Tweet
Report: Birthplace Not Enough; Do Republican Presidential Candidates Fear The Birthers Are Right?
Birther Report
8/24/2015
Excerpts:
Do Republican Presidential Candidates Fear That “the Birthers” are Right?
HISTORY SHOWS THAT BIRTHPLACE ALONE DOES NOT DETERMINE CITIZENSHIP
by Sharon Rondeau
— While campaigning in New Hampshire on Thursday, 2016 presidential candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush opined that fellow candidates Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio should not be considered ineligible because of the circumstances of their respective births, parentage and subsequent questions about their citizenship status.
Last Sunday, presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled his plan for immigration reform and an end to what is commonly known as “birthright citizenship,” which unleashed the current firestorm over who is and is not a citizen of the United States when born inside its geographical confines.
Trump’s plan includes the concept of “Defend[ing] The Laws And Constitution Of The United States.” “No one is above the law. The following steps will return to the American people the safety of their laws, which politicians have stolen from them,” Trump said, covering such topics as foreign-worker visa distribution, building a security wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and reducing crimes committed against Americans by illegal aliens.
“This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration,” Trump wrote in regard to birthright citizenship.
Trump’s declaration quickly initiated discussion of the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 during the Reconstruction period. The constitutional amendment, the second of a set of three amendments passed in order to solidify the civil and constitutional rights of former slaves, states in Section 1, “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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery anywhere in the United States, and the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to all citizens. The 14th Amendment took just over two years from its introduction in Congress to be ratified.
To this writer’s knowledge, a discussion of the parents’ status as it relates to the citizenship of their children who later become presidential candidates is occurring for the first time since questions arose in late 2007 as to Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president given his claim of a father who was never a U.S. citizen and no proof that he was born in the United States.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen.” Since questions first arose about Obama’s eligibility, anyone who has expressed doubt has been termed a “birther,” including by the mainstream media.
More than seven years later, there is still no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Some scholars believe that Obama’s birthplace is irrelevant given that his father was never a U.S. citizen.
The Framers of the Constitution were known to have consulted “The Law of Nations” by Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, who wrote in Section 212:
As was accurately reported by The New York Times, Bush appeared to simultaneously equate the question of whether or not Cruz is a “natural born Citizen” because of his birth in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and a U.S.-citizen mother to Rubio’s birth in the United States to two immigrant parents who had fled Fidel Castro’s Cuba following the 1959 revolution.
Beginning that year, Cuban refugees were granted asylum in the U.S., and in 1966, the Cuban Adjustment Act was passed offering permanent residency to Cubans who had resided in the U.S. for one year “at the discretion of the Attorney General.” Since 1995, U.S. policy toward Cubans escaping the communist island has been that of “wet foot, dry foot,” meaning that any Cuban who reached U.S. shores on his own would generally be allowed to stay; those interdicted in the waters between the two countries were generally repatriated to Cuba unless they could demonstrate a clear threat of political persecution.
Rubio has said that his parents were “permanent legal residents” when he was born in Florida in 1971, the same year another presidential contender, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, was born to two non-U.S.-citizen parents also reported to have been “permanent legal residents.”
Cruz claims that Bush misunderstands his citizenship status. In a statement responding to Bush’s comments, Cruz did not differentiate between U.S. citizenship and the Constitution’s “natural born” requirement for president.
Currently, U.S. policy bestows citizenship on any child born within its confines, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. An exception has been if the child’s parents are in the service of a foreign government. In July 2011, however, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that “A lack of direction from Congress has resulted in children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. soil receiving U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers (SSNs) — effectively becoming U.S. citizens — despite the limiting language within the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
In the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett, the U.S. Supreme Court referred to a “natural born Citizen” as one born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens. Virginia Minor had attempted to make the case that her 14th Amendment “equal protection” rights were violated because, as a woman, she was not allowed to vote.
When asked about the issue of who should and should not be considered a citizen in the wake of Trump’s plan, Bush opined, “If people are here legally, they have a visa, and they have a child who’s born here, I think that they ought to be American citizens.” He then posed the hypothetical that someone as “talented” as Rubio should not be precluded from being considered in possession of U.S. citizenship.
Bush also believes that birthright citizenship is “a constitutional right.”
Some news media, one of which this writer heard on a television broadcast last week, have reported that automatic, or “birthright,” citizenship by virtue of a physical birth on U.S. soil without any other requirements is “enshrined in the Constitution.” In response to Trump’s declared intention to end birthright citizenship, CBS reported that “Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.’”
The 14th Amendment is also known for its guarantee of “equal protection under the law.”
“Trump rails against birthright citizenship,” CBS captioned its video report, while an anchor and commentator jokingly claimed that Trump was not dealing with “reality.”
In recent years, the media has been criticized for failing to inform the American people of their government’s activities in an unbiased manner. The vast majority of reporters for major news companies lean politically to the left.
In 2007, Accuracy in Media (AIM) reported that approximately 380,000 children were born annually “born to illegal alien mothers that become citizens simply because their mothers gave birth on U.S. soil.” Writer Andy Selepak stated that birthright citizenship was a “flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.”
.................................................. .......
Are the “birthers” wrong in questioning Obama’s eligibility? Cruz’s? Rubio’s? Jindal’s? Or are they historically correct? (Aug. 23, 2015) © 2015, The Post & Email. All rights reserved. Source link. - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/08/...ers-are-right/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/08...enough-do.html
Birther Report
8/24/2015
Excerpts:
Do Republican Presidential Candidates Fear That “the Birthers” are Right?
