Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rubio and Birthright Citizenship
American Thinker ^ | 5/4/2012 | Cindy Simpson

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; citizenship; constitution; immigration; ineligible; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen; nbc; norubio; obama; rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-420 next last
To: New Jersey Realist
How quickly you abandon Vattel.
I've done no such thing.

...you post this reference...
You said it was your reference...Here is my reference to my post 292:
I just pointed to an additional page of your reference.

and claim it affects me.
No, you claimed it effects you. You gave it as your reference, not me.

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).
My children are NBC because I meet the requirements.

I guess you missed this...
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).
The law pertains to your wife (English) and children (born in England). It doesn't apply to you.
My children are NBC because I meet the requirements.
The only requirement that I see that you meet is that you were a member of the U.S. armed forces.
The law indirectly concerns you. It clearly states (spouses and children) and the INA governs them.
You did claim to have 2 children born overseas, didn't you? No statute from your reference can make them natural born citizens.
I guess you're only now realizing the hole you've dug.
Rule #1...Stop digging.

By the way, did you serve in the military?
Yes, I did. What does that have to do with anything?
I was smart enough not to have any kids born anywhere while in the military.

301 posted on 05/08/2012 7:01:24 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
That is some of the most pathetic, bigoted, disgusting, and racist garbage imaginable. Thank you for revealing your true character.

It happens to be true that almost all of my own personal ancestry is early colonial dating from Pre-Columbian Amerindian, Jamestown Colony 1609, Massachusetts Bay Colony 1630, and Maryland Colony before 1650 to a couple of early 19th Century branches. However, the latest generations of the family have added into their own recent branches a multitude o ethnic additions ranging from black Americans with their own ancestry going back into early Colonial American bondsmen and slaves to the later Italian, Mexican, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Brazilian, and Filipino members.

Some of these family members and many of our family's friends come from a life in the Communist societies, and they are very concerned about the way in which race is being used as an improper excuse to inflict the very horrors they came to this nation tio escape. Many of them have agreed with the viewpoint that it is most certainly not too much to ask of a U.S. Citizen to recognize eligibility only for those generations who have no other society but the United States to call their own or demand their loyalty.

Your ignorance of naturalization laws, the natural born citizen clause, and naked racial prejudice is nothing short of despicable.

302 posted on 05/08/2012 7:18:14 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist; WhiskeyX
Speaking for myself...
Along comes a black man...
Well you've just given away your true self again!
Better you had said "Along comes a Progressive ideologue that you detest..."
You didn't do that. You make it a race issue when it isn't. That's what liberals do.
What you don't get is that it doesn't matter if the man is black, white, green or purple with vertical stripes!

...that you detest...
He's a Progressive ideologue! How could any conservative not detest that?!

I'm so going to enjoy the response from WhiskeyX when it's given.

303 posted on 05/08/2012 7:19:31 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Thank you for revealing your true character.
Hear, hear!
304 posted on 05/08/2012 7:22:20 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Yes, that “is what Liberals do”


305 posted on 05/08/2012 10:01:18 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Thank you for answering my questions, though we'll have to agree to disagree! Would you care to expound on your definition of marriage? I'm kidding...
306 posted on 05/08/2012 10:22:19 AM PDT by Rona_Badger (Heeds the Calling Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Rona_Badger

Do you think that our founders thought women were equal to men under natural law?

Should we go with the understanding of natural law at the time of our foundation as it pertains to equality of women?

Do you think the natural state of women is to be subservient and inferior to men and that this should be reflected in natural law?


307 posted on 05/08/2012 10:31:55 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Vattel 217:

“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”

According to Vattel the children of citizen parents born overseas would have the same conditions of birth than if the child had not been born overseas.

That is why claiming the children of U.S. citizens born overseas to U.S. troops (like McCain) are not natural born IS abandoning Vattel.

And the children of foreign parents born in our nation would not be citizens at all if we followed Vattel. Vattel did not think granting them citizenship of a different type at birth was the proper answer under natural law - he opined that they shouldn't be granted citizenship AT ALL.

308 posted on 05/08/2012 10:49:19 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So you'll follow Vattel on some things, especially when it suits your purpose, and not other things, especially when it doesn't suit your purpose.
Got it.
309 posted on 05/08/2012 10:55:42 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Wrong. I follow the Constitution on ALL things - and Vattel on NOTHING.

