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

Skip to comments.

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

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

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

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

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; citizenship; constitution; immigration; ineligible; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen; nbc; norubio; obama; rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-420 next last
To: philman_36
Minor v Happersett

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

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

So where does U.S. law contradict the above and state that naturalization covers those who are U.S. citizens at birth?

Don't try to weasel out of it.

According to the founders and the law of 1790 - a child born to U.S. citizens while they are in France is a natural born citizen of America.

So native born isn't a subset or category of U.S. citizenship. Marco Rubio is then - according to you - a U.S. citizen at birth - a “native born” citizen - and yet somehow NOT a natural born citizen - but a naturalized citizen.

Under what provision of U.S. law was Marco Rubio naturalized under?

101 posted on 05/04/2012 2:09:49 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
This thread is about Marco Rubio.
It's about more than him. Read the title oh ye lacking in reading comprehension...Rubio and Birthright Citizenship

My arguments have been about Marco Rubio - whose parents were legal residents.
And yet you've somehow, and unknowingly to your own mind, managed to venture into birthright citizenship.

I do not think the children born of illegal residents should have U.S. citizenship at birth as their parents are in defiance of rather than subject to U.S. law.
Good for you. Ummm...while we're on the subject...what exactly is an illegal resident and where is that defined in U.S. law?

Both 3D-JOY and the author tried to conflate Marco Rubio and “anchor baby” children of illegal immigrants.
Then provide the snippet of the article and the portion of the reply that does so.

Why the need to try to conflate the two?
You've yet to establish that such was done so why ask.

102 posted on 05/04/2012 2:12:10 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

you have been very forceful in saying only 2 categories of citizens. That does not mean that there is only one way to get to those groups. No such thing was inferred about the Rubios...we were discussing the methods and categories of citizenship standards...please do not add meaning that is not in the words used.

There is plenty of room for opinions without trying to “stretch” each others careful wording.

Well, we may have exhausted debate for today.


103 posted on 05/04/2012 2:21:05 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQueIN

Just for the record, the eligibility requirements for the Office of the Vice President are the same as for the Office of the President. Marco Rubio, Jindal, and even perhaps Romney are ineligible.


104 posted on 05/04/2012 2:51:10 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The statute was repealed for reasons which are not clear. Nevertheless, the statute was in error, at least in respect to the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. Any form of law with respect to citizenship which grants citizenship is by definition a man-made act of conferring citizenship at birth, rather than a natural consequence of birth requiring no statute of law to grant of confer the citizenship at birth. In the parlance of the English jurists any grant of citizenship at birth as the consequence of an act or statute is a form of naturalization at birth. Consequently, any attempt to use a statute to grant natural born citizenship constitutes instead the exact opposite of statutory citizenship in the form of naturalization by law at birth.


105 posted on 05/04/2012 3:03:49 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
What part of U.S. law covers naturalization by birth?

Under what part of U.S. law was Marco Rubio supposedly naturalized at birth?

Minor v Happersett

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

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

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

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

106 posted on 05/04/2012 3:11:26 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: baclava
This “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause shows why Rubio is — and, very likely, why children of illegal aliens are not — a “natural born citizen of the United States.”

“To say that Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are forever barred because of a strained interpretation of the Constitution’s eligibility clause would condemn conservatism to minority status for the foreseeable future. Surely, that is not what we want.”

TWO WORDS: Bovine Excrement.

Or in the more acceptable vernacular: BULL SHIT!

SEE: "Why They Still Call Him President"

(http://www.rightsidenews.info/2012050316169/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/why-they-still-call-him-president.html?utm_source=Right+Side+News&utm_campaign=4ceb0ddcd0-daily-rss-newsletter&utm_medium=email)

107 posted on 05/04/2012 3:21:28 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“Under what provision of U.S. law was Marco Rubio naturalized under?”

The Public Law and statute naturalized Marco Rubio at birth and made him a U.S. Citizen under the authority of the man-made law:

8 USC §1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.

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;

In the absence of the above man-made statute Marco Rubio would have been born with only his natural born Cubann citizenship as the child of Cuban parents. Citizenship which exists only by the authority of a statute is statutory citizenship and not citizenship by an act of nature. Citizenship by an act of nature requires no law or statute to authorize or unauthorize it.


108 posted on 05/04/2012 3:50:15 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So where does U.S. law contradict the above and state that naturalization covers those who are U.S. citizens at birth?

Let's just cut to the quick and settle what you're unwilling to state again here and now 'cause I've got dinner to fix.

@Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:” December 16, 2008
Section 1401 is in USC 8. The Title is Aliens and Naturalization. That is naturalization law as you well know and anyone claiming that as the basis of their citizenship is in no manner a natural born citizen.

