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.
690 posts about a statement made by Obama in a newscast??? He was elected President as part of a reactionary social upheaval and hasn't moved beyond a speech-based presidency, .... Still, after Obama, like Bush, is gone, we will still have the serious economic, moral and social problems facing this country. Neither Bush or Obama bashing in forums or the public political arena solves those issues!
so you're saying that john jay was specifically referring to something that didn't exist ?
No. I'm saying that John Jay explained exactly what he meant by suggesting the 'natural born citizen' requirement. No foreigners, which means no one born a foreign national.
Hmmm... a specific phrase Jay suggested to Washington with very clear reasoning as to why it should be so makes it's way into the Constitution and you want us to believe that it's just a coincidence?
That's pretty lame.
Of course it's not a coincidence. The phrase was an unambiguous and widely understood term of British common law. It is no more a coincidence than any other such phrase incorporated into the Constitution. Jay understood its meaning in the same way every other member of the Continental Congress understood it. He had no choice. There was only one definition in existence.
And the only definition of the phrase that existed in the English language at the time of Jays letter and the framing of the COnstitution was this:
A natural born citizen is anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or foreign army in hostile occupation.
No. I'm saying that John Jay explained exactly what he meant by suggesting the 'natural born citizen' requirement. No foreigners, which means no one born a foreign national.
That of course is nonsense. Jay explained exactly nothing regarding his definition of the phrase. No such explanation was necessary. Only a single definition existed.
And it has nothing to do with the citizenship of the parents.
Vattel had absolute no influence on the our founders and the Constitutional Congress during the drafting o the Constitution on citizenship..
Lemme borrow your crystal ball, OK? How would you possibly know that Vattel had no influence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
funny how over 100 cases dealing with citizenship never mentions 2 parents have to be citizens
Its complete crap..
Like you said "dealing with citizenship", not dealing with natural born citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Because you know why? NO ONE in the US would be a natural born citizen. Since everyone was descended from IMMIGRANTS.
Our founders were not natural born citizens. They were made "citizens' by the the ratification of the Constitution.
Then that would mean that their CHILDREN would not be Natural born by IC's idiotic definition of natural born. So if their children were not natural born, then their children are not "natural born" and down the history we go. NO ONE In the US is a Natural born using the idiotic definition of "2 parents citizens required".
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.
"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. "
In the past, when a man became a naturalized citizen, his wife and minor children were also naturalized.
If the parents are citizens, either native-born or naturalized, and their child is born in the US, then that child is a "natural born citizen".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
The logic does not follow.
Hilarious!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Since no one was born to 2 citizen parents at the start of our country, that means NO one is a natural born according to IC (and his wrong interpretation of Vattel)..
Excuse me, but didn't you say that our founders were made citizens by the ratification of our Constitution? If their children were born in the US, then those children were natural born citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
That is why the 2 parent requirement HAS NEVER aPPEARED IN LAW and IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
If the founding fathers wanted to qualify natural born as "being born from 2 citizen parents", they wOULD HAVE it in the Constitution.
OOps not there..
"Natural born citizen" is a term of art. The founders knew what it meant. So did the court in Minor v. Happersett. So did the Congress when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
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."[3]
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."[4]"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Article 1, Article 2 and the 14th Amendment clearly states who are citizens. THERE are only 2 classes of citizens :
Natural born/Native born
Naturalized.
The two classes of citizens are:
Native-born
Naturalized
Native-born are those who are born on United States soil.
They include natural born (two citizen parents), and 14th amendment citizens, by the interpretation in Wong Kim Ark.
Naturalized are those who are not born on United States soil.
They include those who are born outside of the US to foreign parents and go through the naturalization process, and those who have one or both US citizen parents and are naturalized at birth by statute.
My dear rose, you would serve yourself well if you would read through the entirety of the thread. You are clearly not comprehending the argument you are attempting to take apart. Nor are you correct in some of your assertions. But damn if I have the patience to go over it again. It's all here. Just read.
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.
