Comments to Mario Apuzzo
There are four types of citizenship.
1.Natural born 2. Naturalized 3. Constitutional 4. Derivative Automatic Naturalization. Obama is not the first nor the third because his father was not an American nor an immigrant. He never underwent the naturalization process so the second is also out. That leaves only the fourth. His citizenship was derived from his mother’s, but that may not have been the case from his birth if the INS followed the policy of “expatriation by marriage” in 1961. If so, then he did not become an American until she divorced his father and his mother was repatriated somehow. If the INS and State Dept did not follow a policy of expatriation by marriage then he was a citizen by birth to his American mother via a naturalization statute that was part of the Naturalization Act of 1940 or an Attorney General Interpretation of the Supreme Court’s position on expatriation by marriage. No one has yet identified the exact passage followed by the INS in determining his citizenship status. We have for President a man with a form of citizenship so arcane that it can hardly be traced to anything that can be readily identified. He’s not a natural born citizen, -he’s a mystery born citizen.
Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given any authority to make any law in regard to the free exercise of religion, freedom of the press,…nor the nature of the citizenship of natural citizens. Its authority is only in regard to the nationality regulation of foreigners and their children. Americans do not give birth to foreigners. No American born anywhere in the world is a foreigner, therefore Congress has no authority to regulate their citizenship status. No authority at all. One could almost assume that even a constitutional amendment would have no business “amending” their status because they (natural American citizens) are not regulated by anything in the Constitution. They are what they are by nature. Nature doesn’t care where an off-spring enters this world. It is a natural off-spring regardless. Same with natural citizens. Neither Congress nor the Constitution itself have any say in the issue of the birth location of American citizens. Such authority was never written nor given. It cannot be given by man because natural citizenship is an unalienable natural right given only by the Creator.
Any assertion to the contrary is baseless.
“McCain, because he was born in Panama to parents serving our national defense, is under Vattel Section 217 reputed born in the United States” In a dream world in which Vattel is U.S. law. How can an intelligent person such as yourself make a connection that like when it does not exist? I know you’re not guilty of obfuscation but it seems you’re a victim of drinking the Kool-Aid of self-asserted certainly, even in the absence of fact and logic.
You proclaim that “one must be born in the United States to citizen parents in order to be a “natural born Citizen” and yet you have offered not a sinlge paper to justify such a view based on natural law, while I have penned tens of thousands of words proving your groundless view to be incorrect. The ball is in your court to prove by logic, common sense, and principles of natural law that my conclusions and assertions are incorrect and yours are completely valid. I won’t ask you to do that because I know that it’s an impossible task, like trying to prove that the Earth is the center of the solar system.
“How can the government in the grand sense exercise jurisdition over itself?” I didn’t speak in “the grand sense” so why insert that? The judiciary exerts authority over congressional law, the Executive branch exerts authority over the administration of law, including that mandated by both the Congress and the Court. The Congress exerts authority via legislation over the administration of it’s laws, including naturalization legislation. Why am I having to tell you this when you already know it? Because your thinking is defensive in nature and not logical. I have nothing in this race but you have much, having formulated a definition that does not truly exist but must be defended nevertheless regardless of its revealed logic error.
And Huntsman suffers from a similar ailment of making presumptuous assertions based on nothing but the misguided opinions of some of the flawed men that sat on the Supreme Court duing the Wong case. Their opinions change nothing in regard to what the fundamental truth is. It is what it is even if authorities are not aware of what it is. Anyone who calls a child of foreign parents a natural citizen of any country other than his parents’ country is a complete fool and is oblivious to the meaning of the word “natural”. AN
“After the adoption of the Constitution, only the former (nbc) was eligible to be President.” Sometimes we are tired and get confused. But still I can’t comprehend how you could say that, tired or not. After the adoption of the Constitution, BOTH were eligible until all of the Citizens of the United States who were not natural born had died. That is part of the Constitution. Why am I having to tell you this? I assume that simply slipped your mind. No big deal. But I also don’t get how you don’t get that all Natural Born Citizens are also Citizens of the United States, though the reverse certainly is not true. Do you disagree? I don’t think that’s possible.