You claim to follow Vattel but either ignore him or are ignorant of what he actually says when you deem the children of soldiers born overseas to not be natural born.

And Vattel would not give citizenship of a different kind at birth to the children of foreign parents - he would not grant them citizenship AT ALL.

So how can it be said that U.S. law at any point follows Vattel?

How could anyone claiming to follow Vattel also claim that the children of soldiers are not natural born into the allegiance of their soldier parent?

310 posted on 05/08/2012 11:01:05 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I follow the Constitution on ALL things - and Vattel on NOTHING.
My apologies...thught you were someone else.
Here ya go...for a citizen who is absent with his family...

Did Vattel envision the man bringing his citizen wife and children with him or him marrying and having children in the country wherein he was stationed?

Perhaps you need to do a little more contextual reading instead of confining your reading...

THE LAW OF NATIONS BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Context, context, context. You're trying to pigeon hole things again.

311 posted on 05/08/2012 11:22:52 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Well there you go! The truth is out for all to see. Enjoy the pride you must have. Leave the rest of us working stiffs who protected that elitest pride alone from now on and don’t darken my door any more you racist....and that goes for your buddy philman. I’ll not waste my time on people like you. After all your crap you’re still just pissin in the wind because the law and tradition just are not on your side. Live in your fairy land. People like you, I guess, never learn. I pity you.


312 posted on 05/08/2012 11:24:41 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I was smart enough not to have any kids born anywhere while in the military.


Yeah, I’m sure that was the reason!


313 posted on 05/08/2012 11:27:26 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Vattel is pretty unambiguous about the children of soldiers born overseas being legally equivalent to being born in country.

For Vattel it didn't matter where the wife was from because according to HIS view of natural law - children would follow the condition of their father.

Nothing in the context you provided changes either.

If one follows Vattel then McCain is certainly eligible.

314 posted on 05/08/2012 11:28:02 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
...and don’t darken my door any more you racist....and that goes for your buddy philman.
If you've got something to say to me then all you have to do is put my name in the "To" box. Talking smack behind my back shows just how decrepit you are as an individual.

You rail against me as a racist yet you offer no evidence thereof.
You get your ass handed to you in debate and all you have is lashing out and making unfounded accusations...just like a liberal.
Your own replies, more than anything else, show you for what you truly are. You're a liberal who has posed as a conservative and nothing more.

I’ll not waste my time on people like you.
And when you do it's obvious how you'll do it.

315 posted on 05/08/2012 11:34:02 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

You say: “You get your ass handed to you in debate and all you have is lashing out and making unfounded accusations...just like a liberal.”


Words are cheap, I’ve proven my case and you haven’t. Live out your delusional life. You think who provides the most verbiage wins? Hah! Reference something that supports yourself. You’ve won nothing here.


316 posted on 05/08/2012 11:46:10 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
By the way, did you serve in the military?
Yes, I did. What does that have to do with anything?
So why did you ask if I served in the military?
Where you going to make some brilliant observation or try to make some inane point?

Yeah, I’m sure that was the reason!
I was warned by my parents before going in about coming home with a foreign bride and/or child.
Though they didn't go into specific details, but they knew far more than I did about many things and I simply trusted their judgement.
Would that your parents had advised you so.

317 posted on 05/08/2012 11:46:15 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
...I’ve proven my case and you haven’t.
The only thing you've done is clearly show that statutes (INA/USC 8) made your British born children U. S. citizens.
No statute (INA/USC 8) can make someone a natural born citizen.
318 posted on 05/08/2012 11:53:27 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
For Vattel it didn't matter where the wife was from because according to HIS view of natural law - children would follow the condition of their father.
It obviously did matter as preceding sections to section 217 show.
Vattel plainly explains that "civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise" and those laws, duly enacted, would determine what the case would be.
319 posted on 05/08/2012 11:59:29 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
And in ALL cases such as McCain's - if we are to follow Vattel - then McCain would be deemed born in the USA and would be a native or indigenous citizen - and thus natural born as a citizen of these United States.

Under what particular interpretation of what particular passage of Vattel would, in your opinion, render McCain ineligible?

And how do you address that if the USA followed Vattel - the children born in the USA of foreign parents wouldn't be citizens of the USA at all?

