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 ...
Why would I care about dicta from a case that made someone a U.S. citizen via the 14th Amendment.
The issue is natural born citizen, not 14th Amendment citizen.
Dicta, what is that? One definition says, Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court’s opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. The plural of dictum.
So I guess the judge should just stick to one topic. He cannot have an opinion on anything else. Is that how you live your life?
I see how you operate. You ignore dicta or opinions that dont appeal to you or help push your agenda but would gladly do so if it were to your advantage. Nice!
There has been plenty of arguments presented here that totally blow your theories away yet you refuse to comment on them. What does that say? Rather than dismantle these arguments you go off on a tangent. But then again, I guess when the facts dont support you then you do what you gotta do.
The court used the dicta in an improper and political way for the purpose of quashing and deligitimizing the plaintiff’s case while disallowing discovery and trial on the merits of the case. It was just this kind of judicial misconduct which prompted some of the sates shortly after gaining independence to legislate new procedures requiring a trail by jury rather than before a magistrate or judge. In the years since, the judiciary has clawed back some of its more dictatorial and political perogatives possessed before the Revolution.
Thank you for answering the question. You start off by stating, “The father for purposes of determining citizenship is typically going to be the legal father, and not necessarily the birth father.” How do we know the legal father is a U.S. citizen? No where did I read that the father’s BC must be presented.
The truth is WhiskeyX, we really can’t prove our father’s citizenship without presenting a BC. All we get is our own BC or certificate of naturalization. If you have a BC that shows birth in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen. The other means you were made a citizen by law and therefore ineligible to become president. It is not a complicated issue.
I and others have posted many authorative statements regarding NBC clearly stating that all persons born on U.S. soil are native and or natural born citizens of this country. Why won’t you accept the fact that it is the VAST majority opinion with no supportive facts on your side?
President Grant said this and you are probably familiar with it:
Among the highest duties of the Government is that to afford firm, sufficient, and equal protection to all its citizens, whether native-born or naturalized. Care should be taken that a right, carrying with it such support from the Government, should not be fraudulently obtained, and should be bestowed only upon full proof of a compliance with the law; http://stateoftheunion.onetwothree.net/texts/18741207.html
Against my better judgment here is a more pertinent quote in language that ANYONE can understand:
Great empires and humble nations alike have made similar choices in determining who will be citizens. The world’s nations emphasize one or the other of only two methods for determining citizenship at birth. Most nations assign citizenship at birth according to the citizenship of at least one of the parents. A few nations, including the United States, assign citizenship on the circumstance of place of birth—within the territorial boundaries of the nation—regardless of the citizenship of the parents. While the United States also permits the children of its citizens born abroad to be considered U.S. citizens from birth, the predominant mode of birthright citizenship in this country, and the only one grounded in the Constitution, [FN1] is that which bestows citizenship upon anyone born on United States soil.
That is the very first paragraph.
Oops, forgot the referenhttp://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htmce:
Which is exactly right.
IMHO, the biggest confusion comes because people nowadays automatically think of the federal government as 'sovereign' in it's relationship with the States, and thus can 'dictate' Law just like the King.
In fact, the opposite was true.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject.
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
Before a foreign national could fall under the naturalization rule, he must first be made a denizen , or legal alien, by the Sovereign authority of the State of his residence.
Not to mention that this residency, denizenship and naturalization process does nothing other than to create a positive law citizen.
As you've said, only Natural Law can define a natural born citizen.
Sorry about this. This is the reference:
that's right, it's in the very first paragraph.
And since you didn't have the coustesy to SOURCE IT, I went and found it myself.
There are 2 returns on the ENTIRE WEB on Google:
and they both lead to the same article:
Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities Winter 1997
Seriously? A 1997 interpretation of a case from 1608?
All I can say is-
Your St. George Tucker reference started off with this:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.
Then it goes all gobbledygook and very difficult to understand. But I dont think it is important to understand because it talks about various state rules, etc.
The issue at hand is the United States Constitution and its declaration that only Natural Born Citizens are eligible for the office of president. Not interested in getting into each individual states laws and customs, the framers wanted someone who was physically born on U.S. soil, at least 35 years old and a resident for the previous 14 years certainly enough time to be devoted to the country. That length of time would certainly satisfy Jays concern.
When coupled with all the other evidence available I am 100% convinced that this republic does not require citizen parents to be it’s president. See quoted reference to MamaTexas. http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm.
“In other words, whether by order of the Sovereign or by act of the Parliament, a person was subject made to have the same or nearly the rights of another person who was actually a natural born subject by virtue being subject born than being subject made.”
Correct. Hence the term naturalization. However, that does not mean that those born in the country were not born natural born subjects (or citizens).
Those naturalized attain all the rights of a NBC except they cannot run for President. They remain naturalized citizens. But those born in the country ARE natural born citizens (or subjects).
Seriously? A 1997 interpretation of a case from 1608?
All I can say is-
Sorry you had to look it up. I did post it later. So what is wrong with a 1997 interpretation? It was certainly before Obama came upon the scene so there is no bias to it plus your opinions are of 2012 so does what you think become irrelevant? What about what Grant said? What about what the other congressmen and senators said with references provided by myself and others on this thread that support the NO PARENT rule for citizenship?
"Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint is more of a political manifesto than a verified pleading."
A pro se case. You've really got something substantial there.
