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 ...
They will if and when we allow your misinterpretation of the “natural born citizen” terminology.
You argue that simply because a person who was born on U.S. soil with alien parents must be a natural born citizen because you've read references to such persons being labeled as natural born citizens. You reject and disregard the English Nationality Acts and statutes I provided to demonstrate the usage of the “natural born citizen” label for such a person was a form of shorthand terminology and courtesy to indicate an alien child was made a citizen by public law at the time of birth and thereby afforded the courtesy of being referred to as a natural born citizen despite not actually being born a natural born citizen.
Now consider this reality. In 1576, Elizabeth I made a royal decree which started the popularity of aliens naturalizing as English subjects, rather than doing so by seeking denization. Despite these aliens having been born in a foreign soil with allegiance to a perpetual foreign sovereign, the English government and legal commentators of the period nonetheless labeled such naturalized subjects as “natural born subjects” of England as a courtesy.
So, the application of your principle of the “natural born citizen” to any class of persons who historically have been referred to as “natural born citizens” would necessarily result in naturalized citizens also being referred to as “natural born citizens.”
I'll get to your other post soon, but I answered this question in other posts long before you asked it.
The answer is that, until Obama, the birth narrative of our presidents was never in question. Presidents came from prominent families whose backgrounds were well-known.
We do have the issue of Arthur, but it appears that Arthur did an Obama by hiding some family records. In Arthur's time, it was easier to do because the ability to cross-check information was not as easy as with the internet. And maybe, people took it less seriously because Arthur was running for Vice-President and people didn't think that the worst-case might happen. They do now.
Obama hid all of his records, including his birth documents, his school documents, his passport documents, and even his prior legislative documents, and in its place he offered his own self-serving autobiographical narrative which we're now learning contains "composites" of his life in place of actual people and events.
So, that was then and this is now. How do YOU prove it if you were to run for president? The first thing would be to establish your bona fides through public vetting via earlier elective office. People don't usually saunter up to the top position in American politics without first building up a political legacy of elective office.
In Obama's case, politically he avoided vetting in Chicago by using technicalities to drive his opponents off of the ballots, giving him essentially uncontested wins. In 2008, his campaign used the nation's "white guilt" to take many issues off of the table, including Obama's past associations and his unusual birth circumstance (made more unusual by his refusal to be transparent about it). There was, no doubt, Republican fatigue that was stoked in 2006, and played to maximum effect in 2008, but the Democrat's chose Obama over Clinton in the primaries also on the wave of "white guilt," as evidenced by the inside-the-party fight over the super-delegates. There was also the chicanery by the unions in the caucus states which Obama won, vs. the voting states that Clinton won.
I think that Obama's was a perfect-storm of circumstances that won't happen again.
-PJ
yep
Yes. Just because the law referred to them as natural born- how dare I consider them natural born! That was just a “courtesy “! How dare I interpret the law and the Constitution as written instead of how you want it to be written!!! LOL!!!!
But wait! I was asking specifically about requirements to become POTUS. You are dancing around that with your response to my question regarding your original post where you claim:
"One need not have any citizen parents to be a natural born citizen - as is the case with Marco Rubio."
Please answer my question about the specific requirements to become POTUS. If we agree that according to the Constitution, only a natural born citizen can be POTUS, and according to you, anyone born in the US IS a natural born citizen.... then that is what you are saying! I already referenced the age restriction. So, back to you.
I am speaking exactly about POTUS eligibility requirements. I repeat my post to you verbatim.
I am speaking exactly about POTUS eligibility requirements. I repeat my post to you verbatim.
I hope you are both smart enough to know I'm sending you on a fools mission (and I mean that respectfully).
A fool's errand? You ask for that which nobody is able to provide as it doesn't exist in the manner you desire.
That's why you've framed your request in the manner in which you have.
I say: Why are you blind to the quotations I put in my post?Instead of answering my question, you choose to parry with a question of your own. Therefore, I will answer your question and then put words in your mouth for you.
