Posted on 04/10/2011 1:00:04 PM PDT by patlin
The definition of “natural born” comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?
Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive” allegiance at birth was to the United States.
This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 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.
During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.
Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One” standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One” in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good
[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One” union.
“Jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.
The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others born on US soil are citizens by statute because the status of the foreign parents are governed by Treaty, not by nature.
Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:
See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:
The founders had become highly keen of the fact that God never gave one man all that power. It was inherent in every human being, a natural right to rule over ones self & his family. They were also very aware of English history when the king had no power except that of commander of the army. All other powers resided with the people & the heads of the households of the society. This is also why marrying someone of similar values & beliefs is so important. The breakdown in the family unit today can be directly attributed to the feminist movement and women thinking they can be equal to men in all aspects. The movement ushered in a new found selfishness that spread to the children.
I never want nor hope to be equal to my husband in every sense of the term. I respect & cherish his dominance on several levels. We instilled these values into our children and today they are/were better people for it. Our son is gone but he left a lasting impression on the lives he touched and our daughter who is in pre-med while working full-time enjoys a healthy level of respect from her peers as well as her boss & professors.
Correct. And so, the 1790 Act was unconstitutional, was it not?
Well, you don’t have to hold that the female is subservient to understand or appreciate the value of having one vote per household. As the widow Taft demonstrated it could be a woman’s vote. Let the household decide.
The question only came into play for those born in countries under feudal law and that is where statute law applies. They were/are children by statute because at the moment of their birth, they were considered members of a foreign nation. The are children who could never be left stateless if the US denied them citizenship because they already had an existing foreign citizenship.
LOL, true. How sad it is that in so many houselholds today, the spouses votes cancel wach other out. How is civilized society suppose to continue to exist this way? It won’t for very long from what I am seeing happening today.
Congressional overreach in attempting to legislate beyond the power enumerated to them by the Constitution is by definition unconstitutional. It was an authority that they did not possess, and therefore the Act was repealed and replaced in 1795 by another Act with the "natural born citizen" language deleted, and just "citizen" in it's place.
That was within the power enumerated, and Constitutional. It was not repealed as that of 1790 was repealed. Seems pretty clear to me. It was recognized as unconstitutional.
A local boy who returned from a top-notch Swiss high School was the first to point this sad fact out to me. The dark side of woman's sufferage is that as it has been implemented it has been a significant contributor to the destruction of the family and the impoverishment of many woman with the shackles of single motherhood.
The lessons of the voting right gained by the Widow Taft should be known be all. One vote per household!
AMEN!
It violated the Constitutional power enumerated to that legislative body, patlin. Simple as that. The division of powers is also highly desireable in order to avoid placing too much authority in one institution or individual. This collided with natural law in the instance of the 1790 Act; the Act was repealed and replaced with that of 1795, which did not violate enumerated powers.
That the first Congress believed the matter to need addressing, with that Congress being composed of many Founders, clearly indicates that Original Intent did not include individuals born abroad as natural born citizens.
The Congress violates nothing if the child born abroad is not recognized as a member of that foreign society. Period. It was the threat of feudal “jus soli” doctrine that they had to deal with. Have you read the records? Or are you going off of someone else’s opinion. What is your source? I would like to research it further.
It’s merely self-evident from the power enumerated to Congress. A natural born citizen is not naturalized and the status cannot be legislated. The 1790 Act attempted to do so in error and in violation of the powers enumerated to that body under the Constitution. The error was corrected in 1795.
I asked for a reference to back that claim. Why don’t you provide it? Let me see for myself why you think I am wrong. Without that, your argument has no base of fact, it is merely supposition.
Permit me to add to that last reply.
It is merely self-evident that a child born on foreign soil to American citizen parents, a child who by the laws of the foreign country is not a citizen thereof, is a natural born citizen.
It is merely self-evident that a child born on foreign soil to American citizen parents, a child who by the laws of the foreign country is not a citizen thereof, is a natural born American citizen
I’m not supposing that Congress is restricted to the creation of “an uniform rule of Naturalization” regarding citizenship matters under the Constitution, patlin.
My source is the Constitution itself. It’s there for anyone to read, yourself included.
I’m not supposing that natural born citizens cannot be created by statute, either.
You are aware of this as well.
You are 100% misunderstanding me. I said he can’t be. Chill girlfriend.
You said he could claim it. That is utterly not true and that is what I was responding to. I can not with in good conscious let that false statement stand uncorrected.
I would be willing to bet that George Romney could call the Mexican consulate and ask to become a Mexican Citizen and stand a good chance of getting it due to the fact he was born there.
I stand by that.
Do I know that for sure? nope. It’s a guess on my part.
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.