Rubio and Birthright Citizenship

American Thinker ^ | 5/4/2012 | Cindy Simpson

[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.

[philman_36]

Here are all of the quotes you gave so that the debate can be sen in context...

Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. @2212 (1869) (first column, lower left)

I can't seem to find your second quote "Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)" in the Congressional Globe.
Here is @page 96 of The Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd Session
Perhaps your page number is wrong. Any help appreciated.

I did, however, find the quote attributed to one Attorney General Bates @Opinion of Attorney General Bates on citizenship (page 12, second paragraph)

Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. @1117 (first column, 1/2 down)

Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. @570 (first column, 1/2 down)

Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. @575 (1872) (middle column bottom...starts in the middle of the next to last paragraph)

For anyone wishing to check the source see here... @Congressional Globe Debates and Proceedings, 1833-1873

[MamaTexan]

include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, 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.

The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, and sometimes referred to as the series comma) is the comma used immediately before a coordinating conjunction (usually and or or, and sometimes nor) preceding the final item in a list of three or more items.

Do they not teach English grammar anymore?

who are foreigners, COMMA

aliens,COMMA

who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

-----

That's 3 classifications 1) Foreigner - people here temporarily. 2) Aliens - foreigner's with temporary residency i.e. 'legal' aliens. 3)diplomats.

If, as you suggest, they only meant diplomats, it would have read:

include persons born in the United States 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

But it doesn't.

[philman_36]

You might find the link to the “Opinion of Attorney General Bates on citizenship” above of interest.

[philman_36]

Note the date of Bate’s Opinion...1863.

[Political Junkie Too]

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.

I trust the words of Thomas Paine from two years after ratification over your words from 221 years later.

Paine was not a Framer, but he wrote of the Framer's intent of NBC as it happened, not centuries later. His book The Rights Of Man stood unchallenged in his claims that natural-born citizens were not half-foreigners, but people with full natural connection with the country.

Ignore Paine's contemporary words at the expense of your own credibility.

What I would like know is why, in Happerett, when the Supreme Court said they had to look elsewhere, they failed to look at Paine in The Rights Of Man. Next to the Federalist Papers, Paine's comparison of the governments of England, France, and the United States is the clearest documentation of the intent of the Framers from the time and in the plain language of the time.

Ignoring Paine's chronicles is like saying that the Washington Post is not a credible chronicler of government today.

-PJ

[philman_36]

SHOOT! --sen seen in context
--Bate’s Bates' Opinion

Do they not teach English grammar anymore?
I was taught it. Spelling as well. Remembering it all and proofreading before hittin' "Post" is the hard part. {;^)

[noinfringers2]

If the societal decisions of courts today are any indication of what might might be as to eligibility for POTUSA you are probably correct. However I doubt that the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution based/embedded in laws of England. I can’t accept that the law/rule you cite as to English law was anything more of a point of discussion and not nearly as deliberated as to inserting a meaningful term for eligibility for POTUSA. The Founders were well aware of loyalties to family roots. They took particular care to avoid non-loyal heritage for POTUSA.

[MamaTexan]

I was taught it. Spelling as well. Remembering it all and proofreading before hittin' "Post" is the hard part.

LOL! I know exactly what you mean.

----

Anyway, thanks for the link. The part you posted is interesting, but the first page even more so.

Who is a citizen? What constitutes a citizen of the United States? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and the records of our courts, for a clear and satisfactory definition of the phrase citizen of the United States. I find no such definition, no authoritive establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by a course of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government.
Opinion of Attorney General Bates, page 1

------

That was just the point. There was legally no such thing as a 'citizen of the United States' prior to the 14th Amendment. The People were Citizens of THESE united States. The founders simply used the term as a way to reference the People of the States.

Whether or not Congress had the Constitutional authority to pass such legislation on a national basis is also a matter for contention.

They have the power to make a uniform rule of naturalization for the States to FOLLOW....not to skip the middle-man to implement national legislation.

Be that as it may, Congress ONLY has authority concerning naturalization. Could one forgive the warping of the Law, ALL the 14th Amendment could Constitutionally be is a one time naturalization act specifically for the former slaves. That's why the man who helped write it listed the 3 categories, so it wouldn't be confused with naturalizing foreigners.

The only difference between this and the one time 'at the time of the adoption of the Constitution provision' in the Presidential clause is that the Presidential proviso does pointedly acknowledge the inclusion to natural-born citizenship of People of that time.

