Skip to comments.Can this child be POTUS?
Posted on 04/24/2011 8:22:20 PM PDT by impimp
A child was born in US after both parents commenced H1B VISA, but prior to receiving Green card, and prior to parents receiving citizenship. But citizenship and Green card are likely to be received within a few years.
No, Bobby Jindal is not eligible as per the Constitution.
Nope, fails both the natural born test and citizen test.
However it passes the anchor baby test.
I don’t think he can, since none of the parents were US citizens at his birth.
Baby is citizen of US - that can’t be denied. So natural born child would only apply to children born after both parents receive their US citizenship?
At this point, I believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger can be president.
Yes he can. Natural born only means born in the US. The constitution does not state that both parents must be citizens at time of birth. This is a widely held myth. I verified this with many constitutional lawyers.
Why assume it's a male?
That would be for SCOTUS to decide because NBC definitions need to be clearly defined.
We really need to have natural born citizen defined by the courts.
Apparently I’m the odd man out here.
A child born in the United States to parents here legally, although not yet citizens?
Yes, I think that child is natural born, and can run for president.
Well Jenny Granholm has said she was only 4 when she came here and that’s good enough for her. LOL
I said exactly what you said earlier.
At this point, I'm pretty sure my cat could be president. He leans pretty conservative on most issues.
Viewed another way: Is Presidential eligibility determined by:
1) jus soli OR jus sanguinis?
2) jus soli AND jus sanguinis?
A lot of folks around here preach the latter. It seems to me that there are arguments either way.
All the arguments are probably kind of theoretical until and unless the United States Supreme Court rules on the issue.
Heck, Fidel Castro. "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States ..." doesn't specify which country one is a natural born citizen of. As long as one is born, then one is a natural born citizen somewhere, and hence eligible.
Since the USSC, so far, seems not to even want to touch such matters, then it does seem as if the aforementioned cat could be President.
If he can get the voters to vote him in.
Except, of course, for the fact that he’s reportedly conservative.
Already well defined. I was born in Massachusetts in 1963, my father was a USAF Major at the time, and I am not eligible to be president.
Nooooo he cannot.
What a load of crap.
Read the Constitution.
aw sure, what the hell, that old piece of paper is just sort of a “guideline” anymore, dontcha know? /sarc
My son cannot be POTUS
His father was an American citizen when he was born
I was a Registered Alien, (Green Card) and did not become an American citizen until he was 8 months old...
Baby is citizen of US - that cant be denied.
Oh yes it can..
Both parents were only here on temp working vissas
they were not immigrants...no Green Card...no residency...no resgistration as Aliens...
They were equal to tourists...but with a longer visa and they could work...
They were not under the jurisdiction of the US government...
the child has no standing or right to US citizenship...
That does not make sense that the founders would conclude that a British citizen could sail here and give birth, take the child back to England (or not), and then the child could be POTUS 35 years later.
It is ridiculous enough that a pregnant woman can place one toe across the US border while giving birth and the resultant child is then declared a US citizen. Being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN takes more than that, thank goodness.
An H1B is considered a “dual intent” VISA - the holder can say that it is temporary if he wants to or he can count it toward permanent residency and citizenship. The 5 years of permanent residency required to apply for citizenship is considered to commence when the H1B VISA started, and NOT when the green card is given. So there is a “backdating” of sorts that takes place.
Nope, the child is a US Citizen, not a natural born citizen. Both parents must be US citizens even if naturalized before the child is born.
You verified this with many constitutional lawyers! I call your bluff or I call they were liberal marxist lawyers.
You do have a source for your thoery of course ???
As long as the child is a red-diapered, radical marxist demokrat who eats cheeseburgers the Constitution is meaningless. And better yet.."as long as he's a mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, Biden said. I mean, thats a storybook, man.
I am no constitutional scholar......but it aseems to me that since both: "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States" are used in the same sentence then the terms cannot have the same meaning. Otherwise why use both?
Google “H1B dual intent” and click on Wiki page. It is different than most other VISAs because of the dual intent concept.
I have seen this many times so if you don’t like Wiki I am sure there are many other sources.
Whats wrong with the US Immgration laws ???
Born on U.S. soil (one of the 57 states) Not in a foreign U.S.embassy, not on a U.S. ship, not just because your parents are in the military overseas.
And BOTH parents U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.
Oh, and the constitution doesn't say what the meaning of is,is either.
[Territories and possessions get complicated, some you aren't even a U.S. citizen if born there. Not worth the trouble to understand at this point. If it ever comes up, we'll look into it then.]
So we have a case where parents could have retroactive naturalization status such that they would appear to be naturalized at the time of the child’s birth. One question then is parental retroactive naturalization sufficient to give the child “natural born” status, or is citizenship at the time of the child’s birth required.
