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 ...
Marco Rubio is a native born U.S. Citizen, he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen, and he is not eligible under the Constitution to serve in the Office of the Vice President or the Office of the President.
Vattel did nothing to originate the definition of natural born citizen, because he was only reporting the already centuries old practice among many nations of restricting certain rights of citizenship only to the children born with two citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the sovereign. This was the law and its practice in earlier centuries of England, before the laws changed the natural born citizen requirement. Many Continental jurisdictions retained the natural born citizen requirement, which was reported by Vattel in his book. The Founding Fathers then used Vattel’s book to provide guidance along with other books to develop the Constitution with guidance from British-English and Continental legal precedents. The natural born citizen clause was clearly and unambiguously asserting a limitation well understood by Continental Europeans of the 18th Century. The Ancien Regime for instance had jurisdictions which did not allow the children born in the French jurisdiction to inherit their parents’ real property, because the parents were foreign born, which was an application of the difference between children native born in France versus natural born in France.
The same distinction carried forward to some post-Revolutionary War States of the United States of America who did not confer state citizenship and thereby U.S. citizenship to children born in the jurisdiction of the state whose parents were not state or U.S. citizens. Yet, the children born in the jurisdiction of the state whose parents were U.S. citizens were natural born citizens of the state and the United States in 1799. The child whose parents were not state and U.S. citizens were not eligible to the Office of the President in 1799, but the natural born children were so eligible in 1799.
Why do you keep citing dicta to support your argument?
“It is a fact”... hahaha...
People who are obsessed with conspiracies tend to make up their own ‘facts’.
I tend to agree with Sarah - - “It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.”
Under English law anyone born on soil controlled by England by those under the authority of England was a natural born subject of England no matter the nationality of their parents.
There was nothing in English law to differentiate those that were “natural born subjects” of England and those that were BORN as subjects.
The U.S. Constitution makes mention of natural born citizens and naturalized citizens. Currently one is either born as a citizen or one must be naturalized.
The U.S. Constitution has nothing to say about “native born”. You must have gotten that from penumbras and emanations. ;)
That is a lie and a fraud.
The laws of the United States were derived from English law, Continental Eropean law, and common law originating in the colonies and states before and after the colonial independence of the United States of America. The oft repeated fallacy and myth of U.S. law arising only from or even maily from English common law is a fraud and a lie. English common law had not yet been codified at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted and adopted. Few American jurists had any access to any written English common law and precedents, so they independently created their own American common law parallel with the independent developments of common-law in England.
Simply put, it was quite impossible for 18th Century U.S. law to be founded upon English common-law, because it did not yet exist when the U.S. and ealeir Colonial American laws were created independently of the English common-law.
WEASEL WORD WARNING!
“soon to receive” didn’t happen before Marco was born. More explicit: his parents WERE NOT CITIZENS when he was born. Ergo, HE IS NOT a natural-born citizen, and NOT ELIGIBLE. I will not vote for any such candidate, and neither will millions of others.
Republicans who seek to subvert the plain meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution just show their contempt for the document. This is why the country is in the shape it’s in: the elites in BOTH major parties despise the Constitution, and only use it, Alinsky-style, when it suits their ends.
A pox on you all.
Agree —— Unless a court steps up and confirms the definition of Natural Born citizen in a way that would inclu
de Rubio and Jindal and Obama (and I certainly don’t hold out hope of that) I would not be able to vote for a ticket with someone who in my opinion is ineligible to hold the office. This constitutional issue has been consciously suppressed by the very people who swore oaths to uphold the Constitution!
I hope Romney picks someone whose eligibility can not be questioned. God help America.....or what’s left of her.
yea, those stupid birthers... they think there’s a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. pfft
it’s not like it’s a term used around the world for hundreds of years or anything... naah
of course, it does make me wonder why the founders would change the wording from citizen to natural born citizen if there’s no difference... hmmmm
Here’s what’s evolved in my befuddled brain recently:
The puppet masters, never to be viewed as not being VERY wily and smart, have set up an environment that will ensure OB’s second term in order to complete the destruction of mankind’s only real source of personal freedom (ie the USA).
They are going to field a ticket for the pubs that is so obnoxious to a great percentage of the conservative base that they WILL succeed in DIVIDE & CONQUER, with many not voting, voting for unelectable candidates or write-ins.
That is the only explanation I have been able to come up with for all the maneuvering and media blackout of the subject that has taken place re the NBC/eligibility issue and the continued bandying about of NON-NBC guys like Rubio and Jindal.
We’ll have to see what the final result is, but I for one am VERY concerned that the BIG FIX is in place already and it’s so well orchestrated that this DIVIDE & CONQUER PLAN is now the invisible elephant in the room we’re all just shouting in the wind when we carry on about all the other issues (ie planned and organized distractions) of the day.
