NBC

User avatar
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 3728
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 1:15 pm

NBC

#26

Post by Patagoniagirl » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:32 am

Oh, and if you want proof of this birther moron being a birther:





[/break1]wordpress.com/about-2/]http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/about-2/





Quote: "If he were born abroad, he would likely not be a natural born citizen since such children become citizens by statute, not through common law"





Birther. Fucking birther.I always thought that when a child is born abroad of one or two US Citizens, by statute, that child IS a US Citizen, not that that child "becomes" a US Citizen.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34799
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

NBC

#27

Post by realist » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:54 am

Oh, and if you want proof of this birther moron being a birther:





[/break1]wordpress.com/about-2/]http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/about-2/





Quote: "If he were born abroad, he would likely not be a natural born citizen since such children become citizens by statute, not through common law"





Birther. Fucking birther.I always thought that when a child is born abroad of one or two US Citizens, by statute, that child IS a US Citizen, not that that child "becomes" a US Citizen.They are Citizens. The key word in your posting above is "by statute".





That is essentially the argument. According to the language of the 14th Amendment it only applies to those born on U.S. soil, and they are indeed natural born citizens. The question presented here is not whether those born abroad are citizens, rather the question posed is are they natural born citizens, eligible for the presidency and/or vice presidency.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Hektor
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:04 pm
Location: Soviet Canukistan
Contact:

NBC

#28

Post by Hektor » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:15 am

Well, in terms of Constitutional law, theoretically the President could have sued John McCain in 2008 on whether being born abroad to American parents was enough to make John McCain eligible (or perhaps Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee) and have the issue resolved. Of course I believe it would have been politically suicidal for the President or McCain's opponents to make that argument. And I note that if McCain had been elected President, I would have opposed a "birther" movement against him (even though my understanding it's more ambiguous legally speaking than Two-Citizen Parents or Born in Kenya, etc). I preferred Obama, but to me the children of overseas military should not be denied eligibility to be president and would hope that if there were a McCain "birther" movement, I would be there snarkily making fun of them and hoping for an Ankeny at least from the courts. That being said, I doubt that a McCain birther movement would have had as much legs (though I might be wrong about this and I'll have no way to know) because I don't think it would have fit into a Democratic narrative of John McCain. Obama is painted as among other things being a Marxist, an Affirmative-Action Candidate, Anti-faith (and pro-Islam) and Unamerican by the American right. Birthers' simply escalate this rhetoric to Obama is a Unqualified Soviet Muslim who is an illegal immigrant but even if that wasn't true he's ineligible anyways. There's a racial aspect to this, but it is egged on by the underlying narrative (which has racial aspects to it as well).

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

NBC

#29

Post by SueDB » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:36 am

The thought that a child could be born in Panama, son of a future Navy Admiral and a US Citizen COMMAND SPONSORED dependent spouse in the service of their country etc - would be denied the right to run for President of the United States is patently unworkable.Think about it for a minute...
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

NBC

#30

Post by ballantine » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:08 pm

The thought that a child could be born in Panama, son of a future Navy Admiral and a US Citizen COMMAND SPONSORED dependent spouse in the service of their country etc - would be denied the right to run for President of the United States is patently unworkable.Think about it for a minute...True, but the question is how do you get there. The Court has said over and over that someone born outside the United States is an alien unless naturalized by Congress. For example, Justice Scalia speaking of the child of a citizen born overseas:"The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, “[e]very 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.” Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and “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.” Id., at 702—703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the “authority of Congress” that is appealed to–its power under Art. I, §8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien."There are three arguments I would make with respect to McCain: First, Panama was under the sovereign control of the United States and hence anyone born there was a natural born citizen under the English common law. The problem with such argument is that it is contrary to the Insular line of cases and would mean everyone born during such period in Panama and in the other unincorporated territories would be a natural born citizen.Second, our military stationed overseas owe allegiance to the United States, not the nation they are stationed in. Hence, under the logic of Calvin's Case they should be viewed as natural born subjects which was based upon one's allegiance at birth, not necessarily one's place of birth. Lord Coke mentioned excpetions to the jus soli rule in Calvin's Case, but didn't say they were the exclusive exceptions. His excpetions were based upon what has become known as the concept of extraterritoriality. Accordingly, the rule of Calvin's Case should be read as standing for the concept of extraterritorality today, not what the concept was in 1608.Lastly, persons born outside of England who were made subjects at birth by Parliament were called natural born subjects. Accordingly, it is plausible that the framers thought persons born outside of America who were made citizens at birth by Congress would be natural born citizens. If Parliament could make the foreign born natural born subjects, it is plausible that the framers envisioned Congress to have the same power. Each of these arguments has problems, but I believe the Court would bend over backwards to define the term broadly.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10413
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

NBC

#31

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:09 pm

Are you thinking of [link]Rogers v. Bellei -1971,http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html[/link]?





I don't think is said that but it denied the protections of the 14th amendment to citizens born to US citizen parent(s) born abroad.





It is in Tes's list of SCOTUS cases on NBC on her blog. [/break1]typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html]http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_ ... ndium.htmlThat's one of the cases NBC was referring to.





