Posted on 11/03/2015 8:43:24 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
She was BORN IN CHINA and ADOPTED. She is a foreigner by birth and is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen, of the United States.
So it actually would not require amending the Constitution so much as having Congress tighten the definition of NBC as is in their purview if I’m reading you correctly?
So how does that make her anything but American? Do you think the Chinese have some secret infant indoctrination program?
Being “American” is meaningless. Only a “natural born citizen” is eligible.
I thought Kingston was in Jamaica?
Well, yes and no. Congress has already said through enacted immigration law who does not need to be naturalized and is therefore already a citizen at birth. The question that remains is whether or not “citizen at birth” is the equivalent of “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. That would be a question for SCOTUS, but Congress can and should clarify their opinion on the answer.
And that is precisely the point of contention. You maintain NBC is a credible requirement for eligibility. I maintain, given this girl's background, it is not.
What, excepting perhaps a doctrinaire adherence to the text, justifies that requirement in your mind?
Lawyer, huh? ;)
Did I not read in your posts that Congress has been known to change those rules from time to time, and that it is within their sphere to define?
The aspirations of any given individual are irrelevant. The security of the United States is paramount.
Suppose some dispute arose and, legally, the child was returned to the land of their birth.
Not possible. Chinese law precludes that from happening.
She’s a naturalized American citizen. She does not have dual nationality per China’s law.
The problem is that the same is not true for other foreign-born children who are adopted by Americans. Many of them do have dual nationality.
Dual nationality becomes a problem legally when said dual national is in the country of birth and owes allegiance to said country. The U.S. has only a secondary claim under international law.
Think about the Americans in Iranian prisons. We have no power to help them. While it may be far-fetched, imagine an American president is accused of treason while in his country of birth or conscripted or must serve on a jury or whatever forced obligation one can imagine.
We have to draw the line somewhere. Citizenship at birth is (likely) where Congress drew it. The FF were more conservative on the matter.
(I was on my way to sleep. I must stop.)
Now THAT makes sense.
No, but I play one at FR sometimes. Heh!
To illustrate the principle, let’s supply some fictitious specifics...
Case 1
A person is born in foreign country GooGooGaGaLand to US citizen parents. The US and GooGooGaGaLand have a treaty reciprocally recognizing (or “harmonizing”, if you will) their naturalization laws.
A few years later the family returns to the US. US law recognizes the foreign born child as a “citizen”. Many years later as an adult, the child travels to GooGooGaGaLand. GooGooGaGaLand recognizes this person as a US citizen and he is unmolested.
Case 2
A person is born in foreign country GooGooGaGaLand to US citizen parents. The US and GooGooGaGaLand do not have a treaty.
A few years later the family returns to the US. US law recognizes the foreign born child as a “citizen”. Many years later as an adult, the child travels to GooGooGaGaLand. GooGooGaGaLand recognizes this person as a GooGooGaGaLand citizen and impresses him into military service.
Now substitute Great Britain for GooGooGaGaLand.
Or Canada for GooGooGaGaLand.
Suppose the child was fourteen years old when the family returned to the US.
In Case 1 where the US and GooGooGaGaLand have a treaty the child, now adult, visits his childhood friends any number of times without incident. He maintains friendships and associations with the foreign country.
In Case 2 where the US and GooGooGaGaLand do not have a treaty the child, now adult, visits his childhood friends any number of times without incident. He maintains friendships and associations with the foreign country.
Scenario A
The child, now adult - let’s call him “X” from here on - is elected to the US Legislature. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. As a Representative or Senator the direct influence, the power, the vote, of X is diluted by his membership in a multimember body. His desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. The effect of any partiality is mitigated.
Scenario B
X is elected US President. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. Congress passes a bill detrimental to GooGooGaGaLand. His desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. X vetoes the bill. The effect of any partiality is still mitigated, his veto could be overridden, but the power of the individual is diluted to a much smaller degree than in the Legislature, it will take the joined power of many individuals to overcome the veto - the partiality - of this one individual.
Scenario C
There is a war and the Commander in Chief rules out bombing of a strategic GooGooGaGaLand city - the home of his childhood and his friends.
.
Now let’s introduce Case 3 - a child born within the US to US citizen parents. Let’s call him “Y”.
The existence or not of a treaty between the US and GooGooGaGaLand is of no consequence, Y can travel between the two countries without incident (short of the foreign country being beligerent/warlike).
While it is certainty true that Y may be a GooGooGaGaLand-phile, or that after the child’s birth the family may have relocated to GooGooGaGaLand, or that perhaps Y harbors some imagined ties or vestigial partiality due to familial heritage, in the vast majority of instances the likelihood of any real tie to GooGooGaGaLand is remote. How would this play out?
Scenario D
As in Scenario A, Y is elected to the US Legislature. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. His desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. It is very much more likely than not that his friendships are US. Like X in Case A, Y’s power is diluted, but it is likely of no unusual consequence: his interests are US interests.
Scenario E
As in Scenario B, Y is elected US President. A dispute of some sort arises between the US and GooGooGaGaLand. Congress passes a bill detrimental to GooGooGaGaLand. Y’s desire not to harm his friends is understandable, it’s entirely human. It is very much more likely than not that his friendships are US. As President he signs the bill into law.
Scenario F
As in Scenario C, there is a war. Y, the Commander in Chief orders the bombing of a strategic GooGooGaGaLand city. The home of his childhood and his friends is US.
.
Is the US more secure with a Legislator who is US born person of US parentage? Yes. And if the person is not the consequences are mitigated.
Is the US more secure with a President who is US born person of US parentage? Yes. And if the person is not the consequences could be severe.
Are there exceptions? Certainly. Is it imperfect? Yes. It is not infallible. However, as a principle it is the strongest check practicably devisable.
It is Jay’s “strong check” while avoiding “illiberality” in the admission of foreigners.
Yes, you did and it is. (For those born abroad to Americans. This child was not born to Americans. McCain and Cruz were.)
“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” - U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,
either by treaty,
or
by authority of congress
In either case they are naturalized.
Given the circumstances you outline, I would have to agree. You make a compelling case.
However, those circumstances are quite some stretch from this girl and the 70,000 like her. There’s little reason to believe these children have ANY allegiance to China, or any of the people there. Quite the opposite, in fact.
All the scenarios you outline presuppose some interest in Chinese affairs. I maintain that interest is of no more consequence than that of Ted Cruz with regard to Canada.
Be that as it may, the point is academic...for now.
Good work, Darlin’.
Consider that the “presupposed interest” can be that of the dual-national citizen or the country of birth.
Also, allegiance is not merely a state of mind. It has legal duties and obligations owed to a country by its citizens in return for the protections guaranteed by that country to its citizens.
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.