The question is still about original intent of the natural-born clause. The Congressmen that you quoted gave their opinions in 1866, 1869, and 1872. Paine, a Founder, wrote contemporaneously about the Constitution in 1791.
You earlier said, "As far as I know Paine had no direct input into the Constitution. While I respect him, he had opinions just like everyone else." I give Paine's interpretation of original intent more weight, given that he's a Founder who was there at the time. His opinions, along with Adams', Franklin's, and Jefferson's, were original Founding opinions, not historical interpretations of original intent.
Regarding Paine's comparisons vs, it's neglect later on during natural-born debates, I can only surmise that it was forgotten history, that is, that the various Congressmen, law clerks, and Justices failed to recall his statements on the American Constitution. The Rights Of Man was not written to be a chronicle of the Constitution (like the Federalist Papers), it was written to support the French in their own Revolution. Paine was tried by England in absentia and sentenced to death over the book because of the things he said about England.
But still, even if its purpose was not to define the Constitution, Paine's comparison in the book to European forms of government are still chronicles of the Framers' original intent by a Founding Father, and should be recognized as such. It should be given the same Constitutional relevence as Jefferson's letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson's letter has become the source of "wall of separation between church and state," even though Jefferson was not a Framer of the Constitution either.
To the quotes themselves. What we will see is a mixing of the debate of citizenry vs. the added requirement for being president. I will argue that "natural-born" is not a definition of citizen, but a further requirement (akin to age and residency) that is added to being a citizen, that is, being a citizen of two citizen parents. The intent is not to define a new category of citizenship, but to define a criterion of presidency that is applied to citizens seeking the office. This is what Paine states.
John Bingham: With all due respect to Rep. Bingham, it reads like typical Congressional hyperbole in defense of his bill. Language like "Who does not know..." and later "There is no one can hesitate a moment about it who..." is typical debate rhetoric intended to put the opposer on the defensive. The fact that he was the principle author of the 14th amendment, which was ratified just the year before this quote, reinforces my opinion that he was flaunting his success.
The Bingham quote does support my point about Paine's quote in that Bingham said the above in debate about women's suffrage, not citizenship. Paine defined natural-born in debate about the French Revolution, not the Constitution. Why do you accept Bingham's incidental quote, but not Paine's?
Senator Morrill: I do not know the amendment being debated, but it is similar in vein to Rep. Bingham's. The discussion is if citizenry and not presidential criteria, and is incidental to the core amendment being debated.
Senator Trumbill: Here we get to a remark about presidential criteria, but it begins dishonestly. "...and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen." He substitutes his own phrase "native-born citizen" in place of the actual Constitutional language "natural-born citizen," and then proceeds from there. That aside, this seems to be a debate about the citizenship status of former slaves, not of presidential criteria.
The debate is about the original intent of the natural-born clause. I say, supported by Thomas Paine, that the natural-born clause is a further criterion, apart from citizenship, to become president. You say that the natural-born clause is a definition of citizenship itself and cannot be separated. You offer quotations regarding citizenship, but not regarding presidential criteria.
We both agree that people born in the United States of single-citizen parents are citizens. We even agree that people born in the United States of two non-citizens are citizens. I do not know if you support legislation removing the "anchor-baby" citizenship, such that tourists can no longer time their travels to the United States to coincided with childbirth in order to birth a United States citizen, but that is not important to this debate.
Do you agree that "natural-born" can be an added criterion that citizens must qualify in order to be president? Not "is a," but "can be?" Or do you, as I suspect, link "natural-born" solely to citizen definition in a way that cannot be separated as an additional qualification to be president apart from citizenship?
The Supremacy Clause in Article VI says that the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land" and "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The "natural-born" clause is a "Thing in the Constitution," and cannot be ignored. It cannot be replaced with the phrase "native-born" and then proceed as if "native-born" is the supreme law of the land.
