Skip to comments.Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen
Posted on 09/29/2009 4:09:26 AM PDT by Man50D
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obots 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!
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 childs loyalties lie?
I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburgs 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 doesnt mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
(Excerpt) Read more at americangrandjury.org ...
Did she twitter the news to Jane Stone at NBC?
By reading the Tea Leaves in this case, it doesn't look good for the resident Marxist in the White House if his case ever gets to SCOTUS. Stevens and Kennedy voted with Thomas and Scalia on this. NBC status was very much discussed here. Oh yeah, INS won. The dude was deported.
The child of American parents, born abroad, is a US citizen by birth through the operation of statute law, NOT through the operation of Natural Law. As such, the child is not Natural Born, contrary to Ms. Ginsburg’s wishful thinking.
Here’s the thing about “Natural Born” citzienship: it is citizenship NOT granted by the State, and hence cannot be revoked by the State. It is a NATURAL state of citizenship that does not depend on the operation of any enacted law.
It derives from the location of birth and the citizenship of the parents and especially by that of the father.
A child born abroad of American parents would not be a citizen of the United States at all if it were not for the operation of statute law. In fact, the statutes regarding the granting of citizenship to children of US citizens who happen to be born outside the US have changed several times over the years and a child born abroad in 1961 who under certain circumstances would not have qualified for US citizenship, for example Barack H. Obama, might well have had he been born in 1995.
While someone may be a US citizen at birth under the operation of statute (if circumstances are compliant with the law) such a citizen is not a “natural born” citizen, and for those who insist that all forms of citizenship can be divided into two classes, “natural born” and “naturalized”, then these children must be considered as “naturalized” as their citizenship devolves upon them by operation of statute law, as it does with all other forms of naturalized citizenship.
A “naturalization” ceremony is not the sine qua non of this type of citizenship - dependence on the operation of statute law is.
Not to dice words here, but the Constitution does not say that one must be born within the geographic boundaries of the United States or any of their possessions in order to be natural born citizens. Until passage of the 14th Amendment, it didn’t even say that persons born within the boundaries are citizens (slaves and Indians weren’t citizens). It is a long estblished principal, going back through the days of the Roman Empire, that a persons is born a citizen if and only if his parents are citizens. The location of birth was irrelevant.
Ginsburg is corrent. Her grandson is a natural born citizen. Deal with it.
Ref; US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, section 1401.
Paragraph (g) in the above also 'proves' Barry IS a 'Natural Born Citizen'.
Well I have to say that is somewhat strange to me as I have a certificate of naturalization after being born of two american parents in Saigon Vietnam in 1956.
Perhaps the natural born part is only if you have “important” relatives
Barry was born to a Kenyan and an under age American girl...that does not sound the same to me....
If you’re having to refer to statute, then that’s not natural born citizenship.
Congress was enumerated power over immigration and naturalization, only. Laws on the books must be construed to deal with immigration and naturalization only, as a result. Otherwise, such statute would be unconstitutional.
All citizens have the same rights and duties, excepting as the Constitution makes a distinction, and only the Constitution makes any distinction.
That distinction being eligibility to various national offices, by age, plus length of residency or birth status, increasingly narrow as the level of official capacity increases.
Natural born citizenship only pertains, legally under the Constitution, to the Executive branch, regarding eligibility to the Office of President. Eligibility to succeed the President in turn implies the requirement upon the line of succession.
One important piece of information is an original birth certificate, stating the hospital of birth, attending WITNESSES, times, and dates. This information is not only lacking from the Obama debate, but Obama is actively paying lawyers to prevent the disclosure of this important paper. Why?
They file “report of American citizen born abroad” not “paperwork for citizenship”. My mother was born on an Air Force base in Germany to two American citizens; she has such a report next to her German birth certificate in the files and can claim only US and not German citizenship. My father was born in England, at a local hospital, to a US citizen and a British (at the time) citizen. He has the same paper. He could have claimed British citizenship if he’d ever wanted to. I’m pretty sure he’s a natural born citizen too.
Arguments over whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen are much narrower than just “he was born overseas”. They involve laws at that time and his parents’ marital status. It doesn’t follow from that that all Americans born abroad are not natural born citizens.
I wasn’t aware that the state can revoke any citizenship once granted. Can you provide a link to support that? Thanks.
Two American parents, child born anywhere is still an American. I don’t get the twisted thinking or the name calling below.
