Is Bobby Jindal Eligible To Become President If He Was Born Before Parents Were Naturalized?

[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.

[Red Steel]

There is no “BUT” ... you are confusing a basic and simple term of art with the legal satisfaction and requirements for that term.

There is a 'BUT' alright. That you did not understand or ignored the word "jurisdiction" in Black's Law Dictionary ...you likely did not understand the word. No 'term of art' nonsense.

I enlighten you faither to the meaning of 'jurisdiction.' Here again,

"..."Jurisdiction" is not only "territorial jurisdiction" but it encompasses allegiance owing jurisdiction where the foreign citizen who owes allegiance to a foreign sovereign. A foreign citizen can pass on their foreign sovereign to their child born on a foreign land, therefore, the child is NOT a natural born citizen. "

Black's Law Dictionary definition is no different than Bouvier's Law Dictionary as seen below.

As we see, Bouvier's Law Dictionary informs us to the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" in their definition while Black's Law Dictionary does not.

[WOSG]

Edge919 - A marvel of mis-reading, selective quoting and bad logic. The truth is SO SIMPLE, and yet you cling to complex and obscure lie, by ignoring the many points in plain sight that make your claims fatally flawed.

If you READ THE WHOLE RULING of Minor v Happersett, with a mind open to facts and logic, you will see that the simple truth - that ‘natural-born’ and ‘acquired citizenship at birth’ are one and the same - and the court even stated as much, on their way to making a ruling that declared women to be citizens yet not entitled to vote.

1) There are two ways to become a citizen:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.”

2) One of those ways, by birth, is synonomous with ‘natural-born’:
“This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

3) THIS SECTION IS ABOUT WHO ACQUIRES CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH AND USES “NATURAL-BORN” AS A TERM TO DESCRIBE THAT CLASS:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
note at the end, they just say citizens, when the whole paragraph is about natural-born citizens. Note that ‘there are doubts’ does not in any way limit the prior definition. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent decided that.

4) THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS SECTION WAS TO DETERMINE IS WOMEN ARE CITIZENS, the ONLY purpose for using “natural-born” was to distinguish from the OTHER case, that of naturalization:
“ The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “

and later... the court declares: “From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth. “

5) CLAIMS THAT THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL-BORN IS FIXED OR LIMITED IS SPECIOUS AS LATER IN THE RULING ... “and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.

You state: “Clearly, one term is defined in the Constitution and the other, NBC, is NOT. “ Clearly, this statement is wrong. Citizenship rights are defined in the constitution and in laws. Attempts to treat a simple legal term of art as an artifice of some special and different class meets with the dull thud of reality- no court ruling, no law, and no contitutional provision has ever defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as anything other than simply those citizens who acquire citizenship at time of birth.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html

[Red Steel]

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.

Oh, Really? That other country's "laws HAVE NO EFFECT [BS] on our citizenship law"? You better think again or look again. Duel citizenship is frowned upon in this country. Here's why: before a would be naturalized person takes the oath of US citizenship, he has to renounce his former country's citizenship before he can become a United States citizen.

[WOSG]

OK, you clearly don’t get it. Let’s try again ...

“There is no “BUT” ... you are confusing a basic and simple term of art with the legal satisfaction and requirements for that term.”

This STILL HOLDS. “Natural-born citizen” = “citizen from time of birth”

The 14th amendment defines birthright citizenship with the qualifier “under the jurisdiction”. I don’t have an argument over how that is defined. Go ahead and try to show a court ruling that agrees with your version of ‘jurisdiction’.

However that is defined, whether broadly or narrowly, you still have that same equivalence: “Natural-born citizen” = “citizen from time of birth”

[WOSG]

It’s lame of you to call another poster an Obot.

Someone doesn’t become an “obot” just for disagreeing with your crank legal theories. On the contrary, you are doin a great service to Obama by embarrassing the conservative movement with brain-dead misinterpretations of basic legal concepts. Does your willingness to make conservatives look bad make you an ‘Obot’?

