Skip to comments.Rubio and Birthright Citizenship
Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56
Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.
The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Section 1401 is named Nationals and U.S. citizens at birth.
What was it you said? Oh, yeah...you base a lot on what the name of a section is.
Here is the break down...
@USC : Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
@8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
@8 USC Chapter 12, Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
@8 USC Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization
And waaaaay down the line is the section in question...
@8 USC Section 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Isn't that the very section you're asking me to cite?
Nor did they say we came under English common law. But then, being a birther, reading isn’t your strong point, is it...
Or are you just going to slink away for good this time?
Stay and answer my question or slink away. Either way I've got your epic fail ready now too.
Nice evening and finally home to read my reply...It was not for you philman_36.
I was trying to add to your comments on the previous entry. I am sorry that makes me seem very ungracious.
I guess I was running out of time and not careful. Again, I am sorry for my carelessness.
It was directed to you, allmendream. I still think we have exhausted our conversation. Good Night.
It doesn't say anything about being the child of an alien. It applies to all natural born citizens who claim citizenship through the #1 criteria the law considers - birth on U.S. soil.
Wow - consistent with English law and the phrase “natural born” that they used - and which included people born on the soil and subject to the jurisdiction - no matter the parentage.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
Your usage of the erroneous “birther” terminology as a perjorative and an insult is the kind of behavior of a person of low moral character and wanting of the confidence to debate on the merits of an issue. Yo are of course free to engage in such behavior as you wish, but you do yourself no favors and leave us with a poor impression of your behavior, character, and reliability.
To avoid an opportunity for misunderstanding, perhaps you would care to describe exactly who you meant when you used the word, “they.”
In a previous posting you used:
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.
The Public Law naturalizes at birth those persons who would not otherwise be U.S. Citizens if it were not for the existence of this Public Law.
Persons who are naturally born with U.S. citizensship are not mentioned in this Public Law, because they require no Public Law to make them U.S. Citizens.
You are mistaken and your comment is a false statement. The jus soli or ius soli principle upon which the soil of birth doctrine in the U.S. citizenship law is derived comes from ancient legal customs dating back to the Roman Republic and earlier. Under the Roman law, the Roman citizenship required two Roman Citizens as parents and it also required education and civic service as a Roman Citizen. Anything less forfeited Roman Citizenship.
In early 17th Century England laws were passed to deem the children of foreigners born on English soil as naturalized subjects made at birth, versus the subjects born at birth as the children of English parents. It was therefore the custom and practice to naturalize at birth those persons the act of Parliament found it necessary to make subjects at birth.
The points in the second part of your post illustrate just how many factions there are who want more of BHO.
The first part of your post about divide and conquer by the globalists is interesting and, imho, quite plausible. That’s why so many of us keep begging our fellow conservatives to see that if we don’t do ALL we can to oust BHO, we’re done as a republic - history, nada, finis, kaput. All our in-fighting plays right into the enemies’ hands and assures America’s destruction by BHO & Co.
It meant a citizen at birth - as it does now - and it INCLUDED those born on the soil of any parentage
Why do you insist on that when I showed clearly from Thomas Paine's words from just 2 years after ratification that the Framers did NOT mean "natural born" to include those born of any parentage?
So you believe that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is secondary to a naturalization law governing aliens that Congress created?
How could anyone know if my parents are U.S. citizens? By looking at my BC? I think not and this is where I believe the birther movement fails. The ONLY thing a BC proves is where and when you were born. Parental information can be anything the mother says - it could be true and it could be a lie. A single mom who has a baby, doesn’t know who the father is, will just put anyone down to satisfy requirements. Does that mean that baby is not a NBC? Seems to me that if the framers and founders of our country meant that natural born citizens can only be so by U.S. citizen parents, they would have made arrangements to ensure just how that could be proven.
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.