HISTORY SHOWS THAT BIRTHPLACE ALONE DOES NOT DETERMINE CITIZENSHIP
by Sharon Rondeau
— While campaigning in New Hampshire on Thursday, 2016 presidential candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush opined that fellow candidates Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio should not be considered ineligible because of the circumstances of their respective births, parentage and subsequent questions about their citizenship status.
Last Sunday, presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled his plan for immigration reform and an end to what is commonly known as “birthright citizenship,” which unleashed the current firestorm over who is and is not a citizen of the United States when born inside its geographical confines.
Trump’s plan includes the concept of “Defend[ing] The Laws And Constitution Of The United States.” “No one is above the law. The following steps will return to the American people the safety of their laws, which politicians have stolen from them,” Trump said, covering such topics as foreign-worker visa distribution, building a security wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and reducing crimes committed against Americans by illegal aliens.
“This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration,” Trump wrote in regard to birthright citizenship.
Trump’s declaration quickly initiated discussion of the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 during the Reconstruction period. The constitutional amendment, the second of a set of three amendments passed in order to solidify the civil and constitutional rights of former slaves, states in Section 1, “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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The 13th Amendment abolished slavery anywhere in the United States, and the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to all citizens. The 14th Amendment took just over two years from its introduction in Congress to be ratified.
To this writer’s knowledge, a discussion of the parents’ status as it relates to the citizenship of their children who later become presidential candidates is occurring for the first time since questions arose in late 2007 as to Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president given his claim of a father who was never a U.S. citizen and no proof that he was born in the United States.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen.” Since questions first arose about Obama’s eligibility, anyone who has expressed doubt has been termed a “birther,” including by the mainstream media.
More than seven years later, there is still no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Some scholars believe that Obama’s birthplace is irrelevant given that his father was never a U.S. citizen.
The Framers of the Constitution were known to have consulted “The Law of Nations” by Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, who wrote in Section 212:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
As was accurately reported by The New York Times, Bush appeared to simultaneously equate the question of whether or not Cruz is a “natural born Citizen” because of his birth in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father and a U.S.-citizen mother to Rubio’s birth in the United States to two immigrant parents who had fled Fidel Castro’s Cuba following the 1959 revolution.
Beginning that year, Cuban refugees were granted asylum in the U.S., and in 1966, the Cuban Adjustment Act was passed offering permanent residency to Cubans who had resided in the U.S. for one year “at the discretion of the Attorney General.” Since 1995, U.S. policy toward Cubans escaping the communist island has been that of “wet foot, dry foot,” meaning that any Cuban who reached U.S. shores on his own would generally be allowed to stay; those interdicted in the waters between the two countries were generally repatriated to Cuba unless they could demonstrate a clear threat of political persecution.
Rubio has said that his parents were “permanent legal residents” when he was born in Florida in 1971, the same year another presidential contender, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, was born to two non-U.S.-citizen parents also reported to have been “permanent legal residents.”
Cruz claims that Bush misunderstands his citizenship status. In a statement responding to Bush’s comments, Cruz did not differentiate between U.S. citizenship and the Constitution’s “natural born” requirement for president.
Currently, U.S. policy bestows citizenship on any child born within its confines, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. An exception has been if the child’s parents are in the service of a foreign government. In July 2011, however, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that “A lack of direction from Congress has resulted in children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. soil receiving U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers (SSNs) — effectively becoming U.S. citizens — despite the limiting language within the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
In the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett, the U.S. Supreme Court referred to a “natural born Citizen” as one born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens. Virginia Minor had attempted to make the case that her 14th Amendment “equal protection” rights were violated because, as a woman, she was not allowed to vote.
When asked about the issue of who should and should not be considered a citizen in the wake of Trump’s plan, Bush opined, “If people are here legally, they have a visa, and they have a child who’s born here, I think that they ought to be American citizens.” He then posed the hypothetical that someone as “talented” as Rubio should not be precluded from being considered in possession of U.S. citizenship.
Bush also believes that birthright citizenship is “a constitutional right.”
Some news media, one of which this writer heard on a television broadcast last week, have reported that automatic, or “birthright,” citizenship by virtue of a physical birth on U.S. soil without any other requirements is “enshrined in the Constitution.” In response to Trump’s declared intention to end birthright citizenship, CBS reported that “Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.’”
The 14th Amendment is also known for its guarantee of “equal protection under the law.”
“Trump rails against birthright citizenship,” CBS captioned its video report, while an anchor and commentator jokingly claimed that Trump was not dealing with “reality.”
In recent years, the media has been criticized for failing to inform the American people of their government’s activities in an unbiased manner. The vast majority of reporters for major news companies lean politically to the left.
In 2007, Accuracy in Media (AIM) reported that approximately 380,000 children were born annually “born to illegal alien mothers that become citizens simply because their mothers gave birth on U.S. soil.” Writer Andy Selepak stated that birthright citizenship was a “flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.”
.................................................. .......
Are the “birthers” wrong in questioning Obama’s eligibility? Cruz’s? Rubio’s? Jindal’s? Or are they historically correct? (Aug. 23, 2015) © 2015, The Post & Email. All rights reserved. Source link. - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/08/...ers-are-right/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/08...enough-do.html
Comment