LOL! States Sovereign RIGHTS, not 'rules'.
Here, another question presents itself: if the states, individually, possess the right of making denizens of aliens, can a person so made a denizen of a particular state, hold an office under the authority of such state? And I think it unquestionable that each state hath an absolute, and uncontrolable power over this subject, if disposed to exercise it. For every state must be presumed to be the exclusive judge of the qualifications of it's own officers and servants: for this is a part of their sovereignty which they can not be supposed to have intended ever to give up.
Also odd you have trouble with it since it's written in plain English.
St. George Tucker, was in the Revolutionary War and rose to the rank of Colonel. He communicated regularly with members of Congress, a fact proven by doing a search here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.htmlfor the exact phrase St. George Tucker, bring up ONE HUNDRED returns.
His Annotated version of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [of which the view of the Constitution is a part] was one of the reasons President Madison appointed him a Judge of the Virginia District Court, and his annotated Blackstone volumes are among the leather bound tomes found behind every practicing lawyers desk in the country.
So no, I dont think there is much comparison between Tuckers words and a googly-eyed professor because she joined the Emory Law faculty
. in 1995
There's a rather interesting section titled "The Jus Soli and the Jus Sanguinis" just after the first section.
My apologies. I should have known you would look up the source yourself when it didn’t pan out.
“Thank you for answering the question. You start off by stating, The father for purposes of determining citizenship is typically going to be the legal father, and not necessarily the birth father. How do we know the legal father is a U.S. citizen? No where did I read that the fathers BC must be presented.”
Different jurisdictions issuing birth certificates have different requirements for evidence of identity and citizenship. As a 2000 U.S. Government report titled Birth Certificate Fraud had to say, birth certificate fraud is very rarely ever prosecuted or punished even when discovered and reported. Prosecutors and courts almost always refuse to enforce the laws in regard to birth certificate fraud.
“The truth is WhiskeyX, we really cant prove our fathers citizenship without presenting a BC. All we get is our own BC or certificate of naturalization. If you have a BC that shows birth in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen. The other means you were made a citizen by law and therefore ineligible to become president. It is not a complicated issue.”
A birth certificate “proves” nothing at all, especially with so much widespread birth certificate fraud, identity theft, and near complete absence of law enforcement. A birth certificate is nothing more than a document used to establish a rebuttable presumption of the informaton presented on the certificate, but the information can be challenged and impeached in administrative proceedings and/or hearings in a court of law. Like a driver’s license and other forms of identification, it can be and sometimes is revoked, invalidated, or amended. Likewise, claims of U.S. citizenship are revoked or invalidated due to identity and eligibility fraud.
“I and others have posted many authorative statements regarding NBC clearly stating that all persons born on U.S. soil are native and or natural born citizens of this country. Why wont you accept the fact that it is the VAST majority opinion with no supportive facts on your side?”
Your claims are gross falsehoods. For example, you say: “all persons born on U.S. soil are native and or natural born citizens of this country.” As you certainly already well know, the children born of foreign diplomats do not come under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore they do not qualify for U.S. citizenship. Likewise U.S. Nationals are not U.S. Citizens despite being born within the jurisdiciton of the United States. Spectacularly false is your saying “ no supportive facts on your side” in the face of centuries of legal precedent in which English Acts of Parliament clearly stated they were taking persons who were not natural born subjects at birth and were making them equal in rights to natural born citizens at birth. There are also the centuries of legal precedent in other Continental Eropean jurisdictions in which the child of alien parents were not eligible to be regarded as a subject or a citizen, but was instead an alien born, as described by Vattel, Blacksone, Coke, and others through the centuries back to the Roman Republic and earlier.
@Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president
"It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the U.S.," said Polly Price, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta who specializes in immigration and citizenship.
Price said natural born was likely drawn from the concept that anyone born in what was once a colony was considered a subject and parental status was not a factor.
What a coincidence! Her commenting on the very issue we're talking about here.
@Q&A: A look at the origin of Black History Month
Since George Romney (Mitt's father) was born in Mexico, how was he able to run for U.S. president in 1968?
George Romney's parents Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt were natives of Utah and U.S. citizens, but were living in Mexico at the time of his birth, making him a U.S. citizen and eligible to run for president.
"The fact that your parents are U.S. citizens makes you a U.S. citizen at birth, no matter where you were born," Emory law professor Polly J. Price told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, "No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President," and most scholars agree that the Founding Fathers would have considered a person born overseas to American parents a U.S. citizen, Price said.
"This makes you a citizen just as much as someone born in Texas," she said. George Romney ran for the Republican nomination in 1968 but dropped out of the race. Richard Nixon won the nomination and was elected president.
How that got in on a Q&A on Black History Month is beyond me.
*77 The Jus Soli and the Jus Sanguinis
Before examining the issues in Calvin's Case, it is useful to have some understanding of current methods for assigning citizenship or nationality at birth. The territorial rule derived from Calvin's Case rendered the status of British colonists different from that of colonists of other European countries. Calvin's Case led to what is today known in international law as the jus soli, the rule under which nationality is acquired by the mere fact of birth within the territory of a state. [FN13] The other great rule for assigning nationality at birth, the jus sanguinis, is identified with the civil law. It holds that, regardless of the place of birth, nationality is acquired by descent following the status of at least one parent (usually the father). [FN14]