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

Skip to comments.

Babies and Immigration Reform (Not one word in the 844-page law mentions Birthright Citizenship)
American Thinker ^ | 04/24/2013 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last
To: SeekAndFind
Then we have to really check Bobby Jindal’s status. I don’t think his parents were permanent residents at the time of his birth.

Why not? They had acquired green cards via his father's profession. They lived in the U.S. prior to, at, and following the time of Jindal's birth.

Contrast that with Obama's father, who only had authorization for a temporary stay in the U.S., and had not lived in the U.S. beyond 3 years after Obama's birth because the U.S. refused to extend his temporary stay any further.

Jindal is a U.S. citizen via U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not necessarily a 'natural born citizen' for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.

151 posted on 04/26/2013 8:29:54 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
I don't have time right now for a full answer, but the brief answer is as follows:

Exactly. They were executing the 14th Amendment as written and intended. Trumbull and Howard were quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning in the Congressional Record.

Absolute, total, complete, unmitigated nonsense.

Trumbull and Howard WERE quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement.

They intended to exclude the historical exceptions - children of ambassadors, etc., and Indians in tribes. But THEY NEVER, EVER EXPRESSED ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO EXCLUDE THE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANT PARENTS.

In fact, the discussion in both houses touched upon such persons, and it was generally agreed that THEY HAD ALWAYS BEEN BORN UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

So when others later came along and interpreted their words to exclude such people, THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTELY CLEAR MISINTERPRETATION.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but historically, that's the way it is.

Your first quote in 139 is from Samuel Roberts, who was a little judge in Pennsylvania who presided over several counties. He had no national responsibility or stature whatsoever, and was completely contradicted by those who did (e.g., Rawle, Tucker, etc.)

As for your second quote - CONGRATULATIONS. You have successfully found someone who declared people born on US soil to alien parents not to be a citizen, prior to 1880. I didn't think any such cases existed, but they do.

They don't very far before 1880 - I think the declaration you referenced was in 1876. And the judge in question wasn't even an American. It was an international commission, and he was the British foreign minister to the United States. But yes, he misread "subject to a foreign power" in the same way that birthers do, and made a (wrong) judgment on that basis.

The fact is, "subject to a foreign power" really did not say what they intended to say, so that same year when they introduced the 14th Amendment, they changed the wording to "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." As far as I can tell, history does not record exactly why they changed the wording, but it seems pretty obvious to me. "Subject to a foreign power," from a straightforward reading of that term, really wasn't what they meant in the first place.

152 posted on 04/26/2013 9:32:26 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; SeekAndFind
Jindal is a U.S. citizen via U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not necessarily a 'natural born citizen' for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.

If he falls under Wong Kim Ark, then he's a natural born citizen. The question is whether WKA covers the children of temporary residents.

If it does, then he's good. If not, then he might or might not be.

153 posted on 04/26/2013 9:36:23 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Absolute, total, complete, unmitigated nonsense.

Neither U.S. Secretaries of State nor the International Arbitration Panel agrees with you.

The FACT is that those born in the U.S. to aliens temporarily residing in the U.S. were NOT born U.S. citizens. They DIDN'T meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. Two different U.S. Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator have CONFIRMED such.

154 posted on 04/26/2013 9:44:41 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; Rides3

Here’s my personal view — If the 14th Amendment’s Interpretation is UNCLEAR and DEBATABLE, then I believe an amendment to it is in order today.

If we only want to limit babies born of US citizens or LEGAL permanent residents to have birthright citizenship ( as I do ) and exclude those babies born of parents who are here illegally, WE OUGHT TO CLEARLY STATE THIS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

This cannot be done by mere legislation from Congress.


155 posted on 04/26/2013 9:48:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: The FACT is that those born in the U.S. to aliens temporarily residing in the U.S. were NOT born U.S. citizens.

As I said before, if the above is the case, then Bobby Jindal ought to go through the process of naturalization.

His parents were not permanent residents of America at the time of his birth. They only applied for residency later.


