ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

By JB Williams – Jb.uspu@gmail.com

The recent release of my previous column titled Rubio Can Lock the Election for Obama resulted in numerous reader emails that demonstrate a continuing confusion over the indisputable definition and application of the term Natural Born Citizen. This follow up column is written to remove all confusion from the topic, once and for all.

Sadly, most of the people concerned with this topic believe they each know the truth, even though they do not agree on what the truth is. Most opinions are based upon second source or third hand information, most of it motivated by political agenda.

My objective is to establish through first source evidence and spread the truth, no matter who it helps or harms in the political arena. I have written on this subject extensively and my only loyalty here is to the truth, no matter who it serves.

The true definition of Natural Born Citizen

Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen by birth right. None of the Founding Fathers were Natural Born Citizen as they all became 1st generation citizens the moment they created our nation. As a result, they had to exclude themselves from the NBC requirement, even though most of them were born on soil (Native Citizen), or none of them could have held the office of President.

The term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law. Most people understand and agree on this. Then, they begin cherry-picking their facts from there, in all cases, based upon their individual political agendas rather than a careful and complete study of the facts.

I direct you to four sections in particular…

The Law of Nations – Book 1 – Chapter 19 – Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 – The true definition of NBC is given in these three sections.

§ 212. Citizens and natives (the section most people are familiar with) READ IN ENTIRETY PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO SECTIONS I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.

“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.”

212 – Defines Natural Born Citizen as the natural offspring of a Citizen Father. Vattel explains this three times in this section. Just as all birthrights follow the blood of the father, so does natural rights of citizenship. This debunks the theory that “both parents” must be legal citizens and the time of their offspring birth. Only the Father confers Natural Born Citizenship.

§ 213. Inhabitants (Refers to situations like Rubio’s)

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”

Marco Rubio - Is he eligible?

213 addresses “citizen” and “inhabitants” – not Natural Born Citizens defined in 212. Rubio falls into this category as he was born in the U.S. – however, his parents (specifically his father) were legal citizens of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth. Due to our 14th Amendment based upon this section from Vattel, Marco became an inhabitant at birth, and an “anchor baby citizen” via our current immigration and naturalization laws. But because his Father was a legal citizen of Cuba, his father conferred natural citizenship right to Cuba upon Marco’s birth. It is on this basis that Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Barn Citizen of the United States.

§ 214. Naturalization (58) (confirms everything I just told you about Rubio)

“A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

215 answers the question of soil, or Native Born versus Natural Born

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country (NO born on soil requirement)

“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.”

This pertains to John McCain, who was born in Panama due to his father’s military deployment. As Vattel explains in section 215, where a person is born cannot take away the Natural Born Birthright that passes via Natural Law from Father to Son. Because John McCain’s Father was indeed a well-known legal citizen of the United States at the time of John’s birth, no matter where the birth took place, Natural Born Citizenship passed from John’s Father to John at birth. John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, no matter what else people think about John McCain.

In this regard, the United States Senate got it exactly right in their 99-0 Sen. Res. 511 clearing John McCain to pursue the office of President in 2008. Using the exact same definition used to clear John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama and Marco Rubio would fail the test.

Just in case there is any doubt concerning McCain, Vattel goes further on the McCain circumstance in section 217

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state (John McCain)

“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

One does not quit citizenship rights when deployed abroad by our government. In fact, even if a soldier deployed abroad sires a child, with a foreign mother, that child is still a Natural Born Citizen of the USA as those rights pass from Father to child at birth.

Are you with me so far? Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, John McCain is…..right? Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya…. right?

Now for Romney….

According to all available records on Romney, his Grandfather was a legal citizen of the United States who became an “inhabitant” of Mexico long before Mitt’s birth. Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, the natural offspring of a legal US citizen living in Mexico. Remember from above that soil changes nothing. According to all evidence available at present, Mitt’s father was born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, even though his parents were “inhabitants” of Mexico at the time.

Mitt’s Father later returned to the United States and became Governor of Michigan, something a non-citizen could not do. Mitt was born in Michigan, the natural offspring of a legal citizen Father, making Mitt a Natural Born Citizen of the United States at birth.

So, McCain and Romney both pass the NBC test according to Vattel and The Law of Nations. Rubio, Obama and others like Jindal DO NOT pass the test.

Before you spread any more false information regarding the subject, I welcome any challenge you want to raise to any of the information provided here. If it is truth you seek, you now have the truth. If you seek something else, the truth will not serve that agenda.

