Native Born vs. Natural Born (vanity)

[NTHockey]

I visited the Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Wednesday. While on the tour, one of the staff members came up and asked me if I wanted to be President. I said that I was ineligible, since my mother was naturalized after I was born. He argued that since I was born here that I was born here that I was natural.

We went back and forth; he not knowing the difference between native born and natural born and I refusing to back down.

I plan to write the head and tell him that their staff needs to be a) better informed and b) less combative. Comments.

[DiogenesLamp]

You know that, I know that, the State Department knows that, the Supreme Court knows that, but several FReepers do not believe that.

As Reagan said: "The trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant. It's that they know so much which isn't so. "

The reason certain Freepers do not believe that is because certain Freepers have actually studied the issue and have learned what is the truth. Anyone who hasn't studied it is still stuck on the stupid theory that gives citizenship to "Anchor Babies."

Naturalization is like Adoption. To be an Adopted member of a Family, you must have the Family's consent. Just being born in the Family house does NOT MAKE YOU A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. Neither does it make you a citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, because NEITHER side actually provides links, documents and proof to support their side which would be useful to us idiots.

You're kidding, right?

Start here. When your done with that, i've got plenty more.

Freeper "rxsid"'s "about" page is a good source of info too.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ll try to find it. One of my favorite exchanges on FR, was the poster who told me that children of unknown paternity (such as in cases of rape) were not eligible to be president. I still chuckle at the mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion.

If the parents are unknown, then so is the place of birth, and so you are advocating support for an even STUPIDER argument. Pray tell, what kind of Idiot mental gymnastics did you have to go through to come down on that side of the issue?

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly. If one is a citizen at the time of his birth, then he is naturally a citizen. They don't have to be "naturalized."

This is absolutely not true. I have pointed out the case of Aldo Mario Bellei about 40 times now. He was born a citizen, but lost his citizenship because he did not meet the residency requirements stipulated in the ACT OF CONGRESS which bestowed citizenship upon him.

Natural citizens are not created by an Act of Congress, or any other act of man-made law. They are citizens inherently through their nature. The very word Nature Shares it's root with Natal, meaning "birth."

[DiogenesLamp]

The Ankeny decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Indiana, and was ripe to be appealed to SCOTUS, but the plaintiffs chose not to do so.

Anyone that cites Ankeny is a moron.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not true. Suppose a French couple were working here on a visa, and had a child. It would be natural of them to want French citizenship for that child.

It is, in fact, French Law that the child would have French Citizenship. As a matter of fact, virtually the ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD uses the citizenship of the parents as the criteria for citizenship.

The only people stupid enough to use birth over a landmass to define citizenship is North and South America.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s the key to all these citizenship questions. Every country has an absolute right to determine whom it considers to be its citizens (and into which category of citizenship they fall), completely unencumbered by the laws of any other nation. We can’t dictate who is a French citizen, and they can’t dictate who is a U.S. citizen.

But according to your stupid theory, France can draft an American President to serve in their army. Doesn't that strike you as an extremely stupid problem with your theory?

[DiogenesLamp]

The father's citizenship requirement is debatable and the mother's age is applicable only if he was born overseas.

To be precise, not "overseas", but in a foreign country. Canada is adjacent to us, and if he was born there, he is not only NOT a natural born citizen, he is not even a citizen at all. At the moment, I see more circumstantial evidence placing his birth in Canada than I do in the United States.

[douginthearmy]

What amazes me is how much more birthers know about the Constitution than anyone else. In fact, birthers know more about the Constitution than Its very authors!

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. - James Madison

And of course, everyone, except the 13 brothers of the Holy Order of Internet Birthers, knows that the 14th amendment doubles down on this.

Noone born in this country is naturalized! The only exception is a child of a foreign ambassador born in America who later naturalizes. There's no point in arguing with you guys. I will end on this note so as to erase all uncertainty and ambiguity of my position.

