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.
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 can’t 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.
Bullsheet!
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.
Interesting
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, that’s 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.
AH
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
http://books.google.com/books?id=x4MYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA730&lpg=PA730&dq=The+citizens+are+the+members+of+the+civil+society+bound+to+this+society+by+certain+duties+and+subject+to+its+authority&source=bl&ots=5UqJ9Ck69s&sig=G1ML2Svrius6S6fTPyk_DVB93dY&hl=en&ei=Ufe0Tc3VLsvciAKb4cGwBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20citizens%20are%20the%20members%20of%20the%20civil%20society%20bound%20to%20this%20society%20by%20certain%20duties%20and%20subject%20to%20its%20authority&f=false
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.
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.