320 posted on 05/08/2012 12:17:27 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Why do you keep asking questions and bringing up situations that have already been answered and covered?

You've been told many, many times over what the situation is with McCain and you still keep coming back to it as if it's a new subject when it isn't.

321 posted on 05/08/2012 12:35:59 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Going by Vattel and the section I quoted it is obvious that McCain would be eligible.

If you say you are going by Vattel and yet McCain isn't eligible according to you - then please provide the section of Vattel and the exact language that details why and under what circumstances McCain wouldn't be eligible.

What section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible?

Please answer the question rather than providing lame excuses for not answering the question.

322 posted on 05/08/2012 12:45:52 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Just like in the past your purpose here, plainly, is nothing more than deception.

@The Constitution gives authority to Congress to establish rules for citizenship in Article I section 8. December 16, 2008

Put up a "good" argument when in actuality it's all BS!
The Constitution enpowers Congress to establish "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

After-birthers always seem to want to make a bloody mess of things.

323 posted on 05/08/2012 12:58:19 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Going by Vattel and the section I quoted it is obvious that McCain would be eligible.
By just the section you quoted. That's why you ignore the other sections and try to pull your little tricks thinking people will fall for it and you'll catch them in their own words.

Again, you fail in context and that's why you're trying to emphasis only that particular section.

324 posted on 05/08/2012 1:05:52 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

What section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible?

Please answer the question rather than providing lame excuses for not answering the question.


325 posted on 05/08/2012 1:08:09 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Here is more of your little game being played...

What section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible?
No section of Vattel would render McCain ineligible.
As you've often stated...Vattel isn't U. S. law.
U. S laws render McCain ineligible as Vattel explained..."for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise."

Was Senate Resolution 511 an actual law? No! It only had the appearance of law.

326 posted on 05/08/2012 1:14:20 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
A reply of yours...@Vattel isn't U.S. law. 02/17/2011
327 posted on 05/08/2012 1:29:14 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
No Vattel isn't U.S. law. And U.S. law doesn't follow Vattel. But that isn't what I asked and you know it.

If Vattel WAS U.S. law - and all U.S. law was in accordance with Vattel - then McCain would certainly be natural born.

My question is what did Vattel write that would render McCain not a natural born citizen?

According to Vattel and the section I quoted McCain would be born with natural allegiance to America and be a citizen at birth, an indigenous or native citizen - and thus a natural born citizen.

Now under what section of Vattel would McCain not be a native or indigenous or natural born citizen?

Lame excuses are wearing thin.

What section of Vattel, assuming Vattel has any bearing on who is or is not a natural born citizen in America , would make McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?

328 posted on 05/08/2012 1:56:53 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And U.S. law doesn't follow Vattel.
You are certainly entitled to that opinion. What you cannot deny is that he was one of the people whose writings were used by, and was an influence upon, the Continental Congress in the formation of the Constitution.

But that isn't what I asked and you know it.
Well if the question you asked isn't the question you meant to ask then perhaps you should rephrase your question.

My question is what did Vattel write that would render McCain not a natural born citizen?
Vattel didn't write anything that would render McCain not a natural born citizen. The writers of our "uniform rules of naturalization" did that.

Now under what section of Vattel would McCain not be a native or indigenous or natural born citizen?
What does it matter since Vattel isn't U.S. law?

Lame excuses are wearing thin.
Your games wore thin long ago.

What section of Vattel, assuming Vattel has any bearing on who is or is not a natural born citizen in America , would make McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?

What does it matter since Vattel isn't U.S. law?

329 posted on 05/08/2012 2:11:15 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
“Vattel didn't write anything that would render McCain not a natural born citizen. The writers of our “uniform rules of naturalization” did that.”

OK then. According to Vattel - McCain would be a natural born citizen.

So to say McCain is not is to abandon Vattel and his philosophy.

Where in U.S. law do you get that McCain would be anything other than a natural born citizen?

If you are not going by U.S. law OR Vattel - then by what definition is McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?

Where is natural born citizen defined such that McCain would not qualify?

330 posted on 05/08/2012 2:20:28 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Where in U.S. law do you get that McCain would be anything other than a natural born citizen?
Where do you get in U. S. law that McCain is a natural born citizen?
And just because you asked your question first doesn't mean that I have to answer your question before you answer mine. I don't play that game either.

