Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rubio and Birthright Citizenship
American Thinker ^ | 5/4/2012 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56

Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.

The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; citizenship; constitution; immigration; ineligible; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen; nbc; norubio; obama; rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last
To: allmendream
The clear meaning of the Constitution is that currently there are two types of U.S. citizen - natural born and naturalized.
So once again I have to ask...where on this thread have I stated otherwise?

What exactly is your issue?
Something to do with "native born"?

51 posted on 05/04/2012 10:08:00 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.”

That is a false statement. There was an English law in effect during one time period in which a natural born subject of the King of England whose parents were not born as subjects of the King of England was ineligible to hold offical office, but natural born subjects of Englishmen born in England were eligible.

U.S. Federal law is not English common-law and never was.


52 posted on 05/04/2012 10:12:33 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Here, I believe, is where we come into conflict...
A natural born citizen is born a U.S. citizen and has no need of a legal process to establish citizenship...

How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?

I contend that two citizen parents are needed, not just one. What say you?

53 posted on 05/04/2012 10:12:33 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The natural born citizen clause was put into the Constitution to keep Britain in particular and any other nation in general from trying to command the allegiance of an emigrant who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen or any child born under jus sanguinis as a British subject.

YAY! Somebody 'gets it'.

View of the Constitution of the United States
Fifthly. …That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.

You'd think simply reading the Constitution would be enough for some people. The only authority Congress has is to make rules for naturalization.

The 14th Amendment never made anyone a citizen just because they were born on American soil, either:

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

-----

Natural born citizenship isn't a birth-right citizenship, it's a blood-right citizenship. If it's not in the parents blood, it's can't be in child's blood, either.

-----

[Sigh]

Such a simple concept. Keep telling them and maybe they'll listen. :-)

54 posted on 05/04/2012 10:14:34 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

One need only be born a U.S. citizen under U.S. law (which should always be in accordance with natural law) to be a natural born citizen.

So where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention any fourth category of citizenship?

There are only those at the time of adoption.

Those that are natural born.

And those that must be naturalized.


55 posted on 05/04/2012 10:26:06 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: baclava

Why are you here wasting time then?


56 posted on 05/04/2012 10:28:14 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: baclava

“In 1604, Parliament granted “denizen” status to English-born children of alien parents. Such children had the same property rights as natural-born subjects, and could be referred to as natural-born subjects, but they were not fully or completely English in other respects.”

“To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise. (House of Commons Journal, Volume 1, 21 April 1604)”

That is a fact as the English House of Commons Journal bears witness.


57 posted on 05/04/2012 10:28:19 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
One need only be born a U.S. citizen under U.S. law (which should always be in accordance with natural law) to be a natural born citizen.
What US law in particular are you talking about?

So where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention any fourth category of citizenship?
Have I claimed anywhere on this thread that the U.S. Constitution mentions a fourth type or category of citizen?

58 posted on 05/04/2012 10:29:20 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And since you avoided answering my question in your reply I must ask it again...

How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?

Surely it isn't that hard of a question, is it?

59 posted on 05/04/2012 10:32:13 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You need it to - otherwise there are only TWO categories currently - natural born and naturalized. Where do you find another category mentioned?

What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course. This is not avoiding answering your question - it is answering it directly.

One need not have any citizen parents at the time of birth to be a U.S. citizen at birth - as is the case with Marco Rubio - whose parents were legal residents of these United States.

If there are currently only two types of U.S citizen, then a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen; and the other category must be naturalized via a legal process and sworn oaths of allegiance as outlined under Congressional power to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization.

60 posted on 05/04/2012 10:42:28 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Are my questions a problem?

How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?
What US law in particular are you talking about?

Or is it the answers that you might give, of necessity, be the problem?

61 posted on 05/04/2012 10:44:25 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

My question to you is OBVIOUSLY a problem.

How many types of citizenship, as a matter of fact, are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

How many types of U.S. citizen are there currently?

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention or make provisions for a different category?

