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 ...
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.
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 countrys 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 dont 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 brothers 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 didnt. My brother was never under the jurisdiction of my fathers country of birth Norway. Norway never claimed my brother as a Norwegian citizen because of it being his fathers place of birth. My brother could have never broken any US or state law and claimed any sort of diplomatic immunity.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
It starts at page 961.
Thomas Paine makes it clear what the "natural-born" requirement meant. I added no further requirement than was is already written. Paine's example shows that "natural-born" was not a departure from common knowledge. It is the opinions of 100 years later that is the departure from original intent.
I think you know it, but cannot accept Paine as an authoritative source in the same vein as Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter defined the establishment clause.
When Jefferson composed the phrase: "...that all men are created equal..." do you think he meant to include women? Or, at the time, did he consider women unequal to men? Why should we take his meaning of men to include women?
If he meant to include women, why wasn't the term "humans" or "people" used instead? Franklin tweaked Jefferson's wording for the final DOI and so he might have thought to include women, but he didn't either.
In 1776, were women equal to men in every regard? No. So do you agree that these Framers were very specific in choosing their words for these important documents?
But no - according to most views of the law back in the 1700’s women were inferior to men according to natural law.
Our view of natural law has changed, and equality under the law means that men and women are to be treated equally under the law.
Thus U.S. law is to always reflect our best understanding of natural law - and it is NOT the natural condition of women to be unequal and subservient to men - despite the protestation of most 18th century men otherwise.
As to what the term “natural born citizen” meant at that time - under English law the children of foreigners born in English territory were “natural born” - so the meaning as known and understood by our founders would not be confined solely to the children of citizens.
Vatell’s reasoning would not grant citizenship at birth to the children of foreigners born on the soil. It is not that he would grant them citizenship of a lesser kind at birth. They would not be citizens at all.
Thank you kindly, philman. I actually tried backing up from the gif and tried to find the main search page to the Globe, but a techno wiz, I'm not.
In further research, I found what 'Sharswood's Blackstone' is. It's a memoir titled 'a Life of the Author by George Sharswood'. In Two Volumes. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1893). Vol. 1 - Books I & II.
And while HIS definition said Blackstone believed a natural born was born in the dominion of the King, what Blackstone actually said was natural borns were born within the dominion of the crown, OR ALLEGIENCE TO THE KING.
CHAPTER X. - OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Big difference between the original Blackstone and Sharswood's 'interpretation'.
I still can't see anything from a period that isn't distorted by someones interpretation of history say anything to change the orginal definition of natural born.
The country of the father is the country of the children.
New Jersey Realist -
I've read the thread, and I understand your point of being concerned over the citizenship of your ancestors.
Take heart. I can't pinpoint it at the moment, but I do believe men who joined the military to fight for a country were naturalized by fact if not by law because they had proven their allegiance.
That being the case, their acts have naturalized them, and any of their children would be natural born.
I'll can look to see if I can find the specific part of Vattel that says it, if you like.
You just don’t get it at all. I’m not browbeating anyone. I’m citing references that totally support jus soli. You and the birther movement are the ones who are rising up in protest because you don’t like the fact that obummer is president....you are the fringe element of society. You can’t get anyone to agree with you but you still beat the dead horse. You epitomize the meaning of insanity and you give conservatives a bad rep. Take your wares elsewhere, I’ll have no part of it anymore because obviously your mind is closed. Good luck with that!
Im citing references that totally support jus soli.
Understandably so. Yet you disregard jus sanginis as it conflicts with your desires.
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.
You desire your children to be natural born citizens. It appears that they aren't due to your decisions.
Were your children, by chance, born in a London hospital?
I’m glad I could be of help and I thank you for your comments and insights.
As the rub goes, timing is everything.
I don't disregard Jus Sanguinis. My children are NBC because of Jus Sanguinis.
Jus Sanguinis applies to children born OVERSEAS of U.S. parent(s). My children are NBC because I meet the requirements. How do I know they are NBC?
(1) Because they are not naturalized; they received a U.S. Birth Certificate from the American Embassy; Jus Sanguinis.
(2) They were born on U.S. soil (USAF Base in England); That qualifies them under Jus Soli as well. They would have still qualified under Jus Sanguinis even if they were born in a London Hospital. I though you knew Vattel?
(3) I met residency in U.S. requirements before being stationed in London. I was born in the U.S. making me NBC via Jus Soli.
Get your facts straight. Jus Sanguinis applies ONLY to children born overseas of two parents....that is clearly spelled out. Jus Soli confers citizenship to native born citizens regardless of parents unless they are diplomats and hopefully illegal immigrants. That is clearly spelled out.
You and all the other misinformed people are getting the two confused. You can't apply Jus Sanguinis if you are born in the U.S.; only if you are born outside the U.S. of U.S. parents. Can I be clearer than that?
Lastly, I don't appreciate the comment you made: (You desire your children to be natural born citizens. It appears that they aren't due to your decisions.)
My decision? Since when do military personnel decide where they are stationed? Obviously you have never served your country. What are you a draft dodger? A Conschie? You disgust me. If you never served in the military I don't even want to hear back from you. How dare you insult me like that?