You're an after-birther. You've always been an after-birther. You don't want to understand. All you want to do is make a bloody mess of things.

109 posted on 05/04/2012 3:50:50 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: baclava

As for me , I am not afraid of anyone being barred from POTUSA because there is a misdirected interpretation as strained as it could be of the more evident intent of the Founding Fathers to make a special designation of NBC for POTUSA as apart from a BC designated for other offices of the USA government. I reflect as to my own personal siuation as a WWII vet and that of my brother who was killed on Okinawa. Think about the consequences of just birth of a person on the soil of USA without any parent responsibility for allegiance to the USA in any form or at any time. Rubio’s parents were not citizens with any allegiance to the USA when he was born. There could have been a provision made by the Founders that parents who subsequent to the child’s birth had a period of time to become naturalized to give the child status as NBC. This was not done in/by any form. I can only guess as to why the Founders chose not to make such a provision in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment does not remedy this choice of the Founders.


110 posted on 05/04/2012 3:57:54 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

That is your problem. You simply refuse to understand the blindingly obvious: using a law to confer any form of citizenship is an act of naturalizing a person who woould not but for the act of law otherwise be a citizen. By contrast, a person is a natural born citizen requires no statutory law or act of government to be a citizen. This is the difference between being a subject made or citizen made versus a subject born or a citizen born. A person who was a subject made at birth is not a natural born citizen simply because they were naturalized at birth by the intercession of a man-made law.


111 posted on 05/04/2012 4:01:12 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

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

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. No doubt you'll simply disregard it yet again.

Vattel was neither the first nor the last to write a treatise discussing the definition of a natural born citizen. European governments had been applying the concept of a natural born citizen for centuries prior to the drafting and adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The Romans insisted upon the Citizen of Rome being born and educated only by Roman Citizen parents:

Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata. (Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, Book 1, Chapter VIII)

112 posted on 05/04/2012 4:21:08 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; allmendream
See 109. allmendream thinks he's playing a game.
He has no integrity whatsoever.
113 posted on 05/04/2012 4:43:16 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Yes and in English law, in the language the founders were familiar with and the law the lawyers of the group were operating under - “natural born” included those born on the soil of any parentage.

It meant a citizen at birth - as it does now - and it INCLUDED those born on the soil of any parentage.

The concept had indeed been applied for centuries. And natural born citizenship has in all cases been calculated on either parentage or place of birth - sometimes both - and sometimes not.

English law said one thing, Vatell said another. I don't really care what either said - I follow our Constitution - which - as I keep pointing out - includes only TWO types of citizen currently - natural born or naturalized.

It is an interesting concept that our law is inferior or dependent upon the views of an 18th Century Swiss philosopher - but so far it seems that most American jurists are of the opinion that being born a citizen means you are a natural born citizen. I have yet to see anyone besides birthers advance the idea that a citizen at birth is a naturalized citizen.

114 posted on 05/04/2012 4:47:10 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Your sources were utterly wrong. Justice Gray, other jJustices, and the Indiana justices deserved to be impeached for their inexcusable false statements while knowing full well they were denying the plaintiffs any opportunity to impeach the false and unsupported statements of the courts with vrfiable case law and historical precedents to the contrary.

“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)”

“It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Wheaton vs Peters)

You are relying upon blatantly false dicta that is easily impeached and refuted.


115 posted on 05/04/2012 4:49:08 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Your sources were utterly wrong. Justice Gray, other jJustices, and the Indiana justices deserved to be impeached for their inexcusable false statements while knowing full well they were denying the plaintiffs any opportunity to impeach the false and unsupported statements of the courts with vrfiable case law and historical precedents to the contrary.

“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)”

“It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs and common law. There is no principle which pervades the Union and has the authority of law, that is not embodied in the constitution or laws of the Union. The common law could be made a part of our Federal system only by legislative adoption.” (U.S. Supreme Court, Wheaton vs Peters)

You are relying upon blatantly false dicta that is easily impeached and refuted.


116 posted on 05/04/2012 4:49:54 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I see that your last reply was to reply 112.
Did you not see my reply 109 where you're exposed for the shill you are?
117 posted on 05/04/2012 4:50:47 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

No, they were not. The justices outright lied knowing they were denying the plaintiffs any opportunity to protest, refute, or impeach the court’s lies, other than Fuller’s dissenting minority opinion.


118 posted on 05/04/2012 4:53:17 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

What’s clear is that the GOP decided the best way to draw a clear contrast between their ticket and Obama’s in the election this year would be to nominate candidates who signed an individual health care mandate into law, were raised under an exotic minority religion, and just might be constitutionally ineligible to be president. I’m not sure if this is a form of party-wide Stockholm syndrome or if it’s a more general form of insanity.