I have a French birth certificate with a US state department certificate of being born abroad.
I have two cousins born in Colombia to my
aunt a Colombian and my Uncle a US citizen that are US citizens. Neither have lived in the states other than to attend college, but both hold US passports. (I doubt they’re looking to become President)
Holding a US passport is still considered a great achievement, at least in Colombia.
Ruthie is the same diseased leftist who stated proudly that she thought the age of sxual consent should be lowered to twelve, also.
>>>My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents
She’s correct. American parents was all that was necessary. Children of citizens born outside the continent aren’t second class citizens.
This argument is embarrassingly vapid.
>>>Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg is way off base here, typical far leftist. Here’s a good analysis of NBC: http://www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/2009/08/defining-natural-born-citizen.html
A site telling you it’s the plain truth is a good warning to not take them seriously. It’s like a used car dealer called Honest John.
Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg is wrong about a whole lot of things, this being one of them.
Time to put that old mare out to pasture.
The effort to conflate citizen with natural born citizen is heating up. Obamanoids are coming out of the owoodwork today on the topic ... new talking points for fear that the actual location of the obamessiah’s birth will get revealed soon and it isn’t Hawaii? Bwahahahaha, I love the smell of obamanoid fear in the morning. [ That’s your cue to claim you’re not an obamanoid with your sudden interest in the issue of NBC conflation with citizen. Perhaps you can get one of your team to make the plea for you so your stealth is not overexposed. ]
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.
There have been numerous bills put forth for Constitutional Amendment to “make” such children born abroad eligible for the Presidency, but none have been ratified. The most recent was in 2004, sponsored by former Senator Nickles (R-OK) and co-sponsored by Senators Inhofe (R-OK) and Landrieu (D-LA), known as the “Natural Born Citizen Act.”
There are problems with such a scheme, admirable though the sentiment might be. Persons born abroad may be subject to claims of citizenship at birth by the country in which they were born, under jus soli.
Such claims upon a President could severely complicate international dealings in the capacity of President, and as Commander In Chief of the military. Outside of the United States, such individuals are subject to the laws of countries with which they possess citizenship. This would be untenable for any President, who certainly does not only deal with domestic matters, and does not remain solely in the United States for the duration of his or her term of office.
>>>The effort to conflate citizen with natural born citizen is heating up. Obamanoids are coming out of the owoodwork today on the topic ... new talking points for fear that the actual location of the obamessiahs birth will get revealed soon and it isnt Hawaii?
Yes it’s all a conspiracy, and only you hold the true wisdom. Aren’t you special. Honestly I don’t see anything that would more buy Obama the sympathy of the country then that sort of deranged dumbass paranoia.
If proof can be found that Obama had other then US citizenship, that’s significant. But that isn’t the issue with Ginsberg’s grandchildren. This parsing is a pretty strong sign that the main argument has and will continue to fail. It’s moving the goalposts and will not be taken seriously outside the fruitloops wing.
Apply extra tinfoil and carry on.
BTW, the only thing I can find that I would agree with your posting history is the assessment of the specious Drake Equation. ... Consummate arrogance to formulate an equation as if relevant/remotely valid while so many variables are ignored to construct the equation.
Yes, any statutory citizenship can be revoked. Only Natural Born citizenship is entirely free of risk of revocation since it does not depend on statute law.
I think it would be extraordinarily hard to revoke any form of citizenship short of Natural Born that attached at birth, especially if the birth took place in the Unties States itself, due to the misapplication of the 14th Amendment that has fossilised now. But there used to be some defined ways that birthright citizenship for children born abroad could be lost. Some of them might have been repealed, but what can be repealed can be re-enacted.
Of course, traditional naturalizations can be revoked for any number of causes, including fraudulent acquiring.
I don’t have time to research the legal references. Why don’t you try the link in one of the posts above which leads to some very interesting discussion at the Supreme Court about just these issues. I will tell you that even Supreme Court justices evidence considerable confusion on these issues.
For the purpose of my part of the discussion, I really don't care whether Ruth Buzzy's grandson is a NBC, but from RC's discussion, it seems highly likely that dependence upon US law for citizenship is ipso facto not naturally born citizenship, nor would it be Congress' jurisdiction, as such is not enumerated to them.
