Media And Left Prepare To Raise Marco Rubio Natural Born Citizen Questions.

Not exactly correct, or complete. The issue for Davidson was that he was not immediately able to prove his parents were U.S. citizens.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/119080689.html

Davidson eventually was able to find proof of his parents' U.S. citizenship, which automatically makes him a U.S. citizen.

He will receive a special certificate from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at Tuesday's ceremony that takes the place of a birth certificate as proof of U.S. citizenship.

Davidson was always a U.S. Citizen- he just couldn't prove it.

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/...of-of-citizenship-at-long-last-born-in/?print

Many of them were born on Canadian soil to American parents working along the border, said Blaine immigration attorney Len Saunders, who has had many such clients.

They’d lived most of their lives in the United States believing — rightly — that they were American, but never having to prove it until now.

“It’s very common for someone to have lived here their entire lives ... without ever documenting their U.S. citizenship,” Saunders said.

Nowhere is it mentioned that he was naturalized. And no less than Justice Ginsberg has offered her opinion that her grandchild born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents would be considered a natural born citizen.

 

Natural Born citizens existed prior to the 14th Amendment. There are indeed only two types of citizens- natural born and naturalized.

However, citizens born outside of the United States to American citizens do not have to be naturalized.

I will agree that this is an issue that is open to debate....but Congress already signaled their opinion that an American citizen born to two American citizens outside the United States is a natural born citizen.

Congress is the Constitutional body that is given the authority to both approve a President's election, and to remove a sitting President. If Congress approved a President born overseas to U.S. citizens, I predict the Supreme Court would state that Congress has the jurisdiction in the matter.

Just my opinion.

It would be interesting to see the case being made, especially in the case of a child of American servicemen, serving the U.S. overseas. We would be telling our servicepeople that to be sure to return to the U.S. to have their children because their citizenship and service is not enough.

 

There are specific criteria which, when met, entitle the child to US citizenship at birth.

If those criteria are not met, then the child must be naturalized.

INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] (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;
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] (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;
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] (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;
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] (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;
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] (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; [/FONT]

 

In reality a child born to citizens outside of the United State is expressly required to petition for citizenship under the naturalization laws passed by Congress whereas a child that is natural born does not. The case of Leeland Davidson clearly established that naturalization was involved in the granting of US citizenship as he was deemed to be a Canadian under the law because he was born in British Columbia even though both of his parents were citizens of the United States but had never submitted a petition under the naturalization laws passed by Congress which would have granted him US citizenship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/leeland-davidson-wwii-vet_n_840768.html

The only power granted to Congress by the Constitution is to establish laws of naturalization as provided for in Article I Section 8. TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 which addresses citizenship, as indicated, is under Title 8 which specifically addresses "naturalization" by Congress.

Actually the Supreme Court expressly denied the Congress the authority to define natural born citizenship in the United States v Kim Wong Ark. Statutory laws cannot infringe upon or establish natural born citizenship as it is expressly established through the US Constitution.

It is true that the 14th Amendment does not provide any provisions for children born of US citizens outside of the country. It established that natural born US citizenship was exclusively based upon the principle of Jus Soli (right of land) and doesn't include provisions based upon Jus Sanguinis (right of blood). It doesn't preclude citizenship established by Jus Sanguinis but that was left to the authority of Congress to determine based upon the naturalization laws.

At the same time the 14th Amendment does preclude a person from being a natural born citizen based upon Jus Sanguinis. Was this a historical oversight? Possibly but realize that the only limitation on the child born abroad to American citizens would be that they couldn't become president. They could still be "native citizens" (citizenship established at birth but not necessarily by birth) based upon naturalization. As we do know the criteria for establishing citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis has changed over time based upon the naturalization laws passed by Congress. One parent, both parents, time living inside or outside of the United States, all have been considerations under the naturalization laws passed by Congress at some point.

From a pragmatic standpoint I don't believe the conditions of natural born citizenship established by the 14th Amendment were arbitrary nor was the exclusion of natural born citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis an oversight. If Congress and the States want to include Jus Sanguinis as a basis for natural born citizenship they certainly have the authority to pass and ratify a Constitutional amendment to include it. To date they have not so we must assume that they have no interest in doing so or at least haven't had that interest for over 100 years.

The Congress cannot change the Constitution with statutory law and that is something we all accept. As it stands today the Constitution exclusively limits natural born citizenship to those born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. This is not open to debate as it is clearly written and beyond dispute. If we don't like the conditions established by the 14th Amendment then we need to change the Constitution with a new amendment.

 

If he was born on US soil, he's a natural born US citizen.. Doesn't matter if his parents were NOT yet naturalized.

They were under US jurisdiction unless they were ambassadors.

I can't believe the "birthers" still haven't bothered to read the law.

 

This is under Title 8 which addresses the naturalization laws that have been passed by Congress. Congress does not establish natural born citizenship and has no statutory authority related to natural born citizenship which is expressly established and defined by the US Constitution.

Of note as stated above the naturalization laws can establish citizenship "at birth" but not "by birth" and there is a fundamental difference between the two. Citizenship established "at birth" is referred to as "native born" citizenship whereas citizenship established "by birth" is referred to as "natural born" citizenship. A natural born citizen is also a native born citizen but a native born citizen isn't necessarily a natural born citizen.