156 posted on 04/26/2013 9:50:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Neither U.S. Secretaries of State nor the International Arbitration Panel agrees with you.

Every US Secretary of State since US v. Wong Kim Ark has agreed with me. And every US Secretary of State prior to 1880 has agreed with me.

So if you're talking about Secretaries of State between sometime in the 1880s, and 1898, then you're correct. If you're talking about Secretaries of State from any other point in our 225+ year history, no.

The FACT is that those born in the U.S. to aliens temporarily residing in the U.S. were NOT born U.S. citizens. They DIDN'T meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. Two different U.S. Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator have CONFIRMED such.

I've said before that there's a case to be made for the children of aliens temporarily here. I think it's a weak case, but it's possible to make it. But I think there's a case to be made for the children of illegal aliens.

But there's no case to be made for anyone who has a citizen parent. Virtually everybody in the country considers that to be absolutely settled law, and they would've regarded it as such at any point in our history. And there's no case to be made for children of resident aliens. That case was made and decided more than a century ago.

157 posted on 04/26/2013 9:54:56 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
If he falls under Wong Kim Ark, then he's a natural born citizen.

No. Wong Kim Ark wasn't ruled a natural born citizen. He was ruled "a citizen" ONLY.

Gray had been given the perfect opportunity to redefine U.S. born citizen and even 'natural born citizen' as native-born without regard to parents' status when writing the ruling. But after all the verbal meandering and quotes, he specifically did not do so:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Remember that those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent, if they meet nationality law requirements, are ALSO at the time of their birth a citizen of the U.S. That does NOT make them 'natural born citizens' for Constitutional purposes. The U.S. State Dept confirms such:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

158 posted on 04/26/2013 10:06:29 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This cannot be done by mere legislation from Congress.

Okay, here's what I think, ultimately.

I think people here on tourist visas are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I really do not think that a credible argument can be made that they are not.

That being the case, under the 14th Amendment, the children of birth tourists are citizens.

I don't think birth tourism is an enormous problem, but it's not anything we want to encourage. I think we could find ways legislatively to penalize and discourage it. We could require tourists to disclose whether they expecting to have a baby during their stay in the US, for example. Impose fines, and such.

On the other hand, I think there is some argument to be made that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." That argument might well fail in court as well, but I think it's worth making.

If it passed Constitutional muster, fine. If it didn't, then we could pass a Constitutional amendment.

All of this, again, presumes the will to do something. I don't think that exists. Clearly, it doesn't.

And I doubt it ever will. If it does, then this discussion becomes more than just theory. Until that day, it's really just academic.

159 posted on 04/26/2013 10:08:33 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
No. Wong Kim Ark wasn't ruled a natural born citizen. He was ruled "a citizen" ONLY.

You clearly do not understand legal precedent.

Precedent is not made up of the final declaration only. It includes all of the core reasoning of the case.

It does NOT include side comments, but it includes all of the core reasoning used to reach the decision.

So legal precedent does NOT include (for example) the one-or-two-sentence total side comment made in Minor v. Happersett about the children of aliens. Sorry, it just doesn't.

It DOES include the dozens of pages of careful analysis and core reasoning in Wong Kim Ark, since all of that was key to and led directly to the decision in the case.

And all of that core reasoning had to do with who was and was not a natural born citizen.

Earlier, I wrote this regarding US v. Wong Kim Ark:

Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::

"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."

So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"

Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:

"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN 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."

That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.

First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."

Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."

And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.

All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.

It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.

This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:

THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN 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.

Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.

It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.

This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.

It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.

Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.

It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs.

Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.

This claim completely and absolutely misunderstands or misrepresents how legal precedent works.

In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.

In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.

We should also note that while birthers make this "they stopped short of saying Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen in the final statement" claim for US v Wong Kim Ark, they take the EXACT OPPOSITE approach with their pet case, Minor v. Happersett.

That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.