Do you often interpret the clear meaning of the Constitution to include things that are not there?


62 posted on 05/04/2012 10:46:49 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: baclava; sonsofliberty

Please re-read the last line of Post #13...

It is enough to make a patriot cry that you believe that the distraction is more important than the constitution.


63 posted on 05/04/2012 10:59:48 AM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
You need it to - otherwise there are only TWO categories currently - natural born and naturalized.
What is "it"? And what do you need "it" to do?

Where do you find another category mentioned?
Did I claim there was another category mentioned?

What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course.
Well what law in particular is that? It must not be "the Constitution" else you would have said so. Isn't citizenship only "granted" under naturalization laws?

One need not have any citizen parents at the time of birth to be a U.S. citizen at birth...
I agree. They're naturalized under USC 8, the section of uniform rules of naturalization Congress was empowered to write, because the parents are aliens. Oh, the parents have to be here legally as well for that section of law to apply.
Is USC 8 the US law which you believe makes someone a natural born citizen?

If there are currently only two types of U.S citizen, then a U.S. citizen at birth is a natural born citizen...
How many citizen parents must that person being born have to qualify as a natural born citizen?
A direct answer would be appreciated as you've not directly answered it as of yet.

64 posted on 05/04/2012 11:01:03 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
I'm posting the words of Thomas Paine, a Founder, if not a Framer. In 1791, he wrote in The Rights Of Man about the origins of nations, and a comparison of the United States, France, and England, in terms of the authority of those governments vs. the rights of its citizens.

From The Rights of Man, The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions:

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.

Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.

Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection to the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"

It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."

Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.

Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

Having read this, I wonder why the SCOTUS never referred to it when they felt challenged to "look elsewhere" for the meaning of natural-born citizen? The portion I cited makes it clear that the Natural-Born clause was intended to keep "half-foreigners" from becoming president, and only allow those with "full natural connection with the country" to the highest office. Someone who reads that entire chapter cannot help but see that the Framers were very well aware of what the governments of England and France were like, due to centuries of the politics of inter-marriage between royal familes and its impact on divided loyalties amongst the citizens.

A nation's posterity is its natural-born children. They are the next generation who carries forward the culture that defines being an American. When the Framers said that they established the Constitution to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to... our posterity," they meant to create a nation that can be handed down to their children, and their children's children.

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"We the People" are citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.

Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?

How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?

That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.

If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.

Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.

-PJ

65 posted on 05/04/2012 11:06:54 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
My question to you is OBVIOUSLY a problem.
Your questions aren't questions. They're implicatuions that I said something I didn't.

How many types of citizenship, as a matter of fact, are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Why are you trying to use distraction instead of getting to the heart of the matter?
What makes someone a natural born citizen?

How many types of U.S. citizen are there currently?
How many citizen parents does a natural born citizen need?

Where in the U.S. Constitution does it mention or make provisions for a different category?
What relevance is your question in regards to how many citizen parents someone needs to be a natural born citizen?

66 posted on 05/04/2012 11:13:42 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Do you often interpret the clear meaning of the Constitution to include things that are not there?
I do believe that's your realm of expertise, not mine.
67 posted on 05/04/2012 11:16:07 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; philman_36

allmendream

Saying something over and over and with different angles does not make it correct for me. Just twisting the question does not create a valid response either.

How do you explain the wording being different for the presidents qualification than other elected officials? You don’t accept this was a purposeful designation and purpose? This does not show a desire for more stringent rules for the highest office?

How does any of your argument help Obama, with a foreign father of record? Do you totally throw out the requirement for a child of citizen parents and believe the birthplace takes precedence?

Remember we only have forged instruments to even prove that for Obama. Have none of his actions as President made you question his total dedication to the US? Maybe the “old guys” knew what they were trying to protect us from?

36, FYI


68 posted on 05/04/2012 11:38:29 AM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

First, you are confusing the differences between “natural born” and “subject born,” which cannot be equated in definition.

“Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.”

