You don't have to converse at all on this thread although you choose to do so.
This must be you. 
And maybe you are related to...
Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by 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.
The weakness in these arguments is that citizenship ultimately is defined in our constitution and our laws, and common law is used only when those other guideposts are lacking. The 14th amendment dd indeed change things, because it made clear cases - like Wong Kim Ark - that would have been unclear otherwise.
Now, that said, the common law understanding and language was used to write the birthright citizenship clause and the eligibility clause, and made the SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Ark both possible and valid ...
NB this was written prior to the 14th amendment ...
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
“Can you read? It does NOT say the 14th “only” naturalizes people.”
Your Answer: “NO, I CAN’T READ.”
No it did not. Let's take a look at the quote you say does so:
"For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant."
Nope. No admission of the sort you claim. The ability of birthers to imagine seeing words and phrases that don't exist never ceases to amaze.
You don't have to converse at all on this thread although you choose to do so.
This must be you.
And maybe you are related to...
Correction. I meant edge919 is correct in his assertion that the 14th amendment did not establish the criteria for natural born citizenship. He is, of course, incorrect in what those criteria are.
Since you guys want to interpret that the Indiana footnote about the 14th Amendment not only naturalize citizens but it also says that it made persons into natural born citizens.
So tell us WOSG, what persons did the 14th Amendment only naturalized into citizens vs. who it made into natural born citizens?
“Gee Tub, Indiana admits that Gray did not claim Ark a natural born citizen”
So do I.
“He did not because Ark was not a natural born citizen”
No, he did not because it was not at issue.
“The operative word above between NBC is ‘AND’ - who was naturalized under the 14th Amend.”
I don’t think “and” is particularly important. But, yes, we are dealing with the distinction between NBCs and naturalized citizens as specified in the 14th amendment.
“you guys are jumping to the erroneous conclusions that Ark or Obama are natural born is just silly”
So much for breaking down the whole footnote. WHY do you say this? All along I pointed out precisely that “The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.” You’re the only one who claimed anything more for it (at least, more for its final conclusion, as opposed to finer points and reading between the lines).
Seriously, can you read?
“I also pointed out that Marie Elizabeth Elg was not running for president but to stay in the United States as a citizen, however the Supreme Court went ahead and ruled her to be a natural born citizen because she had US citizen parents and she was born in the US of A.”
You also also pointed out that “The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.” So what if it didn’t go ahead and rule him to be or not to be a NBC, too?
Wow, you’ve actually gone and done it. You’ve taken my pressumed single-minded obsession with hamburgers seriously. Hats off to you, sir. You consistently exceed my expectations.
So answer the question in post 986.
“So tell us...what persons did the 14th Amendment only naturalized into citizens vs. who it made into natural born citizens?”
From the text of the 14th amendment:
“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....”
Naturalized citizens are covered by the “naturalized” part; natural born are covered by the “born” part.
“You’re the only one”
To be clear, I meant you’re the only one between you and me.
“So answer the question in post 986”
See post 990.
“pressumed” = presumed
Lets see now...because he wasn't...because Justice Gray didn't say Wong Ark was an NBC.
As I pointed out, SCOTUS did say that Ms. Elg was a Natural Born Citizen...but they did anyways because she fit the natural law of being an NBC.
> “If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn’t that make him ineligible to become President?”
.
That is Bobby Jindal’s own opinion, and is why he has said that he will not ever run for president.
You did not answer the question correctly in 986.
So tell us Tublecane, what persons did the 14th Amendment only naturalized into citizens vs. who it made into natural born citizens?
Specifically, name them and why? The naturalized citizens versus the natural born citizens.
> “The *Constitution of the United States* covers this issue in the 14th Amendment.”
.
No, the 14th only addressed citizenship by birth in country, which is not the same as “Natual Born” citizenship.
.
> “If Jindal was born in the United States, he is a citizen. It does not matter what citizenship status his parents hold.”
.
Yes, he is a citizen by birth, but not a “Natural Born” citizen as defined at the time that the term was inserted into article one of the constitution.
Perhaps that is too difficult for you to grasp?
> “But not ones who were born citizens.”
.
That is wholely dependent on whether their parents were also citizens at the time of birth. If the parents are not citizens, the child is a citizen, but not a “Natural Born” citizen.
And this makes you eligible for grabbing the FReeper "Cod-Fish" award!!!
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.