[Kleon]

Here's why: before a would be naturalized person takes the oath of US citizenship, he has to renounce his former country's citizenship before he can become a United States citizen.

Please cite the relevant citizenship law that states one must renounce the citizenship of their country of origin to become a U.S. citizen.

[zeestephen]

WSOG,

Excellent info, thanks.

I was interested in the 14th Amendment issue - whether non-citizen parents could produce a natural born citizen merely by giving birth on USA soil - which is why I worded my question so narrowly.

Curious about your own views on “14.”

The historical annotation is pretty clear this Amendment was focused on former American slaves, not foreign citizens.

The all-inclusive interpretation found in Ankeny is, as I recall, just a modern footnote by one Supreme Court judge on a somewhat unrelated issue.

[WOSG]

“Oh, Really? That other country’s “laws HAVE NO EFFECT [BS] on our citizenship law”?”

It is a part of our laws and court rulings. Your birthright citizenship is UNAFFECTED by any other nation’s laws on citizenship. Dual citizeship is possible.

“Duel citizenship is frowned upon in this country.”

Oh really.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Beys Afroyim (born Ephraim Bernstein in Poland in 1893) immigrated to the US in 1912 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1926. In 1950, Afroyim moved to Israel. He tried to renew his US passport in 1960, but the State Department refused on the grounds that he had lost his citizenship by voting in an Israeli election in 1951. Afroyim sued the State Department, and the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that he was still a US citizen.

The basic point of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk was that the “citizenship clause” of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution — while originally intended mainly to guarantee citizenship to freed Negro slaves and their descendants, and subsequently interpreted in Wong Kim Ark as conferrring citizenship at birth to virtually everyone born in the US — had effectively elevated citizenship to the status of a constitutionally protected right. Hence, Congress had no right to pass a law which had the effect of depriving an American of his citizenship without his assent.

Thus, the court ruled, a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act mandating automatic loss of citizenship for voting in a foreign election was invalid. Other, similar provisions providing for loss of citizenship for serving in a foreign army, or even swearing allegiance to a foreign country, were similarly invalid unless the action was accompanied by an intent to give up US citizenship.

[Red Steel]

It’s lame of you to call another poster an Obot.

It's not lame Faither bot.

I know the posting history of the clowns who post on these eligibility threads. Here it is from the horse's mouth Jamesseeee:

And again separated by two days admits he is a salary troll.

Someone doesn’t become an “obot” just for disagreeing with your crank legal theories.

As we see he is an Obot. The last I looked JR is on the warpath so the trolls better be careful. See what happened to your buddy in crime FakeDOC1980 - the zot girl above.

On the contrary, you are doin a great service to Obama by embarrassing the conservative movement with brain-dead misinterpretations of basic legal concepts. Does your willingness to make conservatives look bad make you an ‘Obot’?

Yeah sure [NOT] -- for those who support Obama and the delusional. It's the clowns and Obots who can't read.

[patlin]

Yes, I understand. You still think we are under British rule. However, even current legal historians tend to disagree with you...

The American Journal of Legal History (1974)

English concepts of subjectship and community encompassed a central ambiguity: on the one hand, society and government theoretically rested on individual consent and compact; on the other hand, the legal status and obligations of the individual remained natural, perpetual, and immutable. Across the Atlantic, circumstances almost immediately led men to attenuate and modify the concept of natural allegiance that was part of their legal and intellectual heritage.
____________________________________________________________

Jay to the President of congress Nov 24, 1785

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jVkSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA413&dq=Papers+of+John+Adams,+Volume+1+By+John+Adams&hl=en&ei=P53MTN4l1aaeB_2_4cUP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=vattel&f=false

Chief Justice Jay:

It will be sufficient to observe, briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities, and privileges ; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory, to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people ; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ.
___________________________________________________________

Heritage Guide to the Constitution; page 190:

[T]he third qualification to be president is that one must be a natural born citizen (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may be a member of Congress so long as he held citizenship for the requisite period of time, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen. Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern.[end quote]

