Posted on 04/10/2011 1:00:04 PM PDT by patlin
The definition of “natural born” comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?
Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive” allegiance at birth was to the United States.
This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: 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.
During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.
Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One” standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One” in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good
[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One” union.
“Jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.
The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others born on US soil are citizens by statute because the status of the foreign parents are governed by Treaty, not by nature.
Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:
See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:
It’s that generational citizenship to which I referred in a previous reply. Some nations permit subsequent generations to claim citizenship, and some have bestowed it. Italy, England, Israel and others, even Ireland I believe, with citizenship offered down to the second generation abroad. It has to be claimed, though. It’s not as if such individuals are born with that citizenship, as Obama was with British citizenship. That’s what she means.
Ther is no legal doubt that under the laws of citizenship, McRomney is eligible. He is a natural born citizen of the United States as was his dad. Will I or would I ever vote for him? Never in a million years! He is a left leaning socialist leaning marxist RINO cut from the same mold as McCain’t.
generational citizenship is of feudal origins put in place by a sovereign king. it is statute law, not natural law.
Nope.
There is no legal doubt that under the laws of citizenship, McCain is eligible.
Until all BC of Romney and his father are shown,
the evidence is that he is NOT eligible.
(just like Obama whom he helps and protects)
It’s a potential extenuating circumstance for those born of naturalized immigrant parents or even grandparents, who would otherwise have no doubt regarding their natural born citizenship status. The vast majority of such nations require a descendant of their citizens to claim citizenship themselves upon reaching the age of majority. It’s not a condition existing at birth. England was an exception at the time of Obama’s birth. They claimed the children of their citizens as citizens also, regardless of where they were born.
You can't say that with legal certainty. Most who claim this ardently want to believe he is natural born because they themselves were born abroad to parents in the military, or their children were. Several attempts at altering the very Constitutional eligibility requirement at question have been made in the form of Bills over the past decades, for the very reason of making children born abroad of military parents eligible for the Presidency. Such an undertaking would have been totally unnecessary if what you claim to be true, actually were true.
I've seen very persuasive arguments that McCain was not in fact eligible, from Gabriel Chin and Lawrence Solum, two very credible authorities upon Constitutional law. I won't go so far as to say point blank that McCain was not and is not eligible, but there clearly are questions. The Panama Canal Zone was leased and was not US sovereign territory. There is some question as to whether McCain was born in the Zone or not, even so. McCain's very citizenship was at question up until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, according again to some credible authorities.
It's far from cut and dried, no matter how badly you want it to be.
... and it was part of their religious belief. Therefore, their fleeing the jurisdiction of the United States was motivated by a religious conviction that had been made illegal, which makes them refugees in my understanding of the word.
“Persecution” sounds rather harsh, since they did return when Mexico went into revolution, though. I don’t agree with polygamy or plural marriage, but they believed themselves to be required to do so.
Trying to step out of my own existence, beliefs and biases for a moment, in order to try and understand, I suppose I’d want to flee the jurisdiction that tried to force me to divorce my wife, too. Well, wives, plural, and I don’t agree with that, but it’s likely the sentiment that Romney and others like him shared that motivated them to flee to Mexico.
It is the law of nations and the right of expatriation, it is the law of nations regarding sovereign citizenship that is our law and by treaties with other nations, those foreign nations must first look to their treaty with the US when determining the status of children born there to American parents. The nations that claim a child born on their soil is always a member of their nation no matter what is because their law does not recognize the right of expatriation, that the individual is sovereign and that his inalienable rights rest within him. To those nations, only the king is sovereign and all rights rest within that one person and allegiance to him is perpetual. It can not be cast off. That feudal doctrine of the king was cast off from this nation on July 4, 1776. If it wasn’t, then we were never free from Great Britain and we all still owe fealty to her.
As far as the doctrine of “jus soli” citizenship. It does not exist in the British codes today. They finally banished it forever as it pertains to children born in England to 2 alien parents. Today, children with British heritage can claim the status of “British protected person” but not that of citizenship.
Now what that In means, I don’t know but I am guessing it has to do with the 20th century progressive doctrine of statelessness as defined by the United Nations that started appearing sometime during Woodrow Wilson’s tenure as president. Before then, stateless meant an innate piece of land that belonged to no country. A piece of land that had not yet been conquered. In their sick twisted minds, they think that a human being is property to be claimed by a state/nation and therefore the human has no God given inalienable rights. Their rights are what the government says they are and those rights are as fleeting as the ever changing governments.
You are correct in what you’ve written, but the citizenship laws of other nations as applied to potential Presidential candidates do matter, if those nations have a legitimate claim of citizenship upon them. That’s why if there is any such potential claim, I’ve come to the conclusion that the potential candidates’ eligibility should be regarded as being in doubt until the matter is investigated and resolved.
