Posted on 04/30/2011 8:37:33 PM PDT by Triple
ParentS, PLURAL, is no accident.
I said, clearly, upthread, that I think that “Birthright Citizenship” as in the “anchor baby” problem can be resolved.
In that case, NEITHER PARENT is a citizen, right?
Congress has the power to interpret the Constitution.
So does the President
Not just the Courts.
And Congress can enact legislation to implement the Constitution.
None of these actions requires another Amendment.
“However, I do not think the issue of his Father’s Kenyan or British citizenship amounts to a hill of beans.”
You have the right to your OPINION
You also have the right to be DEAD WRONG
So what? Who died and left them boss?
Take a course in logic.
To say that a person born on US Soil of two US Citizens IS a Natural Born Citizen is NOT the same as saying:
“If one Parent is not a citizen, no dice”
Inclusive vs exclusive language, basic legal stuff here. Basic English language stuff, as well as basic logic.
That is YOUR OPINION. It is not settled law. Read the entire joint opinion, which was used as the basis for the Seante Resolution on McCain.
Whether you think that these two reputable, famous Constitutional scholars and lawyers are wrong is really irrelevant. And their opinion does not represent the final word. However, their opinions do have considerable weight. To summarily dismiss them is nonsense.
“of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty”
or
“of a parent owing allegiance to no other sovereignty”
singular or plural, it’s about the same.
NOTHING NEW in his daddy at all, as a matter of law.
In fact, I was in the crowd, and still might be, that thought that Frank M. Davis IS the real Daddy.
Thank you for stating the obvious, and it is quite obvious that you don’t think the Constitution amounts to a hill of beans.
After all, the rest of the world believes in Gorebull warming anyway. Why fight it. We’ve already lost that battle and gay marriage is inevitable. We’ve already lost that battle. Just because the Constitution means something if the dems don’t agree with us, we’ve already lost that battle.
Funny, but I’ve found that the conservatives who refuse to believe in the natural born citizen clause are the ones who would not be able to qualify. They seem to take it personally and refuse to believe that though they are citizens born in this country, they could never qualify to become president. Well, tough, that’s life and those are the breaks. Just because people wish things and even lie enough to get others to believe them, doesn’t make what they wish, and hope, and believe, and can pull off, true.
And, the fact that you ignore every single argument anyone makes, against you, shows that you don't really want to win where it counts, at the ballot box or in Court.
You are so perfect that nobody needs to agree with you? Outside of FR, you have few followers. You aren't going to win many with the attitude you show here, either.
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provided that one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth. The child is considered to be born in wedlock if the child is the genetic issue of the married couple.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father – “New” Section 309(a)
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) of the INA, as made applicable by the “new” Section 309(a) of the INA provided:
A blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
The father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth;
The father was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for five years, at least two of which were after reaching the age of 14.
The father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and
While the person is under the age of 18 years —
the person is legitimated under the law of his/her residence or domicile,
the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father –
“Old” Section 309(a) of the INA- A child born out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under the former Section 301(a)(7) of the INA as made applicable by the “old” Section 309(a) of the INA if the U.S. citizen father, prior to the child’s birth, had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14, and if the paternity of the child had been established by legitimation prior to the child reaching the age of 21. The “old” Section 309(a) of the INA is applicable to individuals who were 18 on November 14, 1986 and to individuals whose paternity had been established by legitimation prior to that date. Individuals who were at least 15 on November 14, 1986, but under the age of 18, could opt to have their claim determined in accordance with the provisions of either the “old” or the “new” Section 309(a).
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Questions: Contact the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Directorate of Overseas Citizens Services, Office of Policy Review and Inter-Agency Liaison at ASKPRI@state.gov.
///The country was and is IGNORANT. We are trying to change that. Not a dead horse.///
The country isn’t ignorant. They get it. They just don’t care. It’s high time the birthers come to grips with that reality and devote this level of time, intensity and passion to a tactic that will defeat Obama in 2012. The BC is a dead horse.
The, parents in service to their country, idea gives you citizenship by birth, not Natural Born Citizenship.
I know of just one court that examined that issue. Markham Robinson petitioned the the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a preliminary injunction to remove John McCain from the ballot [Robinson v. Bowen]. To rule on the motion, the Court assessed the likelihood of Robinson winning on the merits:
At the time of Senator McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that “[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. Under this view, Senator McCain was a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks.Note that the Court equated citizenship from birth with natural-born citizenship.
not hard to find, online, either, but I do notice that the Passport Application is not the same as it used to be, online. They have taken out some of the citizenship stuff and refer you, now, to US Code Sections.
Thanks.
We do not always agree but -— nice work!
You are just plain WRONG on this matter of “citizen at birth”. It means just what it says. You are a “citizen” (not a natural born citizen, or it would say that) because of the circumstances of your birth as opposed to being a citizen because of some law or court. This is what that means. It has NOTHING to do with “natural born citizen”.
I understand that many people THINK that citizen at or by birth could mean “natural born citizen”. That is only because they know nothing about the history of citizenship and the concerns of John Jay and George Washington at the time of the founding. Also because of Vattel Law of Nations, that everyone understood what “natural born citizen” meant. No need to define it they thought, since everyone knows what it is.
It stands out. It stands alone. It is a specific phrase for a specific purpose that citizen at birth may not, by itself, guarantee. You can't see it's unique importance? It is only used once. It is NOT used in the 14th amendment where citizenship issues are determined for everyone else.
“Natural Born Citizen” SCREAMS from that page by it's absence. While there are a few that disagree and ultimately it will be decided by SCOTUS, but to anyone seriously studying this, there is no question of the founders intent in this matter.
We will have to agree to disagree, but I will continue to refute your posts as I can't have you misinforming with impunity, others on this forum.
A court has ruled against you.
See 214 above, by “Blade”
/// The country knew this, and the country disagreed with you. Sadly, that battle is lost. Lets fight on a hill we might be able to win? ///
Depends on the definition of “win”. There’s a lot of folks who care a lot less about defeating Obama than they care about defending their pet delusion. It’s as if they think that somehow, if they could just explain it a little clearer to the assorted morons of the world, everyone would bolt upright in their seats and declare, “By God, you’re right! Obama must be frog marched out of the White House at once! We call a do-over of all laws passed since 2008!”.
Truth is, we defeat Obama at the ballot box in 2012, or not at all.
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.