Still, they insist that those two sentence of side commentary in Minor are "binding precedent," although they are completely unsupported by any authority or argument whatsoever, although they are completely irrelevant to resolving the case, and their conclusion is not explicitly stated in the final statement.

Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.

It is 100% clear to any honest person that this is a thoroughly dishonest approach to the two cases.

Or to put it another way, it is simply a way of LYING about what these cases said.

The truth is that Minor had virtually nothing to say on the subject, and US v Wong Kim Ark handed down an absolutely clear precedent that natural born citizenship does not require citizen parents for persons born on US soil.

All of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course birthers do, every day, since that is the only way they can possibly try to maintain the fantasy.

So... you can deny it all you want. But from a legal point of view, it's crystal clear that Wong was a natural born citizen.

160 posted on 04/26/2013 10:15:15 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Precedent is not made up of the final declaration only. It includes all of the core reasoning of the case.

It's not "core reasoning" if it yields a result that's different from the reasoning. The Supreme Court DECLINED to rule Wong Kim Ark a 'natural born citizen' even though they could have done so.

161 posted on 04/26/2013 11:32:42 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
It's not "core reasoning" if it yields a result that's different from the reasoning. The Supreme Court DECLINED to rule Wong Kim Ark a 'natural born citizen' even though they could have done so.

There's no appreciable difference at all between the core reasoning and the final declaration.

If someone is a natural born citizen, then they're a citizen.

Your utter determination to deny what they law says is showing.

162 posted on 04/26/2013 11:39:27 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; Rides3
There's no appreciable difference at all between the core reasoning and the final declaration.

Let me reword that, as that might be, in one sense, overstating the point a bit.

The case asked the question of whether Wong was a citizen.

The Court examined the question at length, and quite clearly found that he was a natural born citizen.

So in the final declaration, because the question before the Court was, "Is Wong a citizen?" they answered, "Yes, Wong is a citizen."

But the entire core reasoning of the case was that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Since the entire core reasoning of the case determined that he was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, and that core reasoning was... well, THE CORE REASONING, completely and absolutely central to the outcome of the case, then that CORE REASONING - and its CONCLUSION, that anyone in Wong's situation is a natural born citizen, is absolutely binding precedent.

I hope that's stated a bit better.

163 posted on 04/26/2013 11:47:19 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I think people here on tourist visas are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

In a limited way, yes. However, they are NOT under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S., which is what both Trumbull and Howard, the originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, specifically stated in the Congressional Record was required.

Case in point: some children born to aliens in the U.S. are born SUBJECT TO a foreign country's nationality law. Prime example: Obama.

That is PRECISELY why U.S. Secretaries of State and the International Arbitrator determined that those born in the U.S. to alien parent(s) WERE NOT U.S. citizens. They were SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER and OWED ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN POWER at birth via their alien parent(s).

164 posted on 04/26/2013 4:53:42 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The case asked the question of whether Wong was a citizen.

Incorrect. Gray stated the exact question very specifically in the ruling.:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."

165 posted on 04/26/2013 5:02:32 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

I suggest you review further up the thread and examine the evidence already provided.


166 posted on 04/26/2013 6:38:54 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t see how that’s pertinent to the issue at hand. There’s a higher standard for the presidency than there is for someone acquiring citizenship.

Folks tend to err on either side.

They either apply the conditions of the presidency to everyone else (which we see here in this thread), or they assume the Presidency requires the exact same thing, (it doesn’t).

Why is this so hard? President requires NBC - which means Born in America over 35 and two citizen parents. Everything else - does not. Cruz doesn’t meet this standard.


167 posted on 04/26/2013 6:41:43 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

When I mentioned Jindal’s name, it was not in relation to his possible run for the Presidency, it was in relation to his being a citizen by birth.

My point was if he did not acquire citizenship at the time of his birth, and he never applied for naturalization, then I don’t know how he qualifies to even be Congressman ( which he was ) or governor ( which he is ).

Being a Natural Born Citizen is another matter altogether.


