Rubio vs Obama and natural born citizenship?

[Fred_Garvin]

It has nothing to do with being "politically correct" (?). Many people believe it because it is the law. This law has been pointed out to you several times. You are just being a crazy, stupid ************ at this point.

The term "natural born citizen" does not appear in any existing Federal statute

*sigh*

"citizens of the United States at birth" means 'natural born citizen,' you idiot.

No it does not. Modern-day law specifies those who are citizens at birth (Title 8 Section 1401), but the term "natural born citizen" does not appear in any existing Federal statute. You haven't been able to prove it.

 

[Unkotare]

The term "natural born citizen" does not appear in any existing Federal statute

*sigh*

"citizens of the United States at birth" means 'natural born citizen,' you idiot.

No it does not.

Yes it does, you idiot.

 

[Fred_Garvin]

*sigh*

"citizens of the United States at birth" means 'natural born citizen,' you idiot.

No it does not.

Yes it does, you idiot.

Sorry but you are not up to par on U.S. citizenship laws like I am, especially when it pertains to the founders intent.

 

[Liability]

No it does not.

Yes it does, you idiot.

Sorry but you are not up to par on U.S. citizenship laws like I am, especially when it pertains to the founders intent.

Actually, you are close in some respects, but your cavalier dismissal of the straightforward definition offered by unky is misguided.

A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth AT birth.

And if that happens BECAUSE the child happens to have merely been BORN here to two alien parents (not counting diplomats and enemy aliens), then as long as the child does not, of necessity, OWE allegiance to the parents' native land, that child remains a natural born citizen.

 

[Fred_Garvin]

Yes it does, you idiot.

Sorry but you are not up to par on U.S. citizenship laws like I am, especially when it pertains to the founders intent.

Actually, you are close in some respects, but your cavalier dismissal of the straightforward definition offered by unky is misguided.

A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth AT birth.

And if that happens BECAUSE the child happens to have merely been BORN here to two alien parents (not counting diplomats and enemy aliens), then as long as the child does not, of necessity, OWE allegiance to the parents' native land, that child remains a natural born citizen.

Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents

 

[Unkotare]

....................

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry but you are not up to par on U.S. citizenship laws like I am, especially when it pertains to the founders intent.

Actually, you are close in some respects, but your cavalier dismissal of the straightforward definition offered by unky is misguided.

A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth AT birth.

And if that happens BECAUSE the child happens to have merely been BORN here to two alien parents (not counting diplomats and enemy aliens), then as long as the child does not, of necessity, OWE allegiance to the parents' native land, that child remains a natural born citizen.

Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents

Fred, your opinion is minority and not accepted by SCOTUS and likely never will be accepted by the court.

 

[oldernwiser]

Sorry but you are not up to par on U.S. citizenship laws like I am, especially when it pertains to the founders intent.

Actually, you are close in some respects, but your cavalier dismissal of the straightforward definition offered by unky is misguided.

A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth AT birth.

And if that happens BECAUSE the child happens to have merely been BORN here to two alien parents (not counting diplomats and enemy aliens), then as long as the child does not, of necessity, OWE allegiance to the parents' native land, that child remains a natural born citizen.

Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents

References, please.
All the case law I've found has only referred to citizens as people who are born in this country, and without reference to where the parents were born with the exception of foreign invaders and those here under the auspices of a foreign government.

In every SCOTUS ruling I've read, the justices have favored jus soli over jus sanguinis. Lower courts have pretty much been in step with them.

Even if the framer of the 14th amendment DID intend jus sanguinis along with jus soli, he didn't write it that way, and it wasn't ratified that way.

 

[Political Junky]

Rubio's parents came to the US in 1956. He claimed they fled the Castro regime, which didn't exist until 1959.

 

[Peach]

I read that Rubio was born in Miami to parents who were both Cuban citizens at the time of his birth. I have also read that it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Hawaii or not because according to the Constitution's definition, his father wasn't a citizen of the USA so Obama can't be a natural born citizen. The other arguments I have read, have people saying that because Obama's mother was a citizen and he was born here, he is a natural born citizen. So if either argument rings true. There is no possible way Rubio can be a natural born citizen if one of your parents has to be a citizen. Right?

Whoever wrote about parents being part of the Constitutional definition doesn't know the US Constitution from crabgrass.

 

[oldernwiser]

Rubio's parents came to the US in 1956. He claimed they fled the Castro regime, which didn't exist until 1959.

And that's apropos of what, exactly?

 

[Political Junky]

Rubio's parents came to the US in 1956. He claimed they fled the Castro regime, which didn't exist until 1959.

And that's apropos of what, exactly?

Uh, that he lied?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So Rubio did not know why the left. So what? That he was mistaken?

 

[Fred_Garvin]

Actually, you are close in some respects, but your cavalier dismissal of the straightforward definition offered by unky is misguided.

A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth AT birth.

And if that happens BECAUSE the child happens to have merely been BORN here to two alien parents (not counting diplomats and enemy aliens), then as long as the child does not, of necessity, OWE allegiance to the parents' native land, that child remains a natural born citizen.

Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents

References, please.
All the case law I've found has only referred to citizens as people who are born in this country, and without reference to where the parents were born with the exception of foreign invaders and those here under the auspices of a foreign government.

In every SCOTUS ruling I've read, the justices have favored jus soli over jus sanguinis. Lower courts have pretty much been in step with them.

Even if the framer of the 14th amendment DID intend jus sanguinis along with jus soli, he didn't write it that way, and it wasn't ratified that way.

Sure. Examples are Perkins v. Elg and Kwock Jan Fat v. White.

In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court defined two classes of children. Each member of the first class was "born in a country of parents who were its citizens". All other native-born children belonged to the second class:

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. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874).

The Court used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to members of the first class. The Court expressed doubts as to whether members of the second class were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.

 

[jillian]

I read that Rubio was born in Miami to parents who were both Cuban citizens at the time of his birth. I have also read that it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Hawaii or not because according to the Constitution's definition, his father wasn't a citizen of the USA so Obama can't be a natural born citizen. The other arguments I have read, have people saying that because Obama's mother was a citizen and he was born here, he is a natural born citizen. So if either argument rings true. There is no possible way Rubio can be a natural born citizen if one of your parents has to be a citizen. Right?

Rubio was born in the U.S. and is therefore a citizen. Case closed.

er... so was the president.

 

[Unkotare]

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

We have exactly that in Title 8 of the US Code, as you have been told many times, idiot. And we do not have "classes" of citizens. There are naturalized citizens and there are natural-born citizens such as Sen. Rubio. That's it.

 

[regent]

If the law is clear why the debate? If the Congress will not pass a law leaving no doubt as to the Constitutional requirements being met, there is not much anyone can do at this point but raise doubts. Seems the Court does not want to touch this baby. So who profits by leaving the doubt?

 

[Liability]

Sorry but you are not up to par on U.S. citizenship laws like I am, especially when it pertains to the founders intent.

Actually, you are close in some respects, but your cavalier dismissal of the straightforward definition offered by unky is misguided.

A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth AT birth.

And if that happens BECAUSE the child happens to have merely been BORN here to two alien parents (not counting diplomats and enemy aliens), then as long as the child does not, of necessity, OWE allegiance to the parents' native land, that child remains a natural born citizen.

Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents

That's simply not so.

The very fact that some of the Founders, Framers and later jurists didn't agree with each other is evidence that it was not as clear cut as you claim.

 

[oldernwiser]

Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents

References, please.
All the case law I've found has only referred to citizens as people who are born in this country, and without reference to where the parents were born with the exception of foreign invaders and those here under the auspices of a foreign government.

In every SCOTUS ruling I've read, the justices have favored jus soli over jus sanguinis. Lower courts have pretty much been in step with them.

Even if the framer of the 14th amendment DID intend jus sanguinis along with jus soli, he didn't write it that way, and it wasn't ratified that way.

Sure. Examples are Perkins v. Elg and Kwock Jan Fat v. White.

In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court defined two classes of children. Each member of the first class was "born in a country of parents who were its citizens". All other native-born children belonged to the second class:

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. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874).

The Court used the term "natural born citizen" only in reference to members of the first class. The Court expressed doubts as to whether members of the second class were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 99 (1884). - assuming this is the case you're referring to - Was a determination of whether a Native American could be declared a citizen. SCOTUS ruled against due to language specifically banning Indians from being counted as citizens, but the ruling was later nullified by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

In Kwock Jan Fat v White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920), the justices had evidence that Kwock lied and misrepresented his place of birth and since he could provide no other documentation was denied citizenship.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) is a voter rights and discrimination based on sex issue and had no bearing on citizenship status except that it was used as an argument as to her legal status. The passage you quoted was later held to have been said "in passing" (cf: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) and was excluded as a justification for deciding in favor of jus sanguinis.

Your references don't hold up.

 

[Peach]

Actually, you are close in some respects, but your cavalier dismissal of the straightforward definition offered by unky is misguided.

A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth AT birth.

And if that happens BECAUSE the child happens to have merely been BORN here to two alien parents (not counting diplomats and enemy aliens), then as long as the child does not, of necessity, OWE allegiance to the parents' native land, that child remains a natural born citizen.

Yes all natural born Citizens are citizens by birth but not all Citizens born here are natural born Citizens. Throughout U.S. history, whenever the Supreme Court referred to a person as a "natural born citizen", the person was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents

That's simply not so.

The very fact that some of the Founders, Framers and later jurists didn't agree with each other is evidence that it was not as clear cut as you claim.

The law vs. isolated cases:

The decision in Lynch v. Clarke was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, including In re Look Tin Sing,[35] on the issue of whether the child, born in the U.S., to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by federal law from becoming U.S. citizens) was a U.S. citizen, notwithstanding the nationality of his parents or the fact that he had traveled to China with them and not returned to the U.S. for many years. The federal court held in a decision written by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen J. Field) that he was a citizen by birth, and remained such despite his long stay in China, cited the decision in Lynch v. Clarke and described that case:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.[36]
The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)[37], which similarly held that the child born here of two Chinese parents was a birthright US citizen, and that decision also used the phrase "natural born".[38]