@I'm hairy noon and night, hair that's a fright.
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 ...
I didn't make any point for you. I merely pointed out what Price wrote.
So my question is...why didn't you put that in your first reply to begin with if you agree with it so strongly?
You should be. Some of the states following Independence chose to follow the French model and did not confer citizenship upon the child born in the state with alien parents. Consequently the child was not a citizen at birth or after birth without reaching the age of majority and naturalizing as a citizen of the state and thereby the United States. Likewise, the states which conferred state and thereby U.S. citizenship upon a child born in the state with alien parents did so by the authority of a public law which made the child an unnatural born U.S. Citizen treated as if they are a natural born citizen in the same manner as described in the 18th Century Nationality Acts. Whenever reading a source which uses the term, “natural born citizen,” you have to keep in mind the usage was imprecise to the extent of which it fails to mention that it includes unnatural born citizens such as aliens naturalized after birth in some cases, aliens made as if natural born at birth by authority of Royal decree or legislative statute, and the true natural born citizen child in the state jurisdiction with citizen parents. The key issue determining the natural born subject or citizen status is whether or not the child is born with an obligation for allegiance to more than the sovereign or polity of the place of birth.
Your source is oversimplified to the poit of being incompetent.
That's the issue though. The paper is based on an entirely false premise.
The United States, Great Britain, and many Latin American countries traditionally have favored the jus soli over the jus sanguinis as a rule for acquisition of citizenship by birth.
Laws are defined legal procedures. She speaks of 'traditions', then tries to imply they impact law.
How can a naturalized at birth citizen be 'favored' over a natural-born one, anyway? If that were true, why the enumerated qualification of natural-born in the Presidential Article?
Until the 14th Amendment, where, despite Constitutional enumeration, Congress gave itself the power to naturalize citizens on a national basis and bypass the Sovereign States, there was no question concerning citizenship, it was either inherited by blood [natural law] or obtained via the Constitutionally specified legal procedure [naturalized].
I can also find nothing about this article that says it is even peer reviewed. It's just an article in a legal publication by a law school professor.
That's very kind, but the apology isn't necessary.
BTW - please DO ignore that long winded post I just did.
LOL!
I can also find nothing about this article that says it is even peer reviewed. It's just an article in a legal publication by a law school professor.
Just more distraction and the usual tactics, as is typical, of the originating poster.
Still wanting just to make a bloody mess of things.
Please see post #224.
That's what I'm seeing, too.
-----
I read it and replied before I read your reply there.
ROFLMAO!
TAG!
You're it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course I know that - I have cited references regarding that:
"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." /Senator Jacob Howard as transcribed in the Globe.
But what does the FIRST sentence say?
You then go on to say, "Spectacularly false is your saying “ no supportive facts on your side”" and then you list the very same false stuff, none of which is relevant!!
What is it you don't understand about Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis? The United States is Jus Soli - not Jus Sanguinis as much as you'd like to believe it - it just ain't so as attested to by hundreds of authorities. You cannot refute that there are ONLY two types of citizens, U.S. born and Naturalized.
If Obama was born in Hawaii he is Jus Soli, natural born citizen. As much as we detest the guy, that is the fact. There is no judge in the U.S. that will say otherwise and you know it but you keep beating up that dead horse.
As much as I like the mental stimulation, I'm old, getting tired already at (12 noon) so I do believe I'm done here.
I didn’t use the source in the beginning because I just became aware of it. I always believe Jus Soli was the governing factor regarding citizenship. Geez Louise, give me a break! Seriously though, the more I dig into this the more convinced I am that I am right and I receive positive reinforcement from the fact that no court in the land will come down on the side of Jus Sanguinis.
ROFLMAO!
TAG!
You're it!
Granted but the majority of the states were Jus Soli but once our republic was formed the Constitution rules, right? I mean, I’m not a history buff but I’ve read enough to be assured that when the framers said, “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” and since there is no one alive who fits that category now, that pretty much means they were grandfathered in and a new beginning arose. I’m not sure about that but I am assured of Jus Soli. I’m worn out now so perhaps this isn’t making sense.
I really need to run errands for now.
Trying to post and get ready at the same time just made me FReepmail New Jersey Realist with my apology to you for the double post.
In it, I also questioned how much evidence you thought it will take to get him to see the truth.
LOL!
-----
I'll check back with the thread later.
Yes. Exactly. According to Vatell McCain would be eligible. According to birthers who say they follow Vatell..... not so much.
“
"Subject to the jurisdiction" means whether or not you are obligated to obey American law. Illegal aliens are subject to American law (whether it's actually enforced is a separate question). Illegals are supposed to pay their parking tickets. They are "subject to the jurisdiction".
However, not all foreigners have to pay their parking tickets.
 If you have funny tags like the double-parked Caddy, you don't have to pay your parking tickets. But your kids born here are not automatic citizens. |
Basically, the only aliens in the US who are not subject to its jurisdiction are diplomats — that's what diplomatic immunity means — and members of foreign forces on US soil (last seen in 1812, I believe).
Naturalized citizens will never be eligible. There is an age and residency requirement and the citizen must be a natural born citizen. We can all agree on that I hope. Where we part is on if a citizen at birth is natural born or not or if you are attempting to carve out a third type of current citizen.
Bingo!
I just took a quick nap but let's get back into this...the crux of the matter if you will.
I can cite quotes such as:
"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).
or: "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)
which proves my point that our founders are in the jus soli citizenship mode as opposed to the jus sanguinis. You on the other hand assert that NBC requires citizen parents, which directly contradicts the above quotes, yet you fail to produce ONE single authoritative quote that can prove your assertion without going into a lot of goggledegook.
This is a pretty simple matter, so simple in fact that the framers didn’t even bother to explain it. I hate to be so repetitious in these threads but I want to see a declarative statement such as, “it is the policy of this nation that in order to be a NBC, you must have citizen parents.” Give me something like that and I’ll join your side. And while you are at it, also provide evidence that the framers used Vattel specifically on the citizenship issue. If you can't do that then you have no standing on the issue. I hope you are both smart enough to know I'm sending you on a fools mission (and I mean that respectfully).
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.