If you are not going by U.S. law OR Vattel - then by what definition is McCain anything other than a natural born citizen?
What makes you think he ever was a natural born citizen?

Where is natural born citizen defined such that McCain would not qualify?
Where is natural born citizen defined such that McCain would qualify?

Nice game. Your turn, Pong.

331 posted on 05/08/2012 2:27:12 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Where in U.S. law?

1401 - The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

What makes me think McCain ever was a natural born citizen? Because he was born with natural allegiance to these United States, under the principles recognized in natural law, and thus he was a U.S. citizen at birth.

Under Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen (or more correctly an “indigenous or native”)- McCain would certainly qualify - as I have repeatedly told you.

Now under what definition of “natural born” would McCain not qualify?

Under English law - he would be considered “natural born”.

Under Vattel - he would be considered an “indigenous or native citizen” and thus natural born.

Under U.S. law he is a U.S. citizen at birth and thus natural born.

So where in U.S. law do you get that McCain would be anything other than a natural born citizen?

332 posted on 05/08/2012 2:55:21 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Where in U.S. law? 1401
Which is part of the laws governing naturalization (USC 8, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA))

And as you well know positive law, those laws written by men, cannot make someone a natural born citizen.

Because he was born with natural allegiance to these United States, under the principles recognized in natural law, and thus he was a U.S. citizen at birth.
The principles of natural law require that he have citizen parents, which he had, and be born "in country". He wasn't born on a military installation, he was born in a civilian hospital in Panama.
@The Coco Solo Naval Hospital wasn't built until after 1941. (EO authorizing it to be built) He doesn't meet the requirements.

Now under what definition of “natural born” would McCain not qualify?
See above.

333 posted on 05/08/2012 3:14:33 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
@U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act
This document allows you to access the complete text of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 of the U.S. Code (8 USC) in a variety of ways.
334 posted on 05/08/2012 3:34:13 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; allmendream
Boy, allmendream certainly has you on the ropes. I’d like to take one more bite out of the apple. Just a few questions really.

I posed this question to you a couple days ago and did not receive an answer other than “my, what strict stipulations:”

...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.

I ask it because all your theories regarding NBC is hinged upon it and if it IS the policy of this nation then it MUST be written down somewhere!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I stated that my children were NBC because of the following regulation:

If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth. 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. Reference follows:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/? vgnextoid=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=a2ec6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

If you had the ability to read you would have noted “you may become a citizen either at birth or after birth.” At birth grants NBC if born on U.S. soil or overseas of a citizen parent and after birth, depending on circumstances, naturalization. We all receive our birth certificates AT birth or within a reasonable amount of time like 10 days. Years later then it would be AFTER birth. Case in point; Vietnam veterans who left their children behind can apply for citizenship once they or their mother realize that they can do so. I went to the American Consul at the time of my children’s birth and received a Birth Certificate – not naturalization papers or procedures to follow to achieve citizenship, but full blown citizenship with the same rights that I have. Instead of a BC signed by a hospital administrator, I have that plus one signed by the Consul.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You then come back with a reference on citizenship for children of non citizen military members. WTF?????

Did I not make it clear that I was not a non citizen military member?

Then allmendream teaches you about Vattel in Post 308. Vattel is your authority on being born overseas to parent citizens yet you abandon that in your attempt to ridicule me. It is obvious to anyone that you confuse his 2 parent rule for overseas birth with a birth on U.S. soil of any parents (with the exception of diplomats or those not under the jurisdiction.,etc., etc.)

Then in post 311 you quote a paragraph that states that the fathers rights will not pass if the soldier remains in that foreign country. What does this quote have to do with returning soldiers? You talk about context but you show ignorance.

Then you go on to insult me because I had children overseas and should have know better like that is any of your business. You said, “I was warned by my parents before going in about coming home with a foreign bride and/or child. Though they didn't go into specific details, but they knew far more than I did about many things and I simply trusted their judgement. Would that your parents had advised you so.

I can almost guarantee your parents knew more than you at any time. You are so pompous; you assume I had parents still living and able to provide me with advice of any sort…. You really demonstrate an understanding nature regarding the circumstances of others. Regardless I could care less about your opinions; I am however guaranteed the right to have children anywhere I choose. Show me where I can’t. A foreign bride may be wise advice if you bring home a hooker I guess your parents had insight into your character predilections.

