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.
Reportedly, Jindal's father did not enter as a student:
Amar Jindal's passport is notated with the code P3-1, the visa code in 1971 for "professional or highly skilled." And Raj Jindal received her green card as his spouse."Raj got her green card through her husband, Amar," [Jindal spokesman Kyle] Plotkin said. "Amar received his green card though a program by the federal government to increase the number of engineers. It was not through an employer."
Indeed, the chapter in Jindal's book on his parents' immigration to the United States is titled, "Yellow Pages," describing how his father, a professor of engineering in India, left behind a "great job," and "newly arrived in America with mom and not knowing a soul, had to find a job."
"So he sat down at the kitchen table in early 1971 and opened up the yellow pages. Starting with the A's, he made cold calls to local business in his heavily accented English, eventually landing a job offer at a railroad."
THAT, however, doesn’t overcome our anchor baby law.
What anchor baby law would that be? Jindal's natural born citizenship was granted through the Fourteenth Amendment. There have been laws proposed to fix the problem — it's obviously not a problem in cases such as Jindal's, although it is when low-skilled Mexicans drop 'em — but they are just political grandstanding and would not pass constitutional muster. (See the above link for a David Vitter proposal, LOL).
“You make a hell of a lot of stew from a single oyster, pal.”
That’s just the fishes. You should see what I can do with the loaves.
Well then, I guess it’s up to the voter (and ultimately the electors) to decide whether or not he has split allegiances. He looks to be a Reaganite constitutional conservative patriot and denies having anything whatsoever to do with Canada.
Looks ok to me. In fact he appears to be the very best!!
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.
What cockamamie interpretation is that?
Arnold (along with Henry) is a textbook example of someone who is not natural born. His parents were Austrian. He didn't come to this country until he was 21, a year after he became Mr. Universe ("The Mr. Universe title was my ticket to America – the land of opportunity, where I could become a star and get rich."). He didn't become a citizen until he was 36.
Fukino also said that Obama’s original birth certificate is half-handwritten (which clearly the April 2011 alleged LFBC is not), and there is no such legal entity in the United States as “natural-born American citizens.” Fukino might be able to say this in a news release, but in this country, we are U.S. citizens, not American citizens. She has no recognized authority on this matter. It was clearly nothing more than a P.R. stunt.
“Right now Ted Cruz is the front runner for the nomination. Who do you propose to replace him.”
Ted Cruz is not officially the front runner for the nomination. What makes you think this? Who you need to get behind is a true natural born Citizen born to TWO American U.S. Citizen parents named Sarah Palin. She is the epitome of true conservatism and she can take Cruz’s limelight away in a heartbeat. Sarah Palin has 100% pure American blood that flows thru her veins. Does Ted Cruz?
If anyone really needs to know what percentage of the Obama birth certificate is handwritten and what percentage is typed, they can get a court order to inspect it under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18.
The only data that is on a birth certificate that is relevant to Article II §1 eligibility is date of birth and place of birth.
Dr. Fukino’s press release was good enough for Speaker of the House John Boehner who said on Meet the Press: “The state of Hawaii has said he was born there, that’s good enough for me.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/143737-boehner-on-birthers-its-not-my-job-to-tell-the-american-people-what-to-think
then we need to stop calling things laws and just start calling them what they are:
a cute set of general guidelines to be ignored when inconvenient and applied when it suits us
of course, that may seem like the definition of a nation of men... and you’d be right.
we seem to be ok with people assuming the office even though they were born in another country... whose only connection to the US was through a single parent. it’s not much of a step to say someone like Arnold should be eligible since he’s very American and has worked hard as a pro-America person in public. he became naturalized, so that should be good enough. right?
as a group of people that are supposed to be staunch supporters of the Constitution... it’s pretty weak sauce to have to explain here of all places the differences between citizenship types and intentions of the document.
it would be stretching credibility to the extreme to explain how split allegiances at birth had nothing to do with multiple citizenship possibilities due to location and parentage
i would imagine the vast majority of Americans have no desire to be attacked by the IRS, the media and various opposing politicians while at the same time having to coax members of their own party into supporting something as fundamental as the Constitution
Arnold has his faults, but at least he's an American in his own mind, unlike the Natural Born Zero.
