Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen

American Grand Jury ^ | September 28th, 2009

[Man50D]

.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!

Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!

Justice Ginsburg:

My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.

Justice Ginsburg again:

There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.

Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?

I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.

[John Valentine]

I agree that there seems to be no “smoking gun” quote. There are quotes that imply agreement with the Vattel view on citizenship, and there are other quotes that extoll Vattel in general.

But, if not the Vattel view, then what? The English Common Law view? I think not. There is overwhelming evidence that the Framers held the English position on citizenship to be absurd and not worthy of emulation.

And, it is clear from the unadorned usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” that the Framers felt that it needed no further elaboration.

I think that applied reason leaves no other conclusion than that the Framers meant what Vattel meant by the phrase.

[Mr. Blonde]

And, it is clear from the unadorned usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” that the Framers felt that it needed no further elaboration.

Nothing in the Constitution gets much elaboration actually in the Constitution. I'm speaking of there is no elaboration anywhere. It passed at the convention with no discussion, the federalist papers don't touch on it. I think for them to make a departure from what most people at the time would be familiar with at the time they would discuss it at some point. And it would seem that when citizenship has come before the SC in the past, they have accepted that absent some statute, the common law will govern. Since we don't have a statutory definition of natural born citizen, I think it likely that is where they go back to.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, I cannot see 5 of the current justices taking a position that causes a constitutional crisis. The position that natural born means born in the US wouldn't be out of left field by any means, and when in doubt maintain the status quo. And that is assuming any case can make it passed a motion to dismiss.

I would think the best move would be to have a proposition (or equivalent) on a state ballot in 2010 requiring presidential candidates to show a physical copy of their birth certificate, or whatever documents are most desired. It would only take one state passing it to get it out in the open.

[patlin]

Under Sec. 1992 of the revised statutes, the same Congress confirmed and adopted as law the principle in regards to determining citizenship at the time of birth:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be “citizens” of the United States.”[note the word citizen, not “natural born citizen”]

Rep. Bingham(a framer of the 14th Amendment) commenting on Sec. 1992 said during debate on the difference between ‘natural born” and ‘born” citizenships under the 14th Amendment:

“It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of “parents” [emphasis plural] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a “natural born” citizen.”

Natural born citizen is ONLY mentioned in "1" place in the constitution, in the qualifications for President! also...

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President,”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”.

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

[patlin]

holden, here is what you were looking for, however it does disprove those who still claim Obama's mother was old enough to confer citizenship to her newborn son had he been born abroad:

FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “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.(this correction, however, was not retroactive to the time Obama was born)

[patlin]

R.G., this will help you in your efforts to educate the obots:

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

[John Valentine]

I highly recommend the discussion of the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” at the link:

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

[mlo]

"I wish you and others would stop dragging Wong Kim Ark into the debate. The case is NOT on point. Moreover, the dicta in this case is often lamebrained, wrongheaded, untrue as to facts cited."

The cite is exactly on point, which is the point.

Of course, the birthers would think it was "lamebrained". They don't like it. Too bad.

"The HOLDING of the case does not support your views in any case. Wong Kim Ark was not trying to establish that he was a Natural Born Citizen, and the court did not reach that conclusion, either."

The holding certainly does support my view. What do you think the court held? You do know what the result was for Wong don't you?

[Dajjal]

obumpa

[El Gato]

She doesn't say what her child and it's spouse were doing in Paris. If they were in the diplomatic service, then she may very well be correct. Also if they were in the military (stranger things have happened), but if they were just there on their own hook, the grandchildren are citizens because of a statute passed by Congress, which means they cannot be natural born as the term is used in the Constitution, which predates any statute, and which does not give any power to Congress to redefine its terms. Her grandchildren, could become Speaker of the House, or Senate majority leader, or even Chief Justice, but not President.

[El Gato]

Ref; US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, section 1401.

You can quote the section of 8 USC 1401 that uses the term "natural born" or even the word "natural" ... can't you?

....

Of course, I know you can't.

[El Gato]

Two American parents, child born anywhere is still an American.

Yes, but not a natural born citizen unless born in the country, or as it turns out, if he parent was "in the service of the country" at the time. Could be military, could be diplomatic. Diplomatic is well recognized, but in "Law of Nations" there is an "exemption" for children born "in the armies of the state". Section 217 , while the basic rule is in section 212.

[eyedigress]

You are correct.

[El Gato]

Being born on a military base doesn’t constitute U.S. soil, either. Unfair as it sounds, children born abroad, even to U.S. citizen parents serving in the military, are not natural born.

Actually they may be. If one is using Vattel's rule in "law of nations" for what a natural born citizen is, one should also use the exception for children born in the armies of the state, which also includes the diplomatic service.

Book II

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

So while a military base in a foreign land is not US territory, and a child born of a non-citizen on such a base is not a citizen of the US, children born to parents "in the service of the state" are natural born.

[El Gato]

Over 100 years of legal precedent since the 13th and 14th have effectively conferred citizenship on ANYONE born in our borders (ie birthright citizenship).

That's true, but not natural born citizenship. Natural born citizenship requires more than being born in the country. The parents must be citizens as well. Under some circumstances birth in the country isn't even required. But in general it is.

[El Gato]

Sorry, but all Americans born abroad have statute law to thank for their citizenship status,

Not quite all. Children of diplomats have long been recognized as natural born citizens, or subjects as the case may be. Under the rules laid out in the "Law of Nations", that exception applies to the children "born in the armies of the state" but outside its boundaries.

[antceecee]

Bump what you said re: your son....And neither are my nephews born in Britain, though my Sister and Husband are both American citizens.

[El Gato]

NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” and neither is my son, born in Jakarta, Indonesia to US citizen parents.

What were the circumstances that caused the birth to be in Indonesia? Diplomatic corps? or private business? Makes a difference.

[antceecee]

Thanking you for the blinding clarity! Keyword: blinding....which has occurred repeatedly in this issue.

[El Gato]

US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, paragraph g

Please cite the revision history to which you make reference.

HF

Go to your link, click on "Notes" look under Amendments and find:

1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.

[antceecee]

Pot meet kettle... ; ~ )