By analogy we can refer to the People of the United States. Not all of the People of the United States are citizens. Citizens are a special category of the People entitled to certain privileges and are a subset of the People.

The same is true for natural born citizens. They are a subset of native born citizens and not all native born citizens are natural born citizens.

As noted Congress, under Title 8 can establish laws that establish native born citizenship where it grants citizenship at birth but it cannot establish natural born citizenship as that is established by the Constitution and Congress has no authority to alter the Constitutional definition.

 

US law trumps British law in the USA.. Guess you didn't know that basic fact.

 

No, he wasn't a US citizen because a petition for citizenship was ever filed. The documentation of his parents' citizenship was required to provide grounds for citizenship to be granted under the naturalization laws passed by Congress.

A natural born citizen does not have to file a petition for citizenship as it is a natural Right established by birth.

 

When a baby is born to US citizens living overseas, you file the birth certificate with the US Consulate right away..

That accounts for thousands of Natural born US citizens.

 

First of all what the author of a document might believe is irrelevant to the incorporation of what is contained in the document. The 14th Amendment, which was ratified by the States is very explicit in the establishment of the criteria for natural born citizenship. Citing the author as saying, "What I wrote is not what I meant" is irrelevant as what was written was what was ratified.

President Obama was born in Hawaii and was subject to the jurisidiction of the United States at birth. He was not subject to British law or jurisdiction at birth as British laws do not apply within the United States. This is a failed "birther" argument that is unsupportable. For example the British police could not have arrested either Barack Obama or his parents when he was born in Hawaii as they were outside the jurisdiction of the British government.

Similiar to the Title 8 provisions in the United States he could have filed to become a naturalized British citizen based upon his father's British citizenship. That never happened and even had it happened he still would have been a natural born citizen of the United States. A person cannot change their natural born citizenship although they can become naturalized citizens of other nations.

 

And if the parents do not file is the child a US citizen? The answer is that the child would not be a US citizen at all as the case of Leeland Davidson showed.

So a petition must be filed with the US government along with documentation establishing that the parents are US citizens to meet the requirements of Title 8. Natural born citizenship does not require any documentation related to the parents as the parents are irrelevant to the right of natural born citizenship.

Let me provide a hypothetical example.

An unknown woman walks into a hospital in the United States and gives birth but dies during childbirth and no one is ever able to establish who the woman was. It doesn't matter because the child is a natural born citizen of the United States.

An unknown woman walks into a hospital in Mexico and gives birth but dies during childbirth and no one is ever able to establish who the woman was. The child would be a natural born citizen of Mexico even if the unknown woman was actually a US citizen and the child would have been granted US citizenship under Title 8 naturalization laws had that fact been known and documented and a petition filed.

Once again, Congress can establish naturalization laws which grant citizenship at birth and has done so in Title 8 but it cannot create laws that establish citizenship by birth as that is expressly established by the 14th Amendment. Congress cannot change the definition of natural born citizen established by the 14th Amendment as the US Constitution take precedence over statutory law.

 

You are correct.. for me its simple... Hundreds of American babies were born to oil families in Arabia.. You just register the birth at the US Consulate.

 

Yes, and under the naturalization laws in Title 8 they would become native born citizens but they would not be natural born citizens where the 14th Amendment establishes the criteria of "born in the United States.... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

A child born in Saudi Arabia was not born in the United States nor were they subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth.

Of note the child of US citizens born at a US military base in a foreign country might be subject to the jursidiction of the United States government which would meet one of the criteria of the 14th Amendment but they would not meet the second criteria of being born in the United States. Both criteria must be met before they would be a natural born citizen.

I do have an easy solution for those that think children of American citizens serving in the US military should be natural born US citizens. Just withdraw the US military from foreign bases. We don't belong there anyway. It certainly provides a good reason for ending US military interventionism in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations.

 

I think there are ONLY two kinds of US citizenship.

 

Ah yes, the birthers' favorite line from Trumbull. Interesting how when they are presented with OTHER quotes from Trumbull, they either ignore it or discount it completely...

"The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer. Then it was suggested that we should make citizens of all persons born in the United States not subject to any foreign power or tribal authority. The objection to that was, that there were Indians not subject to tribal authority, who yet were wild and untamed in their habits, who had by some means or other become separated from their tribes, and were not under the laws of any civilized community, and of whom the authorities of the United States took no jurisdiction. . . . Then it was proposed to adopt the amendment as it now stands,—that all persons born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, shall be citizens." Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).

 

Nope didnt miss that.. mabey you missed reality.. the constitution is merely a suggestion to be interpeted these days. Its the laws and regulations that the current crop of politicians choose to enforce that is the rule of law... get that through your skullbone and all this drivel about citizenship becomes moot...

 

The Supreme Court did not misinterprete the 14th Amendment in the United States v Kim Wong Ark. I don't know where some come up with this drivel but actually reading the SCOTUS decision reflects that they were correct.

The 14th Amendment is precise in it's establishment of the criteria for natural born citizenship. There is no room for misinterpretation unless one seeks to circumvent the actual verbiage of the Amendment. Basically it says what is says and the only argument against that would be to argue it doesn't say what it means. If that is the case then we can blame the authors for being incompetent in the drafting of the 14th Amendment but what was written was what was ratified and not something else and the ratification of what was written is what the US Constitution says. There is no doubt related to what it says.