I don't think that the language used in that decision sets a lot of records for precision. When you look at the decision carefully, it becomes clear that the key holding is that Congress has the right to set conditions for how United States citizenship is granted to those born overseas. The discussion of the protections of the 14th Amendment in that case didn't really center on whether that group would ever have the protections of the 14th, but just on whether the 14th barred Congress from setting up rules that provided for "citizenship at birth, as long as you do W, X, Y later in life," for people born outside the USA.





Technically, for the purposes of the 14th Amendment's citizenship definition, that probably does mean that someone born overseas to citizen parents is a form of naturalized citizen. At the same time, for the reasons that SueDB gives above, I strongly doubt that the courts will ever rule that a child of American citizens, born overseas but raised as an American, is ineligible for the Presidency.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

NBC

#32

Post by esseff44 » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:10 pm

When the US Constitution became effective, there were only 13 states. Now there are 57 or so states plus areas where the citizens/residents are under US jurisdiction. As each state was added, there were provisions in the charters as to how the residents of those territories acquired citizenship. Some had to apply; some didn't. Some of them were from statutes derived from treaty obligations. What NBC meant under all those different conditions could get very attenuated. It did come up with George Romney and it did come up with Goldwater. It was not resolved in those cases as to whether they met the test for NBC. There is a long list of candidate hopefuls whose parents were not citizens at the time of the candidates birth and the question has been coming up regularly with the same issues being raised.[/break1]archive.org/stream/presidentialcam00catlgoog#page/n140/mode/2up]http://www.archive.org/stream/president ... 0/mode/2up[/break1]nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/po ... .html?_r=0Lawyers who have examined the topic say there is not just confusion about the provision itself, but uncertainty about who would have the legal standing to challenge a candidate on such grounds, what form a challenge could take and whether it would have to wait until after the election or could be made at any time.In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.” :mrgreen:

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10413
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

NBC

#33

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:13 pm

The thought that a child could be born in Panama, son of a future Navy Admiral and a US Citizen COMMAND SPONSORED dependent spouse in the service of their country etc - would be denied the right to run for President of the United States is patently unworkable.Think about it for a minute...Here's a more interesting hypothetical. There are small numbers of foreign military personnel (mostly liaison people at bases where we host training) who are based in the US and have their families here with them. In at least some cases, they are here on "official travel" passports, but not on diplomatic passports and they do not have diplomatic immunity. Some of them have had children here. Are those children citizens, and could they be eligible for the Presidency?
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

NBC

#34

Post by SueDB » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:21 pm

The thought that a child could be born in Panama, son of a future Navy Admiral and a US Citizen COMMAND SPONSORED dependent spouse in the service of their country etc - would be denied the right to run for President of the United States is patently unworkable.Think about it for a minute...Here's a more interesting hypothetical. There are small numbers of foreign military personnel (mostly liaison people at bases where we host training) who are based in the US and have their families here with them. In at least some cases, they are here on "official travel" passports, but not on diplomatic passports and they do not have diplomatic immunity. Some of them have had children here. Are those children citizens, and could they be eligible for the Presidency?I would have to say barring anything contrary in a Status of Forces Agreement...Yes, they are natural born citizens. Their parents are here under orders from their host country. The parents are not part of an invading army or diplomatic personnel.It is the same principle that allows all children of US servicefolks born in Germany/Japan/Korea/"command sponsored areas" to be dual citizens of the US and Germany/other country (we have bases all over the world). Issues: It causes an issue when one of those children is stationed in Germany while in the military in their own right...They are eligible and can/have been drafted into the German Army.Now, how about children of American Service folks born in a foreign country where the spouse is NOT command sponsored (not on official orders but on some kind of visa living on the economy/"downtown"??
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

NBC

#35

Post by esseff44 » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:29 pm

The thought that a child could be born in Panama, son of a future Navy Admiral and a US Citizen COMMAND SPONSORED dependent spouse in the service of their country etc - would be denied the right to run for President of the United States is patently unworkable.Think about it for a minute...Here's a more interesting hypothetical. There are small numbers of foreign military personnel (mostly liaison people at bases where we host training) who are based in the US and have their families here with them. In at least some cases, they are here on "official travel" passports, but not on diplomatic passports and they do not have diplomatic immunity. Some of them have had children here. Are those children citizens, and could they be eligible for the Presidency?I don't see that as any different from the large numbers of children born here in the US of parents who are here of business or student visas. The question becomes one of age and residency. If they return to the native country of their parents, at 21, they have to choose or lose US citizenship.Even if they choose US citizenship, they have other residency requirements.It would be similar to the question of the children of undocumented aliens born in the US but who returned with their deported parents and grew up in the native country of their parents. What if one of them came back to the US at age 18 and stayed here. Would that person be eligible?We spend a awful lot of time on the NBC question, but tend to ignore the residency requirement which in a way seems rather short. The writers of the Constitution I think were trying to look realistically at how the country would expand both in territory and in immigrant population. Someone could be raised abroad and still qualify.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

