Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lemme borrow your crystal ball, OK? How would you possibly know that Vattel had no influence?
Like you said "dealing with citizenship", not dealing with natural born citizenship.
Have you ever heard of "naturalization"?
The "Naturalization Oath" starts this way:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;"
The person who becomes naturalized swears that they are no longer subject to a foreign power. It doesn't matter what claims the foreign government makes; according to US law, at that moment, the naturalized citizen is exclusively a citizen of the US.
And here are the qualifications of the person who wrote that, red red:
http://www.richw.org/
I graduated in 1975 with two bachelor's degrees -- one in Mathematics (with a lot of computer courses), and one in Music. My most permanent contribution to Stanford is the software for the Housing Draw (on-campus housing assignment lottery) -- a giant PL/I program which is still in use.
I went on to UCLA and, in 1977, completed a master's degree in Music with a specialization in Music Education
There ya go, eminently qualified to discuss dual citizenship!
I read it, sweetheart, and it's just another natural born citizen thread all over again.
Simple, basic definition for natural born citizen: Born in US, both parents US citizens.
The ancestors don't have to be Natural born citizens themselves in perpetuity. It is a specious argument. Multiple citizenships of the either of the parents doesn't matter. As long as both parents are US citizens, the candidate is good to go.
I read it, sweetheart, and it's just another natural born citizen thread all over again.
Simple, basic definition for natural born citizen: Born in US, both parents US citizens.
The ancestors don't have to be Natural born citizens themselves in perpetuity. It is a specious argument. Multiple citizenships of the either of the parents doesn't matter. As long as both parents are US citizens, the candidate is good to go.
Do show us where in the constitution or US law it says two parents must be US citizens. Not some music major's blog this time.
I graduated in 1975 with two bachelor's degrees -- one in Mathematics (with a lot of computer courses), and one in Music. My most permanent contribution to Stanford is the software for the Housing Draw (on-campus housing assignment lottery) -- a giant PL/I program which is still in use.
I went on to UCLA and, in 1977, completed a master's degree in Music with a specialization in Music Education
There ya go, eminently qualified to discuss dual citizenship!
"If you have been a dual citizen from birth or childhood, or else became a citizen of another country after already having US citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your US citizenship before US consular officials, then current US law unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for life. The US State Department -- once quite combative in its handling of dual-citizenship claims -- has changed the way it handles these cases in recent years, and it is now much easier to retain such a status without a fight than it used to be. The situation is slightly less clear for someone who becomes a US citizen via naturalization and still wishes to take advantage of his old citizenship. People who go through US naturalization are required to state under oath that they are renouncing their old citizenship, and conduct inconsistent with this pledge could theoretically lead to loss of one's US status. "
Common Name: Steve Mount Formal Name: Stephen J J Mount Title: Webmaster and researcher for USConstitution.net Degree: Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1989, University of Vermont Other formal learning: Constitutional Law, Community College of Vermont, 1999 (audit)
A real Constitutional Scholar!
(And you have been using that website on a lot of threads, haven't you?)
"If you have been a dual citizen from birth or childhood, or else became a citizen of another country after already having US citizenship, and the other country in question does not have any laws or regulations requiring you to formally renounce your US citizenship before US consular officials, then current US law unambiguously assures your right to keep both citizenships for life. The US State Department -- once quite combative in its handling of dual-citizenship claims -- has changed the way it handles these cases in recent years, and it is now much easier to retain such a status without a fight than it used to be. The situation is slightly less clear for someone who becomes a US citizen via naturalization and still wishes to take advantage of his old citizenship. People who go through US naturalization are required to state under oath that they are renouncing their old citizenship, and conduct inconsistent with this pledge could theoretically lead to loss of one's US status. "
That is why it is indented underneath the link.
Oh, if you want to play that game, try this...
This is the website of Steve Mount.
He is also eminently qualified.
Common Name: Steve Mount Formal Name: Stephen J J Mount Title: Webmaster and researcher for USConstitution.net Degree: Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, 1989, University of Vermont Other formal learning: Constitutional Law, Community College of Vermont, 1999 (audit)
A real Constitutional Scholar!
(And you have been using that website on a lot of threads, haven't you?)
I think I used it once. So it's "pot meet kettle". You still haven't responded to my post.
That of course is nonsense. Jay explained exactly nothing regarding his definition of the phrase.
Totally incorrect, HD. The evidence I provided is John Jay's letter that suggests excluding foreigners from the highest levels of the federal government and from being Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army by adding the 'natural born citizen' requirement to the Constitution. It was written by Jay, a President of the Continental Congress who was also the first Chief Justice of the U.S. and who wrote the Federalist Papers that warned of the dangers of foreign influence. His letter was written expressly to Washington, a Framer of the Constitution.
Obama was born a foreign national. He is Constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS and Commander in Chief.
If you can provide evidence of what you assert from that same time frame from a similarly historically pedigreed source to a Framer of the Constitution that explicitly states that a person born a foreign national, except those grandfathered in by the Constitution, can hold the highest federal government offices and serve as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army as long as they are also an American-born citizen, I'll be more than happy to consider your assertion. Otherwise, you're just plain wrong.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 09-04-2010 at 11:20 PM..
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and...
That "appeared in law", you know.
A child born to a foreign citizen was not a US citizen at all. If that child was not a US citizen at all, how do you think that the founders could consider that child a natural born citizen?
The child of a foreign citizen, born in the US was not automatically a citizen of the US just because he was born on this soil. Since a child inherits citizenship from the parents, that child would be subject to a foreign power. Therefore, not a citizen and definitely not a natural born citizen.
The phrase "not subject to any foreign power" is mirrored in the 14th amendment by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
"A drafter of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, noted:
"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virture 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 embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."
Senator Lyman Trumbull also noted in the Congressional record:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' [...] What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.".
I find it hilarious that UK law can dictate who is eligible for Presidency and who isn't. Earth must be developing an eccentric orbit from the leaders of the Revolutionary War spinning in their graves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