Written by James C. Ho who wrote: “Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents” and was a supporter of Schwarzenegger for president and also for making adopted children born in foreign countries retroactive natural born citizens
___________________________________________________________

St George Tucker(Tucker's Blackstone) statements on Blackstone who WOSG likes to quote as America law. Too bad they only quote Blackstone & not the America Tucker:

Blackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker. —

TITLE: To Horatio G. Spafford.
EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 335.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1814

The exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium Sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted, more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law. The distinction between these, and those who have drawn their stores from the deep and rich mines of Coke on Littleton, seems well understood even by the unlettered common people, who apply the appellation of Blackstone lawyers to these ephemeral insects of the law. —

TITLE: To Judge Tyler.
EDITION: Washington ed. vi, 66.
PLACE: Monticello
DATE: 1812

Tuckers Blackstone (1803) William & Mary College...

From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:

First .... That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.

Secondly .... That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.

Thirdly .... That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it's own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state hath an exclusive right to be governed by it's own laws only.

Fourthly .... Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations .... which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.

Fifthly .... That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution

Tuckers Blackstone Appendix 1803:

Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.

From all these considerations it will appear, that in our inquiries how far the common law and statutes of England were adopted in the British colonies; or, in other words, what parts of those laws might be deemed applicable to their respective situations and circumstances, we must again abandon all hope of satisfaction from any general theory, and resort to their several charters, provincial establishments, legislative codes, and civil histories, for information. For although the colonial legislatures are understood to have been inhibited from passing any law derogatory from the sovereignty of the crown, or repugnant to the laws and statutes of England; which seems to have been the only common rule imposed upon them, yet the application of this rule in the several colonies will be found to have been as various as their respective soils, climates, and productions.

(snip for length)

3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.

And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.
___________________________________________________________

Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (both 1828 & 1846 editions):

ALIEN: 1. Foreign, not belonging to the same country, land or government; 2. belonging to one who is not a citizen
___________________________________________________________

FYI WOSG...quote from Blackstone's commentaries all you want, BUT, it would behoove you to quote the part pertaining to American Law, not British Law if you wish to be taken with any credibility.

[Kleon]

The last I looked JR is on the warpath so the trolls better be careful. See what happened to your buddy in crime FakeDOC1980 - the zot girl above.

I think it's the birthers who are just being "tolerated" around here. There are things argues on these birther threads I never thought I'd see on a conservative forum. We have people following a Hillary supporter's every word and insulting Rush Limbaugh. Fellow conservatives are called Obama supporters because they won't accept a false interpretation of the Constitution. And worse of all, foreign laws are being used to say who our President should be. It's madness.

[patlin]

Natural and native are both from the same word source, which is the same source as having anything to to with birth...

Yes, they both pertain to birth.

Native pertains to the soil the birth took place on and Natural pertains to the persons who conceived the child aka parentage.

Thanks for clearing that up for us(sarc) even though we know you can't quite comprehend such a uniquely world wide held concept that has been the root of civilization from the beginning of man(Adam).

[Red Steel]

The US does frowns upon it but they accept the reality of duel citizenship. Like I said, a foreign person seeking US citizenship makes a verbal oath to relinquish their former citizenship before they become US Citizens.

Back to Elg, after she was taken back to Sweden by her parents who renounced their US citizenship, she was reintroduced to Sweden and took on her parents Swedish citizenship, But that did not change the fact at the time of her birth that she was born in the United States and her parents at the time of her birth were US citizens. That's Vattel's law of nation's definition - parent citizens and born in country. Even your link admits that the Elg's case. To quote it, "The Elg case is not, strictly speaking, a dual citizenship case,..."

You do see the difference between Elg and Ark? I'll point that out again. Ark's parents were subjects of China as opposed to Elg's who had US citizen parents.

[jamese777]

“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.”

---

Kerchner v Obama has not been heard by the Supreme Court therefore Apuzzo’s 20,000 word brief has not been read. We’ll all have to wait and see whether four of the Justices feel that there is any constitutional merit to the Kerchner petition.