If you had spent any time overseas while in the military you would have known that you must get permission from higher authority (in my case the Chief of Naval Personnel) before you could marry a foreign national.

Then you say to me, “You get your ass handed to you in debate….

When did that happen?

You then say, “The only thing you've done is clearly show that statutes (INA/USC 8) made your British born children U. S. citizens. No statute (INA/USC 8) can make someone a natural born citizen.

I say, show me ANY statute that can make someone a natural born citizen. I showed you, as well as others, many quotes stating that birth in this country bestows natural born citizen status as well as native born citizen status. Cruise back on this thread, you’ll find them, even one from President Grant as well as several politicians and Supreme Court Justices. Just because you choose to bury your head in the sand doesn’t make them go away. I know I’ve asked you for several answers. Will that be too much for you to handle or should I summarize for you?

335 posted on 05/08/2012 3:38:10 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
What principle of natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?

Natural law as seen and expounded upon by Vattel would qualify McCain as he would be “deemed” to be born in country because his father was overseas serving his nation not “quitting” it.

Natural law as seen and written by England would qualify McCain as he was the child of a citizen father.

Natural law as seen and written by America would qualify McCain as he was a natural born citizen not a naturalized citizen.

So....What principle of natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?

336 posted on 05/08/2012 3:43:01 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Boy, allmendream certainly has you on the ropes.
Really?! Where?

I posed this question to you a couple days ago...
WOW. You must be the one on the ropes. You posed no questions anywhere in your reply.
You presented a demand for something that couldn't be delivered as I explained.

I ask it...
Again, you didn't ask anything. You demanded something.

I stated that my children were NBC because of the following regulation:
Yes, that reply is @here.
I replied @here that "Natural born citizens need no statutes to make them such."
Regulations are statutes, aren't they?

Did I not make it clear that I was not a non citizen military member?
You made it clear that your children were @born to a British woman.

Then allmendream teaches you about Vattel in Post 308.
Really? In 308 I was merely shown one section of a book without benefit of the other contextual sections.

What does this quote have to do with returning soldiers?
Are you inferring that it only pertains to returning soldiers?

Then you go on to insult me because I had children overseas...
Really? This is what I said...I was smart enough not to have any kids born anywhere while in the military. (if that isn't it be sure to be specific on where I insulted you)
How is that insulting you?

When did that happen?
Which time?

I say, show me ANY statute that can make someone a natural born citizen.
I can't as none can. You're the one saying statutes made your children natural born citizens.

Will that be too much for you to handle or should I summarize for you?
Not at all. I even managed to provide links to better manage the conversation since it covers such a wide area.

337 posted on 05/08/2012 4:36:15 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Natural law as seen and expounded upon by Vattel would qualify McCain as he would be “deemed” to be born in country because his father was overseas serving his nation not “quitting” it.
Once again...Vattel stated in 215 that laws could ordain what they chose as they were written. "...for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
U. S. law applies.

Where do you get in U. S. law that McCain is a natural born citizen?
Where in U.S. law?
1401 - The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth

You say 1401 applies and it couldn't. 1401 wasn't written until 1952. He was born in '36. (I can play the "gotcha game" too)

What principle of natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?
It's many places and by many people. Do you really want a thorough listing? It could take some time.
You want me to answer Vattel as if you'll "get me" in a contradiction, but Vattel wasn't the only one to write about natural law, he is simply considered the most concise and definitive and that's why he's so often quoted.

338 posted on 05/08/2012 5:05:25 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Bang! Slam dunk - you lose.


339 posted on 05/08/2012 5:12:36 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist; MamaTexan
The final, and excluded classification is preceded by the CONJUNCTION 'but' will include every other class of persons.

Again: “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.”

I wasn’t speaking of comma before the conjunction “But”. The word Who is not a conjunction. I was speaking of the comma before the word “who” as in “, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”.

In this case the “who” is a relative pronoun - Basic Principle: A pronoun usually refers to something earlier in the text (its antecedent) and must agree in number — singular/plural — with the thing to which it refers.