“For you to suggest that when Congress wrote “citizen of the United States” in the Naturalization Act of 1795 or any Act for that matter, they also secretly meant “natural born Citizen” is utter nonsense. ”
I don’t suggest such nonsense. I suggest and assert that they meant “citizen of the United States” only, but you are making a huge logic error in labeling that description as something other than a description that only means what the words mean, and nothing more. All natural Americans are also Americans. All natural citizens are also citizens. This isn’t some arcane legal-priesthood language that has only a legal meaning. It’s common English that everyone can understand. I do understand it. Are you suggesting I don’t?
It’s a mistake to ever confuse the dichotomy of ~Citizen vs Foreigner~ with ~Citizen vs Natural Citizen~. The 14th Amendment dealt with Citizen vs Non-Citizen. It had no connection to presidential eligibility. Citizenship via the automatic naturalization of the 14th A. is Constitutional citizenship and not Natural citizenship regardless of whether or not it is secured by the Constitution. No one’s opinion can make it natural, whether that of Congress, the President, the SCOTUS, or the Pope. Take that fact and use it as a hammer. Skip the irrelevant detour of the jus soli plus jus sanguinis citizenship because there’s no U.S. authority, nor human authority, to “prove” it. Only jus sanguinis is natural. regardless of the obsequious sycophants of the King of England who labeled everyone born in His Royal Highness’ domain to be his “natural subjects” even if born to visiting foreigners!. AN
“for only a child who is “born in the country” to citizen parents can be a “natural born Citizen.” ”
That is one view, but it is nothing more than a view. It is backed by no authority or else I would accept it and declare it. But there are no authorities. There is only an observer who wrote down and published his God’s-eye-view observations of how nations exist and interact with each other. Abstractly observing something does not make one an expert, otherwise I would be declaring that I am the world’s foremost authority when it comes to natural membership, since I’ve written more about it, and thought more about it than anyone who ever lived. But am I calling myself an “authority”? No. But maybe I should be, but that is a distinction left to the opinions of others.
Vattel never claimed his word was equivalent to the “authority” of Muhammad’s “divinely received scripture”, or the Revelation of John given by God. Descriptions can never be called definitions. You would realize that if you read my final word (?) on the subject: DISSECTING THE “DEFINITION” OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/dissection-of-nb/
“But you fail to understand that positive law can change natural law.” That is impossible. Natural law is immutable like the law of gravity. Humans can’t alter the laws of nature nor the principles derived from nature. All they can do is conform to Natural Law or violate it, -they can not alter it. You seem to think that the power to legislate is a power far greater than it actually is. Government has no legitimate authority to violate the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, but they can and do sometimes, especially if they sit on the Supreme Court.
“Wong Kim Ark has confirmed that any child “born out the country” can only be a “citizen” by satisfying a Congressional naturalization statute.”
Again, no authority and none expressed. “Confirmed”? How? There is no authority on earth that can “confirm” an abstract philosophical construct. All humans can do is confirm what their eyes see. That is not theoretical. Citizenship is. Without the principle of the law of natural membership there is no basis for citizenship. But who understands that law today? Do you? It appears that you do not. If you wished to educate yourself in regard to it, you could start by reading: https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/08/origins-of-citizenship.pdf It’s title sounds like a good place to start but I’ve written so many treatises on the subject that I can’t remember what each is focused on. The latest one was recently published by the PatriotPost.us
A Man Called Horse & A Man Called President https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/man-called-president/
It would serve to inform and educate you regarding things that you already know but have never put together.
