MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Saturday, April 19, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 35.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby O.J. » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:00 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:I don't think libs want to play this game.

Care to elucidate?


Image
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:23 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:What the kid born in Mexico is not, in the opinion of many, is a "natural born citizen" because they were not born on US soil.


So my example of the vacation then means "you" don't think this baby could someday become president because his mother had a preemie on Mexican soil.

johnfajardohenry wrote:Or, to be painfully obvious again, what became the US. In the case of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and some others.


Uh, that was before we had overseas military bases where Americans move to and sometimes have kids.

johnfajardohenry wrote:What the kid born in Mexico is not, in the opinion of many, is a "natural born citizen" because they were not born on US soil.


The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen


A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-bo ... zen_clause

So the constitution doesn't define it, but you do. Well, now I see you even trump the constitution. You should write a paper about that.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4533
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:37 pm

O.J. wrote:Please show me mention of the term "natural born citizen" in the 14th Amendment.


The specific term is not in the 14th Amendment. It appears in Article 2:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
<snip>

As I said (twice) there is some disagreement about what "natural born" means here. Some say a person like McCain is, others say not. There is no disagreement that every president so far has been born in the US. (caveat Arthur)


What the 14th Amendment says is:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
<snip>

So the kid born in Mexico is not born in the United States. S/he is by law rather than by Constitution.

I don't understand your point. Can you clarify?

As a practical matter, it is extremely difficult to lose US citizenship whether acquired by birth or statute. Fighting against the US doesn't do it (see Nishakawa). Renouncing one's citizenship doesn't even always do it (See Perez)

As far as I've ever been able to tell the only difference between citizenship by birth in the US and statutory citizenship is, possibly, eligibility to serve as Prez.

That depends on the definition of "natural born" which has never been judicially determined

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby wack wack » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:40 pm

If we were to determine that "natural born citizen" could only refer to geography OR lineage, not both, which seems more reasonable and logical: denying citizenship to children born to American citizens overseas, or foreigners born on American soil?
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2996
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby O.J. » Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:51 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:I don't understand your point. Can you clarify?


The 14th Amendment uses the term naturalized. What does the suffix -ize connote?
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:02 pm

Stebben84 wrote:So my example of the vacation then means "you" don't think this baby could someday become president because his mother had a preemie on Mexican soil.


Yes, it is what I think. Perhaps by the Constitution. Certainly by historical precedent.

Not just me but the Deputy Director of the Federal Election Commission (as of 1988). I can send you a copy of the letter he wrote me back in the day. At that time they interpreted it as being born in the US, including the 50 states, Guam, PR, VI and DC.

Stebben84 wrote:Uh, that was before we had overseas military bases where Americans move to and sometimes have kids.


And where those kids acquire citizenship via their parents citizenship, not by place of birth. The process of acquisition of citizenship via parents is statute, US Code of Federal Regulations, not Constitution.

Stebben84 wrote: A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents;


While I have no problem with citing Wikipedia, I had gotten the impression that this was a no-no on this forum. Everyone here seems to "know" that anything Wikipedia says is incorrect, right?

In any event, did you read the whole article? As I have said several times, the opinion on this is not universal. There is plenty of legal authority that opines the other way. Until the Supremes adjudicate it, nobody will ever know for sure.

Stebben84 wrote:So the constitution doesn't define it, but you do. Well, now I see you even trump the constitution. You should write a paper about that.


Would you be interested in seeing the FEC letter? He wrote it after consulting with the immigration dept legal dept.

He wrote it specifically in reply to my question about the definition of "natural born citizen" as applied to a presidential candidate.

I ran in 1988 specifically to prove a point about Puerto Ricans being eligible for the presidency. My wife's cousin, a state Rep at the time, didn't think Puerto Ricans were "Natural Born Citizens". (It was and is a talking point of the Statehood party)

I may have the distinction of being the lowest polling 3rd party candidate ever. I think I got zero votes. Not even my mother voted for me.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby jman111 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:07 pm

Question for JH:

If, as you propose:
1) McCain was not a natural born citizen, and
2) as a child of citizens, he is a citizen

then would you consider him a "naturalized citizen"?

If so, how and when did he become naturalized?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:12 pm

O.J. wrote:
johnfajardohenry wrote:I don't understand your point. Can you clarify?


The 14th Amendment uses the term naturalized. What does the suffix -ize connote?


Gee, OJ, what do you think it connotes?

I think it means that Congress can pass laws granting paths to citizenship, such as the preemie baby of the example, other than birth in the US. I think it means that a person under these laws will be a US citizen.

If Congress can pass these laws, they can also revoke them or modify them in any way they please.

A naturalized citizen can't, generally, have their citizenship taken away once granted. But there is nothing to stop Congress from passing a law tomorrow saying that a similar baby born in Mexico after passage does not become a citizen just because its parents are.

They cannot pass a law stopping any baby born in the US (Caveat diplomat) from automatically being a citizen. That would take a Constitutional Amendment.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby johnfajardohenry » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:15 pm

jman111 wrote:Question for JH:

If, as you propose:
1) McCain was not a natural born citizen, and
2) as a child of citizens, he is a citizen

then would you consider him a "naturalized citizen"?

If so, how and when did he become naturalized?


At birth.

By virtue of a statute granting the children of American citizens citizenship.

A statute that is constantly tinkered with and could, tomorrow, be eliminated if Congress so chose. It would not affect McCain's citizenship. It would preclude citizenship for future babies born in identical circumstances.

I doubt they would ever eliminate it and I do not think they should. Just in case anyone wants to accuse me of wanting to take away citizenship from military babies.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:20 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:While I have no problem with citing Wikipedia, I had gotten the impression that this was a no-no on this forum. Everyone here seems to "know" that anything Wikipedia says is incorrect, right?


It depends on the entry. Some are much messier than others. I realize some hate it, but I still think it offers some good info at times.

johnfajardohenry wrote: I can send you a copy of the letter he wrote me back in the day. At that time they interpreted it as being born in the US, including the 50 states, Guam, PR, VI and DC.


Yes that is ONE way, but not the ONLY way. Did the letter state it was the ONLY way.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank",[2] is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works primarily and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.
Its staff of approximately 600 employees includes lawyers, economists, reference librarians, and social, natural, and physical scientists.[3] In fiscal year 2012, CRS was appropriated a budget of roughly $106.8 million by Congress.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressio ... ch_Service

These are the folks that said in my last post:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates...


that, basically, you are wrong.

But wait, you got a letter from a deputy director in 1988. Ugh, you got me there.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4533
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby jman111 » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:21 pm

johnfajardohenry wrote:At birth.

So, he was "naturalized at birth", but he is not a "natural born citizen"?
jman111
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby snoqueen » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:30 pm

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...


The way I read this, no living person today is eligible to the Office of President. Everyone alive at the time of the adoption of the constitution has been dead for two centuries, at the very least.

So much for close textual readings.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10938
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby fennel » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:33 pm

I'm pretty sure "natural born" was intended to stand in contrast to birth by cesarean section.


... or maybe not.
fennel
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3004
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: Mitt's Mexican ancestry

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:40 pm

fennel wrote:I'm pretty sure "natural born" was intended to stand in contrast to birth by cesarean section.


... or maybe not.

Or maybe it doesn't apply to in vitro conception.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19159
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Previous

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar