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 ...
Yes. Any citizen from birth meeting the age AND residence requirements. There is no need to amend anything because anyone who is born a citizen is a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.
From the link:
The comma that precedes the conjunction before the final item in a series.
The sentence in question:
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.
Three classes excluded
diplomats and their families.
The final, and excluded classification is preceded by the CONJUNCTION 'but'
will include every other class of persons.
I've shown you my proof, now you show me yours.
Likewise, the usage of natural born citizen terminology for aliens naturalized after birth or naturalized at birth was a courtesy designed to avoid later discriminatory treatment, but the courtesy did nothing whatsoever to alter the reality that they were born as aliens and naturalized after birth or were born as aliens and naturalized at birth, whereas the child born in the domestic soil with citizen parents can have no other allegiance or citizenship claims made upon the child and can only by the law of nature be a natural born citizen in the absence of any statute making the child a natural born citizen.
You cannot with any honesty avoid the historical fact that a true natural born citizen can only be so when subject or citizen born and not when subject or citizen made by statute. This was the understanding of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution as demonstrated by John Jay’s letter suggesting the draft of the Constitution be changed to include the natural born citizen clause to exclude foreigners and the children of foreigners from the Office of the President. The clearly stated intent of the change in the wording of this clause is not and cannot be accomplished by changing the meaning of natural born citizen to include naturalized citizens or the children of aliens naturalized at birth. Such a construction and interpretation defeats the whose intent of the clause is completely contrary to the express intent of the men who wrote the Constitution.
Nothing about citizenship at birth mentions naturalization. Nothing about naturalization covers those born as citizens.
One is either born a citizen or one must be naturalized.
John Jay said nothing about the children of foreigners. But I can see why you felt the need to add it in dishonestly.
Those are completely false statements as shown by the evidence I've already given of the Royal Decree and the Acts of Parliament.
Lord Coke for example in his 1608 Report page 208 described a subject born, meaning a natural born citizen.
“There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other.”
Lord Coke categorized three methods by which a person who was not subject born could be subject made: 1. statute, 2.naturalization, and 3. denization. Four years earlier in 1604, the House of Commons wrote:
“To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise. (House of Commons Journal, Volume 1, 21 April 1604)”
Lord Coke categorized such children as statutory subjects and subjects made. He expressly excluded such children from being subjects born.
The House of Commons could not be more explicit about the true meaning of a natural born subject in English usage stripped of any courtesies used out of context of the true definition. The House of commons in 1604 made it explicit that the child of alien parents was alien made a denizen at birth. Lord Coke chose to describe the method used by the House of Commons as a statutory subject and subject made. Lord Bacon described the method as nauralization.
“Furthermore as the law of England must favor naturalization as a branch of the law of nature, so it appears manifestly, that it doth favour it accordingly. For it is not much to make a subject naturalized by the law of England: it should suffice, either place or parents. If he be born in England it is no matter though his parents be Spaniards, or what you will: on the other side, if he be born of English parents it skilleth not though he be born in Spain, or in any other place of the world. In such sort doth the law of England open her lap to receive in people to be naturalized; which indeed sheweth the wisdom and excellent composition of our law ... (Bacon, Francis, pp.664-665)”
The historical record demonstrates your statements could not be more wrong. The Latin doctrines however named were embodied in the acts of governments, and the governments of England, France, other European jurisdictions, and the United States either did not confer subject status or citizenship status to the a child domestic born with alien parents, or did so by a method variously styled as denization or naturalization. They then sometimes styled the child as a natural born citizen as a matter of courtesy despite not actually being a natural born citizen or being subject born.
Like spelling, terminology in the earlier centuries was often fluid, with duality or multiplicity of definitions in different context even more so than today. Understanding the meaning, then as sometimes in today's world, requires an understanding of the context in which the terminology is used. In the local context of the 18th Century in which the Constitution was written, the meaning of being an alien, foreigner, or stranger could mean a person whose birth and domicile was less than a mile outside the city boundaries or the border of the borough. Nonetheless, the meaning of an alien or a foreigner was used quite differently when determining whether or not a person was a subject or a citizen of the nation, because the terms of alien, foreigner, and stranger were used in the international context. This fluidity in terminology still exists today with respect to a nation like the Netherlands, which has no national citizenship. In the international context people think and speak in terms of Dutch nationality. In reality, however, there is no dutch citizenship, because the Dutch people are citizens of their respective cities and other jurisdictions within the Netherlands which has no national citizenship except in the collective sense.
With respect to the meaning of the natural born citizen clause, the context of the natural born citizen phrase was clearly set forth by the man, John Jay, who asked for its inclusion in the Constitution for the purpose of excluding foreigners from the office. His intent was to exclude foreigners and their children from the office, and the House of Commons, Vattel’s Law of Nations, and the droit d’abain of France all clearly indicate the children of aliens used in the international context were to be excluded to protect the Republic.
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
At the date of this letter dated 25 July 1787 the State of Virginia regarded the children of “foreigners” as also being foreigners or aliens. The children of Aliens bor in Virginia were not granted citizenship in Virginia or thereby United States citizenship in 1787. This circumstance occurred because Thomas Jefferson wrote the new legal code of Virginia to exclude the influence of foreigners or aliens in the new government.
Therefore, your accusation of dishonesty is manifestly wrong and deserves to be retracted.
I found the links very useful, and was a nice neutral gesture.
Even if only one person found them useful that makes the effort worthwhile.