168 posted on 04/26/2013 6:51:52 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
In a limited way, yes. However, they are NOT under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S., which is what both Trumbull and Howard, the originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, specifically stated in the Congressional Record was required.

In the sense in which both Trumbull and Howard used the phrase, they ARE subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.

The phrase was used in regard to INDIANS. There was a good deal of discussion about INDIANS IN TRIBES. These were considered subject to the PARTIAL jurisdiction of the United States, because they lived on United States land.

Aliens "in amity" were always considered subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States. Nobody ever said differently. If you maintain that's the case, then produce the quote that says aliens here in amity were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. NOT from someone who thought otherwise LATER, but from the Senators and Representatives who introduced the 14th Amendment.

YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE THAT QUOTE DOESN'T EXIST.

You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.

169 posted on 04/26/2013 7:04:37 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
The case asked the question of whether Wong was a citizen.

Incorrect. Gray stated the exact question very specifically in the ruling.:

No, it's not "incorrect." It's simply a SUMMARY of the longer text you just wrote.

The Court was asked the question of whether Wong was a citizen, or not. What are you, an idiot? Or just an obtuse know-it-all? Which is it?

170 posted on 04/26/2013 7:06:44 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
No, it's not "incorrect." It's simply a SUMMARY of the longer text you just wrote.

The Supreme Court didn't rule on a "summary." Gray stated the exact question asked and answered very specifically in the ruling.:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."

The question asked and answered, Jeff. The question asked and answered.

Parents' status matters for birthright U.S. citizenship.

171 posted on 04/26/2013 7:58:28 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Aliens "in amity" were always considered subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States. Nobody ever said differently.

Indeed, they DID say differently, Jeff. U.S. Secretaries of State said differently and so did an International Arbitrator.

172 posted on 04/26/2013 8:01:14 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
My point was if he did not acquire citizenship at the time of his birth

Jindal was born in the U.S. to parents who had green cards at the time via his father's profession. He was born a citizen. That doesn't necessarily make him a natural born citizen for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.

173 posted on 04/26/2013 8:07:09 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Indeed, they DID say differently, Jeff. U.S. Secretaries of State said differently and so did an International Arbitrator.

Read the CONTEXT, genius. I was speaking in the CONTEXT of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES.

In that CONTEXT, nobody ever said differently.

174 posted on 04/26/2013 8:27:00 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: Jindal was born in the U.S. to parents who had green cards at the time via his father’s profession.

Where did you get that piece of news?

His mother came via student visa, which means his father came here as the spouse of someone with a student visa.

Eventually they secured green cards, but that was AFTER he was born.

See here:

http://freakoutnation.com/2010/08/03/bobby-jindal-was-an-anchor-baby/comment-page-1/


175 posted on 04/27/2013 5:41:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Read the CONTEXT, genius. I was speaking in the CONTEXT of the CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES.

In that CONTEXT, nobody ever said differently.

You can't possibly be serious. How on earth did you miss, "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

If the intent instead was to exclude only anyone "owing allegiance to an Indian Nation," they would have said that. They didn't. The exact stipulation is:
"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

U.S. Secretaries of State understood that. An International Arbitrator understood that. And that was shortly AFTER the debates and ratification took place. They knew EXACTLY what it meant.

176 posted on 04/27/2013 6:15:34 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Where did you get that piece of news?

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/gov_bobby_jindal_releases_his.html

177 posted on 04/27/2013 6:21:06 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Hard to tell... from Jindal's birth certificate.


All it says his parents were Indian.
178 posted on 04/27/2013 6:28:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Here's another one for you, Jeff...

Friedrich de Bourry, born in New York on December 4, 1862, to an Austrian citizen father who was only temporarily in the U.S.

The U.S. Secretary of State ruled that he WASN'T a U.S. citizen at birth because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen, never made the requisite declaration of his intention to become a citizen, or in any way signified his intention formally to abjure his Austrian allegiance.

179 posted on 04/27/2013 6:47:47 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Citizens of India can have Green Cards. A Green Card establishes permanent residence according to the U.S. CIS.


180 posted on 04/27/2013 6:52:45 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
You can't possibly be serious. How on earth did you miss, "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

I didn't "miss" it. I READ THE FREAKING DEBATES TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY MEANT BY THE TERM.

I would suggest that you do the same.

It is clear from the discussion entire debates that the people they meant to exclude by those words were Indians in tribes.

It is equally clear that they did NOT intend to exclude children of resident aliens, that they regarded those people born here as United States citizens, and that they considered they had ALWAYS been born citizens.

You are making your arguments from your own ignorance of the topic, imagining that you know something about it, when you don't. You read the words, and you say, "Oh, HERE'S what they meant by that."

BUT YOU APPARENTLY HAVEN'T FREAKING READ THE ENTIRE DEBATES, so your opinion isn't worth much.

Of course, even if you DID read the entire debates, every sign is that you just want the law to mean what YOU want it to mean, and don't care what it really said, and don't care what they actually meant by the phrase.

So it probably wouldn't make any difference if you read the debates anyway. Because you show every sign of being a straightforward denialist.

So either way, your opinion isn't worth much. Because as far as I can tell, you're simply not interested in reality.

181 posted on 04/27/2013 8:34:28 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Friedrich de Bourry

And when was the case? It was during or shortly after the year 1886.

Just exactly as I said.

The position of the State Department, judging from what's written about de Bourry and the previous text:

And in another case Mr. Evarts said : "A person born in the United States has a right, though he has intermediately been carried abroad by his parents, to elect the United States as a nationality when he arrives at full age." Mr. Evarts to Mr. Cramer, November 12, 1880, MSS. Inst to Denmark, 2 Wharton, International Law Dig. 397.

was that such persons had "a right to elect the United States as a nationality."

This appears to be different from naturalization.

In other words, the policy seems to have been that if they were carried abroad as a child, they could lose their natural-born citizenship if they didn't come back here and take it up upon reaching age 21. If they returned at age 21, it appears the State Department would recognize them as natural born citizens. If they didn't... "hey, buddy, you chose to be an Austrian."

Then, with Wong, the government went from that to a flat, "You're not even a citizen."

After they had already once acknowledged that he WAS.

The Supreme Court put a stop to all of that with US v. Wong Kim Ark.

182 posted on 04/27/2013 8:44:19 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
You can't possibly be serious. How on earth did you miss, "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

It's clear even from that context of that particular sentence that he was referring to INDIANS IN TRIBES when he made that remark.

183 posted on 04/27/2013 8:45:23 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
It's clear even from that context of that particular sentence that he was referring to INDIANS IN TRIBES when he made that remark.

No, he used Indians in Tribes as an example. We know this for a fact because subsequent federal statute says the same thing: "not subject to any foreign power." And then goes on to be sure to specifically exclude "Indians not taxed."

They are not one and the same.

http://books.google.com/books?id=krYnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA350

184 posted on 04/27/2013 9:06:08 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The Supreme Court put a stop to all of that with US v. Wong Kim Ark.For those born in the U.S. to permanently domiciled parents, as specifically predicated in the ruling, yes.
185 posted on 04/27/2013 9:08:30 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

We’ve been over this before, in post 88.

You can go on pretending that Trumbull was talking about someone other than Indians, or that he didn’t say that the children born here of non-citizen parents were citizens, but your claim is simply FALSE.

For the benefit of anyone following the thread, I’ll repeat some of post 88.


As far as “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” when Trumbull said those words, who exactly was he talking about?

You never mention that, do you?

Was he talking about the children born here, in American society, of non-citizen parents?

No. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

He was speaking about INDIANS, who had been BORN IN INDIAN TRIBES.

Here’s the entire quote:

Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes… Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?

This is what people who make the kinds of claims you’re making do. Take a quote, strip it of its context, and make it say something that IT NEVER SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Trumbull NEVER, EVER said that non-citizens living in our society were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and he NEVER, EVER said that the children born here of non-citizen parents were anything other than natural-born US citizens.

In fact, he said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim:

Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Cowan: I think not.

Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.

Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

Now he got it slightly wrong: It wasn’t under the naturalization laws that such people were born citizens, but under the rule of citizenship that had always prevailed here. It was a matter of definition and of American common law.

But in general, he got it right: the children of immigrants are, and always were, natural born citizens.


186 posted on 04/27/2013 10:30:49 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
As far as “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” when Trumbull said those words, who exactly was he talking about?

Anyone who would be a U.S. citizen at birth if they met the Amendment's requirements.

We know this for a FACT because subsequent federal law says nearly the same thing: "not subject to any foreign power." And then goes on to be sure to specifically exclude "Indians not taxed."

http://books.google.com/books?id=krYnAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA350

THAT federal law was in effect AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified and was neither challenged to be, nor ruled, unconstitutional.

Multiple Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator ruled those born in the U.S. to alien fathers (and NOT just Native Americans) were NOT U.S. citizens at birth. They referred specifically to federal law and the 14th Amendment when doing so.

For whatever reason, Jeff, you're choosing to cling to a position on this that just simply isn't supported by fact or actual historical evidence.

187 posted on 04/27/2013 11:53:19 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
THAT federal law was in effect AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified and was neither challenged to be, nor ruled, unconstitutional.

The law you cite is referenced to April 9, 1866, which is the date of passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which came just BEFORE the 14th Amendment.

You obviously don't understand the history, or law. It looks like you can't even READ, or you would've read the date referenced, looked it up, and found that was the date of passage of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866.

Multiple Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator ruled those born in the U.S. to alien fathers (and NOT just Native Americans) were NOT U.S. citizens at birth. They referred specifically to federal law and the 14th Amendment when doing so.

Actually, looking at these rulings, they don't seem to have ruled that at all. It appears more that they ruled that persons born on US soil to alien parents, who were carried abroad as children, had a right to elect their citizenship: United States or the foreign country of their parents. And they had to make that election promptly upon turning 21. If they came back here, fine. And everyone would've regarded them as being natural born US citizens. If they stayed abroad, not fine. They lost their US citizenship, and/or the right to elect such.

This policy in itself was not in line with the historical law and policy of the United States prior to the 1860s and 1870s. But even so, it doesn't seem to have been quite what you describe it to be.

For whatever reason, Jeff, you're choosing to cling to a position on this that just simply isn't supported by fact or actual historical evidence.

No, it's YOUR position that isn't supported by fact or actual historical evidence, as shown by the fact that someone can put the history right in front of your eyes, and you still claim it doesn't say what it says.

I'm going to try one more time here with Trumbull.

SENATOR TRUMBULL CLEARLY STATED THAT THOSE BORN HERE IN THE UNITED STATES TO NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANT PARENTS WERE THEMSELVES UNITED STATES CITIZENS. THIS WAS IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866.

SO SINCE THAT WAS THE ACT THAT SAID, "NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER," SENATOR LYMAN TRUMBULL WAS CLEAR (IN SPITE OF THE APPARENT WORDING, WHICH WAS PROMPTLY CHANGED IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT) THAT HE DID NOT REGARD NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANTS OR THEIR CHILDREN TO BE "SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER," AND THAT HE DID REGARD THEM TO BE "SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES:"

Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Cowan: I think not.

Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.

Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

Not even Senator Cowan contested the point, in regard to the children of European immigrants. He, and some others, made a rather racist argument that the children of Asians should not be citizens, simply because they were Asians and not Europeans.

Trumbull himself was equally clear that this was not only the way the law was, but that it was the way it SHOULD be, and that it applied to people of all races.

He did get one minor point wrong. It wasn't under the naturalization laws that this was so, but under the definition of natural born citizenship which had always existed in the country, and which had never been changed.

Now. Are you going to admit that Senator Lyman Trumbull stated clearly, during the course of the debates on this Act, that the children of immigrants were themselves United States citizens, or are you going to continue to deny it?