That is a false statement. Parliament had to enact new laws in the 17th Century and 18th Century in order for the those children born in England while having foreign parents to become subjects made by act of mand-made statutory law, whereas the children born in England whose parents were English were by natural law and circumstance subjects born.

The 1790 act regarded foreign birth only, because citizenship was determined by state laws, and the United States of America did not have uniform citizenship Federal laws until many decades to follow.

No Federal statute is required to establish “natural born citizenship,” because natural born citizenship is a fact of nature and natural law, whereas citizenship arising from a staturoy act is man-made and thereby unnatural citizenship wherever the nativity occurs. Attempts to deny natural born citizenship ibecause it does is not established by a statutory act is illogical and irrational by definition of what is natural and what is unnatural. Conferring citizenship by the act of a statute is unnatural birthright citizenship as in the English subject made at birth versus subject born at birth.

Native born did not need to appear in the Constitution, because citizenship and definitions of citizenship was the subject of state laws and not Federal laws when the Constitution was drafted and adopted.


69 posted on 05/04/2012 11:43:01 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY

70 posted on 05/04/2012 11:43:32 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Exactly!


71 posted on 05/04/2012 11:49:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Exactly!


72 posted on 05/04/2012 11:54:20 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Have I been sent to time out in the corner? LOL


73 posted on 05/04/2012 12:05:30 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“One need not have any citizen parents at the time of birth to be a U.S. citizen at birth - as is the case with Marco Rubio - whose parents were legal residents of these United States.”

That is a false statement. Marco Rubio’s parents were foreign citizens and what are known as aliens in amity, and their son was born with natural born Cuban citizenship and statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. Statutory citizenship at birth is generally comparable to being an English subject made at birth, rather than a subject born. Under the English laws at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and earlier, an English subject made was a form of naturalization at birth by the man-made and therefore unnatural act of a statute from Parliament.


74 posted on 05/04/2012 12:07:33 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Come on now, allmendream, surely you didn't come unprepared to answer questions and support your position, did you?

@How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?

What US law in particular are @you talking about?

Or are you just going to slink away without answering?

75 posted on 05/04/2012 12:09:25 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I had to take a few minutes off to watch the BIG Atlas rocket take off. Beautiful blue sky and bright yellow “burn” from the engine.

A billion dollar Navy(?), I think, satellite is on it’s way into orbit. Things are still active down here in the commercial and private market. I never get tired of watching the flight accelerate. Waiting for the sound to reach me is always a treat! ( windows and sliding doors did not shake much this time!)


76 posted on 05/04/2012 12:15:41 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY; allmendream
Have I been sent to time out in the corner? LOL
No, no, on the contrary.
My pardon. I guess I should have made a comment about not painting one's self into a corner like allmendream has done.

The meme seems to be - Better to run away to fight again than be caught out today.

77 posted on 05/04/2012 12:15:53 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I answered both questions. Because your reading comprehension skills are sub-par I will repeat my answers.

One need not have any citizen parents to be a natural born citizen - as is the case with Marco Rubio.

All U.S. law pertaining to U.S. citizenship at birth is what I am talking about.

Now are you going to slink away without answering where in our Constitution or U.S. law you find any basis for there being U.S. citizens at birth that are not natural born?

Where is “native born” mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

Where is there anywhere in U.S. law a procedure for naturalization that includes the mere act of being born?

Being born a U.S. citizen is not a naturalization procedure as spelled out under the Constitutional power granted to Congress to have a uniform rule for naturalization.

Naturalization procedures, as outlined under the granted power in the Constitution - include a legal procedure and oaths sworn.

Would you have me believe that Marco Rubio being born a U.S. citizen was him being “naturalized” as a citizen?

Where is the law pertaining to naturalization that includes automatic naturalization at birth?

78 posted on 05/04/2012 12:18:25 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY
Lucky you. My bucket list will never come to fruition. There are simply too many things on it to get done.