Bull crap. Let them commit a crime, and see how fast the US government takes them into custody.
The "jurisdiction" part pertains only to foreign diplomats who hold diplomatic immunity. They cannot be arrested, only expelled.
“That does not make sense that the founders would conclude that a British citizen could sail here and give birth, take the child back to England (or not), and then the child could be POTUS 35 years later.”
That part’s covered in the “fourteen years a resident” clause. A child born on US soil of any parentage, who reaches the age of 35, and has spent 14 years within the US, is qualified for the Presidency.
The morons who claim the parents have to be citizens also are reading Mexico’s constitution, not ours.
EXCELLENT point. because
“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”, which was added so as to not exclude themselves from the office, because they knew they were not natural born citizens and did not refer to themselves as such, rather as “citizens”only.
The Constitution does not define many of it's terms. One must look to the generally understood definition at the time. Basically it was the the parents be citizens and the child be born subject to the authority of the US. For example a child born to diplomats serving overseas would be considered born in the country.
Both "Law of Nations", by de Vattel, in the original French, and a translations of a treaty with the French from that era, indicate that the parents, or at least the father (women became citizens upon marrying a citizen anyway, so if the husband/father was a citizen, so was the wife/mother. Not true later of course) needed to be citizens at the time of birth for a child born in this country to be considered "Natural Born".
The citizens are the members of the civil society bound to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.
United States Supreme Court reports, Volume 15
By United States. Supreme Court, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company
Having the clause for natural born citizenship in the U.S. Constitution would obviously have been entirely unnecessary and superfluous if a child was born in the United States with one or two foreign citizen parents at birth or naturalized after birth. Alexander Hamilton wrote the earlier draft of the U.S. Constitution with the clause saying it was necessary to be a U.S. citizen. John Jay asked for the wording to be changed so that no person born with or currently having fealty to a foreign sovereign could serve in the Office of the President or as Commander of the American Army. There is no logical reasonn whatsoever for having a special clause exempting themselves from the natural born citizen clause if any native born citizen were meant to be an eligible natural born citizen. In other words, there is no possible way to construe and misrepresent the intent of John Jay and the Constitutional Convention to make it possible for a person born owing fealty and allegiance to a forreign sovereign at birth or after birth to be eligible to the Office of the President. Your claims are the myth and the abominable lie.
Then you are clueless about the wording, intent, and purpose of the clause in the Constitution. John Jay and the Constitutional Convention put the clause into the Constitution to guarantee the only person eligible to the Office of the President and serve as the Commander-in-Chief of the American Army hen born after the adoption of the Constitution would be a person who owed no allegiance at birth or after birth to any foreign sovereign. It so happens they used the terminology of a natural born citizen as described in Vattel's Law of Nations. No matter what is used to try and dispute the meaning of natural born citizen and miisrepresent its purpose and origin, the intent of John Jay, the later first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, cannot be disregarded, ignored, or denied without committing a gross deceit.
Any child born in the United States whose parents a foreign citizens is a natural born citizen of the foreign nation and owes allegiance to the foreign sovereign at birth. The moment the child is born owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign, that person can no longer be eligible to the Office of the President. The Office of the President was restricted by the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution, to only those persons never owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth or after birth.
I know its Easter,but seriously? All of the arguments are well-reasoned, but seriously, stop giving this troll fodder/ammunition.
An erroneous decision by a majority of the court with only a one vote majority, in contradicton to ealrier and later Supreme Court and District Court decisions, and a justice/s illegally appointed by Chester Arthur who was himself ineligible to serve as President.
Yes, unless the parents were diplomats or members of an occupying military force.
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the childs birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father New Section 309(a)
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the new Section 309(a) of the INA provided:
A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence; The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the persons birth;
The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the childs birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.
The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and While the person is under the age of 18 years -- the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile, the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father Old Section 309(a) of the INA-
A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the old Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the childs birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The old Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the old or the new Section 309(a).
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the persons birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the persons birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Baloney, hogwash and poppycock!
Don't start pushing that nonsense. The Constitution is clear. Nothing has yet been written to remove the natural born citizen qualification for president found in the Constitution. The founders did not want someone with any allegiance to a foreign country stepping in and becoming president, period.
If what you say is correct, why is it that every candidate that has this concern in their background wants to hide this fact? Plus, Chester A. Arthur, the only person other than Obama ever to become president with this problem, hid the fact and did all he could to keep people from discovering it. There is a reason for this and your erroneous belief does nothing to explain it.
Good enough to be a failed governor of Michigan.
Even with all his now evident faults, would Arnold not be an improvement on the incumbent?
I should have finished the statement:
Again, I say to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
To be natural born is to be born of 2 US citizens (plural) owing allegiance only to this country. Otherwise your allegiance is divided.