NBC

#36

Post by SueDB » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:30 pm

As long as they have resided under the jurisdiction of the US for 14 years...
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

tjh
Posts: 2938
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm

NBC

#37

Post by tjh » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:37 pm

McCain : 11 months and a hundred yards shorthttp://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why- ... itizenship

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

NBC

#38

Post by esseff44 » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:44 pm

I know a couple of women whose parents were from VN and were born here while their father was getting his PhD in nuclear physics. He was recalled to VN to direct the nuclear reactor in Dalat that the US gave to their puppet Diem. The daughters were in teenagers when they left as refugees in 1975. (It's an amazing and heroic story about the father's task of disabling the nuclear reactor as it was going to be in NVA control.)The daughters were US citizens with US passports and have lived here since. Are they eligible? I think you would have to say they are.

User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

NBC

#39

Post by SueDB » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:54 pm

I cannot think of any law that would prohibit the girls from running. They were born here. As long as they have been living under US Jurisdiction for at least 14 years are 35 etc.
“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28309
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

NBC

#40

Post by Foggy » Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:40 pm

Boy, we got this settled just in time, huh? ;;)
Every locked door has a key. - Emika Chen

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

NBC

#41

Post by esseff44 » Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:55 pm

But don't you think it's strange that so many of the arguments about having citizen parents and two citizen parents are cloaked in the need for loyalty, patriotism, American identity, undivided loyalty, etc. and yet the required residence is only 14 years. Theoretically, one could be an NBC born abroad and never set foot on US soil until 20-21, turn 35 and be eligible to be president. All those arguments about loyalties and foreign influences do not fit with having such a comparatively short residency requirement.





It's just another way the the citizen parents arguments fail, AFAIC.

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

NBC

#42

Post by nbc » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:56 pm

The thought that a child could be born in Panama, son of a future Navy Admiral and a US Citizen COMMAND SPONSORED dependent spouse in the service of their country etc - would be denied the right to run for President of the United States is patently unworkable.Think about it for a minute...I thought about it and found nothing of particular relevance. Either all or none but no specific rules..

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

NBC

#43

Post by nbc » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:57 pm

I know a couple of women whose parents were from VN and were born here while their father was getting his PhD in nuclear physics. He was recalled to VN to direct the nuclear reactor in Dalat that the US gave to their puppet Diem. The daughters were in teenagers when they left as refugees in 1975. (It's an amazing and heroic story about the father's task of disabling the nuclear reactor as it was going to be in NVA control.)The daughters were US citizens with US passports and have lived here since. Are they eligible? I think you would have to say they are.If they were born on US soil the of course. Birth on soil is quite straightforward.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44437
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

NBC

#44

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:12 pm

Can a statute "create" a NBC?





Yes, of course. Think about it.





Richard Nixon was born in California. California didn't exist as a territory of the United States when the Constitution was approved. The State of California didn't become a state until 1849. How did it become a state? By statute.





Race. Itsa. Locator.

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

NBC

#45

Post by nbc » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:47 pm

It can create additional US territory :-) Sure... Not exactly what I had in mind but then again, you should not presume you to be a mindreader.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10413
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

NBC

#46

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:18 pm

The thought that a child could be born in Panama, son of a future Navy Admiral and a US Citizen COMMAND SPONSORED dependent spouse in the service of their country etc - would be denied the right to run for President of the United States is patently unworkable.Think about it for a minute...I thought about it and found nothing of particular relevance. Either all or none but no specific rules..There are policy issues involved here, which could reasonably (and not inappropriately) influence the court. The key one is pretty simple: do you want to penalize children of parents who are on foreign soil while in the service of their nation? Like SueDB, I have a hard time seeing a court - particularly given a lack of binding authority to the contrary - ruling that someone in that situation is anything but a natural-born citizen.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

brygenon
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:42 pm

NBC

#47

Post by brygenon » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:17 am

If such legislative action was indeed required then we are faced with some issues to resolve: If as WKA stated, the definition of NBC is to be found in common law then it cannot include statutory laws, and if statutory laws are enacted under the powers of Congress to provide for uniform rules of naturalization, then how can they be argued not to have been naturalized?That's not exactly what WKA stated. You are conflating what "natural born citizen" means, which is simply citizen upon birth, with the conditions under which the law grants the status. On the meaning of the term WKA quoted British jurist A.V. Dicey:





"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.


[U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, quoting A.V. Dicey's Digest of the Law of England]The test is whether one gained his or her citizenship upon birth, not whether the law granting citizenship was statute, common law, or constitutional amendment. The U.S. grants citizenship to those born on the soil, but that's not what defines a natural-born citizen. As renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar explained, writing for a lay audience:





The Constitution's rule that the president be "a natural born citizen" focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.


[[link]The Constitution and the Candidates,http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... dates.html[/link] ]

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15614
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: NBC

#48

Post by Reality Check » Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:06 pm

Has anyone heard from NBC? I have PM'ed and emailed him and didn't receive a reply. He hasn't posted at TFB since before the election last year. His blog is inactive also.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”