wrong. You are a natural-born citizen of the US if you were born in the US to residents who are not citizens. This is granted by the 14th amendment birthright citizenship clause. A court has ruled on it.
In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in a Barack Obama eligibility lawsuit which tried to invalidate Obama’s receipt of Indiana’s Electoral College votes: “...we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Ankeny et. al v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels—November 12, 2009
There has been no successful appeal of the Court’s ruling in Ankeny.
” I understand that no court has found a distinction between “Natural Born Citizens” and “persons physically born in the USA.” What I want know is if any court has explicitly ruled that these two things are identical?”
We should clarify that these would not be identical. Instead, what is identical (since these are merely equivalent legal terms of art) are ‘natural-born citizens’ and “citizens from time of birth”.
You could be a natural-born US citizen, even if born overseas, to US citizen parents, and the rights of citizenship in those cases is defined in US code.
“The kid is either a natural born in one country OR the other country - the child cannot be an NBC of both. “
And moreover, to clarify this statement above from my post 623, the kid having two different sovereigns who can make a claim on the child as a citizen cannot be a natural born citizen of either.
Not true. Even under English common law, a child of aliens born on English soil was a ‘natural born subject’, while French law would grant citizenship via parentage. Hence, for hundreds of years it has been possible to be the ‘natural-born’ subject or citizen of two countries, one derived via soil the other via parentage.
As I said, US citizenship law ignores all other laws when granting rights. So any possible dual citizenship does NOT impact one’s rights as a ‘natural-born citizen’. See Elg ruling.
“If the Supreme Court follows the intent and meaning of the natural born citizen clause as Jay and Madison understood it, and it isn’t the King subject nonsense, they will come to the correct conclusion that Obama illegitimately sits in the White House.”
Furthermore from “Judge” Land,...”
Even the plaintiff in the case herself, Captain Connie Rhodes wrote a letter to Judge Land telling him that Orly the birtherbot had filed an appeal on Captain Rhodes’ behalf that Captain Rhodes did not authorize and the PLAINTIFF told Judge Land that she no longer wished to be rrepresented by Orly Taitz.
Back here on planet Earth and out of birtherbot fantasy la-la land, when a judge’s decisions are upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States and the plaintiff herself writes to the Judge requesting that he ignore the ravings of her former attorney, that’s about as good as it gets for judicial vindication of one’s verdict.
Captain Connie Rhodes’ letter to Judge Clay D. Land:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19905657/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-18-Letter-from-plaintiff-Connie-Rhodes-regarding-withdrawal-of-motion-to-stay-Govuscourtsgamd77605180
Maybe, someday, the birtherbots will actually find a plaintiff who has standing to sue Barack Obama for illegally occupying the Oval Office and carrying the nuclear football and we can have a real trial on the merits with evidence and witnesses and subpoenas and all that good stuff. But that day is not today.
There is one more Obama eligibility appeal on the docket for the Supreme Court: Kerchner v Obama. We will soon know whether there are four justices willing to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certioari in this appeal from the 3rd Circuit which imposed court costs on Kerchner for filing a suit that they also deemed “a frivolous appeal.”
In plaintiffs’ suit challenging the legitimacy of President Obama’s citizenship, district court’s dismissal is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs lack standing; and 2) because the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as a meaningful notice that this appeal would be frivolous, the plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal.
Appellate Information
Submitted 07/02/2010
Decided 06/29/2010
Published 07/02/2010
Judges
SLOVITER
Court
US 3rd Circuit
Counsel
For Appellant:
Mario Apuzzo, Tony West
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-3rd-circuit/2010/07/02/250371.html
We've also had at least one president, in addition to Obama, namely Chester Aurthur, whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Birthers like to claim that Aurthur was also a "usurper," and that he somehow hid the facts surrounding his father's citizenship, but that is not true. That his father was an Irish immigrant was common knowledge, and the timing of his father's naturalization was a matter of public record, and yet no one seemed to care.
Finally, there have been dozens of presidential and vice presidential candidates with non-citizen parents, and no one ever questioned their eligibility. Sipro Agnew comes to mind immediately.
Also, I'm confident that prior to the emergence of the birther movement in 2008, you will not find a single legal scholar claiming or arguing that presidential eligbility requires citizen parents.
The 14th amendment did not change the meaning of Natural Born citizen. IT only allowed people to claim citizenship with less than full and complete allegiance as required under Article 2 . It still required that the parents have allegiance to the U.S., the court recognized immigration(legal) as a form of allegaince as it normally leads to citizenshp.
Natural Born citizen : Children ( who parents owe full and complete allegiance to the U.S. ) are Natural Born.
The 14th AMENDMENT did not address Article 2 and Natural Born citizenship.
I haven't misstated anything. WKA made a clear distinction.
"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States.""
"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.""