“any child “born out the country” can only be a “citizen” by satisfying a Congressional naturalization statute.” The error of that statement is in the use of the word “any” which is all-inclusive, including children of aliens and children of Americans, and therefore ambiguous because it lacks sufficiently definitive language. The statement is 100% true regarding the former, and 100% false regarding the latter.
Congress has no Constitutional authority to legislate anything in regard to the citizenship of natural American. Their authority only covers foreigners and their children. Foreign born Americans ARE NOT FOREIGNERS! They are Americans! All Congress can do is include language aimed at the INS and State Dept. to protect their rights. After you experience your wife bringing a son into this world on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, then you can tell us how you view him a not being a natural American like his siblings because he is tainted with foreign alienage. Understand this; Alienage does not come from foreign soil, but from foreign parents. Wake up! Similarly, American patriotism does not come from American borders but from American parents, and what they teach their young. AN
Your wrote: “But you fail to understand that positive law can change natural law. Our Congress since 1795 has determined that any child born abroad to “citizen” parents is only a “citizen,” and not a “natural born Citizen.”
I, like you, missed the implications of this statement the first go-round. What it is unintentionally implying is that natural citizenship is not an unalienable natural right but is something granted by government, as it seemed to do in the 1790 Naturalization Act which required in effect the executive branch to consider foreign-born Americans to be natural born citizens. But with the dropping of “natural born” in later versions, you have made the horrible chess move of describing the power of Congress as including the power to make and unmake natural citizens! So by your ill-considered conclusion, you’ve told us that Congress has more authority than Nature’s God and the Constitution. 1790…Congress “creates” foreign-born natural citizens. 1795…Congress strips such children of their natural-born status. So natural citizenship is within the authority of Congress to grant or rescind. Wow! That’s a new one no one saw coming. And here I’ve been believing that it’s beyond the power of government to grant or rescind, like the right to life, liberty, and property. Gee, I guess I was wrong and you were right.AN
Regarding Obama’s purely British nationality at birth due to his mother’s possible expatriation by marriage, there isn’t any question about what the law was nor what the view of the Supreme Court was. What those who’ve actually read what I discovered know is that it’s a matter of what the declared policy of the Attorney General, INS and State Dept was. Did they or did they not follow the law or did they follow only their tradition of naturalization by marriage for foreign women, and expatriation by marriage for American women. The statement clearly given by the Attorney General in 1969 was that it was not the policy of the government to follow the clear implications of the Supreme Court rulings and the national law. It seemed that as with Wong Kim Ark, they would have to be sued to change their policy. No one has read what it says there and offered any opinion yet, thus ignoring the biggest issue of all. Was Obama even a U.S. citizen at birth by the official policy of the executive branch which administered such issues? What question is more loaded than that? How could one be a born citizen, much less a natural born citizen if they were not even a citizen at all?
The question isn’t the constitutional one. Instead it is: How did the Attorney General view a child such as Obama in 1961, -as an American or as a Britain? Only the INS policy approved by the AG’s view would determine his citizenship status, not the 14th Amendment or the SCOTUS view.
Obama would not have been a 14th Amendment citizen during any period in which the executive-branch services followed expatriation by marriage. He would have been purely a British subject. That includes the period when the 14th A. was passed. When it was passed, Obama would not have been born as an American because his father was not an immigrant, and his mother would have been a British subject. Citizenship only passed by descent from the father in 1868. No one who would not have even been a citizen in any epoch of U.S. history can be a natural American citizen today. That would require magic. AN
“In the United States, through a combination of natural law and positive law, it has been long established that the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents.”
That sounds so smooth and facilely true, but unfortunately most of it is inaccurate. First, there’s no such thing as a combination of natural law and positive law. They are totally different natures and can’t be combined, any more than sky and land can be combined. Positive law is just that 100%.
“..it has been long established..” Nothing has been established or else we could all switch to playing video games and watching TV. That which you believe has been “defined” wasn’t until 1875, but it can’t conceivably be called a “constitutional definition”, yet you persist in using that term. Where in the Constitution is this “definition” found? An individual legal opinion doesn’t constitute a “constitutional definition”. Assertions do not amount to concrete truth.