Even if you are correct, which you are not but I am absolutely certain that you will maintain that you are, my finem respice is that noone, not a single person of note, nor of any social or political influence of any sort in any real world scenario where flesh touches substance other than a cheetos infested keyboard supports your position.. I repeat.. absolutely NO physical manifestation of your fantasy world will EVER occur.

[Delhi Rebels]

At the moment, I see more circumstantial evidence placing his birth in Canada than I do in the United States.

Really?

[BigGuy22]

"Suppose the French people didn't want US citizenship for their child? You say under US law, their child would be a US citizen. Then you say we respect their views. The two don't work together."
___

Please read more carefully. That's not what I said.

What I said is that we respect the views of the French government regarding who is a French citizen. We do not take into account the views of the French government (or anyone's parents) in deciding who is a U.S. citizen.

When the child comes of age, he or she can choose to renounce U.S. citizenship. However, under U.S. law, there's nothing a child's parents can do that will remove that child's U.S. citizenship.

[BigGuy22]

“Anyone that cites Ankeny is a moron.”
__

LOL! Another one of those well-reasoned arguments that we’ve come to expect from you!

[RegulatorCountry]

Ankheny is a very weird, clearly politically motivated decision from a state court. The language of the decision itself is self-negating, rendering any purported legal ramification moot. It’s a soundbite produced by a court. Citing it does verge upon the moronic.

[BigGuy22]

"Doesn't that strike you as an extremely stupid problem with your theory?"
__

My "theory," thoroughly supported by long-standing international law, is that every country on earth has the absolute right to decide whom it considers to be a citizen of that country.

What's yours? Do you want French law to tell us who's allowed to be a U.S. citizen? The French sure as hell don't want us telling them who can be a French citizen.

[BigGuy22]

"Citing it does verge upon the moronic."
__

LOL, another well-reasoned response!

You pretend that Ankeny exists in a vacuum while ignoring the fact that several other courts have ruled similarly and not a single court has ruled otherwise. The Supreme Court of Indiana refused to reverse it, and the plaintiffs failed to take the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision has survived perfectly well despite your disapproval.

[RegulatorCountry]

Name these several other courts as well as decisions rendered.

Ankeny negated itself by admitting that Wong Kim Ark was not determined to be a natural born citizen, despite the fact that their decision rested upon exactly that understanding. If that’s not rendering their own point moot I don’t know what is.

[BigGuy22]

“Name these several other courts as well as decisions rendered.”
__

Knock yourself out (and this list only goes through May of this year):

Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012); Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010); Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATECE-
1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Galasso v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012); Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Kesler v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”); Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Purpura et al v. Obama, No. STE 04534-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012); Strunk v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections et al, No. 006500/2011 (N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Apr. 12, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging, among other things, President Obama’s eligibility to his office; expressly rejecting the birther claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis of his father’s citizenship as frivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be imposed upon plaintiff); Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012); Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. filed Jan. 30, 2012); Welden v. Obama, No. OSAHSECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1059 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012).

[RegulatorCountry]

My goodness, transcripts at the ready. Candy Crowley, is that you, lol?

Interesting that so very many of these rely upon Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark, when Ankeny contains the following:

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language ...

Quite the house of cards built upon an admittedly faulty understanding. This should concern you as a purported constitutional conservative. Yet, you're not, you're rather dismissive.

Interesting. What is your conflict of interest? Non-citizen wife, non-citizen parent, child born abroad? Their likelihood of ever becoming President is vanishingly small. Don't fall into the trap of advocating the internationalization of the US Presidency for such petty, personal reasons.

[BigGuy22]

“Quite the house of cards built upon an admittedly faulty understanding.”
__

Says you. But, despite your protestations, I have demonstrated that quite a few courts have expressed disagreement with you, while you haven’t come up with a single one that says otherwise.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there is clearly a widespread judicial consensus that finds your position to be “frivolous” and “without merit.”

[RegulatorCountry]

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language ...