Posted on 12/31/2023 12:53:14 PM PST by Dacula
I had a discussion today with a church buddy, he was professing the fact that Nimrata was going to be the GOP choice for president. Back-and-forth banter took place.
My thought is that her parents were NOT citizens at the time she was born, therefore she is not eligible. Similar to Obama.
He also stated that anchor babies who are born in the United States are automatically US citizens. I disagree.
Please help.
First of all, it's not a "conspiracy theory." That's just a term people like to toss out to discredit people without going through the hard work of proving them wrong.
Secondly, I am going to point you to the correct definition right *HERE*. Look at footnote 12 in this Pennsylvania law book from 1817.
Where was the Constitutional convention held? Oh yeah, that's right. PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA!
“ As is any child born here to parents subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government.”
The law and every court decision I can think of disagree with you. Except in the cases of diplomats, a child born in the USA of some one legally in the country (subject to the jurisdiction) is a citizen at birth, even if that creates dual citizenship. We are talking about citizenship, not necessarily NBC. Someone with dual citizenship by definition cannot be NBC.
Everyone in the world is subject to our laws. Does that make them all citizens?
We will go halfway around the planet to get anyone when we want them badly enough.
Being subject to our laws proves nothing.
Yup. Exactly right. It doesn't matter what the truth is, it only matters what a judge says the truth is.
It absolutely did no such thing.
Yes...At least once in recent years...John McCain
These people in their original inception would never have voted for a child of foreign parents.
See my discussion of Hamilton and Federalist #68 for more thoughts on the role of the Electoral College.
-PJ
“His genetic father was more likely Frank Marshall Davis”
That’s what I think, too. They look so much alike. And he was in HI hanging out at Stanley’s parents’ house while Stanley was there, which coincidess with Hussein’s birth timeline.
“He’d make an awesome Press Secretary, “
That’s not a bad idea. He’d eviscerate the first lib dolt who asked him a question at a press conference. It would be beautiful.
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court’s opinion, natural born citizens are “distinguished from” aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen) at birth [05].
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court, reversing prior precedent, ruled that, under some circumstances, children born in the United States, of non-U.S.-citizen parents, acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. But, to this day, the Supreme Court has never ruled that such children are natural born citizens. On the contrary, our nation’s highest court has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.
Excellent summation...thanks very much. Haley supporters should read, quit twisting eligibility definitions into pretzels and vote for an eligible candidate..like President Trump..
Just to be clear, any foreign nation for any reason can claim any presumptive US NBC citizen they claim is their citizen cannot be be a US NBC? Is that right?
Foreign nations’ laws override US laws and Constitution?
So you think foreigners in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
That’s about as leftist thinking as I have ever heard.
The constitution gives an explicit definition for only one provision, that of treason. Terms such as “well regulated militia,”, “interstate commerce”, and “freedom of speech” are best understood in light of the times that the framers construed them. Many of those terms that the founders adopted were explained in the 1758 treatise on international law that was probably the most pre-eminent and frequently referenced study on those subjects at the time.
The Natural Born Citizen eligibility clause has never been directly adjudicated by SCOTUS. But it has been obliquely addressed in other cases.
In 1814, the SCOTUS heard a case known as the Venus Merchantman case. Among other issues, it concerned itself with the impressment of US merchant sailors by the British Royal Navy into their service on the high seas. That SCOTUS, ALL of whom being members of the founding generation defined what a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was by quoting the entire 212th paragraph of Emmerich De Vatel’s Law of Nations, which was considered to be THE treatise on international law and was referred to regularly by statesmen at the time. That definition, which was incorporated into the majority opinion authored by Justice Livingston follows:
Quote of section 212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758:
Ҥ 212 - Citizens and Natives. 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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and
succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen,
on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The
country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of
discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they
were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of
a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of
his birth, and not his country. “
Note that the above reference was made in 1814, 54 years before the adoption of the 14th amendment, which makes no reference to, nor does it modify Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the constitution, no matter what the original intent might have been. The framers of the constitution were patriarchs, who believed that the citizenship status of the children followed that of the father. It is clear that they were concerned with undue foreign influence upon the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
To believe that the framers would have accepted that a person born a British subject, (as Obama himself admitted to being owing to his FATHER) when they had to exempt themselves with the grandfather exemption in clause 5 of Section 2 in order to be POTUS eligible, beggars belief and logic. Subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS in Minor vs Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US serve only bolster this conclusion.
I believe that the court is reluctant to examine this issue, given the ghastly implications for the actuality of an illegitimate POTUS having made executive decisions for 2 terms, and the reality of an ineligible VP casting votes as the President of the Senate. How would all of their actions be unraveled? It would be a God awful mess of the worst sort...
Aboriginal Americans (Indians) who were subject to tribal jurisdiction were not even US citizens until 1924, by a congressional act.
Being born a citizen does not necessarily make one eligible for the office of POTUS under Article II, section one, clause 5. A person made a citizen at birth via the Immigration and Naturalization Act does not even have to be born in the US, ala Ted Cruz.
Read it again. Jurisdiction as it meant at the time was that they were not subject to jurisdiction from any other government.
...as for foreigners not being subject to jurisdiction of the United States, our government has always had extradition treaties with other countries that include crimes committed here. So no, not everyone here is subject to the original intended jurisdiction of the United States, including EVERY illegal alien, and many are not subject to the newer Leftist derivation of jurisdiction, depending on what extradition treaties the United States has with their country of origin.
Nimrata Randhawa was born to two non-citizens and was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States until her parents became citizens. They could have left with her at any time before then if they wanted and the United States had no jurisdiction to say otherwise.
Only a person “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” can be Charged with TREASON. Not Illegal Aliens, Ambassadors or their children because they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Ann Coulter was referring to the implied rights of the parents of Anchor Babies to qualify for welfare benefits on behalf of the baby and to remain in the USA to care for the baby.
I believe the courts have ruled - after her 2010 essay - that parents of an Anchor Baby have no implied right to remain in the USA.
Is that law enforced? I have no idea.
In 2011 it was discovered that somebody tampered with Justia.com, the preeminent website for searching Supreme Court cases, precedents, links to cited cases, etc.
In the summer of 2008, all references to "natural born citizen" in Supreme Court cases were scrubbed from Justia.com. A few years after the election, the references were restored. It's almost as if some people conspired to make it difficult to research prior SCOTUS mentions of "natural born citizen" leading up to the Obama election.
See the following Free Republic articles on this finding. Note that it got no mention in the LAAP-dog media.
10/20/2011 - JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
10/23/2011 - Eligibility rulings vanish from Net (Minor v Happersett, FReeper Danae quoted)
10/27/2011 - Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding.
10/29/2011 - Conspiracies, Lies, and Justiagate
10/31/2011 - JustiaGate: The Cover-Up Continues
12/14/2011 - JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear
-PJ
Interesting.
Your interpretation is a common mistake.
People conflate the civil rights act of 1866 with the 14th amendment.
The civil rights act of 1866 granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power”. That language would have the effect that you are talking about. However it was changed in the 14th amendment to read “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
So it wasn’t that the meaning of “jurisdiction” was different at that time. It was that in 1866 the law read “not subject to any foreign power” and in 1868 the Constitution was changed to read “subject to the jurisdiction” instead.
The use of the term “jurisdiction” is to exclude diplomats, ambassadors and such. Their children are not US citizens even if they are born in the US.
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.