Mere observations and descriptions do not constitute fundamental law regardless of who quotes them. Only direct Supreme Court rulings do that. They seek to apply principles and they make those principles known. They then become the law of the land. Those principles can be identified, but a combination of opposing principles does not constitute a principle but instead a mish-mash hybrid that has no basis in logic or nature. [I’ve penned tens of 1000s of words revealing the absurdity of jus soli in America yet it’s a zombie that will not die] AN
“”Natural born citizen” is dependent upon both place and blood.
“Natural born” by blood, “citizen” by government.”
That sound logical, but it also seemed logical that the world was flat.
Unperceived facts must be recognized to determine the truth.
NBC is a concept base solely on Natural Law and not the legislated acts of government, nor on the Constitution. Those are the rules of men.
A citizen by natural law is not a citizen by the rules of government. Men have no authority to make rules regarding natural citizenship, and that is why none exist.
It is and always will be an unalienable right, -a natural right of membership in the group to which one’s parents belong.
The government does not grant citizenship to natural citizens, rather they grant the authority for the government to exist. They do not exist for it, it exists for them.
All outsiders need the permission of the government of the native members in order to join their society. All membership which requires permission is via naturalization, not via natural principle.
No naturalization law pertains to natural citizens.
No law pertains to providing citizenship to natural citizens. They are born into it. It can’t be given by men nor rescinded. It can only be abandoned, all the government can do is to acknowledge that abandonment. AN
Mario wrote: “If someone is either not born in the country or not born to citizen parents, then Congress has naturalization power over the citizenship status of that person because that person in either case was born with alienage upon which Congress can act.”
Allow me to correct the flawed logic in that statement. Alienage is something derived solely from alien parentage, NOT from alien soil. Only an alien father can produce alienage in the United States throughout most of its history because of naturalization by marriage.
As for the naturalization power of Congress, it extends only over those who need naturalizing, which is foreigners and those born to them. It has no authority over the citizenship of anyone outside of the United States unless one of the parents is a foreigner. If neither are foreigners, but are Americans, then Congress has no authority to regulate their citizenship because they are natural Americans just like all the rest and do not require any form of naturalization.
The Congress has no authority over anyone “not born to citizen parents,”.
Think about that one. The reason is because they are either not in America, are here but not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or were born here and therefore are not subject to Congress because their citizenship is not per the Civil Rights Act of 1866 but per the 14th Amendment, and Congress has no say in 14thAmendment constitutional citizenship. Do you agree? I assume you do.
Regarding my previous statement about Congress not having authority to legislate as to the citizenship of those not born to U.S. parents, I wasn’t contemplating the foreign born to non-citizens but only the domestically born to non-citizens.
Mario said: “The Constitution is based on common sense. It is not a document to be read through the lense of Obotic logical manipulation asserted for the purpose of achieving a political objective.” Amen to that brother. That is what I’ve been asserting. But I’ve also argued that contortions of logic resorted to in order to manipulate the meaning of a general observation is a case of error in logic. But that error is not ascribed to political manipulation but to the blind spot that results from subjectivity rather than Vulcan-like totally objective clarity.
“The definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not keep changing with time. It is fixed.” I’d agree if I agreed that a definition even exists. I do believe one does exist but you think of it as something pronounced by the sterling august authority of wise men while I argue that it is only definable via natural law and not opinion or observation of the common place reality everywhere on earth. AN
Mario wrote: “Do you not think that the “Citizen” in “natural born Citizen” comes from positive law? It really is silly for you to argue that a “citizen” existed in a state of nature.”
Citizenship is an abstract idea until you connect it to something real.