119 posted on 05/04/2012 4:56:22 PM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You base a lot on what the name of USC 8 is.

Section 1401 is named “Nationals and U.S. citizens at birth”.

Those who are born citizens are in no need of naturalization.

What section of the law are you saying Marco Rubio was naturalized under?

120 posted on 05/04/2012 4:56:56 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; Mr Rogers
@Mr Rogers Epic Fail
121 posted on 05/04/2012 4:58:17 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
You base a lot on what the name of USC 8 is.
Why yes, I do. Why don't you? Is that because you don't want people to know that your arguement is based upon a uniform rule of naturalization and can't make someone a natural born citizen? Is that why you refused over and over again to cite the U.S. law that you believe is applicable?

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

122 posted on 05/04/2012 5:13:37 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
What section of the law are you saying Marco Rubio was naturalized under?
Why are you asking me to say what you've already said?

@Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:” December 16, 2008

Isn't that the very section you're asking me to cite?

123 posted on 05/04/2012 5:16:30 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So doesn't that Section waaaaay down the line say that the children of aliens become U.S. Citizens, and nothing more, at birth?
124 posted on 05/04/2012 5:21:19 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Actually, I need to make a correction or two just to make it clear how far down the line your section is...
@Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization

@Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

125 posted on 05/04/2012 5:30:01 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
@allmendream's Epic Fail
126 posted on 05/04/2012 5:32:54 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

Comment #127 Removed by Moderator

To: WhiskeyX

Nor did they say we came under English common law. But then, being a birther, reading isn’t your strong point, is it...


128 posted on 05/04/2012 5:34:35 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Come on, allmendream, answer the question.
So doesn't that Section waaaaay down the line say that the children of aliens become U.S. Citizens, and nothing more, at birth?

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.

129 posted on 05/04/2012 5:57:26 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
BTW, I gave you an hour too.
130 posted on 05/04/2012 5:58:51 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY; philman_36; allmendream

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.


131 posted on 05/04/2012 9:42:09 PM PDT by 3D-JOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
It says that persons born in the United States, and subject tot he jurisdiction thereof - shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at Birth.

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.

Section 1401

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.

132 posted on 05/04/2012 9:52:25 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

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.”


133 posted on 05/04/2012 10:06:54 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

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.


134 posted on 05/04/2012 10:13:08 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“Those who are born citizens are in no need of naturalization.”

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.

135 posted on 05/04/2012 10:31:15 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: CanuckYank

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.


136 posted on 05/04/2012 10:33:39 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Yes and in English law, in the language the founders were familiar with and the law the lawyers of the group were operating under - “natural born” included those born on the soil of any parentage.

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?

-PJ

137 posted on 05/04/2012 10:35:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

So you believe that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is secondary to a naturalization law governing aliens that Congress created?


138 posted on 05/04/2012 11:05:40 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY
Thanks for the clarification.
And a good night to you as well.
139 posted on 05/04/2012 11:20:47 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

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.


140 posted on 05/05/2012 5:42:55 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3D-JOY; philman_36; allmendream
"Sometimes over the years I think I have helped a person to go back to their research and even they have convinced me I am wrong, occasionally...we’ll see this time."

I don't see that happening here. Nice post.

Any definition of Natural Born that doesn't act to reinforce the likelihood that the presidential aspirant has loyalty to, and loyalty ONLY TO the US is a flawed definition, no matter how many times Jus Soli adherents posit to the contrary.

It flies in the face not only of the cautionary words of the Founders (Paine, Jay et al) but of logic itself.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

Born on US sovereign soil to parents who are themselves citizens represents the Gold Standard. No person who can claim dual citizenship should be legally eligible to aspire to our nation's highest office. It's a matter of presumed undivided loyalty.

Notice that the relevant language in Minor states "were natives, or natural-born citizens" rather than "include." Lawyers and judges are very, very careful about each and every word that they pen when handing down a ruling. You can bet that this wording was intentional and is a good example of judicial restraint.

141 posted on 05/05/2012 5:50:21 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

“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”

“Birther movement”? You mock people who demand nothing more than compliance with the rule of law, rather than defy the law at the expense of the genuine Citizens of the nation. You make law abiding citizens sound like a bowel movement, which is extremely offensive.

Next, a birth certificate “proves” nothing whatsoever. A birth certificate is nothing more than a document which purports to indicate some of the facts of birth of a child as a rebuttable presumption for any court of law. Birth certificate fraud is a common crime for which enforcement of the law and punishment for the crime a nearly non-existant. This rampant birth certificate fraud was the subject of a U.S. Government report in the year 2000.

