debeda

Ah. Thanks for the clarification!

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Or born of US parents I would hope...
Most nations don't grant citizenship due to being born on their soil... But rather from the citizenship of the parents...

(I was refering to the 2016 e******ns concerning Ted Cruz... )

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

That’s true.

The simplest formula that I have read is:
A: born on soil
B: born of two citizens (parents) some argue that only one is sufficient.

A+B= natural born (because the laws of nature dictate)

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

One parent should be sufficient.... As long as no other citizenship is provided.. The parents can decide....

Foreign nationals giving birth on a nation's soil should not entitle the child to citizenship of that nation ...

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

For citizenship, sure. But not enough for natural born status, just my opinion but have reason for it.

Sounds good.

I don’t agree with birthright citizenship either.

Smedley_buzkill

However, he was born to a mother who was an American citizen at the time of his birth. Therefore he is a birth citizen of the US also.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

I agree, he has birthright citizenship.

Smedley_buzkill

According to Black's Law, there are only two kind of US citizens; birth and naturalized. A birth citizen and natural born citizen are the same. Stating that you must be born in country to two citizen parents is an opinion put forth by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss political writer who never set foot in the US and died in 1767. US law states that anyone born to a US citizen parent anywhere in the world who has been a US citizen and resided in the US for five years after their 14th birthday is a birth (natural born) citizen.
In contrast, the practice of granting birth citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally has no legal or constitutional basis. These people are not subject to the jurisdiction as per the 14th Amendment. Subject to the jurisdiction means more than having to obey the traffic laws. If all persons born or naturalized within the US and subject to the jurisdiction are citizens, why are the children of diplomats not citizens? Why was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 necessary to grant birth citizen status to the children of Native Americans? Subject to the jurisdiction means more than being required to obey the law. An illegal cannot v**e legally in this country, cannot legally pay income tax, cannot be drafted or volunteer to serve in the military, cannot be employed in this country legally and cannot get a US passport or be subject to the draft or registration. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 1869 definition of the term. In US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, the SCOTUS ruled that children born to people domiciled in the US are birth citizens. What was the definition of domiciled in 1898? According to Black's Law, 1891 edition, domiciled means maintaining a permanent legal residence. How can someone trespassing in this country in violation of it's laws do that?

moldyoldy

When you become a citizen you do pledge

debeda

Extremely good points!

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

There’s an awful lot to unpack here, Smedly.


That’s true, according to Black’s Law. What I was trying differentiate with Canuckus, is citizens eligible for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, according to the Constitution’s use of the words “natural born”. Obviously the Framers would not have referred to Black’s Law, due to it being written about one hundred years after the Constitution was ratified.

Indeed it is, however, I formed my opinion on this from the writings of Hugo Grotius, who heavily influenced Vattel, who in turn influenced the Framers. It’s been rumored that Ben Franklin carried a copy of Vattel’s Law of Nations with him to the debates in Philadelphia.

Agreed. But I was referring to the laws of nature, not the laws of man.

You won’t get an argument from me. But there are many that wouldn’t agree with us. To respond to your question, the short answer is; because the 14th amendment excludes those people.

I could be mistaken, but I think it was necessary because prior to the 1924 Act, Indian nations were not counted as being part of the country, they were considered “nations within a nation”- and not considered “under the jurisdiction” which I think was the position held at the time the 14th was ratified, because the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

Again we find agreement. It’s ludicrous. I had this discussion with someone considered a constitutional scholar, who believes that anyone here, under any circumstance, is automatically “under the jurisdiction”- I was in agreement up until the point of citizenship status. I think such people should be afforded due process, only because that too falls under natural law. There’s an interesting case that is at some point to be brought in front of the S.C. concerning an i*****l a***n (in New York) who was arrested for discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling, and unlawful possession of a firearm. His claim is that it was in self defense, which is again, a law of nature, one has the natural right to defend themselves .... He said some gang members were chasing him. Should make for interesting case study/history. It’s been a while, I’m going to have to look into whether there’s been any progress made on that.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

That’s true, and you renounce any former allegiances. So then, what the cause for your mixed emotions?

moldyoldy

I think that those duals living here have the opportunity to further US policy by v****g our values in those foreign e******ns. That is the only benefit that I see.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Ahhh.... now I understand. Thank you, Moldyoldy.