In the text in question the first “who” referrers to “foreigners and aliens” but the second “who” after the comma is a pronoun and the antecedent is “foreigners and aliens”.

But never mind our disagreement on grammar, you still didn’t address my question and the more important and relative issue at hand.

My father was born in Norway and legally immigrated to the US when he was about 6 years old. His parents were legal resident aliens. They, my grandparents, took up permanent residence in the US, held jobs, paid US taxes, bought a home in the US, they did not maintain any residence in Norway, did not have any income from nor did the pay any taxes to Norway. They and my father were subject to US jurisdiction.

Question 1. Was my father a “natural born” citizen? Answer. No. Of course not.

After Pearl Harbor as a young man of 18 years old, my father was drafted into the US Army even though he was not yet a “naturalized citizen”. He could have qualified for a deferrement as his job on a major railway as an apprentice carpenter qualified him as his work, according to the railroad, was considered “essential to the war effort” and I would guess some sort of security clearance was also required, but my dad thought it more important to serve his country – that country being the USA.

He served in the South Pacific in an infantry unit that saw brutal combat and suffered heavy casualties in the Solomon Islands and in the Philippines, was wounded twice, received two Purple Hearts and a metal of valor along with many combat ribbons, served with honor and distinction and received and honorable discharge in 1946.

Shortly after the war he met my mother who was born in the US to first generation US citizen parents (her grandparents immigrated from Germany BTW but somehow my mother didn’t support Germany in WWII). My parents got married in 1947 and in late 1948, my older brother was born. But at the time of my brother’s birth, in New Jersey, where my father and mother had bought a house and my father had started a small business on a GI loan, my father had not yet become a “naturalized” citizen. He had started the process but the wheels of government can move rather slowly.

Question: Was my brother born a US citizen or do you consider him an alien or foreigner?

Question: Was my father subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or No? Was my brother subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or no?

If you consider my brother a foreigner or alien because of my father not yet being a “naturalized citizen” when my brother was born, then please describe for me (and my brother please because he would be interested in knowing this) the process that my US born brother should have undergone to become a naturalized citizen. I’ve looked for what US law or code under which American born children can and should become naturalized and, gee, I couldn’t find anything.

And since my brother never underwent any such process, never reported himself to the INS, never registered himself as a resident alien, never got a green card and presumably committed fraud every time he filled out an I-9 form whenever he started a new job since he claimed to be a US citizen, can I also presume that his three children born in the US are not citizens either? And if they are not citizens, what about my brother’s 10 US born grandchildren? Are they also not US citizens?

Come to think of it, I might be the only US citizen in my entire family since I was born after my father was “naturalized”. Not to mention my two US born uncles and their children and grandchildren; my cousins.

I await your answer as I think this information (or your opinion) could make my family’s next Fourth of July cookout very interesting : ),

340 posted on 05/08/2012 5:22:07 PM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Bang! Slam dunk - you lose.

@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.

Bang! I predicted your eventual reaction way back at #250...
@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. "

You're so predictable.

341 posted on 05/08/2012 5:24:57 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA; MamaTexan
@1940 Nationality Act
342 posted on 05/08/2012 5:35:10 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA; MamaTexan
@Immigration Act of 1924

Just some links that I thought ya'll might find of use.

343 posted on 05/08/2012 5:39:50 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Your brother was born a U.S. Citizen and what Lord Coke, Blackstone, Vattel, and other commentators variously described as a subject made at birth, citizen made at birth, subject naturalized at birth, citizen naturalized at birth, a statutory citizen, or a person deemed to be as if a natural born citizen with the same or similar rights as a natural born citizen.

The distinction shared among all the legal commentators was the difference between the person being made a citizen at birth by a man-made act or statute of public law versus the person born a citizen at birth without a man-made act or statute of public law. In the absence of the man-made public law regarding naturalization of aliens in the United States, your brother was the natural born son of a father possessing Norwegian citizenship, but the man-made U.S. public law regarding naturalization intervened to make your brother a statutory citizen of the United States.

If your parents had both been naturalized citizens at the time of your brother's birth within the jurisdiction of the United States (soil), he would have been a natural born citizen of the United States, because no other sovereign would have any claim of obligation upon your brother's allegiance or loyalty upon his birth.