The problem of the father being misreported by the mother on a birth certificate and in various legal proceedings was recognized as a problem ages ago and resolved in law by the simple ancient expediency of assuming for the purported legal father is the father for most purposes of law, regardless of whom the natural father make actually be. So, for purposes of determining citizenship, the legal father’s citizenship is used to determine the citizenship of the legal father’s child, whether or not they are related by blood kinship.

The Framers of the Constitution had no need to include definitions of citizenship in the Constitution, because citizenship was determined by the laws of each state at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Some states conferred citizenship upon children born in the jurisdiction of the state with alien parents and some did not. The Constitution did not define who was a natural born citizen, because a natural born citizen was a person whose natural birth to two citizen parents in the jurisdiction of a state or territorial government of the United States required no law or statute to make or naturalize the child as a citizen at birth. The only persons who need to have their status as a national or citizen defined by public law are those persons who are born within or without the jurisdiction of a state or territory as an alien until the public law makes and naturalizes these person at birth. A true natural born citizen is a person who is a born as a citizen without the need for a public law to make the person a citizen, such as the child of two citizen parents born in the jurisdiction of the state or territory.

Since a natural born citizen exists without the need for a public law to make a person a natural born citizen, there was no need or purpose to define it within or without the Constitution. Indeed, using a public law to define a natural born citizen would have the effect of making it naturalized citizenship at birth instead of natural born citizenship.


142 posted on 05/05/2012 6:13:26 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Prepping early for the “that wasn’t really his Daddy” story?


143 posted on 05/05/2012 6:24:21 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
I don't see that happening here.
Me either, the same failed argument since 2008 proves that.
144 posted on 05/05/2012 6:30:04 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“To avoid an opportunity for misunderstanding, perhaps you would care to describe exactly who you meant when you used the word, “they.””

Again, if you could read, you would know “they” referred to the Supreme Court.

The problem with birthers - which is not a pejorative unless you believe being a birther is evil - is that they cannot read simple English sentences, and thus cannot understand a court opinion. Thus you wrote:

“Justice Gray, other jJustices, and the Indiana justices deserved to be impeached for their inexcusable false statements...” and cite as evidence:

“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. (Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788)”

But the WKA decision explains, clearly, that it is not based on FOLLOWING English common law:

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”


145 posted on 05/05/2012 6:37:20 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Except this is not “naturalization” it is governing who are citizens at birth.

It is not as if there is a section under the law that is not covered. Every circumstance that results in citizenship at birth is covered. It is not as if there is a blank spot in U.S. law covering citizenship at birth.

Both ways of becoming a U.S. citizen (and the corresponding type) are covered under the law.

Naturalization is covered in one section of the law.

Who is a citizen at birth - and thus natural born - is covered in another section of the law.

Now WHERE - ANYWHERE is there language in U.S. law saying a citizen at birth of any type is considered “naturalized”?

Good luck finding it.

146 posted on 05/05/2012 6:50:35 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
And the meaning of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is in alignment with the laws governing a uniform rule of naturalization - because our founders didn't suffer under the delusion that a citizen at birth was in need of any sort of naturalization.

So you believe the intent of the Founders and the clear meaning of our Constitution is secondary to the musings of an 18th century Swiss philosopher?

147 posted on 05/05/2012 6:54:09 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

A lot of words that say nothing. Let me ask again, how do you prove that you are the child of parents of U.S. citizens? Simple question just in case I want to run for president.

There are other things I take issue with in your diatribe but let’s get one issue resolved at a time....less confusion that way.


148 posted on 05/05/2012 7:06:36 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

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

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

I don’t think the above means what you think it means. Note the very important comma and then the wording that follows: who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers….

What it is saying is that the children of foreign ambassadors or foreign ministers who are born here while their parents are serving another country in that capacity are not born citizens of the United States but that every other person born here is. The same applies to the children of our ambassadors and diplomats and members of our military who are born overseas while their parents are stationed in a foreign country – those children are naturally born US citizens at birth.

149 posted on 05/05/2012 7:27:03 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; allmendream

I have discovered that you cannot reason with people who have an agenda and these birthers certainly have an agenda. For the life of them they cannot see that they are adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn’t there and never was there. They subvert the constitution yet consider themselves conservatives. They can’t get over that citizen parent thing and even when they find such mention they subvert the meaning - as in Minor v. Happersett. Another thing I discovered, never raise more than one question at a time because you’ll never get an answer.

But, for the rest of us, here are a few quotes (there are many more by the way) from the Congressional Globe circa 1860’s) that clearly define NBC and totally cause the birther movement to FAIL:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

“The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the “natural-born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to raceor color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection.” Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)

“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “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.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone ... Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision - of course they made none - for the naturalization of natural born citizens.... Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration....” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born....I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)


150 posted on 05/05/2012 7:35:40 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]


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

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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

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