Posted on 01/07/2009 12:49:42 PM PST by ml/nj
I previously have posted the Oxford English Dictionary definitions and usage histories for natural-born and native born in some long thread about the question of Obama's Constitutional eligiblity to assume the office of President. But that thread was eventually deleted, and I think these definitions should be available for discussion here.
Lawyers use the OED because it is sometimes the only way to examine what words meant at the time they were used to craft legislation. So here are the entries for these phrases:
Of note to me is that at least some of the usages of native-born and particularly the ones whose dates bracket the drafting of the Constitution suggest that this term has as much to do with whom one is born to as to where one is born. I also note that the entry for natural-born suggests comparison with the one for native-born which seems to have nothing to do with who ones parents are.
Whatever natural-born means, it means something. That everyone would turn their heads and pretend otherwise will not be good for the rule of law in this country.
ML/NJ
“The usage example for 1709 states, “The children of all natural-born Subjects born out of Ligeance of her Majesty .. shall be deemed .. to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom......What could possibly be clearer?”
Thanks for the OED definitions, but I don’t think it is all clear they settle the issue. To some here, it is “clear” that NBC denotes some sort of “super-citizen” status: you must be born on American soil AND you must be born of 2 American citizens. In this view, anchor babies born of 1 or 2 non-citizen parents may be accorded citizen status at birth, they are not natural-born citizens. Being born on U.S. soil (however that is defined) is a necessary but not sufficient condition to establish that one is a natural-born citizen. Thus, even if it could be definitely established that BHO was born in Hawaii, that fact alone would not confer NBC status.
Conversely, this “purist” position states that being born of 2 American citizen parents also is only a necessary, but not sufficient condition to establish eligibility to become President. In this view, if it can be established that John McCain was born outside of U.S. soil, the fact that his parents were American citizens is irrelevant: he is not NBC, hence ineligible to be President.
Your OED definitions clearly call into question this latter claim. “out of Ligeance of her Majesty” implies being born in a jurisdiction not subject to the sovereign’s control/authority. This particular OED example is essentially saying that parental citizenship ALONE determines NBC status: it is a necessary and sufficient condition, in which case figuring out whether the hospital McCain was born in was part of Panama or Panama Canal territory is completely irrelevant.
Similarly, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, if being born in US territory were a necessary condition for NBC status, then it would be inexplicable for Congress in 1970 to enact a statute stating that children of 2 parents born abroad are natural born citizens. Thus, we have both a dictionary definition and statutory definition that point in the identical direction: all that matters for NBC status is whether both parents are US citizens. Everything else is irrelevant. Needless to say, the “purists” would argue rather vehemently against such a conclusion.
In short, what is “clear” to one group quite obviously is far from clear to other groups. The issue is unsettled both legally and semantically. Which is why I would hope the SC would be brave enough to weigh in and try to clarify matters. But I guarantee that if the SC adopted the OED view/definition, there likely will continue to be a contingent here that would argue the case was settled incorrectly, however much this contingent might approve of the outcome produced by the Court’s ruling. What could possibly be clearer?
Then let's look at the rule of law. Show me where the law differentiates between natural born or native born. Show me where the law identifies three classifications of citizenship. Show me that and then we can discuss what the rule of law is in this country.
And the court ruled he did.
According to law, yes they are:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...
Unless she hasn't lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years of her life or if two of those years weren't after she reached 14 then her kids are natural born U.S. citizens.
If he was born in the U.S. then his mother's age and his father's nationality is irrelevant. That's also what the Kim case decided.
So you're saying the U.S. does not have the right to set our own citizenship standards?
Your comments, as usual, are inane. I wouldn't reply to you except to alleviate the confusion you might cause amongst those who lurk here.
There are about a million words in the English language. If our law bothers to define any of them it would certainly only be the ones that it uses. So far as I am aware there are no laws which apply only to native-born citizens as opposed to all citizens. There is at least one law that does apply to natural-born citizens as opposed to all citizens though.
The reason that I supplied the definition of native-born is because the OED suggested the comparison. They do this usually to emphasize an aspect of the meaning of the word in question which is not present in the nearly similar word referenced word. It should be noted that the entry for native-born does not suggest comparison with natural-born.
ML/NJ
Perhaps, but not because of this issue.
And who would be a better judge of inane than you?
So far as I am aware there are no laws which apply only to native-born citizens as opposed to all citizens. There is at least one law that does apply to natural-born citizens as opposed to all citizens though.
And what law defines the difference between the two?
The reason that I supplied the definition of native-born is because the OED suggested the comparison.
But the OED is not the law of the land in this country. The law does not define a difference, it divides citizenship into two classes - citizen at birth and naturalized. The Constitution, for that matter, only mentions two classes of citizen - natural born and naturalized. So far as the law is concerned there is no difference between natural born and citizen at birth.
“There is at least one law that does apply to natural-born citizens as opposed to all citizens though.”
Worth repeating.
A point completely lost on, or ignored by, some...
And that law would be?
I’m saying that our nation does not have the right to force citizenship on those that don’t legally ask for citizenship.
You know my position on this,Those that are here illegally have no right to claim citizenship for themselves or their offspring, those that are here on a temporary visa are making no attempt to become citizens and should not have US citizenship granted to their offspring.
In both cases it is a question if they willing submit to the legal process by which this country grants citizenship for them and their children born here. Only in the case of an abandoned child, should natural born citizenship be granted when the child is obviously an illegal alien.
If he was born in the U.S. then his mother's age and his father's nationality is irrelevant. That's also what the Kim case decided.
I disagree the main focus of the Kim case was should he fall under the jurisdiction of the United States even though his parents were legally barred from becoming citizens. They were legally barred by our laws and not here on a special visa that is the difference you always ignore.
"Show me where the law differentiates between natural born or native born. Show me where the law identifies three classifications of citizenship.""Your comments, as usual, are inane."
His question is not inane. But as usual, you can't respond without insulting people. Asking you to show where the law says what you say it means is very much to the point.
There is only one class of citizenship. But there are two ways to obtain citizenship. You can be naturalized through the process defined by law, or you can be born as a citizen. If you are born as a citizen you are "natural born". This meaning is totally in keeping with the definitions in the OED that you cited.
Now some of you insist that "natural born citizen" has some super-special secret meaning and being born a citizen isn't enough. Fine. To prove that contention you must show in the law where that definition exists.
A usage example in the OED is not enough to change the meaning of the constitution, although I note that the examples here do not tend to support your view.
It seems like you are confusing what you belive the law should be, with what the law actually is.
The main focus of the Kim case was whether he was a citzen.
Additionally, it should be reiterated that Wong Kim Ark was not ruled as a natural born citizen, and in fact, the case referred to by Justice Gray (appointed by Chester Arthur, btw), Minor, doesn’t even seem to support the position that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at all.
Let’s not get confused by the facts.
Sorry. Say stupid things here and you can expect to be called on them. I feel like I'm being attacked by an army of pea-brains. The law I have been referring to in some of the threads about whether 0bama is Constitutionally eligible is in the Constitution itself. Anyone who needs me to point this out just isn't an honest participant here or he isn't playing with a full deck. There really are no other possibilities. This thread is about what one phrase in that Constitution means or might mean. Kapeesh?
Since the concept of jurisdiction has never been set in stone and is ambivalent at it’s best I don’t mind voicing my opinion.
Now if you can show me where it has been set in stone I’m all ears.
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.