Rick Perry shoots down Arizona's harsh immigration law (April 2010)

I don't bother with delibertly ignorant known after-birthers.

Here's some info which has been discussed on FR for years.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution,
the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe I'll go with the meaning of Natural Born Citizen as used by one of the founding fathers, not that of some deliberatly ingornant after-birther.

Friday, April 2, 2010
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”

www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay. In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2) birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have at the time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through both parents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to have.

Obama fails to meet this “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This definition was also used and confirmed by Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section.

In the United States House on March 9, 1866
commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was
“simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,
that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,
a natural born citizen”.

Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”

For consideration...

Gov. Perry made a trip to China to improve business relations in June 2010. This is where I’m an ultra-conservative, when it comes to big business versus small business, foreign investments in U.S. corporations, U.S. corporations setting up operations in foreign nations, details of what products and services are traded internationally, etc.

When a foreign person or corporation owns shares in a U.S. corporation, at the end of the day, U.S. workers get jobs on one hand, but on the other, the gains from owning those shares do not go to Americans. It would seem wise for Americans to personally own as much as possible of American business as they would be getting investment gains from the labor of Americans. Their is a school of thought that when America invites in foreign investors they are “leveraging”; also if foreigners have large investments in America they have an interest in our success up to the point that, in the case of a war, they simply accept the gains they had so far and simply accept the loss of their remaining investment. Food for thought.

When U.S. corporations set up operations in other nations, that’s when the shareholder has a benefit, again, as long as profits can be repatriated and the foreign operations are not confiscated by the foriegn government. The biggest loser in this case is the U.S. job market.

IMHO, I am a very strong supporter of Mr. Cain - but this is one issue where I winced a bit - then these companies want to have U.S. Corporate Income Tax breaks (??what??) where the profits from overseas operations will incur income tax if they are repatriated (cash moved back) to America. See, this is where I try to explain to folks - there is no “perfect” candidate. This is an issue where - even though small business would NEVER in a million years be granted such a break - as a conservative I just grit my teeth and bear it, knowing that it’s a bone that can be tossed to corporate America to get a very conservative President elected. Now why would I say this if I’m in the tank for Mr. Cain ? There is no candidate that will cater to small business and literally close their door - lock out - big business. And we have to remember that tax breaks or any promise may or may not be even able to be kept - many things are said as candidates try to walk a fine line of getting the right numbers of the right groups to vote for them. My problem with a tax break for repatriated profits is simple - what guarantee do we have that they are not simply turned around and invested again - overseas ? That would make 100% the most business sense according to how big public companies and hedge funds currently are thinking ! So we then wind up with U.S. companies running all their operations overseas and PAYING NO U.S. INCOME TAX ? I’m as pro-business as they come, but if there are no jobs here in the U.S. and no taxes being paid, the only gain for anyone in the U.S. is the value of the stock going up which will bolster everyone’s retirement. Except... offset that with... our U.S. capital (investment money) is... funding the construction of a country like China. So what good will my retirement be when a war breaks out years from now, and my retirement is wiped out anyway, because all those U.S. business operations in China are confiscated ?

Truth be told, every candidate, everyone’s favorite, has to quietly promise something to somebody. This is where Romney falls flat with so many conservatives - it’s obvious he’s got some serious backing, therefore there have to be IOU’s to many other groups besides individual citizens.

The big questions are, are they going to take away more Constitutional rights from individuals, are they quietly but completely in the tank for a given crony industry (like “healthcare” for many), is there any chance that they might do something dramatic to lop off a chunk of the Federal bureaucracy, the DOE, the DOC, SEC, etc.; might the get more laws repealed than they do passed ? I have no illusions about any particular candidate being “the one we need to save America”, but the harder we work on getting REAL conservatives elected, and the more we stir people up to wake them up to what’s going on, and the more calm, peaceful spreading of the faith we can accomplish, the more we’ll get American back on the right track.

Also, I wonder about the details of products: are we buying underwear and socks, but selling sophisticated technological products and services, which, once purchased, can be understood by the foreign nation sort of like an educational example. Also, if we are selling raw materials like energy and food products, there seems to be the effect of that foreign demand pushing up prices on world markets, thereby making our own raw materials more costly. While that helps our U.S. producer companies, there is a higher cost to U.S. consumers, which would be nice to offset by higher demand in the U.S. job market.

I wonder...

I’m always skeptical of both Dems and Repubs - any elected official - where they’re “helping” established medium-to-large sized companies, when every non-minority small business just has to suck it up and make it on it’s own. Seems to me that they don’t realize that we are now reaping the whirlwind of opening the doors to international trade so wide as they have, while at the same time allowing unions and the government to twist the arm of small to medium-sized business. We on the one hand have access to many low cost goods and services and on the other hand have access to many new markets to sell ours. They simply have missed the point that the dear old John D. Rockefeller, Sr. - who the left has always so loved to hate - knew so well: the money is in the processing, not the raw material. Not that he was looking at it from an economic point of view, since he was looking at it from Standard Oil’s point of view. But if he was President of the U.S., his strategies would have allowed him to build up the U.S. economy and the U.S. Treasury instead of watch them dwindle. By sourcing manufactured goods and labor-based services domestically, U.S. companies would be functioning as a for-profit, taxpaying, private-sector-funded stimulus to the economy where their best customers are: U.S. citizens. The greater the wealth of the U.S. than that of other nations of the world, the more secure peace and freedom is, since the disparity, contrary to leftist claims, will not provoke others to attack us, but will make it all the more difficult and make being friends with us all the more desireable.

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.