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
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.
Why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?
Therein lie the answer. Obama knew, 1st & foremost, he was a British citizen at birth according to the laws of nature and the common law doctrine of natural born citizen. Also, studying constitutional law, he knew that dual citizenship was that of statute and not of nature as defined by the 14th & the 1868 Expatriation Act. Children follow the condition of the father as the family is but “One” unit under but “One” allegiance in the eyes of the law. If Obama truly is a US citizen today, it is by choice, not by nature.
That Congress attempted, wrongly, to legislate natural born citizenship to children of citizens born abroad in 1790 says to me that the matter was not regarded as being quite so clear cut, patlin.
Doubts remain. Those doubts are evidenced by the various Bills sponsored in an attempt at amending the Constitutional natural born citizenship requirement to encompass children born abroad to parents in service to the military.
“... and it was part of their religious belief. Therefore, their fleeing the jurisdiction of the United States was motivated by a religious conviction that had been made illegal, which makes them refugees in my understanding of the word.”
Would you also have considered the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Warren Jeffs a “refugee” if he had fled to Mexico to escape the polygamy and child rape laws of the State of Utah or bigamy charges in Texas?
I really like your analysis and cites. America is not so much a representative republic, it is a hierarchical representative republic.
The original voting in most states was set up to make family households the smallest unit of representation, each family voting through the male head of household.
The States were represented, as States, in Congress by Senators, and in electing Presidents by the Federal Electors.
For many years Countries, as Counties, were represented in one house of the State Legislature.
The hierarchy is of utmost importance, for it keeps vital a respect for and compliance with the duties of being a representative of a body.
The direct election of Senators (17th Amendment, 1912) destroyed the representation of States as States in the Federal hierarchy. Allowing the voting franchise for women (19th Amendment, 1920) ended completely the representation of Family Households, as Family Households, throughout the nation. It should be noted that the example of the widow Lydia Taft of Uxbridge Massachusetts in 1756 being granted the household voting franchise because she was a widow should have served as the example to follow. Moses and G-d worked this whole thing out with the five daughters of Zelophehad some 30 centuries ago.
The One-Man-One-Vote rulings of the US Supreme Court in the progressive Warren Court of the 1960’s removed the representation of counties as counties in the State Houses, and to a lesser extent in the US House.
Today, with the hierarchies flattened and perverted, we have rule of the mob, and of those demagogues and propagandists who inflame and herd the mob as a mob.
No, because those laws had always been in effect for Warren Jeffs. They were not imposed upon him after the fact.
“They were not imposed upon him after the fact.”
We are not talking ex post facto here.
We are talking about an activity which became illegal at some point in time and while those who were involved in polygamy prior to the law being passed were not in violation, those who committed polygamy after the law was enacted were in violation.
By your standard of “They (the polygamy laws) were not imposed upon him after the fact.” an abortionist could claim the same thing and continue to perform abortions after Roe v. Wade is overturned and a state passes a law to make performing abortion to be illegal..
The Abortion Law was passed after the fact that said person became an abortionist.
I don’t think Congress in 1790 wrongly decided it. What they did not contemplate was being brought into another war so soon. They also did not contemplate England refusing the right of expatriation they reclaimed for themselves and unfortunately, the Treaty of Paris did not specifically address this right as it pertained to naturalized British immigrants in the US.
The doubts in Minor v Happersett pertained to the feudal doctrine fo “jus soli” that still existed in a few of the states after the Declaration of Independence during the Confederacy but prior to the adoptio of the US Constitution.
I've in no way advocated the continuance of illegal activity, here. So, just where you spun this weird yarn running the gamut from polygamy to abortion is beyond me.
What I have written indicates that I believe Mormons who left the country after an aspect of their religious beliefs was made illegal, met the definition of refugee. Everything else has been spun out of whole cloth by you.
You never fail to hit all the liberal, SPLC hotbuttons, too. Warren Jeffs was never not breaking the law. There was no time in his pitiful, warped life when his activities were legal. If he were to flee prosecution, he would be a fugitive. If there were indeed a Mormon nation in the world, perhaps that nation might take him in as a refugee, but the rest of the world would not.
On to abortion ... huh? By my standard, illegal is illegal. If an individual wants to leave the country to continue to perform or receive abortions, good riddance, but they're still killing the innocent and they will have their day of reckoning, perhaps not on this Earth but it will come.
To try and thread this nonsequitur back into George Romney's life, if said abortionist then desired to return to the United States, their abortions would still be illegal, just as polygamy was still illegal.
Your thinking is just very disordered, trumandogz.
Obviously they did. Return to enumerated powers of the Legislative pertaining to citizenship, which was and is "an uniform rule of Naturalization." Period. If there's anything natural born isn't, it's naturalized.
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.