You said his letter warned against the children of foreigners. Yet you didn’t include the text. Because he did no such thing.
You show no reticence in posting a wall of text that doesn’t actually say what you want it to.
Yet you didn’t include the verbiage in order to claim it said what it did not. If that is what you need to do to try to make a point, what is the point?
“You said his letter warned against the children of foreigners. Yet you didnt include the text. Because he did no such thing.”
John Jay argued against the admission of “foreigners” in the government, and the children of foreigners born in the State of Virginia at the date of the letter were in fact foreigners by the statues of the State of Virginia. Consequently, John Jay’s reference to foreigners applied to the foreigners who also happen to have foreing parents. So, whether or not the word “children” appears in John Jay’s letter, his reference nonetheless exactly describe the children born in the State of Virginia whose parents were foreigners and who were therefore foreigners themselves to be denied admission to the offices of government. You are being mendacious in denying the obvious wording of JohnJay’s letter and the effect of its meaning.
Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. @1117 (first column, 1/2 down)
Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. @2212 (1869) (first column, lower left)
And you’ll inevitably hoot, holler, jump for joy while doing “the happy dance” in some faux celebration and say, “See! They can’t show me what I want in the manner that I want so I won the argument. “
Wow! That’s a pretty tall admission. However, there is nothing to celebrate about.
This whole issue does affect me personally however in three ways. My paternal grandfather immigrated here in 1920 or so and he didnt become a citizen until 1950 or so. My father was born here in 1925 to one of grandpops three wives, joined the Marines within a week of the Pearl Harbor attack, earned 3 Purple Hearts, a bronze star and a silver star. He was a hero during the war yet according to birthers he was never a citizen and according to some I am not a citizen either. Something is wrong there. The second situation I have is I was stationed in England (Navy building across the street from the American Embassy) in 1966, married an English girl and had 2 children while still stationed there. According to some they are not qualified to run for president. This cant be. The situation gets even worse on the other side of my family. They immigrated in 1918 I believe and had six children. My mother’s father died before he could become a citizen and I could never ascertain if or when my grandmother was naturalized. Everyone said she was but no one could produce a certificate of naturalization. Three of my uncles on my mothers side fought in WWII as well two of them remained in the Navy for 20 years.
I do not like to think that after all the sacrifices I and my family have made for this country our children cannot run for the highest office. Just aint right! I am sure there are millions of such stories since we are an immigrant society. They all came over LEGALLY looking for hope, freedom and prosperity and loving this country. So there’ll be no celebrations right now.
Oops, I didn’t mean my grandpop had three wives at the same time! One at a time and maybe they weren’t married, who knows!
The four gospels of Christ were written maybe even 100 years after Christ. Does that mean they have no authority? What does time have to do with it?
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...
There is no way you can justify the framers adding "a further requirement" to what was normally understood. Two parent citizens would have been mentioned specifically because it was a departure from common knowledge. You are just taking a shot in the dark to support your agenda. No one believes this, not judges, politicians, conservative commentators, me, or millions of others. This is a dumb issue.
Your reasoning is way beyond repair. Tell you what. You believe what you want, I will not try to debate with you. You are entitled to your opinions.
Thanks for the story.
You say this...
Tell you what. You believe what you want, I will not try to debate with you. You are entitled to your opinions.
The thing is, you don't want anybody to have an opinion different than yours 'cause it..."just ain't right" in your eyes.
And even worse, you're trying to force others to accept your biased opinion of the issue by browbeating them into submission.
That just ain't right.
Ah, yes the old 'Evolution of the Conservation Movement' section of the Library.
Don't you find it strange that the Constitution was supposed to be alterable only by strictly Constitutional methods but some how 'evolved' into a living Constitution?
As to your two sources-
one is suspect simply because of timing. The Amendment was [ahem] ratified in 1868, so I have no doubt you can find all kinds of justification for unconstitutional actions then.
As to your second source:
If you read the page you posted, Wilson is discussing a finding by Rawle. As I can't seem to access the previous page, I'm not sure which decision of Rawle's he is referring to.
But a collective naturalization may also take place, of a class of persons, natives of the country or otherwise, and who, without any act on the part of the individuals, may be made citizens.
Oh, the collective. Odd. The Constitution says nothing about a 'collective' authority. Only the ability to make a 'uniform rule of naturalization' for the States to follow.
The riddle solves itself once one sees what Rawle was quoting from
Lawrences Appendix to Wheaton on International Law: Opinion of Attorney General Cuskins [Cushing?], in Opinions of Attorneys General, vol 7.p.74?
Rawle [the author of the THIRD View of the Constitution of the United States] was quoting Lawrence's International Law....Not Vattels.
I have studied historical Constitutional law starting from before the Founding for a solid decade, and I have NEVER heard of 'Lawrence's International Law' before today.
The Founder's never mentioned this Lawrence guy either, but this Vattel dude was apparently quite popular with them, as they had personal copies of Vattel' Law of Nature and Nations before the Revolution.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.
And official, GOVERMENT copies since 1794:
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44
Gee, I guess the origins of the mystery of the 'living Constitution' has been solved.
BTW - do you know the difference between the legal terms Natural Law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
and positive law?
n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law," which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law" was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651).
Maybe if you did, you'd understand Man can have no legitimate authority to legislate on or define anything contrary to the Laws of Nature.
The law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.
Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted - 23 Feb. 1775
@Senate, 40th Congress, 2nd Session
Insert the page number in the appropriate spot.
It's not set up to be link friendly at all.