I'll just experience it vicariously through you if that's all right with you.
Blue skies and bright yellow “burns” I've seen aplenty and my experience of a CA earthquake will give me an idea of the shaking.
I'm content...enough. LOL

79 posted on 05/04/2012 12:22:56 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY
Citizen = any type of citizen - at the time of the founding there were three.

Natural Born citizen = one who was born a citizen - not a naturalized citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

The stringent rule for the highest office is that naturalized citizens are not eligible.

I don't give a s*it about 0bama - unlike the birthers who discovered Vattel sometime late in 2008 - I have consistently (from when McCain's eligibility was questioned back in 2004) believed that there are currently only two types of U.S. citizen.

Natural born or naturalized.

80 posted on 05/04/2012 12:23:52 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I did understand...that’s why the LOL

Sometimes over the years I think I have helped a person to go back to their research and even they have convinced me I am wrong, occasionally...we’ll see this time. I agree with anyone who says no court is going to address this current issue. We may have riots without this issue to add to the “heat”.

I miss the many civil discussions I have had here on FR over the past 15 years or so. I have been around since before the current site was established and then after new computers for me, I got back in...They were often heated, but the heightened level of personal attack is more recent.

“Freeping” rallies at the White House, Capitol and Memorials on the Mall were new then. Rallies for Judicial confirmations, budget hearings, veteran’s support, and the Clinton impeachment fiasco are just a few things I got to enjoy over the years.

Protesting the “Baptists” who insult our troops at Arlington Cemetery and funerals are very rewarding events. All the tourists going by are so thankful someone is there to counter them and their signs of hate filled meaning. Often they ask to join us. I bet they have great vacation/tourist memories of the afternoon.

I have made such good friends here on FR. It has given me an interest and “hobby” between years of Presidential Election frenzy!


81 posted on 05/04/2012 12:43:40 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

My mama always taught me that “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

Rubio isn’t a natural born citizen, just as Obama isn’t.

Though Rubio would be running for VP, he could wind up as President.

I won’t vote for anyone not meeting the qualifications under the Constitution.

On this issue, the Republicans are as bad as the Democrats. Sad, sad, sad.


82 posted on 05/04/2012 12:51:18 PM PDT by SuzyQueIN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I sat down and cried when I tried to get a bucket list written. It was blank. I finally found a list of 100 things to do and only a couple of them I had missed. Boston Patriot Walk and Seattle.
I realized I wanted to go to a Freedom Concert...I went! I went to 8-28 and am planning to go to Dallas this summer...I have to keep adding to the list...I am not ready to check out!
I think visiting Ireland may be the one I fail to do. (McCleary-father) I got to England. ( Windsor-mother ) The one to NOT miss? The Grand Canyon, without a doubt.


83 posted on 05/04/2012 1:02:26 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I answered both questions.
No you didn't. In regards to my first question...How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen?...you replied in this manner.
@One need only be born a U.S. citizen under U.S. law (which should always be in accordance with natural law) to be a natural born citizen.
Simply stating "one" or "two" would have been answering the question. You didn't do that so, no, you didn't answer the question.

In regards to my second question...What US law in particular are you talking about?...you replied in this manner.
What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course.
I said "in particular". And you didn't even bother with my follow-up question to that answer...Isn't citizenship only "granted" under naturalization laws?

Because your reading comprehension skills are sub-par I will repeat my answers.
And so you give another dodge instead of forthrightly engaging in debate.
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with my reading comprehension. You didn't answer the questions.

All U.S. law pertaining to U.S. citizenship at birth is what I am talking about.
Well, once again, which law in particular is it that you're talking about? Can you at least give me the USC Title where that law is at? Or do you not know what law you're even talking about? You claim it's the law yet you don't know which one it is?

Where is “native born” mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Why does whether or not “native born” is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution even matter to the issue at hand, that being how many citizen parents a natural born citizen must have?

Being born a U.S. citizen is not a naturalization procedure as spelled out under the Constitutional power granted to Congress to have a uniform rule for naturalization.
Then where, and how, is it spelled out?

Naturalization procedures, as outlined under the granted power in the Constitution - include a legal procedure and oaths sworn.
Doesn't that only apply to people of a certain age?

Would you have me believe that Marco Rubio being born a U.S. citizen was him being “naturalized” as a citizen?
I would rather have you comprehend that he isn't a natural born citizen, but that seems beyond your ability.

Where is the law pertaining to naturalization that includes automatic naturalization at birth?
Are you implying that there isn't a law that grants automatic naturalization at birth?

84 posted on 05/04/2012 1:09:47 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
One need not have any citizen parents to be a natural born citizen - as is the case with Marco Rubio.
His parents were aliens who hadn't been naturalized themselves at his birth so how could he be a natural born citizen?
We're back to my original question...How many citizen parents, in your opinion, does a person need to have in order to be a natural born citizen? Not just a U.S. citizen because a natural born citizen is also a U.S. citizen.
He was born to aliens who were naturalized after his birth. He is only a U.S. citizen because he was born here of legal aliens.
He is not a natural born citizen.
85 posted on 05/04/2012 1:16:51 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Natural Born citizen = one who was born a citizen
To how many citizen parents? One or two?
Doesn't an alien parent mean that naturalization laws would apply?
86 posted on 05/04/2012 1:21:10 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

You claimed there was such a category as a “native born citizen”, and that this category was not natural born.

Where is this category “native born” spelled out in U.S. law or the U.S. Constitution?

Naturalization procedures include the naturalization of adult foreign nationals and the naturalization of children adopted by U.S. citizens - it is in all described cases a legal procedure.

If you claim there is a law that naturalizes a citizen at birth without legal paperwork or procedure - please show it to me.


87 posted on 05/04/2012 1:22:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You will never convince me that the children of illegals are natural born. I can not imagine that at this time anyway.

Citizens they are, by decree and that creates another category. Maybe even just puts a name to add to your list. Citizen, not Natural born or Naturalized. Children of foreign parents born on American soil have been granted citizenship, even dual is possible, since it became legal...haven’t they? Is this not the anchor baby citizenship type? Not either of the other two types maybe? Citizens based on physical location at birth.

Rules change, but the Constitution is not a “living document” that can be interpreted without legal amendments, as far as I am concerned...

I do not mean to insult you, please do not use coarse language with me, it gains nothing.


88 posted on 05/04/2012 1:22:47 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQueIN

VP must meet all the qualifications to be president...so you are correct in my opinion...

Nice to see you with a clear understanding. ( that I agree with...!)


89 posted on 05/04/2012 1:28:00 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
You claimed there was such a category as a “native born citizen”, and that this category was not natural born.
Where? Which specific reply?
90 posted on 05/04/2012 1:28:20 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY
Marco Rubio’s parents were not illegal immigrants.

If you want to try to invent things in the Constitution that are not there clearly spelled out - knock yourself out.

The Constitution as written by the men who wrote it - included only three types of citizenship - at the time of adoption - naturalized and natural born.

The framers obviously didn't worship Vattel like birthers began to late in 2008. The view circa 1790 was that the children of U.S. citizen parents born overseas were natural born citizens of the USA. Vattel thought they had to be diplomats or soldiers to convey that status - our founders disagreed.

91 posted on 05/04/2012 1:32:56 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; 3D-JOY
Marco Rubio’s parents were not illegal immigrants.
If I may...where in reply 88, the reply you're responding to with your rejoinder, did 3D-JOY even intimate that Rubio's parents were illegal immigrants?

YOU seem to have the reading comprehension problem as is evident.
You're the one reading something into what isn't even mentioned.

92 posted on 05/04/2012 1:40:19 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; WhiskeyX
My apologies - that was Whiskey X and others who attempted to carve out another category - that being “native born”.

Do you agree with me then that there IS no such category in U.S. law?

Or are you attempting to carve out a category of citizenship that the Constitution made no mention of?

