Posted on 08/11/2020 7:30:27 PM PDT by captain_dave
“...Article 14 Sec 1:
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....”
************************************************
I know that you know this but, for the benefit of others who may not, “citizen by means of being born in the USA” does NOT ALWAYS EQUAL the constitutional “natural born citizen”.
“Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?”
If you read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, that covers it really and needs nothing from Congress. The INA was used, a few times, to get rid of quotas and open up citizenship to other nations other than Europe. But it applies to defining what an alien has to do to become a citizen. And nothing in the INA applies to a person born in the US. So it withdraws itself from need and it is the only other document that can define citizenship requirements completely.
In Black’s Law Dictionary, natural born is defined as:
“someone who is “born within the jurisdiction.”
rwood
Nope.
In that naturalizaton statute, the U.S. Congress said that persons born overseas to U.S. citizens are “considered as” natural born citizens. (Then five years later the first two words of “natural born citizen” were removed from that term as unnecessary and potentially confusing.)
The phrase “considered as” is what is referred to as “prescriptive” language. It is legislature-speak for: We know you are not really or truly “X”. However, we are going to treat you “as if” you are really and truly “X”, at least for purposes of A, B, C, etc.
You agree, do you not, that Congress cannot, with a mere statutory law, change or tweak the definition of a term that not only appears without an accompanying definition in the U.S. Constitution (meaning it must already have had a commonly understood definition) but is also apparently included therein to establish and define an eligibility restriction with respect to an immensely important new federal office, the holder of which will now and forever be a natural rival to Congress, at least because he or she will be the head of an entirely separate but equal branch of the new three-branch federal government than that of Congress?
If Congress COULD do that, would the POTUS eligibility criteria not surely and immediately and permanently change to favor the first political party that found itself simultaneously controlling the White House as well as both houses of Congress? “Natural Born Citizen means, at least in part, a member of our political party, and not theirs...”
Hello PJ,
My response is to all of your posts. You are someone who really gets it regarding the nbC requirement. Kudos to you for that!
I used to argue the meaning nbC citing some of the documents that you have cited (and that is always valuable, especially in a legal setting), but I have come to realize that most people don’t respond well to a wall of text and that the naysayers use the details and minutia to waylay and wear down a discussion, so I now try to concentrate on “words mean things” and lead the ignorant and enemies of the Constitution to concentrate on the meaning, purpose and added value of the word “natural” to the phrase “born citizen.”
Natural means by nature, not by man or man’s law, and its value is to exclude foreign intrigue or influence from the executive (but you obviously know that). I try to get the ignorant to explain why “natural” was added to the phrase and what purpose does it serve? The naysayer may come up with horribly convoluted reasons, but Occam’s razor and common sense lead to only to the Founders’ understanding.
I wish the Founders had written the requirement to be “born and raised free of all foreign citizenships and allegiances” (obviously that was their intent). In fact, Vattel’s definition may have been used because it was well known at the time and was an easy “bright line” definition.
Times have changed and global travel is easy and commonplace, so being born somewhere does not mean being raised there, weakening Jus soli. Also, many modern nations allow dual citizenship and even our own naturalization process was watered down by aka obama to no longer require renunciation of all foreign citizenships (may be wrong about this), so there now is a new avenue for citizens of naturalized parents to be born with dangling allegiances (the founders must be spinning in their graves).
The bright line nbC requirement excludes citizens born at high seas or born to USA tourists briefly abroad in countries that make no Jus soli claim (thus no dangling allegiances), so in this way it is slightly unnecessarily restrictive compared to the allegiance at birth test, but I suppose this category was considered to be tiny enough to be sacrificed for expediency.
Also, the nbC requirement lets through children of naturalized citizens who still retain alien citizenship (of course, the Founders could not have anticipated this).
I am interested in your thoughts on these matters.
“Nope.”
Yep. I did not write the Naturalization Act of 1790, which I quoted. It directly states that natural born means birth from citizen parents and that citizenship descends from the father. I quoted it because it does define the term natural born and was ratified by the U. S. Congress.
“You agree, do you not, that Congress cannot, with a mere statutory law, change or tweak the definition of a term that not only appears without an accompanying definition in the U.S. Constitution...”
Yes. That is my point. And the Constitution does not define any of its legal terms, in case you haven’t noticed. They used legal terminology current at the time.
The concept that natural born refers to birth from citizen parents was current in the United States up until very recently, and understood as such by tens of millions of people and taught by educators, and now, all of a sudden, people scratch their heads and wonder what it means, as if those two hundred years of belief were in error.
I have read the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with natural born citizenship. It deals with granting citizenship to a specific group of people, that being former slaves. You're trying to apply it in a manner in which it wasn't designed.
Would you like a link to the Congressional Record where the Amendment was debated?
Congressional Debates of the14th Amendment to the United States Constitution
Particular notice to page 18/19. Find/Search citizen/citizens and slave/slaves throughout.
Pay attention as well to the first line of debate...
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Mr. FESSENDEN. The joint committee, so called, on reconstruction have directed me to report, first, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States...
I don't even know why you're bringing it up.
No, it’s a clear and concise law we are all governed by for good reason, the trust for someone who occupies this high office to have no other loyalties except to the USA. There is no other way to interpret it other then to pervert it toward nefarious means and to further those who have already perverted it in our recent past. Those that ignored it are reaping what they sow. ignore this law at our peril. we have already seen the fruits of forgetting this keystone to our Constitution.
Well stated. Bravo!
By rights Kamala Harris should not even be a citizen.
The founders and even most politicians up through the first three fourths of the twentieth century would be aghast at the concept of anchor babies. Anchor babies are only improperly considered a citizen at birth because of the perversion of modern courts and politicians in treating the Constitution as a “living document” so that they can interpret it however they please. This anchor baby nonsense all started with Justice William J. Brennan’s footnote in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 and was pushed into high-gear USA-destruct-mode by the evil Ted Kennedy.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
Section 1. 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. […]
Consider the following three unassailable points.
1) The congressional record reveals that 14th Amendment was intended only to ensure USA citizenship for former slaves indigenous to the USA. The anchor baby citizen is a modern perversion of this intent.
2) The text of Section 1 clearly states that it only applies to residents of a state. Illegal invaders or other temporary alien visitors and their spawn have no legal permanent residence in any state. They are trespassing aliens or are tourists, students, etc. whose legal permanent residence is in an alien land, not one of our states.
3) The subject of Section 1 is citizenship, so when considering jurisdiction, only political jurisdiction is relevant. The political jurisdiction of alien invaders, tourists, alien students and other temporary alien visitors and any spawn they might happen to drop is their home country. That is where they vote, and where they are citizens. The fact that they are subject to local criminal jurisdiction is irrelevant to questions of citizenship.
. . . "to ensure USA citizenship for former slaves indigenous to the USA" who would otherwise be completely stateless!
Thanks!
First, thank you for the kind words.
Second, I can't help the "wall of text." Some things just need explaining. I see the Constitution as a tapestry, full of threads woven throughout it. Pull on one thread, and another begins to fall out. The "natural born" clause is one of those threads. Not only does one need to set it against the other text (why is it here and not there, why was citizen used elsewhere but not here, etc.), but it has to be shown against independent text found in other contemporary writings that survived the march of time.
Third, I wrote this little bit about non-citizen births back in 2018:
The people of any nation have the right to choose who can join their nation. If they do not have the right to control their own citizenry, then they are at risk of invasion from outside.There are two ways to join the nation: be the Posterity of its citizens, or become naturalized by laws passed by the representatives of the people in Congress.
People who are not citizens of this country who birth children in this country take away the right of the citizens of this country to control who may become it's citizens. It is an invasion from within by foreigners to take over the country without the consent of its native citizens.