---

“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.”

---

I’m glad to see that you looked up the word “imprimatur” and have attempted to clean up your vocabularly error. You are somewhat teachable.

Dismissing a lawsuit and sanctioning the plaintiff’s attorney to the tune of $20,000 is not “evading” her charges. It’s ruling that her charges are frivolous and without merit.

---

‘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.”

---

Just because “evaded” is the favorite birtherbot term for every court ruling that goes against them doesn’t make it reality.

---

Actually, Rhodes didn’t write the letter someone else put words in her mouth and wrote it. We never heard from her again.

---

Show me where Captain Connie Rhodes has EVER stated that she didn’t write that letter to Judge Land. Captain Rhodes accepted the ruling of the court and she deployed to Iraq to fulfill her duty.
If Judge Clay D. Land was alone in ruling against the plaintiff in an Obama eligibility lawsuit, I’d grant you a debating point. But Judge Land is one of more than 120 judges, justices and appeals court panels, including the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States that have ruled against every single Obama eligibility lawsuit that has been filed and adjudicated.

---

“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution (see US CONST. Art. II, Section 1). This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, US District Court for the District of Columbia in dismissing the quo warranto claim in Taitz v Obama, April 14, 2010.

[edge919]

A marvel of mis-reading, selective quoting and bad logic.

Unfortunately for you, this comment only applies to yourself. I gave direct quotes using the term natural-born citizen. Can't wait to see the rediculous way you try to spin this.

Your quotes in points 1 and 2 don't presume citizenship at birth solely on the basis of jus soli (pun intended) to non-citizen parents. New citizens may be added at birth (or "may be born"), but nothing here says to noncitizen parents. Under the naturalization acts that Minor cites, children of aliens could only become citizens after their fathers naturalized. And of course, AFTER naturalization, any children born would then be natural born citizens. Sorry this logic completely escapes you.

On No. 3, you say, "note at the end, they just say citizens, when the whole paragraph is about natural-born citizens. Note that ‘there are doubts’ does not in any way limit the prior definition. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent decided that." It does limit the definition to children of citizen parents. Wong Kim Ark AFFIRMED this, because it said, "The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ..." What you're missing is that Justice Waite was rejecting the 14th amendment as being necessary for anyone who was not born of citizens parents. If the United States was following a so-called English common law principle of citizenship at birth regardless of the citizenship of the parents, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. Justice Waite used Vattel's definition of natural born citizenship to reject the 14th amendment for the plaintiff. "There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position." And he proceeds to explain that under the definition of natural born citizenship, Virgina Minor is already a citizen and does not need the 14th amendment. Justice Gray did not have these conditions to use for Wong Kim Ark. Remember, he upholds Minor's decision on citizenship, so he HAD to find another basis for declaring the child of a noncitizen to be a citizen at birth.

On Point No. 4, you say "THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS SECTION WAS TO DETERMINE IS WOMEN ARE CITIZENS, the ONLY purpose for using “natural-born” was to distinguish from the OTHER case, that of naturalization:" Well, no. The court is saying that women fall under both natural born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship. Waite's definition for NBC is "all children" and the 14th amendment says "all persons." The plaintiffs are proceeding "upon this idea" because she's trying to overturn a provision in her state's constitution that only allows male citizens vote.

You also fail in your citation between alien woman and children vs. native woman and children. Remember that Waite's definition of being born in the country to citizen parents makes some a NBC AND a NATIVE. Thus, a native woman and native child would be someone who is born in the country to citizen parents.

Point 5 is a fail because the quoted naturalization act merely shows that the citizenship of the parents (especially the father) is the stronger determinant for natural born citizenship; not jus soli. This does nothing to help your argument.

You said, "Citizenship rights are defined in the constitution and in laws." But as WKA and Minor both agree, Natural born citizenship is NOT defined in the Constitution. You say, "no court ruling, no law, and no contitutional provision has ever defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as anything other than simply those citizens who acquire citizenship at time of birth," which according to your own citations is wrong. Two court rulings and one law that you quoted define natural born citizen as being dependent on the citizenship of the parents. Game. Set. Match.

