It is not unambiguous Dog. An illegal alien is not subject solely to the jurisdiction of the United States. The nation in which they hold citizenship also has jurisdiction over them. Does the United States have the jurisdiction to prohibit slavery in Mexico? If not, then it's citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under either the 13th or 14th Amendments. I know you are relying on the turn of the century decision regarding the child of two Chinese subjects who were lawfully admitted into the nation and lawfully residing within it when their child was born, but that decision is not inclusive by default of children whose parents are neither.
The 14th also does not by default establish such a child, even if a citizen, is a natural born citizen of the nation since that particular designation could hardly be seen as anything other than a higher standard that needs to be met by the executive that the holder of another office needs to meet. Since, as we both acknowledge, that term remains undefined by the text of the Constitution, we must first turn to what it was understood to mean by those who included it within the text of that document. That turn leads us straight to Vattel and his work, which would exclude a child whose parents were not both citizens as being one who was a natural born citizen of the nation. The 14th does not provide us with surety that each and every person born on the soil of the nation, and deemed to be a citizen of it, is by default also a natural born citizen according to the use of that term in describing the necessary qualifications that the executive must possess, especially if that term is used to refer to only a person who is born to parents who are themselves citizens of the United States.
An illegal alien is most certainly within the jurisdiction of the United States, otherwise they could not be arrested and charged with a crime. The United States has clear and definitive jurisdiction over illegal aliens, Mexican or otherwise. Illegal aliens may be arrested and detained in the US for crimes committed in the US. Actions that occur in Mexico or elsewhere have no bearing on the jurisdiction in the US. Per your ridiculous example, a mexican national may not be charged in the US for slavery in mexico, but if that same individual attempted to enslave someone within the US, US would have jurisdiction to charge them with a crime. The 14th amendment is clear and unambiguous.
Diplomats, on the other hand, can not be charged with a crime without the cooperation of their respective country.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Good place to post this... US New Black Panthers Plan Massive Egypt-Style Protest & Boycott of ‘Non-Blacks’
"The New Black Panther Party, the racist and radical black power group, has a big day ahead of it this coming Saturday. According to its website, it’s planning a massive 60-city “showdown.“ And the day of rage will include a protest of ”non-black” businesses."
"The group says it’s establishing a home base at an office building in Harlem, an area it’s modeling after revolutionary ground zero in Egypt."
PrintSmith wrote: There are 7, among them the current executive, who were born to parents who were not both themselves born in this nation. Jefferson - whose mother was English, but of course he qualified under the grandfather clause of being a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. Jackson, whose parents were both Irish, ditto on the grandfather clause. Buchanan had an Irish born father who was a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Woodrow Wilson had an English born mother - also a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Hoover had a Canadian born mother - also a naturalized citizen at the time of his birth. Only Arthur, whose father was Irish, had a parent who was born on foreign soil that was not a naturalized citizen at his birth, though his father had become a naturalized citizen by the time of his election.
Ironic, isn't it, that he was also subjected to questions about his ability to qualify as a natural born citizen. Perhaps this is another instance where an objection is raised only when it isn't a member of one's own party. The Democrats of the time questioned Arthur on the same grounds that Democrats now claim are irrelevant and the Republicans of the time said the questions were irrelevant in defense of their candidate and relevant when the candidate is a Democrat.
Perhaps the question is always relevant - and what was intended is what I have forwarded - regardless of which party the candidate belongs to. Both sides say it is relevant and germane when it isn't their candidate being questioned and both say that it is irrelevant when it is. Should the parties, or the people, decide if it is relevant or not? Should the parties, or the people, determine what is meant by "natural born citizen"? I've got a wonderful idea - let's have that discussion. Let's have that discussion on the merits of the question itself, not on the impact it will have on a candidate we support or oppose now or in the future. Let's decide the question once and for all. Since ex post facto laws are not allowed, Obama, like all current office holders, would be exempt from inclusion.
Let's have the discussion on the 14th Amendment and whether the child of two foreign nationals who have migrated here in violation of immigration law is rightfully a US citizen. Let's define once and for all if the child of a citizen and a foreign national is a natural born US citizen or simply, as I have stated, someone who is a US national that may choose for themselves to be a US citizen, or not, when they reach an age at which they can understand the implications of that choice. As I said earlier, which Dog chose to overlook for whatever reason, is that the child of two citizens is a natural born citizen regardless of the soil on which they were born. That too is consistent with the writings of Vattel upon which the framers hinged their construction of our form of government.
Let's not make the discussion partisan and about a single person only, let's make it about what is the right and proper choice for the nation overall.
"Natural born citizenship" has nothing to do with where the parents of the child were born. It is a question of the citizenship of the parents. If both of the parents were born elsewhere but were both naturalized citizens of the U.S. at the time of the birth then the child is a natural born citizen of the U.S.
Arthur was the only president not qualified because of his nativity.
I wonder why this article wasn't ever disputed.
The East African Standard | Online Edition
Big Issue | Financial Standard | Maddo | Pulse | Style | Society
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.
Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.
Well, there you have it... One article from an African newspaper, and I'M CONVINCED... How could the State of Hawaii and all of those people in the Dept of Health have been so wrong?!?!?