Because your brother was born with his father's natural born citizenhip (jus sanguinis), your brother was born with a natural obligation of allegiance and loyalty to the sovereign of Norway, but the man-made naturalization laws of the United States also granted your brother man-made or statutory U.S. citizenship at birth which only at the age of majority your brother could affirm as a U.S. Citizen or repudiate as a Norwegian Citizen. Because of the duality of conflicting obligations of allegiance and loyalty to more than one sovereign at birth, your brother was not a natural born citizen of the United States, but he was a statutory citizen or native born citizen of the United States by right of statute and not by right of birth.

344 posted on 05/08/2012 10:50:20 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
Question: Was my brother born a US citizen or do you consider him an alien or foreigner?

Unless there was something in the codes at the time concerning automatic naturalization for military service, your brother would have taken the condition of the father, so he, too, would have been an alien resident at birth.

But, in continuation of the 'taking the condition of the father', minor children become naturalized citizens when the father becomes a naturalized citizen....just like Rubio was.

Any children born after the father's naturalization was complete would, of course, be natural born.

--------

Question: Was my father subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or No? Was my brother subject to US jurisdiction? Yes or no?

That depends. Are you talking about the Original jurisdiction intended by the Founders, or the 'popular' notion of jurisdiction conceived after the 14th Amendment?

I'm not trying to be evasive, it's just that there have been entire threads on what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means

---------

I also presume that his three children born in the US are not citizens either?

No, that's one thing that naturalized AND natural born citizens have in common....

ALL their children are natural-born.

---------

I await your answer as I think this information (or your opinion) could make my family’s next Fourth of July cookout very interesting : )

LOL! You have no idea what kind of wild conversations my imagination just came up with!

345 posted on 05/09/2012 5:31:37 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Again, the links are much appreciated! :-)

------

Pardon my curiosity, but have you been studying the natural born / naturalized citizen issue for a long time, or is your interest a recent one?

346 posted on 05/09/2012 5:37:56 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Vattel’s definition - so often quoted - would make McCain a native or indigenous citizen - thus a natural born citizen - and thus qualified.

So by the most often quoted definition of “natural born” among birthers - McCain would be qualified.

Natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?

It seems we find some examples going one way - and some going another - all some combination of the natural law concepts of allegiance at birth due to parentage or place of birth - because there is not ONE definitive definition held outside law and time and space - immortal and immutable.

347 posted on 05/09/2012 7:25:45 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Pardon my curiosity, but have you been studying the natural born / naturalized citizen issue for a long time, or is your interest a recent one?
No problem and I like curious people. I've been watching waiting on this from way back when the Hatch Amendment came out. Didn't know how it would all pan out and now it's clear.
I've learned a lot on my own (and some of it was wrong and was corrected later) and I've learned even more on this issue from the comments and views of other FReepers who I've come to respect. I've still got some learning to do in fine tuning the issue and you've assisted in that as well.
I still get some of it wrong every now and then. I've tried to put what I learned to good use.

So my obvious question is...what did I get wrong this time?

348 posted on 05/09/2012 7:56:39 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
“So by the most often quoted definition of “natural born” among birthers - McCain would be qualified.”

No, you are deliberately misrepresenting what Vattel wrote.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

Consequently, your entire analysis is misbegotten upon fallacious assumptions and equally fallacious in conclusions.

McCain was not “born in the country of parents who are citizens,” however he was born as a statutory U.S. Citizen by operation of man-made U.S. statutory law instead of the law of nature.

349 posted on 05/09/2012 8:01:12 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Vattel also said that children born of soldiers serving overseas are “reputed” born in country for such purposes as ascribing natural born allegiance and CANNOT be considered as having parents who “quitted” their country.

That is exactly what I mean by saying that birthers have elevated Vattel - or more properly only ONE SENTENCE of Vattel - into some pre-foundation founder whose pronouncements (well one sentence) is above all law, and exists outside of time and space immortal and immutable.

McCain was born of parents who are citizens - and deemed born in country for such purposes according to Vattel.

So where is this “law of nature” written down - and by who - where McCain would not be an idigenous and native citizen and thus natural born?

Because according to Vattel - McCain would be an indigenous or native citizen.

This is not misrepresentation - this is what Vattel wrote.

Vattel 217:
“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”


350 posted on 05/09/2012 8:08:23 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-420 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson