Great. More non Natural Born candidates.

Now there is talk that the Republicans will run one of two possible men for Pres or Vp, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal or U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Both of them were born in the US, making them citizens from birth, however neither of them had even one parent who was citizen at the time of birth. And the best part is that one is from Indian (the country) descent and the other from Cuban descent, so if we dare to call them on this, we can be called racist again... :roll: That even though the guy with Cuban parents looks as white as white can get.


full story...
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485

I know we are going to but heads on this but all me research says it that you just have to be born in the United States.

Quote :

John Bingham

John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.[9]

He reiterated his statement in 1866:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.[10]

Quote :

1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General

In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[11][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,

... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[12][italics in original]

Quote :

In a 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution William Rawle wrote that "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."[14] During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying

...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.

Quote :

Elk v. Wilkins, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court denied Elk, a Native American, the right to vote as a U.S. citizen even though he was born on U.S. soil, because he was born on an Indian Reservation. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth.

The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.[20]

This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

If Jindals parents became citizens and Rubios and there allegiance was to the United States then yes they can run. I like Jindal and right now he would be far better then Obama any day of the week.

One more on this subject the supreme court has already ruled on this.

Quote :

Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship at birth
See also: Birthright citizenship in the United States#Cases of interest

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830): The Supreme Court dealt with the question of the disposition of an estate of a man born in New York in 1776. The court found that jus soli automatically granted American citizenship to children born in New York City between July 4, 1776 and September 15, 1776, but not to children born in that city during the British occupation which followed September 15 of that year. In a separate opinion which he stated "coincides generally with that of the majority of the Court", Justice Joseph Story wrote: "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I know we are going to but heads on this but all me research says it that you just have to be born in the United States.

Quote :

John Bingham

John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.[9]

He reiterated his statement in 1866:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.[10]

Well POV, your very first quote actually disproves your stance and proves mine. Notice the part I highlighted in yellow.. "parents owing no allegiance to another sovereignty". Which means the parents can't be citizen of another country, like Cuba, India, or in Obamas Dads case England. In other words "If the parents are US citizens and their kid is born in the US, it's Natural Born". That's what that quote by John Bingham says.

Quote :

1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General

In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[11][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,

... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.[12][italics in original]

This quote refers directly the question of whether or not blacks who were slaves, or the children of slaves, are citizens or not. A few years later, in 1868, the 14th amendment was passed which gave former slaves citizenship retroactively. Meaning all blacks who were slaves were automatically made citizens from the day they stepped on US soil under bondage. Therefore, any black born here to slaves or freed slaves were Natural Born Citizens. This amendment, and quote, has nothing to do with the argument as the 14th amendment was only applicable to slaves, former slaves and their children.

Quote :

In a 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution William Rawle wrote that "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."[14] During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying

...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.

This was a treatise, which is nothing more than a written opinion, by a lawyer from Pennsylvania. His opinion didn't change the law or the Constitution, in fact he had no power to do anything more than he did... give his written opinion. It' no different than the people today who's opinions are that it doesn't matter Obama's dad was English, it doesn't matter whether he was born in the US, it doesn't matter if he was adopted, the Natural Born clause should be repealed, etc. Those are all fine opinions to have, but they are not supported by the Constitution, and without an amendment they have no baring on fact.

Quote :

Elk v. Wilkins, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court denied Elk, a Native American, the right to vote as a U.S. citizen even though he was born on U.S. soil, because he was born on an Indian Reservation. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth.

The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.[20]

This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Ok, once again you have used a quote which proves my point and disproves yours. Everything in yellow proves I'm right. Now before you get confused by the last part highlighted in violet... The ruling as it applies to Native American Indians was made moot when the Indian Citizenship Act gave them retroactive citizenship much as the 14th Amendment gave those same rights to former black slaves. However it doesn't change the validity of the argument made about "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". That completely valid argument simply no longer applies to NA Indians after they received retro citizenship.

Quote :

Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship at birth
See also: Birthright citizenship in the United States#Cases of interest

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830): The Supreme Court dealt with the question of the disposition of an estate of a man born in New York in 1776. The court found that jus soli automatically granted American citizenship to children born in New York City between July 4, 1776 and September 15, 1776, but not to children born in that city during the British occupation which followed September 15 of that year. In a separate opinion which he stated "coincides generally with that of the majority of the Court", Justice Joseph Story wrote: "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

This case DOES NOT deal with Natural Born citizenship, but citizenship from birth. All this case dealt with was the idea of "jus soli". That term means being a citizen by right of birth place. In US law "jus soli" applies as long as at least one parent is "subject to U.S. jurisdiction". In other words if one or more of the parents are US citizens, and the kid is born in the US, the kid is a citizen from birth. (And of course if both are US citizens, the kid is Natural Born... but that has no baring on this case as this case doesn't address Natural Born citizenship.) As far as this exact case goes, they found that kids born in New York during the time that England controlled it, didn't get citizenship from "jus soli" because at that time the land wasn't part of the US.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

If Jindals parents became citizens and Rubios and there allegiance was to the United States then yes they can run. I like Jindal and right now he would be far better then Obama any day of the week.

At the time they were born, Jindal's parents owed allegiance to India, not the US. And Rubio's parents owed allegiance to Cuba, not the US. Yes, later on all four parents became US citizens, but as far as the Constitution requirements are concerned, only the parents "allegiance or citizenship" at the time of birth matters. at the time of birth all four parents owed allegiance to other countries.

Just about anybody would be better than Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that Jindal isn't Natural Born.


So lets see... You have given two quotes that support my stance and disprove yours. Two mentions of laws, 14th amendment and Indian Citizenship act, that have no baring on the argument unless you are a former black slave or a NA Indian in 1924. One lawyers opinion from two hundred years ago that has no baring on law. And cited one case law that deals with "jus soli" and not Natural Born citizenship at all.

That was the supreme was it not?

Alright more cases.

Quote :

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had "a permanent domicile 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" was a U.S. citizen.

The Court stated that:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.'[21]

Quote :

the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:

Quote :

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, and 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.

All you have to do is have a permanent home take the oath and your kid is eligible.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Alright more cases.

Quote :

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)...

Ok, now you are quoting a case that examined whether a man born here to Chinese citizen parents was a citizen of the US or not. First this again doesn't address Natural Born citizenship, but rather "native citizenship, aka jus soli, aka citzen from birth to non US citzen parents".

The court, incorrectly found that he was a citizen based on the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was written specifically for former Black slaves and their kids, no one else. This horrible ruling is what created todays problem with "anchor babies". Now every illegal who craps out a kid here has that kid automatically a US citizen.

The fact that the court used English common law to come to this conclusion just makes it all the worse. The founders purposely rejected English common law rules in regards to citizenship, instead they used the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations, a swiss man. This was completely different from English Common law and specifically says "jus soli" doesn't apply to children born to non citizen parents.

However as bad as that decision was, it still doesn't apply to the Natural Born clause, rather it applies to citizenship from birth, "native born". That is because this decision was based solely on the 14th amendment which only addresses citizenship from birth but not to the Natural Born clause.

None of the Amendments change the Natural Born clause, and only an amendment can alter that clause. That clause is still as it always was, "Natural Born requires birth to US citizen parents on US soil its waters or territories."








On a side note about this case, this is why the 14th amendment needs to be repealed. As it only applied to Black slaves and their children, it no longer applies to anybody alive today. It is now a pointless part of the Constitution, just like the part of the Constitution that allows non Natural Born citizens to be Pres if they were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. The only difference is this horrible case law ruling that misapplied the amendment to everybody instead of just the slaves it was written for.

Natural Born clause is iffy at best. In the case of Jindal and Rubio there parents are naturalized ciiizens at there time of birth. There allegiance is to the United States. So both are eligible. If not the left would go bonkers.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

In the case of Jindal and Rubio there parents are naturalized ciiizens at there time of birth. There allegiance is to the United States. So both are eligible.

You are absolutely WRONG.

NONE OF THE FOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME THEIR KIDS WERE BORN, NONE OF THEM...

All four parents became naturalized citizens, after their kids were born.

WND wrote:

...their eligibility is in doubt since both men's parents were not U.S. citizens at the time their [sic] children were born...

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485


Jindal was born June 10, 1971
His mother became a citizen Sept. 21, 1976
His father became a citizen Dec. 4, 1986

Rubio was born May 28, 1971
Both of his parents became citizens Nov. 5, 1975

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

In the case of Jindal and Rubio there parents are naturalized ciiizens at there time of birth. There allegiance is to the United States. So both are eligible.

You are absolutely WRONG.

NONE OF THE FOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME THEIR KIDS WERE BORN, NONE OF THEM...

All four parents became naturalized citizens, after their kids were born.

WND wrote:

...their eligibility is in doubt since both men's parents were not U.S. citizens at the time their [sic] children were born...

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485


Jindal was born June 10, 1971
His mother became a citizen Sept. 21, 1976
His father became a citizen Dec. 4, 1986

Rubio was born May 28, 1971
Both of his parents became citizens Nov. 5, 1975

I absolutely agree with you and say thanks for the info you provided. Learned a few things today.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

In the case of Jindal and Rubio there parents are naturalized ciiizens at there time of birth. There allegiance is to the United States. So both are eligible.

You are absolutely WRONG.

NONE OF THE FOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME THEIR KIDS WERE BORN, NONE OF THEM...

All four parents became naturalized citizens, after their kids were born.

WND wrote:

...their eligibility is in doubt since both men's parents were not U.S. citizens at the time their [sic] children were born...

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485


Jindal was born June 10, 1971
His mother became a citizen Sept. 21, 1976
His father became a citizen Dec. 4, 1986

Rubio was born May 28, 1971
Both of his parents became citizens Nov. 5, 1975

Well then Rubios kids are not eligible or Jindals.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

In the case of Jindal and Rubio there parents are naturalized ciiizens at there time of birth. There allegiance is to the United States. So both are eligible.

You are absolutely WRONG.

NONE OF THE FOUR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS AT THE TIME THEIR KIDS WERE BORN, NONE OF THEM...

All four parents became naturalized citizens, after their kids were born.

WND wrote:

...their eligibility is in doubt since both men's parents were not U.S. citizens at the time their [sic] children were born...

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=297485


Jindal was born June 10, 1971
His mother became a citizen Sept. 21, 1976
His father became a citizen Dec. 4, 1986

Rubio was born May 28, 1971
Both of his parents became citizens Nov. 5, 1975

Well then Rubios kids are not eligible or Jindals.

True but im sure they could run without any problems sense the Constitution has been twisted around from it original meaning on who can run for office.