Here is my reference to my post 292:
This question should be raised. Also, Rubio’s position in illegal aliens are scary.
Be sure to read this page...
@The LAWS section includes several legal resources linked on the left of this page. These links include information on:
Published USCIS regulations in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR)
Statutes governing immigration law in the Immigration Nationality Act
Everything the USCIS covers is via statute. Natural born citizens need no statutes to make them such.
Perhaps you should have read this before mentioning where you get your concepts from...
@Citizenship for Military Personnel & Family Members
Members of the U.S. armed forces and their dependents (spouses and children) may be eligible for citizenship, to include expedited and overseas processing, under special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). (@Immigration and Nationality Act)
BTW, keep this in mind when you're arguing against naturalization at birth...
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
Remember, natural born citizens don't need statutes (like the INA/USC 8) to make them natural born citizens.
Biological or Adopted Children Residing Outside the United States
Biological or adopted children who regularly reside outside of the United States may qualify for naturalization under section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Child Citizenship Act (CCA).
The CCA doesn't count as it wasn't enacted till 2000.
They don't say you're a natural born citizen, do they?
And instead of accepting what is you fight solely for what you desire and that fight is from a biased and jaundiced perspective.
Hey, wake up, pay attention here.
How quickly you abandon Vattel. In your haste and ignorance you post this reference -
and claim it affects me. It is instead directed at NON CITIZEN military members; didnt you read the very first sentence? You people use misdirection and have it down to a science. You take my reference which pertains to me (a U.S. citizen) and direct it over to a non-citizen section of the law that requires processing (naturalization). You are beneath contempt.
My reference requires no naturalization but going to the overseas consul to obtain the BC. It states:
“To become a citizen at birth, you must:
Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements”
Your reference pertains to naturalization procedures for non citizen military members.
By the way, did you serve in the military?
First, the notion that anyone arguing the issue of the Constitutional natural born citizen clause is somehow saying “he was never a citizen and according to some I am not a citizen either” is an outright falsehood with not a scintilla of truth to the false accusation. Your father was without a doubt born with U.S. citizenship provided he was born in the United States. Likewise, your birth in the United States with a father born a U.S. Citizen leaves no doubt of your own birth with U.S. citizenship. Your father was not legible to the Office of the President or the Vice President, but you are eligible to the Office of the President and Vice President. Your mother and uncles, if born in the United States, were without doubt U.S. Citizens, but they would not have been eligible to the Office of the President or Vice President, unless they were born in the United States after their parents were naturalized to be U.S. Citizens. Consequently, your accusation about someone saying something to the effect that yourself, parents, and uncles not being U.S. Citizens is false and egregiously so.
Second, the United States has often permitted the recruitment of foreign citizens to serve in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Air Force. Many have been rewarded for their sacrifices by the granting of U.S. citizenship for themselves and their family. Many such foreigners in the military service of the United States have chosen to retain their foreign citizenship while regarding their service to the United States as an honor and a privilege. The Marquis de Lafayette in the service of the Continental Army of the United States during the American Revolution is such a notable example. Yet, men such as the Marquis de Lafayette would have chosen to die rather than to risk what they sacrificed so much for to fall into the hands of a foreign or domestic enemy of the Republic and its Constitution. As it was argued or suggested by men such as John Jay, Thomas Paine, and others, it was preferred to protect the Republic by keeping people who were born, voluntarily or not, with potentially conflicting obligations of allegiance to anyone other than the sovereign people of the United States from commanding the American Army and otherwise executing the government of the United States. To implement such a policy for the protection of the People and their new Republic, it was considered whether or not to limit eligibility to the Senate offices in addition to the Presidential offices. In a compromise, they made the term of a Senator longer, and placed the eligibility restriction only upon the President and Vice President.
Now. you come along and complain the burden of forgoing eligibility for just one generation of the first immigrant families is just too much to ask of a foreigner naturalized as a U.S. Citizen or their U.S. Citizen children, while you would deprive all of the millions of U.S. Citizens, who were born in the United States with parents born as U.S. Citizens in the United States for more than two centuries, of the protection afforded by the exclusion from just these two Federal offices! You show no consideration whatsoever for the way in which there have been but 44 U.S. Presidents, and millions of U.S. Citizens have provided their own military service at the risk of life and limb with no likely prospect whatsoever that they or their own children would ever have any reasonable opportunity to serve as the President and/or Vice President of the United States. What makes you think that your own ambitions for yourself or your children should take precedence over the protection and defense of the Constitution, the Republic, and the People of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic who would use the office of the President to harm the Republic and the People?
Oh, I see. You represent a blueblood citizenry. People like you are anathema to me. You try to maintain an aristocricy - problem is no one of importance believes you or supports you..
Give me one judge, politician or conservative commetator who agrees with you. Show me one court decision in your favor. Once again I say you really have no way of determining citizenship of anyone except for BC or Naturalization papers. There is no secret code for presidential timber.
Along comes a black man that you detest (as do I by the way) and you want to run him out of town. How’s that fight going for you? The only way you are going to win is start another revolution and your army will be you, philman and very few others. Good luck with that!
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.