I’ll refer you to natural law which is what Vattel referred to for many of his observations. If you recall he stated that citizenship is nothing more than membership in a group. I’ve written more about group membership and its relationship to citizens than anyone ever. Before Obama arose there wasn’t much point to doing so but since then there’s been a huge point in doing so. Because by the law of group membership he is shown to not be a natural citizen since no one with an outsider for a father will be born as a natural member but will be allowed to be part of the group only by its permission, not by natural right.
“You go on and on with your personal opinions about natural law. You are going to have to cite some authority for your opinions.”
Dear Mario, you’ve cut straight to the heart of the matter. The reason I’ve come to speak with authority is that I’ve come to recognize the fact that there is no authority except Reason itself. No human is an authority that can alter natural law, we can only observe it and describe it. Anyone with eyes and a brain can speak and write with the authority of what they’ve seen, learned, and surmised from that. Citing to the authority of flawed, imperfect men with legal backgrounds isn’t much removed from citing to the authority of the mobster who asks: Who you gonna believe, me? or your lying eyes? We all should prefer our own lying eyes. They see things as they really are.
“I am not yet aware of your definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
Simple. The off-spring of citizens. Eskimos give birth to Eskimos, Jews give birth to Jews, Americans give birth to Americans. That’s the primary lesson of membership that one can draw from natural law. Anything else is an added appendage.
Today I wrote my final word on the nature of the dispute between us. I would have shared it tonight but had so much to reply to that I’m postponing it until tomorrow sometime. Then I won’t be back until you write a new article and post it as a new blog page. My interest in the issue of Obama’s ineligibility will remain as high as ever but I’ve reached the point where I’ve said everything there is to say to explain that which is so simple that any child can understand it. Now it’s up to others to read and comprehend or read and not comprehend. I for one cannot comprehend not comprehending something so plain and clear. AN
In the framing period of the USC, and only three years later in 1790, this is what was THE MOST ESSENTIAL quality in the recognition of “natural born”.
DESCENT was THE paramount quality in the minds and intentions of the founding fathers and the framers, it was also THE PARAMOUNT element in what “natural born” described.
i.e. In the minds of the framers the word and meaning of “natural” was all about DESCENT.
The proof can be seen, not only because the framers CHOSE “natural” RATHER THAN “native” to describe eligibility for POTUS, but also by the fact that the US Congress and Senate, only three years after the adoption of the USC in 1787, first used the term “natural born” to describe a child born off-shore to US citizen parents, thus stating that “natural born” was due PRIMARILY by DESCENT, then in 1795 the Congress and the Senate dropped the wording “natural born” not because the DESCENT principle was dropped, as they still made the child born off-shore to US citizen parents a “citizen” BY DESCENT.
The 14th’s all-inclusive wording sacrificed clarity for brevity, and clarity was the big loser. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: undefined but not indefinable. Perhaps its definition seemed self-evident to the authors but others are afraid to read their logical minds. But I’m not. Foreigners are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, whether they are inside or outside of the U.S. Only citizens and legal immigrants are subject. Domiciled illegal immigrants could also be ruled to be subject, or not.
They did something unusual with the Amendments wording by throwing in “or naturalized” where it doesn’t really belong because its presence presents a meaning of “All persons naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States” That would be a ridiculously obvious statement to deliberately make except for one thing, no law of Congress can change that stated fact. It would require a repeal or rewrite of the Amendment to change that.
I Love the Justice Story quote about exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction because it reflects that same common sense logic that I’ve imputed to jurisdiction. But how can anyone possibly take any stance against it? They would have to be dunderheads or deliberately intellectually dishonest about what the authors thought, meant, and intended. Such an interpretation makes the jurisdiction requirement unnecessary and superfluous because it views EVERYONE within U.S. borders to be subject. Then why the need to say it? No answer. Obfuscation.
You wrote: “Congress has the power to ‘fix’ the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th Amendment, merely by adding a brief definition of ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to 8 USC 1401”
I’m not a constitutional lawyer but I’m pretty sure Congress can’t define anything in the Constitution and its amendments, only the courts. But if only the 1866 Civil Rights Act existed, they could change or clarify that.