Here they say the Constitution defines 'citizen of the United States' via the 14th amendment (by citing the language of that amendment). In terms of natural born citizenship, it cites Minor.
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Clearly, one term is defined in the Constitution and the other, NBC, is NOT. Justice Gray doesn't dispute Justice Waite's conclusion and is in fact, bound by them. Later in the decision, Gray cites Waite's definition of NBC.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
All children born in the country of citizen parents ARE natural born citizen as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. The Indiana Appeals Court argues that the Minor decision only deals with persons born of two citizen parents or two alien parents, but clearly, the only people recognized in this definition of NBC are those persons born to citizen parents with the alternative being that anybody else not meeting that definition is considered a foreigner or alien.
Justice Gray in the WKA decision does nothing to dispute this decision. Instead, he had to find a way to say that a person born of an alien can still be a citizen at birth. This is why he did an extensive review of English common law, proposing that if English common law (not natural law) can allow the children of aliens to be subjects, then that same principle would apply in the United States (but only as expressed by the 14th amendment). Second, he had to use English common law to express the thought that the Constitution overrides a treaty with China that did not allow the naturalization of its subjects in foreign countries. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually jibe with the wording of the Constitution that says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ..." and puts the Constitution and Treaties made under equal footing.
Lastly, what you faithers don't want to acknowledge is that WKA said that for children born of non-citizen residents to 14th amendment citizenship, their parents needed to be permanent residents and have permanent domicil in the United States. WKA's parents met this standard. Obama's father does not.
We do not expect of someone living under a rock and with Ostrich behavioral, sticking their head in the sand, to have enough attention span to now remember our FReeper outrage of the Senate Resolution 511, that your mentor and boss, the usurper and illegal alien in the W.H. signed, hello!!!
A silly deflection Obot since it was you who brought up Jay and Madison. Daniel Boone is highly likely not mentioned in any of briefs Obot, but he likely knew that it took citizen parents and born in the country to be a natural born citizen. And you are wrong [again and again] John Jay was cited in Apuzzo's 20,000 word court brief. John Jay is the reason why the US Constitution has the Natural Born Citizenship clause. Before Jay's letter reached the president of the Philadelphia Constitution convention, the Constitutional draft said "born" in the country to qualify to be president, and as we know now that changed to natural born. This should be a slam dunk proof to lying jus soli crowd, but they are delusional.
I think you need to look that word up in a dictionary since you have used it incorrectly in the sentence above. You can’t “be” imprimatur.
Wrong again, I used it correctly. You can think? LoL.
Land - "but a court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.” "
Land did not give his approval or support for Taitz's case; he evaded her charges made against the usurper in his "court."
Judge Land may be “dishonorable” to you but when birtherbot attorney Orly Taitz tried to get Supreme Court Justice Thomas to stay Judge Land’s imposition of $20,000 in sanctions against her for filing a frivolous lawsuit, Justice Thomas upheld Judge Land. Ms. “birtherbot” Taitz then went to Justice Alito with her application for a stay of sanctions.
We see here again that Land was not "imprimatur" to Taitz's case, and Thomas and Alito didn't uphold anything they 'Evaded' the case just as Thomas testified to Cong Jose Serrano during a Cong hearing.
Even the plaintiff in the case herself, Captain Connie Rhodes wrote a letter to Judge Land telling him that Orly the birtherbot had filed an appeal on Captain Rhodes’ behalf that Captain Rhodes did not authorize and the PLAINTIFF told Judge Land that she no longer wished to be rrepresented by Orly Taitz.
Actually, Rhodes didn't write the letter someone else put words in her mouth and wrote it. We never heard from her again.
“Finally, there have been dozens of presidential and vice presidential candidates with non-citizen parents, and no one ever questioned their eligibility. Sipro Agnew comes to mind immediately.”
I hadn’t known that about Agnew.
“Also, I’m confident that prior to the emergence of the birther movement in 2008, you will not find a single legal scholar claiming or arguing that presidential eligbility requires citizen parents. “
Actually, that is STILL the case. There is no true legal scholar who is a birther and no birther who is a legal scholar.
No legal scholar agrees with the birther definition of eligibility, which is based on a bizarre mis-interpretation of very simple legal terms.
“The 14th amendment did not change the meaning of Natural Born citizen.”
Of course, it didnt change the meaning of ‘natural-born’ which both before and after meant those acquiring citizenship at birth. What it DID change was who got to be a citizen at birth.
All these arguments that require citizen parents to be a citizen at birth, aka natural-born citizen, use quote from prior to 1867.
Maybe the Constitution is only of historical interest to you, but to me it is the supreme law of the law and ALL OF IT is supreme. Including the Amendments. Tossing the 14th away and pretending it doesnt impact who gets to be President denigrates our Constitution and is wrong. If you acquired citizenship via the 14th amendment birthright citizenship clause, you can run for President.
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.