I still believe this to be true. Allowing the children of non-citizens to become citizens by accident of birth here undermines a nation's own right to control its culture. If a parent is here on a permanent-resident visa, the childd inherits that status. If the parent is here on a tourist visa, the child is a tourist, too.
Here is another one from 2018 on birthright citizenship:
Suppose that a vacationing couple, say from France, seeks refuge in the French embassy after accidentally killing someone in their rented car. While inside the French embassy, they are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. No natural born American citizen can do this.If a person can seek refuge here in the USA in another country's embassy or consulate where they are not subject to our jurisdiction, then they are not fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Now suppose this French couple had a baby inside the United States. Is this baby entitled to the protection of the French embassy, just like its parents?
Is there any place inside the United States where you or I can avoid the jurisdiction of the United States? Why should other "citizens" (like this French baby) be afforded this right? Why should "birthright" citizens have more protections against United States jurisdiction than natural born citizens?
Why would the Constitution create a class of citizen with more protections than other citizens?
My answer is that it doesn't. That baby was not intended to be a citizen, and certainly not a natural born citizen.
Finally, I was pondering the "McCain" case and wondering how to craft language that might exempt military or diplomat parents from having their children's citizenship questioned. I finally settled on this suggestion for a Constitutional amendment:
We need an amendment that says:
- A child born within the United States of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
- A child born outside the United States of two citizen parents, where at least one parent was resident within the United States in the previous 10 years is a natural born citizen.
- A child born outside the United States of two citizen parents, where neither parent was resident within the United States during the previous 10 years, must naturalize the child within the first 10 years of the child's life.
- A child born of only one citizen parent must naturalize the child within the first 10 years of the child's life, regardless of birth location.
- A child born inside the United States of two non-citizen parents is not a citizen of the United States. Citizenry descends to the child based on relevant laws governing the parents of the child.
- A child found within the United States of unknown parentage may become naturalized once the child reaches the age of 18. If adopted by a citizen parent, the child may become naturalized upon adoption.
I hope this satisfies your request for thoughts.
-PJ
I wish that minor born with or who has otherwise obtained USA recognized multiple citizenships (USA plus any others) should, within one year of obtaining the age of majority (normally 18), have to naturalize as a USA citizen and legally renounce all other citizenships or become an alien. This would prevent dual citizenship in adults and make it clear who is naturalized and who is a natural born Citizen. Of course no adult citizen should be allowed to take on any other citizenship without first legally renouncing their USA citizenship.
An important point all should recognize (of course you do) is that all citizens are equal under the law and under the Constitution. Presidential Constitutional qualifications are just job requirements intended to protect the Republic from lack of wisdom, lack of intimate fealty with the USA and from foreign intrigue or allegiance.
“I know that you know this but, for the benefit of others who may not, ‘citizen by means of being born in the USA” does NOT ALWAYS EQUAL the constitutional “natural born citizen’.”
Oh, it gets more intricate. Some legal organizations have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government. And leaving anything to that looney bin is a gamble.
rwood
“I don’t even know why you’re bringing it up.”
This line:
Article 14 Sec 1:
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....”
The line doesn’t just represent non-citizens but “all persons born” that do not need to gain citizenship. They already are by birth. Don’t read into it. It, like all documents, can only define what it says at each point. Citizens and natural born citizens may be two separate points. And as NBS has never been defined and determined to be a point on its own, can mean anything so the only point in the phrase that pertains is “all persons born.” She was born in California....citizen. Just like every other president after the first nine who were born outside the U.S. and the 14th amendment was passed in 1868.
Real problem is that if the natural born citizen term was the only determination of eligibility for POTUS, then without a definition, no one would be eligible. (Or everyone)
rwood
PLEASE! Don't play that stupid game!
Anchor Baby
Direct link...4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Now why in the world would they do that? The case must be pretty damning to the natural born citizen antagonist's argument, don't you think?
https://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
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.
Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
No. 18
Argued March 5, 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
169 U.S. 649
Syllabus:
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution:
“All person 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.”
She’s a citizen at birth, she can be president.
rwood
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.