Reply to Donofrio 1-15-12
You wrote; “It [my statement re natural citizens born abroad] fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define “natural born Citizen. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.”
I find logic errors in both of these statements. Since natural citizens are what they are by nature regardless of where in the universe they are born, Congress did not in the 1790 Act define who they were because that was unnecessary since at that time everyone knew what they were. There was no definition given in the Act, only the statement that they were to be treated the same as their domestically born brethren (and not treated as aliens and required to obtain the proper papers that a foreigner would need, or barred altogether from entering the country at the whim of the immigration officers.)
The wording of that Act was directly aimed at the immigration service and no one else because it pertained to no one else. I can hardly believe that you’ve said that Congress can “tell” the executive branch what it wants by merely contacting any particular branch. They “tell” everyone what they want only by getting legislation passed by the legislative process and no other. They can issue subpenas but that’s unrelated.
“United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence:
”But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
This mind-set contains more than one logic error. The 14th has no pertinence to citizens born abroad therefore it is a HUGE falsehood to claim that it has THEREFORE left that subject to be regulated. It also did not touch on a thousand other issues and therefore left them all to be regulated also? Ridiculous. Natural citizenship is not something that Congress has ever had the authority to regulate, even though it has erroneous assumed it. It only has authority to regulate the treatment of foreigners and their children, NOT Americans and their children. There is no such authority in the Constitution because natural citizenship is bestowed as an unalienable natural right just like Life, Liberty and and many others, including the right to marry and divorce, own and inherit property. The Bill of Rights was written to protect and declare rights undeclared in the body of the Constitution, and one of those undeclared rights is the inherited citizenship of children born to Americans without regard to where they are born.
But I digress. What I really want to share is something I realized today while typing my latest and greatest treatise on Obama’s ineligibility. I came across a fact that had not caught my attention yesterday while spending much of the day investigating around it, and that is the date of the significant scotus ruling by which American women are assumed to retain their citizenship after marrying foreign men. After copying and pasting a quote referring to that ruling I noticed the date of the ruling wasn’t back in the 40’s or 50’s but in 1967. That means it was not INS policy when Obama was born. That means that when he was born his only citizenship was British if the INS followed a policy in contradiction to the Nationality Act of 1940.
Mario, Your description of the formation of societies and governments was very clearly and logically presented. A keeper. But from my different perspective I perceive things that are missing.
Mario wrote: “You have a view of natural law and government with which I do not agree. ” True, but eventually I believe you will realize the truth about America and it isn’t the same as what’s true for other societies or governments. The place to begin is with the all-pervasive presence of the consciousness of Divine Law, the Laws of God and Christ, and second to them the law of natural principles. This consciousness is what was behind the Declaration of Independence referring to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Atheist societies, and pagan societies lacked such a high spiritual plane of thinking about human value, human responsibility, and human rights.
Among those rights are certain unalienable rights, among which is the natural right of membership. In animal and human societies, the off-spring are born into the group. The group possess no right to reject them and never does. They don’t need the groups permission to be members because they are members by birth, by parentage, by descent. No society, from the tribal to the organized, ever asserts any right to grant membership to its natural members. That would be an unthinkable thought because their membership is unalienable. Any who wish to join to a group of natural members requires their consent, and that consent is given in the form of naturalization rules.
“So, we have seen that the nation state does not exist in a state of nature. Rather, it is a construct of positive law.”
Also, we have seen that positive law is a construct derived from natural law which in the Christian Protestant universe includes Natural Rights. Positive law does not exist in a vacuum devoid of natural principles and biblical law. Most western law has strong roots in the Church Law, which is another vast expanse of law which has been mostly forgotten.
“How we treat persons born in a foreign sovereign territory surely impacts our foreign relations with that country.”
