Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 10 years ago

John Bingham, architect of the 14th amendment, defined a natural born citizen, at the same time?

he made clear that former slaves deserved to be citizens so that their descendants like any other citizens' descendants could also be natural born citizens. Bingham added the 14th amendment to bring former slaves into the fold of America, but he emphasized that the 14th did not change the definition of the natural born citizen.

In 1866 the Civil Rights Act reemphasized this, and it was reenacted verbatim in 1872, it is still on the books. It says if a child is born with any other allegiance or citizenship it is not a US citizen.

In 1874, Minor v. Happersett held that no 14th amendment citizen is ever a natural born citizen (because the 14th was added 6 years prior).

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons 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.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Isn't this clear cut to all but the lying obots?

Update:

dobberx added that Wong Kim Ark holds that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen, only children of citizens are natural born citizens, thanks!

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The reason for the 14th amendment was to ensure that all slaves were indeed citizens of this country and prevent states from passing laws that would have made it impossible for former slaves to prove that they were indeed citizens of this country. It was never intended to be used by illegals to come into this country and have a kid and that kid automatically was a citizen of this country

  • 10 years ago

    Oh brother.

    More NONSENSE from a "expert"on the law.

    2 SCOTUS decisions:

    From MINOR VS HAPPERSETT (1874)

    "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. "

    From UNITED STAES VS WONG KIM ARK (1898)

    "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.'[13]

    Since 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:

    The court ruled:

    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."

    ALSO:

    In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals applied Wong Kim Ark and upheld the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to President Obama's eligibility.[

    AND:

    1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney GeneralIn 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, ... .[20][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.

    and:

    DictionariesThe Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's International Dictionary (3rd edition) define it as a person who becomes a citizen at birth (as opposed to becoming one later).

    Blacks Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government."

    and :

    Congressional Research ServiceA memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service, states--

    Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the naturalization act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth"or" by birth.[22]

    So a person born IN the United States, of a US CITIZEN, who has citizenship AT BIRTH is, in fact, a natural born citizen.

    When Obama was born in HAWAII (an effing STATE) OF A US CITIZEN , he had, AT BIRTH, full citizenship rights and therefore, LEGALLY, is a natural born citizen.

    DUH

    Now show us ONE, just ONE SCOTUS case which tells us a person born in the US, with a parent who is a US citizen, really isn't a NATURAL BORN citizen.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.