To reconcile the two, "natural-born" must be seen as an additional criterion to be president that is applied after a candidate passes the citizenship test, as Paine wrote in The Rights Of Man.
-PJ
It is apparent to me that the natural-born clause is not a definer of a class of citizenship, but an additional criterion added after passing the citizenship requirements. One can define citizenship in any way possible, but must still apply the natural-born test, as described by Founding Father Thomas Paine, afterwards.
-PJ
Indeed and after you go back to school and learn it, get back to me.
Then go back and read it again. For those of you in Rio Linda the 14ths says:
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.
If, as you suggest, they only meant diplomats, it would have read:
No if that was their intent it would have read:
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, OR (those) 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 very first sentence makes it clear 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. It then makes an exception for the children who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States. Why you ask? Well because the ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject to US jurisdiction. Likewise the children of US ambassadors or foreign ministers born overseas while their parent(s) are serving abroad is not subject to that country’s jurisdiction. In other words, if my father or mother was a US diplomat or a member of the US armed forces serving abroad when I was born, I would be a US citizen at birth and the physical country of my birth would not convey to me citizenship of that country.
In this case the comma is confusing to those who don’t understand its proper usage but in this case the statement before the comma is qualified by the statement after the comma. In this case the comma does not separate two distinctly separate thoughts or ideas but makes a statement about “person born who are foreigners, aliens” but then further qualifies them, the former as those “who belong to the families of…
If what you and other birthers claim to be true regarding citizenship, then my older brother would not be a US citizen, even though he was born here because my father was not yet at the time of my brother’s birth a “naturalized” citizen. Never mind that my father was a legal US resident from the age of 6 and served in the US Army infantry during WWII after being drafted by the US government, with no choice of refusing and was clearly “subject to (their) jurisdiction” as was my brother from the moment of his birth. If you and other birthers were correct, that would also mean that my brother would have had to undergo some sort of legal “naturalization” proceeding and process after his birth, which of course he didn’t. My brother was never under the jurisdiction of my father’s country of birth – Norway. Norway never claimed my brother as a Norwegian citizen because of it being his father’s place of birth. My brother could have never broken any US or state law and claimed any sort of diplomatic immunity.
Thank you.
Verbatim: Any U.S. citizen, non-naturalized and who meets the age requirement, can be POTUS according to you. Not everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen. The Constitution calls for the specific natural born citizen requirement. According to you, that specificity can be overlooked altogether. Why do you think the Framers included this distinction if there was no need to make the clarification? And since then, if it was so clearly a typo, why hasn't an amendment been made?
I think you waver between trying to aruge that at least one parent needs to be a citizen, or at least lived here for a reasonable amount of time, or maybe intended to become a citizen as soon as they could get all the necessary paperwork together, or, like the Rubio's, were in the process....
Yet, here again are your words that you wrote on this thread:
"One need not have any citizen parents to be a natural born citizen - as is the case with Marco Rubio."
Requesting permission to cut-and-paste the above from you!
-PJ
Thank you! Requesting permission and giving proper credit is the right thing to do. Your words are a wonderful summary of what I’ve been trying to write for the last several years.
-PJ
LOL! I'm stunned by your witty repartee.
Just about everyone over 40 knows about serial commas.
You act like a rule for reading the English language that has been commonly used for at least a couple hundred years is some how immaterial, yet you blabber on like you are the font of all knowledge.
LOL!
The first part of the sentence said “who are foreigners, aliens,
The second part:
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.
It does not say: who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States…
It would be like saying: “I like my neighbors, the Amish who live near my house, who provide milk from their farm to my family at no cost.
In that sentence (yes awkwardly constructed but grammatically correct) you are not saying you like all your neighbors or all who live near your house who have a farm or even all you Amish neighbors, but only the Amish neighbors who live near your house who have a farm and who also provide you with free milk.
And you completely ignored and failed to address everything else I said. Congratulations for your witty repartee and your reading comprehension fail.
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.