How we treat our own foreign-born natural citizens and what opinion that host nation has is irrelevant to whether or not they are natural citizens or foreigners. They are natural citizens by natural law, regardless of how nations deal with them. They either follow natural law and The Law of Nations, and thus avoid conflict, or they do what dictators do, which is whatever seems desirable to their leaders.
” Can you imagine some foreign nation and not our own law dictating in some unreasonable fashion what citizenship status, which carries legal, political, and military obligations, people born on U.S. territory should have? ”
I certainly can, absolutely, that follows the Law of Nations IF they are born to parents who are not U.S. immigrants but mere transient foreigners with no Green Card of legal permanent residence.
“our early Congress specifically and expressly decided that after 1795 they did not want a person born “in a foreign country” to be eligible to be President.”
Now you’re scaring me. “expressly”? The Congress had the authority to both add and strip the “natural born” appendage from “citizen” and they removed it because a naturalization act has absolutely nothing at all to do with presidential eligibility. The naturalization acts had one purpose only, how to treat those born abroad. Were they foreigners and subject to legitimate Congressional authority, or were they Americans? Were foreign-born citizens under the authority of Congress or was their citizenship outside of it like their domestically born brethren? Understand this; Congress did NOT have any authority to proffer any opinion, or preference as to who can be President. That was/is wholly a constitutional issue and only a constitutional amendment can address it, NOT a naturalization act. Also, they had no authority over natural American citizenship, because it is not derived from Congress but from citizen parents -where ever they happen to be when giving birth. For further illumination read what I penned today: How Marco Rubio Could Destroy The Apple Cart.
“the early naturalization acts…prove that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents.” That could be true if your logic was free of all flaws, but it isn’t. It contains a big one that is firmly lodged in your blind spot, but I hope to open your eyes to be able to see it because your voice is an important one.
“Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress to prove that she was a “natural-born citizen,” You could have and should have omitted “natural-born” being as only citizenship was relevant, even if it was naturalized citizenship because both are identical except in regard to the presidency, and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t running for that office.
“Finally, you state that “European governments may not have recognized that unalienable law but our founding fathers did.” I can see that you are suggesting that the law of nations was some foreign law not worthy of American esteem and respect. ”
Mario, this statement illustrates a propensity toward unsupported presumptive conclusions such as the view that Vattel’s description delineated the parameters and perimeter of an absolute authoritative definition of the appellation “natural born” or indigene when it carried no authority nor exclusivity. The unalienable law I spoke of was NOT the Law of Nation, I said European governments may-not-have-recognized it. I didn’t say it was some foreign law at all nor did I cast disrepute on foreign law. All that and what you wrote that followed it resulted from either speed reading or from an over-active imagination, because the unalienable law that I referred to was in reference to the sentence before it; “an unalienable right of natural membership in the group/nation to which their parents belong” That unalienable right is a central element of natural law and it applies in both the natural realm and the political realm, and it does NOT depend on where the mother is located when she delivers her child. So I repeat, combining jus soli with jus sanguinis has no basis in any principle of Natural Law because jus soli has no place in Natural Law.
As for the Minor case, many erroneously believe that “it certainly did provide a whole definition for the class of those considered ‘natural born’ citizens under American Common Law.” But the opposite is true. What was defined was actually those born in the US to citizen parents. They were defined as being natives of America, or natural born citizens. Natural born citizens were NOT defined. Some of them were described as being born in the US to citizen parents while others were not even mentioned, namely those born abroad to citizen parents. Where a natural citizen is born is irrelevant, just ask John McCain.
Citing Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion on NBC is an irrelevant point since millions of people are ignorant about the principle underlying the meaning of the natural law concept of natural citizenship. But the team that investigated the matter for the U.S. Senate, Olsen & Tribe, came to the same conclusion that you would. That conclusion was the basis of the Senate resolution declaring McCain to be a natural born citizen, which he is because he was born to US citizens. AN