188 posted on 04/27/2013 12:33:22 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
As for the rest of it, it is clear what the term "natural born citizen" meant to the general public and all the real authorities of EARLY AMERICA.

It is clear that the children of immigrants were natural born citizens, and that virtually every genuine authority, including all of the authorities that had any real stature, agreed that being born in the United States, even of immigrant parents, qualified a person for Presidential eligibility:

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America

"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).

This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.

In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances. French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"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. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

The First Congress (1790):

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.".

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.

French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.

Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):

"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."

Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.

Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And again.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837:

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)

"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."

Native citizen.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:

"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

This, again, is why when John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President, ran for that office in 1856 as the proud son of a French citizen who never naturalized and never intended to, NOBODY CARED.

189 posted on 04/27/2013 12:48:18 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
The law you cite is referenced to April 9, 1866

Look again, Jeff.

"Revised Statutes of the United States passed at the First Session of the Forty-Third Congress - 1873-1874 - Embracing the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the first day of December, One Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-Three, as revised and consolidated by commissioners appointed under an Act of Congress."

IN FORCE December 1873. AFTER ratification of the 14th Amendment. Seems EVERYONE at the time KNEW exactly what the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement meant AND U.S. Secretaries of State ruled accordingly when they denied U.S. birthright citizenship to those born in the U.S. to alien fathers.

190 posted on 04/27/2013 12:50:27 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
That was a compilation of laws in force in 1873 and 1874.

OF COURSE the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was in force in 1873 and 1874. DUH! HELLO?!

But the law itself was from 1866.

Now. Are you going to admit that Senator Lyman Trumbull stated clearly, during the course of the debates on this Act, that the children of immigrants were themselves United States citizens, or are you going to continue to deny it?

191 posted on 04/27/2013 12:56:43 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
But the law itself was from 1866.

As revised in 1873.

"Statutes of the United States passed at the First Session of the Forty-Third Congress - 1873-1874"

Unfortunately for you, Congress DELIBERATELY CHOSE to keep the SAME law in effect in 1873.

192 posted on 04/27/2013 1:05:16 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Unfortunately for you, Congress DELIBERATELY CHOSE to keep the SAME law in effect in 1873.

Okay. So the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was in effect in 1873.

Great, big, whooping deal. That's exactly what we would expect.

The QUESTION was: What did they mean by the thing in the first place?

Now. Are you going to admit that Senator Lyman Trumbull stated clearly, during the course of the debates on this Act, that the children of immigrants were themselves United States citizens, or are you going to continue to deny it?

193 posted on 04/27/2013 1:32:44 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Okay. So the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was in effect in 1873.

The QUESTION was: What did they mean by the thing in the first place?

Not just "in effect." Congress DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO KEEP IT EXACTLY AS IS even AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified.

Given that, it is quite evident that both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 AND the 14th Amendment really DO mean "not subject to any foreign power."

That's EXACTLY how U.S. Secretaries of State AND an International Arbitrator ruled when they denied birthright U.S. citizenship to those born in the U.S. to alien fathers.

Historical FACT of the U.S. Government's actual observance and execution of national citizenship law. It matters.

194 posted on 04/27/2013 2:10:15 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Are you going to admit that Senator Lyman Trumbull stated clearly, during the course of the debates on this Act, that the children of immigrants were themselves United States citizens, or are you going to continue to deny it?

Immigrants are permanently domiciled in the U.S. That IS the point of immigrating, to make the U.S. your new country and your new home. And yes, children born in the U.S. to immigrants ARE citizens.

However, children born in the U.S. to non-immigrant temporarily resident aliens are NOT citizens.

195 posted on 04/27/2013 2:14:16 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
And yes, children born in the U.S. to immigrants ARE citizens.

By golly, we seem to have reached a point of agreement.

However, children born in the U.S. to non-immigrant temporarily resident aliens are NOT citizens.

I think on this on we will have to - slightly - disagree.

