Posted on 01/06/2024 4:55:22 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
downright
Are you a US citizen? Then yeah. You are qualified to be the president.
This is inaccurate. Eligibility requires that one be born a citizen. All children born in the United States acquire citizenship at birth unless immune from our laws, such as the children of accredited diplomats or visiting royalty.
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Chester Arthur, Barack Obama, and Kamala Harris did not have two citizen parents.
A naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. Naturalization only occurs subsequent to birth. To be eligible, one must be an alien, lawfully present in the United States.
Vattel didn’t discuss NBC so he wasn’t the source of the Founders’ ideas on the subject.
Vattel died in 1767. Never in his lifetime did a nation exist with the sovereignty vested in the citizens.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
law of nations. See INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Vattel wrote a book about International Law, then called the Law of Nations. Domestic citizenship decisions are not subject to International Law. The USA alone determines who are its citizens. It is the same for every other nation on earth as well.
I think the correct interpretation of Aliens is people subject to another government. And the idea that children of aliens become citizens by birth location is a fairly new idea here in America.
It is not a new idea at all. As British law, it was the law in the colonies. It continued as law after independence. 14A did not create birthright citizenship, but placed it beyond the authority of Congress to change.
The U.S. Supreme Court Opinion in the leading precedential case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (28 March 1898):
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
In Schick v. United States, at page 69, the Court said:
“That,” said Mr. Justice Bradley in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274, referring to the common law, “is the system from which our judicial ideas and legal definitions are derived. The language of the Constitution and of many acts of Congress could not be understood without reference to the common law.”Again, in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478, is this declaration by Mr. Justice Matthews: “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654, Mr. Justice Gray used this language: “In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465.”
See also Kepner v. United States, post, p. 195 U. S. 100; 1 Kent, Com. 336.
Blackstone’s Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England, so that undoubtedly the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it.
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
DeSantis has been ahead of Biden in most polls. Haley’s been pushed, Ramaswamy previously. They are useful idiots to insulate Trump. That said, I’ll admit DeSantis campaign has fizzled. Part of it was Jeff Roe’s involvement, plus still Christina Pushaw. He’d be a really great and successful president but he’s a lame campaigner. I still want him over Trump. Less drama and baggage.
Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz was born outside the territory of the United States, in Canada. His U.S. birth citizenship was controlled by the nationality law in effect at the time of his birth. Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship at birth. Canada may have considered him a Canadian citizen, but whatever Canadian law did is of no concern to the United States.
If conferrence of citizenship by a foreign nation controlled U.S. citizen status, consider if the Republic of Congo conferred Congolese citizenship upon all non-black persons born in the United States. Only black persons born in the United States would be eligible to be President.
For a really questionable candidate, you have John McCain, apparently born an alien.
A 1937 law fixing a problem with previous law stated in relevant part, "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this Act, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."
Question: Can one born an alien in 1936 become a natural born citizen by declaration in 1937?
“Are you a US citizen? Then yeah. You are qualified to be the president.”
Why, or what did the Founders have in mind, then, when they specified the requirement to be a natural born citizen to be president? The term citizen was used anywhere else.
And why were generations of Americans taught that natural born citizen meant born of citizen parents? I was taught that in high school and college and that was not too long ago.
An American born anywhere on earth is a natural born citizen as long as his parents are citizens.
Obama and Kamala were not eligible. Just because they were illegally allowed to run doesn’t make it OK. It just makes it illegitimate.
In Obama’s case There were questions about John McStain’s eligibility so the senate got together and agreed to not question Obama’s legitimacy if They didn’t question McStain’s. That’s why you saw the senate vote a resolution that McNasty was an NBC. The resolution had no constitutional authority but there you have it.
With Kamala nobody raised a voice against her so she just sailed on through.
But Trump’s own son Don Jr doesn’t qualify to run for president ( according to the NBCtards of FR )
When we were debating this here about Obama, I found an old textbook that defined what a natural born citizen was and bought it. I went looking for it the other day, but it seems like my wife might have thrown it out. The definition used when the textbook was written was definitely not the anything goes interpretation that people are insisting on these days.
One of the kids that I grew up with was born here but had parents who were Canadians. He had dual citizenship and said that if he was drafted, he would be moving back to Canada. We live near the border and I have known many people who have "dual citizenship".
My understanding has always been that the natural born citizenship requirement for president was to protect the country against those who might have allegiances to countries other than the United States.
Persons born here who have non-citizen parents obviously have allegiances to countries other than the United States. Many of them actually are raised outside of the United States. We have many people whose mothers came to the United States to give birth to their children and then went back home. Many don't even speak English. It is called "birth tourism" and is very common. Do you consider these kids “natural born citizens”?
Barry should have never even been nominated....and after that little stunt, Nancy should have been declared ineligible for anything.
“Do you consider these kids “natural born citizens”?”
Why do you ask me that?
I am sorry your post was a little confusing. You were quoting someone else in your post to me. I can see that we are likely in agreement. Are we, or am I still missing something?
And just who says Trump is dropping out?
Your words are RINOish.
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.