Last, if Marco Rubio truly wants to serve this country in the best way possible, he should immediately pronounce himself “ineligible” for the offices of President and Vice President, which would immediately turn all focus upon the current Fraud-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and secure the defeat of Obama’s international assault on the United States of America.

If Rubio does not do this, he is not what many Tea Party supporters think he is…

Is winning everything? Is Rubio the key to victory?

By Scott Winchell, Editor-in-Chief; SUA

Is winning everything? It certainly appears to be, especially in politics. Winning is everything in DC! In fact, in order to win, we have no budget, scandals galore…

Is the Republican party now committing what a very large number of people in America think the Democrats committed in 2008? Nominating people for office that likely broke the rules, the “Natural-Born Rule”? SUA has very high regard for Marco Rubio, but now the questions are being asked…the vetting has begun.

The American Eagle - Is winning everything?

Vetting our candidates was not an issue to most back in 2008, but it certainly is now.

‘Win at all cost’, or ‘get-mine’ has been a common theme dating back throughout all of our politics.

There is still a great question about how Minnesota’s Al Franken got elected, and the many historical Washington DC political scandals throughout our history including ‘Watergate’ the Tea-Pot Dome scandal and much more.

Then there was Florida in 2000 and 2004, the chads and the soldier-vote.

Americans are perhaps the most competitive people on earth – demonstrated across the board since our inception. It would be nice to say that we always play by the rules, but no one believes that is the case, especially now where so much money is concerned.

In baseball, we have witnessed the “physical enhancement’ era that is still making news over Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. In football, we just witnessed the crazy New Orleans Saints “bounty” scandal, and people like Ron “Meta World Peace” Artest regularly use “cheap shots” in basketball.

That is just America in pro sports, what about Americans in finance, think Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine‘s scandals, then there is the “birther” question. Did people hide all of Obama’s records and commit fraud to ‘win’, or to keep winning?

In this era of the 24 hour news cycle, the rise of the ‘citizen journalist’, the demise of the reputation of the main stream media, and the extreme situation we are now in, are making people look, at last.

Bret Baier sure stepped into, and now Cindy Williams at the American Thinker has written a great article about this aspect of ‘playing by the rules’.

Maybe now, for once, a true vetting process will be undertaken, by all of our media. Referring to eligibility questions he himself raised, Baier now says: “…this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it…” Its about time.

NBC never will, nor will CNN, but just maybe if Fox does it, they will also have to put their cards on the table, before ballots are cast…not just after.

Baier mentions there is much “confusion” – of course there is, because so many people and institutions actively tried to mislead the people, many swept it under the rug, some committed alleged fraud, many just looked the other way, but very few actually did the homework. To the true “Constitutional Scholar”, there is no confusion.

When did it become admirable to be ignorant and arrogant about it, where knowledge is demagogued – the ‘new’ paradigm of virtues… to win at all cost!

Rubio and Birthright Citizenship

By Cindy Simpson – American Thinker

Those conservatives who argue against “birthright citizenship” have just been thrown under the same bus as the “birthers” — whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.

The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help.  And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the “birthers,” we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates — by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

“Birthers” have been insisting that not only is Obama not eligible as a “natural born” citizen, but neither is Rubio.  Now the media is paying attention.  And of course, the media says the “birthers” are wrong.  According to Fox News‘s Bret Baier:

Bret Baier - Is Rubio eligible, how about Obama?

The law lists several categories of people who are considered American citizens at birth. There are the people born inside the United States; no question there[.] … They’re all natural born U.S. citizens[.] … Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are both eligible to run and become Vice President or President.

Apparently Baier received a lot of feedback as soon as his column was published, because later the same day, he amended it:

Bottom line… this is obviously getting a lot of attention.. so, we think we should do a full piece on the show about it… and maybe have a panel of constitutional scholars… and legal experts to discuss this. There is obviously a lot of confusion.. uncertainty and misinformation out there about this topic. And as I wrote in the blog.. there is vigorous legal debate about the term… so we need to talk about it… and we’ll continue to report all sides [sic].

A needed admission, although still with no real authoritative sources listed.

What about all of the experts, conservative organizations, and Republicans who have argued for decades that more than birth on U.S. soil is required for citizenship?

The need to reform the birthright citizenship practice, considered by many an illegal immigration “magnet,” was addressed in a 2010 American Thinker column quoting George Will, who in turn had cited Professor Lino Graglia — all in support of the idea that the 14th amendment did not mandate an automatic grant of citizenship to every baby born here — at the very least not those born to illegal aliens.  The same year, American Thinker’s J.R. Dunn noted the valid arguments against the anchor baby policy and observed the resulting negative media spin, “designed to make a topic so radioactive as to render it untouchable.”

Up to that point, the media taboo seemed to be working.  (It certainly did for the “birthers.”)  Even the GOP candidates steered clear of immigration reform as much as possible and avoided discussion of birthright citizenship, likely for fear of being called “racist.”

Research into the subject reveals that the birthright issue concerns not only the legality of the parents’ status, for even “birth tourists” are in the U.S. on legal passports.  The root of the problem is the status of the parents’ domicile (legal or illegal, permanent or temporary) and allegiance.  The birthright practice also results in dual citizens who can remain so for life, unlike naturalized citizens, who are required to renounce past citizenships.  Proposed legislation to require at least one citizen parent curtails the anchor baby problem but does not eliminate the dual citizenship issue.

“Birthers” argue that the dual citizenship of Obama disqualifies him from “natural born” eligibility.  Another American Thinker column documented the lack of academia’s serious attention to the interesting question.

Since 2008, the mainstream asserted that Obama was eligible for two reasons: he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was a citizen.  Some argued that only U.S. birth was required, but hardly anyone (other than “birthers”) noted the related fact that many conservatives had been lobbying for years to correct what they considered an incorrect application of the 14th — that more than birth on U.S. soil is needed, not for natural born citizenship necessarily, but citizenship, period.  And if arguments against birthright citizenship are legitimate — why not the contention that questionable birthright citizenship, because of allegiance concerns, does not equal natural born citizenship?  But a reasonable debate was never permitted, and the “birthers” were ridiculed as kooks.

Fast-forward to today, and the GOP’s realization (thanks to those darned “birthers”!) that neither of VP favorite pick Rubio’s parents were citizens when he was born.

So now the mainstream and GOP establishment argument is that born in the USA (regardless of circumstances) equals “born a citizen” equals “natural born” citizen.

Marco Rubio - Is he eligible?

Baier didn’t mention the many conservatives who have long fought against the birthright practice, subtly helping the establishment kick them and their inconvenient assertions under the bus.  Yet it was only eight years ago that Fox News noted the valid arguments in this article addressing the “presumed” (Justice Scalia’s description) citizenship of Hamdi in the famous case of Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

Here’s a partial list of prominent individuals who have argued against birthright citizenship: Judge Richard PosnerEdwin Meese, Professors Lino Graglia and Peter Schuck, Dr. Edward Erler, Dr. John Eastman, the Heritage Foundation, Representatives Ron Paul, Nathan Deal, Mark Foley, Gary Miller, and Tom Tancredo, and conservatives Ann CoulterGeorge Will, and Phyllis Schlafly.  Rep. Lamar Smith, the current House Judiciary chairman, was a major participant in the 2005 congressional hearing on citizenship and also the signed the Center for American Unity Hamdi amicus brief in 2004 along with Tancredo.  Even Harry Reid noted that more than birth in the U.S. is required for citizenship in his proposed 1993 legislation.

A recent Human Events article by Michael Zak asserts the same position as Baier’s.  No citizen parents are needed, and they can be here illegally.  Even al-Awlaki could have run for president.

The Georgia Obama ballot challenge ruling and its likely consequences on citizenship arguments was discussed here, which we now see in action.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal - Eligible?

Baier’s assertion places both Obama with his one citizen parent and Rubio with none on the same “natural born” bus — and that bus ran over not just “birthers” (who actually have been lying under there for quite a while), but also all of the Republicans who have been working for curtailment of the “jackpot” birthright practice as part of effective immigration reform.  Because now it can no longer be denied (which “birthers” have been arguing all along) that birthright citizenship and presidential natural born eligibility are inextricably related.

To be fair — nothing much has been written about the status of Rubio’s parents at his birth.  WND published Rubio’s father’s naturalization papers (when Rubio was 4), but has it been determined whether Rubio’s parents were here, prior to that, legally, and whether they traveled to and from Cuba?  Why so many years to naturalize?  Interesting questions all, and answers may alleviate some of the immigration reformist’s concerns.  But can they be discussed without fear of “birther” or “racist” labels?

The GOP wants to win on the “issues,” but apparently minus the birthright citizenship issue.  A Rubio ticket may appeal to Latino voters, but it may sap more of the enthusiasm of the conservative Tea Party base than the establishment realizes.

In the weeks ahead, we may see either the birthright citizenship opponents aligned with the “birthers” or all of them swept under the rug of verboten conversation — because neither of their arguments fits the current establishment narrative.