I think there's an argument to be made that such children aren't citizens. But in light of the 14th Amendment, and particularly in light of the way in which it is worded - "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - I think it's a weak one, and I seriously doubt it would stand up in court.

In fact, if you read the debates in Congress, they actually considered that scenario - the one of aliens here temporarily.

They concluded that the measure they were passing was going to legally recognize the children born of aliens even temporarily in the country as citizens. But they decided that wasn't a big deal.

However, if you or anyone else wants to get Congress to pass a law stating that the children born to aliens temporarily in the country AREN'T citizens, go for it. I'm not a particular fan of birth tourism. Because of the ancient historic precedents, because of the discussion they had on the matter in the Congressional debates, and because I don't think the will is there to abolish birth tourism, I doubt such an attempt would be successful.

But surprises sometimes happen. So I say: if you can get such a measure upheld in the courts, then go for it.

196 posted on 04/27/2013 2:51:13 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: Citizens of India can have Green Cards. A Green Card establishes permanent residence according to the U.S. CIS.

Sure they can. Unfortunately, even children of NON-GREEN CARD HOLDERS from India can be citizens.

How do I know that?

EXPERIENCE.

I work in the IT industry where I happen to HIRE CONSULTANTS, most of them from India here on H1B visas ( working, non-permanent resident visas ).

I know of SEVERAL who have CHILDREN ( plural ) born in the USA who are Americans. As babies, they travel with US passports when their parents go overseas.

Also, I know MANY graduate students who come here to study and do research in our universities( like Jindal’s mother ) who bring their spouses with them ( similar to Jindal’s mother again ). I know several Chinese couples, several Korean couples, a Japanese couple and a few from the Philippines. The come here on GRADUATE STUDENT VISAS.

They HAVE CHILDREN here in the USA. Guess what? Their children are given AMERICAN passports. Not only that, the kids have SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS as well.

This then my friend is the PREVALENT understanding of the law.

As i said before, you may want to argue that what America is implementing as its citizenship laws are unconstitutional, but my argument still stands.

BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR THE PAST MANY DECADES , THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. That is, if you want to get rid of birthright citizenships for non-citizens.


197 posted on 04/27/2013 7:18:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
"children born in the U.S. to non-immigrant temporarily resident aliens are NOT citizens."

I think there's an argument to be made that such children aren't citizens. But in light of the 14th Amendment, and particularly in light of the way in which it is worded - "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" - I think it's a weak one, and I seriously doubt it would stand up in court.

I disagree. There have been several rulings by U.S. Secretaries of State stating EXACTLY such in denying U.S. citizenship to those born in the U.S. to temporarily resident aliens, AFTER ratification of the 14th Amendment.

In the case of Friedrich de Bourry, born in New York on December 4, 1862 to an Austrian citizen father who was only temporarily in the U.S., the U.S. Secretary of State hit the issue right on the head. He ruled that de Bourry WASN'T a U.S. citizen at birth because his father WASN'T a U.S. citizen at the time, NEVER made the requisite declaration of his intention to become a citizen prior to Friedrich's birth in the U.S., or in any way signified his intention formally to ABJURE his Austrian allegiance. Born in the U.S. but NOT a U.S. citizen at birth due to failure to meet the requirements for birthright citizenship.

Obviously, legal immigrants would have already made the requisite declaration of their intention to become U.S. citizens thereby signifying their intention formally to ABJURE their foreign allegiance. Legal immigrants' children born in the U.S. are citizens at birth, though not necessarily 'natural born citizens' for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.

198 posted on 04/28/2013 7:04:35 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Unfortunately, even children of NON-GREEN CARD HOLDERS from India can be citizens.

How do I know that?

EXPERIENCE.

It is current political policy to "deem" such children to be citizens. However, there is no federal law or Constitutional Amendment that supports such.

199 posted on 04/28/2013 7:09:26 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: there is no federal law or Constitutional Amendment that supports such.

That is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to SPECIFICALLY address this issue. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.


200 posted on 04/28/2013 7:24:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 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