If we agree that currently there are only naturalized and natural born citizens of these United States that is EXCELLENT.

Now you just have to show me where U.S. law specifies that naturalization law covers one who is a U.S. citizens at birth.

93 posted on 05/04/2012 1:42:35 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Well you've answered my question despite your best intentions not to...
...the children of U.S. citizen parents...

It takes two citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Thanks.

94 posted on 05/04/2012 1:43:10 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The view of 1790 was what was written by Thomas Paine, as I excerpted in post 65.

Paine makes it clear that the Framers intended natural born to be a child of two citizen parents. Anyone else was either a "foreigner" or "half a foreigner."

-PJ

95 posted on 05/04/2012 1:45:11 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

This thread is about Marco Rubio.

My arguments have been about Marco Rubio - whose parents were legal residents.

I do not think the children born of illegal residents should have U.S. citizenship at birth as their parents are in defiance of rather than subject to U.S. law.

Both 3D-JOY and the author tried to conflate Marco Rubio and “anchor baby” children of illegal immigrants.

Why the need to try to conflate the two?


96 posted on 05/04/2012 1:46:17 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Yes, but Vattel would insist that the criteria was born in country AND born to two citizen parents.

Obviously our founders didn't care what Vattel thought when they extended natural born status to those born OUTSIDE the USA.

Minor v Happersett

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that

“No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

Clear - either new citizens are born or they may be created by naturalization. Naturalization doesn't cover those born as citizens. Those who are born as citizens are natural born citizens.

Natural law is not one man's view in one book. U.S. law should always reflect our best understanding of natural law - OUR best understanding - not the best understanding of an 18th Century Swiss philosopher.

97 posted on 05/04/2012 1:51:16 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; WhiskeyX

“Why do you keep citing dicta to support your argument?”

Because every court in the country will follow that ‘dicta’ which, unlike the dicta in Minor, is critical to the court’s argument.

“Few American jurists had any access to any written English common law and precedents”

That is a stupid and utterly false statement.

“The rule didn’t apply to American nationality”

Not hardly. The case, after all, had nothing to do with British nationals living in the USA.

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


98 posted on 05/04/2012 2:01:51 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Do you agree with me then that there IS no such category in U.S. law?
Your incomprehension is astounding! Native born isn't a "category" of citizens to begin with! It's a term of art and it pertains to the location of birth.
People who are born on U.S. soil are all "native born" as in "native to the soil whereupon they're born".
A child born to U.S. citizens while they're in France isn't a native born citizen of America as they're born in France.

Now you just have to show me where U.S. law specifies that naturalization law covers one who is a U.S. citizens at birth.
Why would you ask me to show you what you know already exists?

One need only be born a U.S. citizen under U.S. law (which should always be in accordance with natural law) to be a natural born citizen.
What US law in particular are you talking about?
What U.S. law am I talking about? ALL U.S. law concerning granting citizenship at birth - of course.
What U.S law are you talking about anyway?

99 posted on 05/04/2012 2:02:52 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I certainly never said the Rubios were illegals...we were discussing categories of citizens.

His parents came...before the Castro revolution and the later laws created for those who had to leave or be persecuted in Cuba.

They may have been in the process of applying for citizenship when he was born...if so it took a long time. They did not receive citizenship for several years, as I remember the facts. Original stories about his candidacy did not tell the truth. They bragged that the family were citizens even when he was conceived. They must have known they had a problem.

I still believe the question is one of allegiance. He is a skilled speaker and fine American...he does have deep roots in the South Florida community. He and I disagree on his positive statements about the UN and definitely we disagree strongly on integration rules that are proposed for the future. Continuing to allow people to not speak the language or become part of the larger American family is a recipe for deep and continuing divisions.

His largest constituency is South Florida. That’s fine and why we have 2 senators. I wonder if it can be said that the entire US would be treated equally. That is what the writers of the Constitution wisely tried to promote.


100 posted on 05/04/2012 2:07:42 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson