Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2009, 11:52 PM
 
122 posts, read 104,692 times
Reputation: 19

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by meson View Post
Doesn't say that in the Constitution, nowhere does it say "both" parents must be citizens...NOWHERE
Supreme Court of the United States
Minor v Happersett (1874)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Ms. Minor argued that as a US citizen, she had the right to vote. Since she was born before the passage of the 14th amendment, the clause "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." did not apply to her. The court first had to determine if she was a citizen of the United States.
Quote:
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Quote:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Since Ms. Minor was born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, she was definitely a citizen.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment, if a person was a citizen of one of the States, then they were a citizen of the United States. The reason there were "doubts" about the basic citizenship of persons born in the US "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" is because each State had their own laws about who was a citizen of a state and who was not. Some states allowed children of aliens to be citizens of the State, and some did not. The States of California, Montana, New York, North Dakota, Virginia and Kentucky all at one time made citizenship of a child conditional on the citizenship of the parents. If one of these children of an alien parent wasn't the citizen of a State, then they weren't a citizen of the United States.

So, the basic citizenship of the child of an alien parent was always in doubt, but the citizenship of children born in a country of parents who were its citizens was never in doubt because they were "natural born citizens".

Also since the court said, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens", then being a citizen under the 14th amendment does not make someone a natural born citizen unless they also had two citizen parents at the time of birth.

Since the Constitution specifies that the President has to be a "natural born citizen", and the definition of "natural born citizen" is children born in a country of parents who were its citizens, the Constitution is saying that both parents have to be citizens.

Last edited by red red rose; 11-27-2009 at 11:57 PM.. Reason: screwy url - oh well....

 
Old 11-28-2009, 12:21 AM
 
Location: Denver
968 posts, read 1,039,305 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by red red rose;11802248...

So, the basic citizenship of the child of an alien parent was always in doubt, but the citizenship of children born in a country of parents who were its citizens was never in doubt because they were "natural born citizens".

Also since the court said, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens", then being a citizen under the 14th amendment does not make someone a natural born citizen unless they also had two citizen parents at the time of birth.

Since the Constitution specifies that the President has to be a "natural born citizen", and the definition of "natural born citizen" is [U
children born in a country of parents who were its citizens[/u], the Constitution is saying that both parents have to be citizens.
Here's a quote from the Minor decision (which you actually included in your post):

These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

I bolded the important part of this discussion. This wasn't addressed in Minor, yet somehow you use this "conclusion" to further conclude that:

"Since the Constitution specifies that the President has to be a "natural born citizen", and the definition of "natural born citizen" is children born in a country of parents who were its citizens, the Constitution is saying that both parents have to be citizens."

This last statement of yours is based on a false assumption.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 12:49 AM
 
Location: Denver
968 posts, read 1,039,305 times
Reputation: 367
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is pretty clear on this particular issue. Here's the decision:

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution

Subsequently, what makes for a natural-born citizen is currently codified in US federal law:

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.



Lou Dobbs, John McCain, and Barack Obama are all clearly natural-born citizen eligible to run for President of the United States.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 11:20 AM
 
532 posts, read 859,205 times
Reputation: 128
Default Lou Dobbs born in Tx

Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc99 View Post
Was he born in the US?
Lou Ddobbs was born in Childress, Tx--a small northwest Texas town--28 miles west of the small town where I was born.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 11:24 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
An academic colleague of mine told me that at least one of the parents of Lou Dobbs was a British citizen at the time of his birth.
And the other parent? It only takes ONE..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Relevance?
You need to ask?
 
Old 11-28-2009, 12:31 PM
 
6,022 posts, read 7,829,350 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
are the birthers this stupid they couldnt look up what it meant to be a citizen
 
Old 11-28-2009, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach50 View Post
Now if his father was illegal...that would be something.
LOL..that would make him an anchor baby then !
 
Old 11-28-2009, 12:47 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by city414 View Post
are the birthers this stupid they couldnt look up what it meant to be a citizen
The "birthers" argument (if I recall) is that Hawaii was not a state at the time of his birth, which section 1401 does not cover individuals who are of births during the time when states were not states.
 
Old 11-28-2009, 12:47 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by city414 View Post
are the birthers this stupid they couldnt look up what it meant to be a citizen
Uh . . NATURAL BORN?

Another excuse to play what is becoming a favorite song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_iRIcxsz0
 
Old 11-28-2009, 01:00 PM
 
1,422 posts, read 2,303,650 times
Reputation: 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Uh . . NATURAL BORN?

For heaven's sake - what exactly is the relevance of Lou Dobb's background to you? You started the thread - for what purpose?

In terms of his citizenship it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Born on American soil to one American Citizen parent and one parent who you seem to think was British (by birth but who may have held US citizenship at the time LD was born)

He is an American citizen.

What's the issue here?
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:04 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top