Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
From various members of the 1st Congress debating the 1790 Naturalization Act. (Note Jackson's use of Blackstone, and the other's use of British law.):
Mr. Jackson.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners. Representative James Jackson, Georgia, Officer during Revolution in State Militia, delegate to provincial Congress and to State Convention.
Mr. Burke....The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.Aedanus Burke, South Carolina, who had been an officer in the Continental Army.
Mr. Hartley observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that have been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.Rep Thomas Hartley, Pennsylvania, Continental Army Officer, Delegate to Provincial Congress, Delegate to Ratification Convention
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
in the hypothetical situation of one candidate running... my choice is Christie or don’t vote.
since my vote wouldn’t matter, as he’d win anyhow, the question is pointless.
So in the face of absolutely point-on information about early American law and disagreement with almost 100% of constitutional scholars and myriads of conservatives, you will insist on your interpretation of 3 words and fail to support a real conservative.
Too bad. That’s a good way to lose a republic.
The definition of legal terms in the Constitution would be presumed to comply with the definition of the words in the English Common Law. Xzins posted the Blackstone restatement of the law in effect at the time of the revolution and which continued to be utilized by the colonies. The definition of Natural Born Citizen included the children of citizens living abroad.
So it is not me who is not supporting the founding document, but those, like you, who would attempt to deny such NBC status to those whom the founders intended to be granted such Natural Born Status.
I understand that you are deeply invested in your misinterpretation of the intent of the founders because you want to believe that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and you hold out hope that someday some court will rule him ineligible and he will be removed from office in chains. Well that issue has been resolved against you. Time and time again. There is literally no chance of that happening, and anyone who thinks it might is clearly delusional.
It is you who is misinterpreting the NBC clause, not me, not xzins, not Jim Robinson, not Mark Levin.....
Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
I don’t get it. Some of these birthers would have the nation burn to the ground before they’d give up their demonstrably wrong interpretations of 3 words.
Saving face. All about saving face.
Like Obama and Syria. He said “red line”. Now he’ll drag us into war to save face.
And I thought it was about the preservation of the republic. Guess I was wrong.
keep telling yourself that. it’s what delusion is made from
stranglely enough, I’m pretty sure we could find more then 2 people out of 50m+ conservatives that could do the job
personally, I’m for following the law. I guess you’re more progressive then myself as your ok with making allowances to get your guy in
brilliant
of course, that’s the precise reason we’re in the mess we’re in
Actually, I think the law and constitution ACTUALLY say he is eligible. I have no doubt.
I’m not compromising anything at all.
I’m also not sure he’s running, but if he does, I’ll support him. The GOP-E is already attacking him....witness this birther attack in the face of obvious evidence supporting his NBC status.
Why don't you name those 2 people and start hawking their virtues instead of wasting so much bandwidth with your insane birther claims. If you think there is anyone that can rise from obscurity yo national prominence in the next 2 years and e ready to take on the birthers and the democrat smear machine and actually get elected, then you'd better tell us who it is and you'd better tell us quick.
Right now Ted Cruz is the front runner for the nomination. Who do you propose to replace him. Nd when you tell us, you'd better be sure he can actually win.
So, put up or shut up.
Jindal's parents are both naturalized citizens. His mother, pregnant with Bobby, was accepted as a graduate assistant at LSU, which offered her a month of maternity leave. His father gained them admission to the US on a P3-1 visa ("professional or highly skilled"). His mother could have gained entry on a student visa, however, then his father would not have been able to work, so they didn't take that route.
His father is now a civil engineer at URS, a large engineering firm, and his mother is Director of Information Technology at the Louisiana Department of Labor.
Therefore, Jindal, having been born in Louisiana, is natural born. As are Rubio and Nikki Haley, for the same reason, namely, having been born citizens. And of course, Cruz as well, being entitled to citizenship by birth because of his mother.
Going by memory from when this was a freeper discussion about 2 years ago, Jindal’s parents were in the US on student visas, and in that same status at his birth.
THAT, however, doesn’t overcome our anchor baby law.
Of course, I’m willing to read evidence that disputes my memory. I’m pretty sure that was the discussion, though.
go get Arnold
using your interpretation of the Constitution he’d be eligible... and since he’s a successful business man, and very popular, he’d be a great pick.
of course, I’m not nearly as progressive as you... I don’t think he’s eligible either
RS: did you get your law degree from the matchbook cover school of law and shoe repair?.....
Xzins: So, are you claiming to be a lawyer. Did I get that right!???
RS: I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Adios I have no more time to waste with you on this lovely holiday....
Sounds to me like you have left the field for some reason....caught, perhaps, in a misrepresentation.
Your response proves you are more interested in destroying Ted Cruz than saving the republic.
a junior senator is the only hope for the republic??
ROFLMAO
Was Arnold born to an American mother too? Small world.
that doesn’t matter anymore. the bar seems to be just citizen
of course, if we were trying to align with the Constitution... we’d look to the reason for the unique requirement. as stated by the founders, they wanted to avoid split allegiences at least by birth... thereby the ‘natural born’ clause.
therefore a person cannot be ‘natural born’ if they had multiple citizenship possibilities... as that would introduce split allegiances.
there’s just no other way to honestly see it
Well, if the courts, the Congress, the electors and the chief election officers of all fifty states (usually a Secretary of State) have all decided that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen, perhaps they will do the same for Senator Cruz, naturally.
Some official authority has to decide who is and who isn’t natural born. In 2009 it was the Hawaii Health Department Director:
July 27, 2009
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
“failure to understand that fact should probable disqualify anyone from being taken seriously regarding the subject.”
Yup, except it’s English Law, not British. Or as many State Constitutions say, in the clause where they dictate what law will be used in the State, “The Common Law of England”, to the extent it is not repugnant or contrary to the State or Federal Constitution.
Scotland, for example, has a different legal system from England, which is why “British” is not quite accurate.
The right to a jury trial which the 7th Amendment “preserves” was the English right to a jury trial. So the Seventh Amendment goes out of its way to build a fortress around this particular aspect of English Law to protect it from those who would banish it from US Courtrooms.
For me you touched a very crucial point of discussion. If the future of the USA cannot bring forth more strong and honest Constitutionalists like CruZ the Nation is in dire situation and the argument that ‘we have to take what we have or can get’ does not bode well for this great Nation.
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.