It's too much to expect to encode a magic formula for Commander-in-chief into a 200+-year-old constitution and expect the formulation to survive the main-stream media and the low-information voter.
That said, the Constitution forbids Arnold but allows little Barry Bastard. That's how the cookie crumbles.
We should take the Constitution at its most literal meaning: Cruz in, Barry in, Rubio in, Arnold out, Henry out, McPain in. Arguments centered on dead Swiss and targeted at Obama have no place in the current discourse, bearing in mind that consistency is the hobgoblin of limited minds.
Blackstone is only authoritative with respect to the meaning of terms in British law. But the term 'natural born citizen' is a term specific to US Constitutional law, and so Blackstone has no competence to speak to its meaning.
As to your other claims, they are comprehensively disproven in the essay I cited.
As this one is sure to become.
Not according to Original Intent.
From the first legal treatise written after Ratification
But some late incidents having given rise to an opinion, that the common law of England, is not only the law of the American States, respectively, according to the mode in which they may, severally have adopted it, but that it is likewise the law of the federal government,
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries
***
From the man who would become the first Supreme Court Justice:
I believe it to be the Inclination as well as the Interest of America to augment her Number of Citizens but still her Consent to admit a Foreigner must be as necessary as his consent to be admitted besides, it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administred to Servants of Congress—for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all
John Jay To Dr Franklin, 31 May 1781
***
To Supreme Court cases:
“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
***
To State cases:
“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky , 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)
***
To the fourth legal treatise written after Ratification-
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Only natural born State Citizens have the 'privilege' of running for the highest Offices in the land.
------
The reason no *legal* authority will touch the NBC issue is that any close examination of the facts would reveal that they're ARE no more 'natural born citizens', because NATURAL Rights and NATURAL born citizenship is possessed only by State Citizens. Anyone claiming 'US citizenship' outside the area of enumerated Constitutional jurisdiction is claiming to be a creation of the federal government.
That's how our Rights became 'privileges', how government has gained it's ability to discriminate against some people by making protected classes of 'persons' out of others, and why government says we 'voluntary' follow its draconian *laws*....
Because everyone has been ~educated~ into 'voluntarily' claiming to be the wrong kind of citizen.
I meant to PING you to #215 as well.
The congressional record, also cited in the article, shows Congress in the middle of referencing Blackstone and British law. It really doesn’t matter what anyone else says when you can see it for yourself.
John Roberts, for example, rewrote a law and changed a mandate into a tax.
Cruz is eligible, so far as everything I’ve read says, so far as about 100% of the legal scholars say, so far as current law says, and so far as the history of presidential candidates says.
Therefore, you get to choose your own personal interpretation of law, or you get to admit that at the worst it’s an open question about which you have a good possibility of being wrong.
As for the nation, IF you had to choose between Christie and Cruz, who would you rather be president of the USA?
I believe it to be the Inclination as well as the Interest of America to augment her Number of Citizens but still her Consent to admit a Foreigner must be as necessary as his consent to be admitted besides, it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administred to Servants of Congress—for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all
John Jay To Dr Franklin, 31 May 1781
What do you understand to be the significance of that quote? I am having trouble following your line of reasoning here.
Sorry, but the evidence is right before us. The 1790 law USES the term “natural born citizen”. That provides instant insight into the breadth of meaning that they believed it had. That their USE of the term aligns with Blackstone and British law is compelling demonstration of what the term could mean.
Your article really is irrelevant when we’re looking square in the face of a term being used a particular way. No matter how much anyone claims that it can’t be used that way, it is there right before our eyes BEING USED THAT WAY!
It is broad enough to be used also for the children born overseas to citizens. The proof: we see it. It’s right there.
I just looked at Wikipedia, not the best of sources but quick, and it says Jindal’s mom was 4 months pregnant with Bobby Jindal when they arrived in the country, and was born a few short months later. There is no way they could have been naturalized citizens in that time. The residency requirement is much longer than that.
So, we’re talking of a guy who was born to non-citizen parents while they were on student visas in the USA.
It’s pretty much irrelevant, though, because from what I understand, current law interprets anyone physically born in the USA as being a native born citizen, with the exception perhaps of children of diplomatic parents.
As a native born citizen, Jindal can run for any office, and pretty much has.
I object to anchor baby citizenship, but there’s not much I can do about it.
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.