Contrary to what you said, Barry Soetero's citizenship and potential NBC status would be judged entirely without regard to Buzzy's progeny being any kind of citizen, except perhaps in Buzzy's mind.
Condor51 is saying BHO qualifies as a citizen at birth under US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, paragraph g, but that would inherently mean not a NBC, as it is dependent on statute, not NBC defintion.
From all the publicly known information in combination with the above citation, BHO seems to have been born a US citizen, even if he was born in Kenya, and so long as Indonesia's adoption procedures can't nullify Zero's access to prior US citizenship, which I'm reasonably confident must be the case, but perhaps only if he availed himself of the proper US paperwork once he became of age.
Though I'd read of the five-year requirement on Stanley Ann, I hadn't seen before that only two years of those needed to be as of the age of fourteen, which she seems to have met.
With this distraction in his hip pocket, I believe the info on his Hawaiian COLB will show Barry to have been lying fraud for many years prior to his presidency, most likely as to his having been born in Kenya, but certainly not to a degree that will get him impeached in this session of Congress. That said, it would be important to note that his having been truthful on that point would certainly have kept him from getting elected president.
US Code CANNOT define a Constitutional term, such as “Natural Born Citizen”.
If it could, then we could simply redefine words in the Constitution to mean whatwever we wish and to hell with the Amendment process.
And, NO, her grandson is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” and neither is my son, born in Jakarta, Indonesia to US citizen parents. Sorry, but both you and Ruthie are wrong on this - in her case guilty of wishful thinking. In your case, well I just don’t know.
so according to your theory, a foundling of unknown parentage and uncertain place of birth is a Natural Born Citizen..yeah that’s the ticket/s
You are wrong on this, Ann did NOT meet the five year requirement. This two year requirement that you are referring to is (I beleive) a later revision of the statute that was NOT, repeat, not, retroactive. Ann Dunham was legally incapable of transmitting US citizenship to Barry outside the United States in 1961.
You can only impeach an office holder. If the man is Constitutionally disqualified, he isn’t an office holder at all. He is little more than a trespasser.
Sorry, but all Americans born abroad have statute law to thank for their citizenship status, and to that extent they are not and cannot be “natural born citizens” despite being US citizens by birth. This may be a distinction that is hard to grasp, but it is graspable.
Please see my post 7 above for a brief explanation of the law on this subject.
Obot trolls hard at work here I see...
Please cite the revision history to which you make reference.
What a dis-incentive for anyone to sign up for the military! “We’re going to station you overseas and any kids you have there won’t be natural born citizens. Thanks!”
So you believe neither presidential candidate was a natural born citizen?
You're understanding is incorrect. Although being born on US soil would be sufficient in itself, regardless of other circumstances, it is not the only way of being a natural born citizen. All "natural born citizen" means is that one is a citizen by birth. Since you were a citizen at birth, because of your parents, you are a natural born citizen.
Natural Born? I think not. Look at this exchange in the arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS:
Justice Souter: Maybe it would be simpler if I asked the... I think I can ask the question a different way.
Do you think that the... the... the act of recognizing citizenship here for children born abroad is naturalization within the meaning of the naturalization clause?
Mr. Davis: Yes, Your Honor, it is naturalization within the meaning of the constitutional naturalization clause.
Naturalization CANNOT be Natural Born.
I have said nothing on the subject of any Supreme Court action.
Over 100 years of legal precedent since the 13th and 14th have effectively conferred citizenship on ANYONE born in our borders (ie birthright citizenship). Why do you think that even the children of illegals born here have citizenship, as they have for several decades?
Whatever you think about "original intent" is irrelevant in the face of existing legal opinion.
In the case of Barack H. Obama, the case is clear cut. His father was not a US citizen and not even a green card holder. He was merely in the United States on a student visa. Barack Obama was born a citizen of Kenya by his own admission, and even if he were also a US citizen by birth, he was NOT a Natural Born Citizen as required by the Constitution to be eligible to the Presidency. I consider his presidency to be invalid and void.
In the case of John McCain, the case could be made for Natural Born Citizenship if he had been born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was US soverign territory. However, that is not the case. He was born in the Republic of Panama, and although he is most certainly a US citizen by birth as a result of the operation of statute, he is also not a Natural Born Citizen as that term is properly understood under the Constitution, even if that seems manifestly unfair and unjust.
Birthright citizenship is NOT coextensive with Natural Born Citizenship.