It was not so much that the People were born into it, as much as IT was born into them.

-----

So, no, I don't see anything in the 14th Amendment that creates a perpetual grant of jus soli citizenship [naturalization at birth] to a foreigner or alien who happens to be born in the States.

[philman_36]

There was legally no such thing as a 'citizen of the United States' prior to the 14th Amendment.
Look out now. You'll be called a bigot and a proponent of "State's Rights".

In the mean time we have to go by the laws on the books.
Congress made 'em, we have to follow 'em.

[MamaTexan]

Look out now. You'll be called a bigot and a proponent of "State's Rights".

Yeah....like THAT'S never happened. LOL!

-----

Congress made 'em, we have to follow 'em.

That's just it. Congress has no legal or Constitutional authority to pass laws to changing the original definition of either kind of citizen...particularly the natural-born kind.

Natural borns are made so strictly by the Laws of nature, and THAT cannot be altered by Man.

[philman_36]

Congress has no legal or Constitutional authority to pass laws to changing the original definition of either kind of citizen...particularly the natural-born kind.
From where I sit they haven't. USC 8 doesn't make anyone a natural born citizen.
Nationalization is part of the naturalization process.

[New Jersey Realist]

You say: “I trust the words of Thomas Paine from two years after ratification over your words from 221 years later.”

I say. I didn’t offer any words. I quoted congressmen and senators as found in the Congressional Globe. As far as I know Paine had no direct input into the Constitution. While I respect him, he had opinions just like everyone else. He didn’t believe in Jesus either...do you really want to go there?

As far as the rest of your comments, the framers were imbedded in English law and custom. They had love and respect for England but wanted a voice. They didn’t like the taxes. I seem to recall learning in school: Taxation without representation. I do believe that is why our founders broke away from that yoke.

I love my father but I couldn’t stand his rules so I moved out. Same principle.

[MamaTexan]

Nationalization is part of the naturalization process.

The indirect administrative authority to make a uniform rule for naturalization isn't the same thing as exercising a direct nationalized authority to naturalize citizens.

Or have I misunderstood your post?

[New Jersey Realist]

Sorry, scratch that quote because of previous typo’s or something I cannot find it now. It is very difficult to find anything in the Globe because there is no search benefit. You can replace that one with the following quote from US V. Wong Kim:

“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[WhiskeyX]

All of which was refuted by reference to the 17th Century and 18th Century English statutory laws which naturalized at birth the children of aliens born in England and deemed them to be subjects made as if they were natural born subjects in most rights. The majority opinion in WKA erroneously omitted these case law precedents in its consideration and commentary. Consequently, the other cases citing WKA are compromised by the same error of omission and lack of consideration in their respective opinions as well.

Before you go around trying to ridicule other people of lacking reading comprehension skills and deriding them as “birthers”, perhaps you can earn a little more respect by tending to your own reading comprehension skills and treating others with more respect. Of course, if treating other people with respect and refraining from deriding them as “birthers” is just too difficult for you to even contemplate, perhaps you will understand why many of us will consider your behavior as unworthy of the courtesy of a reply.

[WhiskeyX]

That is a blatant lie. McCain has been frequently cited as yet another example of a person not eligible to the Office of the President, in and out of court.

[WhiskeyX]

Then you have been willfully and negligently ignorant. Vattel has often been cited in court cases and by the Founders in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

[WhiskeyX]

All of which anyone can see is a total pack of lies by reading the court cases in which Vattel was used as a reference and by George Washington’s borrowing and re-lending of Vattel’s book during the Constitutional Convention.

[El Sordo]

Thank fully the issue is pretty much dead.

Only a few hard-core Birthers are left around. There are a few casual Birthers still, but they'll continue to disappear.

[WhiskeyX]

To be naturalized is to have a public law make a person eligible to the same rights as a person who was natural born without a public law to grant those rigths. A people reproduces itself by the birth of children who are members of that group of people. No law is required to recognize the natural fact that citizen parents give their own citizenship and rights to their children and thereby repopulate the people of their society. Whenever one or both parents of a child are not members of the group of people or reside outside the group of people with local or permanent liegance to alien people, a public law is required to determine to which people the child is in liegance at birth, so such a public law makes natural or naturalizes at birth in accordance with the provisions of the public law what natural law could not and did not determine by an absence of actual or potential liegance to the other people.