Keep in mind how close EVERY poll is between OB and ANY challenger, when from ANY logical point of view OB should be polling down in the single digits by now. He is being supported and will be until they are dead and buried, (and by some them even after that has occurred if you know what I mean), by the slightly less than 50% voting block who:
(a) depend on him for their livelihood and goodies,
(b) are guilt ridden middle and upper class types who have to prove their compassionateness and political correctness and fairness to themselves and everyone else,
(c) just plain hate the USA for their own twisted reasons, but who have never tried to exist anywhere else on the planet,
(d) just have have no personal ambition and are perfectly content to bathe only occasionally, walk or bike everywhere and basically just exist, contributing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to society,
(e) lack the maturity gene, sit around humming cumbaya and simply want, (in the words of that most eloquent philosopher Rodney King), “... everyone to just get along ...” (and the 1% to pay their “fair” share)
Re that last comment, the other day I listened to Micahel Meved spend about five (5) minutes trying to get some liberal spokeshole moron to commit to a specific TOTAL (ALL forms - local state, fed and hidden) percentage that the EVIL 1% should have to pay in taxes in order to to satisfy the feel good guys.
It was pathetically comical to listen to the weasel trying to evade the question. His responses ranged from “I’m not an economist” to “I don’t really know what the federal rate should be” to FINALLY “I think 39% (just for federal taxes) is about right”.
It would be rather hard to follow that rule when English law had been overthrown here in America, wouldn't it.
And "the rule" continued to prevail continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established because there were still British citizens here in the US.
The rule didn't apply to American nationality, only to British nationality as the text indicates...on the subject of British nationality...not on the subject of American nationality.
You are badly mistaken because you are relying on erroneous sources of information at the very least. Britain and the prior England did adopt the legal principal of jus soli to claim the allegiance and sovereignty over every perso born subject to the Jurisdiction of the sovereign of the kingdomn of England and the later United Kingdom of the 18th-19th Centuries. What is deceivingly omitted are tt the many changes to England’s prevous citizenship laws. The were many an Anglo-Saxon or Norman father and mother who accompanied the Sovereign of England to the King’s possessons in France, whereupon their children were born under the jurisdiction and with fealty and allegiance to the King of England, who could not inherit their estates due to their not being born on the soil of England. Bit by bit, the problems this cause resulted in changes to these laws into the adoption of the jus soli principle by the end of the 18th Century.
The adoption of the jus soli principle by England put England and later Britain in conlfict with many nations, including the newly independent United States of America. England-Britain kept trying to deny the right of its natural born subjects to emigrate and naturalize as citizen sof another nation, and this put Engalnd into conflict with the nations naturalizing former British subjects.
The natural born citizen clause was put into the Constitution to keep Britian in particular and any other nation in general from trying to command the allegiance of an emigrant who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen or any child born under jus sanguinis as a British subject. This was in accordance with the natural born citizen principles of law praticed for centuries by many nations and by England in the earlier centuries.
Look it up, and you’ll find this is true.
Most people CAN walk and chew gum at the same time.
To simply toss aside the clear meaning of words and the Constitution at the same time to focus "on the economy," insults us all.
Why not try doing both, or perhaps even more?
Most people, especially Americans, can do much more than they think and it's high time to aim higher than merely looking forward to the weekend.
I'm saying these things after just getting back from Europe and visiting England, Spain, France and Italy.
Lovely people but clearly going down the tube for the simple reason that they refuse to think for themselves AND WORK!
Hey, I recognize that. It's like what happens in our time with the words Democracy and Republic. According to our betters "theres no difference".
What a coincidence. /sarcasm
Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.
Nothing in U.S. law demanded both either - as the 1790 act showed to all but the willfully ignorant.
Our Constitution allows for two types of U.S. citizenship currently - those that were born as citizens and those that had to be naturalized as citizens.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “native born” - you must have gotten that from penumbras and emanations.
One had to have “actual obedience” to the crown in order for their children to be subjects. Second, English common law requires perpetual allegiance. The founders had to reject this bit of common law in order to be U.S. citizens. Third, the U.S. signed a treaty with Britain prior to the adoption of the Constitution that resulted in children born in the U.S. to loyalists being recognized as British subjects and NOT as U.S. citizens. Of course, the loyalists were pretty much driven out of the country within a short period of time, but there’s ample evidence to show that the U.S. did not rebadge natural-born subject as natural-born citizen.
Well then isn't it a great thing that English law was neither practiced nor put in effect here in America where we wrote and established our own law.
Yes, our own law. But the language they were all familiar with in the legal terms “natural born” and “naturalized” - came from England.
There is also nothing in the Constitution or U.S. law that would differentiate a U.S. citizen at birth and one who was a natural born citizen.
The term “native born” is not used in the Constitution.
Going with what the Constitution ACTUALLY says - there are currently two types of U.S. citizen as outlined by the U.S. Constitution - natural born and naturalized.
And, contrary to your implication, the principle behind it was completely different...sovereign citizens aren't subjects.
Yes - it’s a waste of time..it’s just and endless loop of jibber jabber that proves or solves nothing.
Like I said, I tend to agree with Sarah on all the birther crap - - Its distracting. It gets annoying. Lets stick with what really matters.
wait...don’t tell me - she’s the next to be thrown under the purity bus, right?
If so where is that understanding reflected in the Constitution?
Penumbras and emanations again?
The U.S. Constitution currently envisions only TWO types of U.S. citizen - those that were born with natural allegiance and those that had to be naturalized into that state of natural allegiance.