[Red Steel]

I think it's the birthers who are just being "tolerated" around here.

Just tolerated troll? Ask yourself a question about who sides with the Democrats here and Obama? Just because you don't see the owner of this website argue everyday on these eligibility threads that he agrees with you silly after-Birthers. JR has stated that Obama is the Usurper.

Read it a weep.

We have people following a Hillary supporter's every word and insulting Rush Limbaugh. Fellow conservatives are called Obama supporters because they won't accept a false interpretation of the Constitution.

Get a clue that you are wrong, and you guys are delusional if you think Rush is on your side. He's not.

And worse of all, foreign laws are being used to say who our President should be. It's madness.

Madness comes from your side.

[Red Steel]

"Read it a weep."

That should say "Read it and weep."

[patlin]

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 eligibility requires citizen parents

I don't know why you continue to post such blatant lies, when we have over & over again proven you wrong on this.

Example #1: PRESIDENTIAL TIMBER (1950 Cornell University)

A natural born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country...

In Ludlam v. Ludlam, judge Selden of the New York Court of Appeals provides a historical explanation:

The subject of alienage was very elaborately examined in Calvin's Case(7 Coke, 1, 6 James I). Among the principles settled in that case and which have remained unquestioned since are these: (1) that natural allegiance does not depend upon locality or place: that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot therefore be confined within certain boundaries; or to use the language of Coke that “liegeance and faith and truth which are her members and parts are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.”22

Judge Selden concludes that

“as a result of necessity from these principles, the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural-born citizens of England.”23

Thus, parentage and not the accidental place of birth determine “natural born citizens” under common law principles...
_______________________________________________

Example #2: Heritage Guide to the Constitution (2005 edition); page 190:

[T]he third qualification to be president is that one must be a natural born citizen (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may be a member of Congress so long as he held citizenship for the requisite period of time, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen. Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern.[end quote]

Written by James C. Ho (Berkley) who wrote: “Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents” and was a supporter of Schwarzenegger for president and also for making adopted children born in foreign countries retroactive natural born citizens

[Tublecane]

“The courts will not rule on NBC because its only required of the President and the Constitution only allows it to be contested in the Electoral College and in Congress. This is why all of the court cases against Zero have been thrown out under the grounds “Plaintiff has no standing.”

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the judiciary vetoing legislation, either, but that didn’t stop them. It’s not that they trust the electoral college and congress. We all know they love to shove their noses in dang-near absolutely everything, given they think it’s important.

The reason why they won’t hear cases on Obama is probably because those cases are truly without merit. Wait until some potential spoiler pops up: for instance a popular third-party candidate about whom there is pretty widespread knowledge of ineligibility. For instance, last cycle’s communist party nominee (if I recall correctly), only with a chance to garner significantly more than his mom’s vote. A foreign-born Ross Perot. SCOTUS would pick it up in a second.

[curiosity]

Like a typical birther, you have no reading comprehension skills. The very first source you cite supports my case, not yours:

A natural born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child,

Unless the parents are diplomats or invaders, the United States has jurisdiction over them if they are residing within the country at the time of the child's birth. Ergo, a child born to non-citizen parents in the United States is a natural born citizen.

“as a result of necessity from these principles, the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural-born citizens of England.”23

True enough, but the judge here is speaking of children of citizens born abroad. He's not talking about children of aliens born within the borders of the country in question.

Thus, parentage and not the accidental place of birth determine “natural born citizens” under common law principles...

Of course. That's why children of diplomats or invaders born within the US aren't citizens, as diplomats and invaders aren't subject to US jurisdiction.

However, resident aliens who do not enjoy any sort of diplomatic immunity are subject to US jurisdiction while on US soil. Hence it follows that their children, who are similarly born into such jurisdiction, are citizens at birth.

The Heritage guide you cite is also simlar in that it does not support your argument.