tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589888408513857078.post3348310308329014614..comments2024-03-27T04:00:03.008-07:00Comments on (PNN) PPSIMMONS News and Ministry Network: Cruz, Rubio, Jindall - NOT Natural Born!Prosperous Individualhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06912435569859578588noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589888408513857078.post-84924032733981197312015-02-28T14:58:54.689-08:002015-02-28T14:58:54.689-08:00From the dissenting opinion.
Although those Ame...From the dissenting opinion. <br /><br /> Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship<br />Page 401 U. S. 840<br />under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:<br />"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."<br />1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a "Rule of Naturalization" shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649(1898):<br />"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere<br />Page 401 U. S. 841<br />fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."<br />169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 702-703. The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167 (1875), the Court said:<br />"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization."Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289008983390330396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589888408513857078.post-68958176128810265862015-02-28T14:58:46.688-08:002015-02-28T14:58:46.688-08:00Read Rogers v Bellei. Ted is a naturalized Citizen...Read Rogers v Bellei. Ted is a naturalized Citizen. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html#F1<br /><br />http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/<br />From the opinion of the court.<br />6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious.<br />7. Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with "second-class citizenship." That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light<br />Page 401 U. S. 836<br />of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."<br /><br />Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289008983390330396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589888408513857078.post-19365389806166081132015-02-27T06:39:24.134-08:002015-02-27T06:39:24.134-08:00Congress, media, courts - all abandoned WE THE PEO...Congress, media, courts - all abandoned WE THE PEOPLE. Guess what we are SUPPOSED to do now? Read the Declaration of Independence - the instructions are right there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589888408513857078.post-30487688203177353392015-02-27T06:37:55.947-08:002015-02-27T06:37:55.947-08:00God help us!God help us!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com