Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen
September 28th, 2009
.. and the fruitloops just keep getting jucier and jucier!
Of course this was posted on an Obot’s website. You can google it if you want. I will not give credence to this website but I will darn sure explain that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is wrong!
Justice Ginsburg:
My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Justice Ginsburg again:
There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
Ruth, grow up and take your collective head out of you know where! Your grandson was born in Paris, France, not the USA. I am now thinking, how long have the parents lived in France? How old is the child? Does the child consider France home too? Does the child speak French, go to French schools, believe Europe is a nice cushy place to practice the NWO. Just where do the child’s loyalties lie?
I will bet you one thing is for sure. As soon as practical after the child was born Ginsburg’s children (parents of the grandson) ran down to the US Consulate in France to submit the paperwork for US citizenship. Just because the law says the child is a US citizen at birth, that doesn’t mean the US is going to let the child inside the Country legally without a US Passport or formal paperwork.
I have an American friend in China whose Chinese wife gave birth recently to a boy in China. David practically burned the rubber off the car’s tires traveling to the US Consulate in Shanghai to submit paperwork formalizing US citizenship for his son.
David’s son will grow up spending a lot of time in China and the USA. Where will the son’s loyalties lie? No one can really answer that. It is only speculation.
What happens if China ever goes to war against the USA? If China is winning, do you suppose the son will put on a US military uniform and fight against his mother’s family, country and heritage?
Ruth Ginsburg, quite simply, your grandson is a “naturalized” citizen under the following Immigration Codes and Title 8 of the US Code if, and only if, the proper paperwork was submitted and accepted by Immigration in the United States.
Immigration Section 301(c):
A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires USA citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). However, one of the parents must have resided in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. No specific period for such prior residence is required. If the child was born on or after December 24, 1952, at least one parent will be required to prove residence in the United States or its outlying possessions prior to the birth to establish United States citizenship for the child.
US Code, TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
NO WHERE, do these codes or laws state, “such citizen at time of birth shall automatically become a ‘natural born’ citizen.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, if you don’t like Article II of the Constitution that states a Presidential candidate MUST be a “natural born” citizen, you don’t have to make up little “grandson” stories to argue your case. You can AMEND the Constitution. Three-fourths of the States can ratify such an Amendment if you can muster together enough votes to do it.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Nguyen v. INS (99-2071) 533 U.S. 53 (2001)
208 F.3d 528, affirmed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_DN_0099_2071_ZS.html
Leave to liberal Judges! LOL
September 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Here is the oral arguments
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/99-2071.pdf
September 29th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Why is it so hard for Americans to understand the difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen?
Every blog I post on… no one understand the difference (except here and on Orly). What is the problem? A 6 years old child could understand it if it was explained clearly. So what’s wrong with adults?
September 29th, 2009 at 5:44 am
@French,
I believe a lot of people now know what “natural born” is.. they are just to embarrassed to admit they voted for this creep.. well, the libs got what they voted for — a total communist. The independents got scammed, which is typical for people that act with emotion instead of logic. Us poor souls that knew better and voted for anyone other than the Usurper now have to live with the decisions of these fools that were too damn lazy to read and study the Constitution.
Makes you want to cry but us conservatives are not giving up until this communist Messiah is rotting in prison.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:48 am
If you take her postition to its logical conclusion then a community of US citizens could leave the US and live in a foreign country forever and their offspring would all be natural born citizens as long as they continued to inter marry.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:57 am
[...] Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg says her grandson born in Paris is a “natural born” citizen American Grand Jury ^ | September 28th, [...]
September 29th, 2009 at 8:43 am
I think usurper bo should go to prison too. He is a menace to society and our country and even the world. Nothing like an evil foreign born dictator taking over our country by fraud. I hope he does get brought to justice some day soon. Also, I hope Pelosi and others involved in this fraud follow right along with him.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I agree about Bob’s insight to the voters in that they are embarrassed. But I also believe they might be shamed because they too believe in our good Constitution and were sold an usurper. Their hearts might break for a short while but fierce anger will demand worldwide, that an immediate removal from office and swift justice prevail with Trial by Jury.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Did Ginsberg just suddenly “dream” this up one night while she was doing whatever she does to occupy herself.
Is there no end to the lengths to which these people who are “educated beyond their intelligence” will go to try to prove a point. They are really beginning to “stink”. I hope that “washday” comes soon. I totally agree with the previous comments.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Why doesn’t anyone understand the difference between “natural born” and “natural born?” I try to explain on all the blogs I post on that the Founders completely changed the meaning of “natural born” when they stuck the word “citizen” on it, that they didn’t mention that they were changing the meaning because they were just too busy to write it down, and the fact that legal scholars of the day didn’t notice the change was only due to the fact that they were tools of the time-traveling Obots and British sympathizers to boot! I mean, crack-addicted six-year-olds could understand it (actually, ONLY crack-addicted six-year-olds understand it).
September 29th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Obama understood it! He ADMITTED to it and posted it on his web site flashing it right in everyone’s faces! He openingly admitted he was born with dual citizenship as a British subject AND stated he was born a NATIVE citizen. Not a NATURAL, but native citizen.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Glenn Beck has been doing a great job of letting the Obama Czars (Van Jones, Lloyd, Sunstein, etc.) hang themselves with their own words. I wonder why it is that he isn’t doing the same thing with Obama, other than the quote about how the Supreme Court hasn’t done enough to re-distribute the wealth (of course, that’s OUR wealth, not HIS!)
September 30th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
I do think the Justice is mistaken, but she is old as I am and maybe is slipped her mind. As a member of ACLU she should be more aware of what she says, she might slip and say something good about America. I have read and heard that Beck was threatened with losing job and his family has been also, that is why he is cooling it a bit. The Supreme Court is not my favorite thing, I dislike immensely what they did with abortion, O”Conner was always swing vote, she could have stopped Roe. But Chief Justice Roberts had to take Obama in private as I heard and read he would not put his hand on Christian Bible, then Roberts swore him in anyway. So much deception for the American people, Obama wants to control the world, i am not sure God will allow that. We will see. God Bless America
October 1st, 2009 at 7:15 am
Even if it is true that a child born outside US to 2 US parents is a nbc, that still means Obama is not a nbc because even if he was born in HI, he was born to 1 US citizen parent, not 2 (and his mother did not meet the legal requirement of age and years of residence in HI to be able to confer citizenship to her child)
October 1st, 2009 at 7:26 am
MtnMyst,
You should watch this: Pator Manning has insight into why Beck et al won’t talk about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjXN9mvGDs&feature=player_embedded
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKJD8xAAtZY&feature=player_embedded
October 8th, 2009 at 10:20 am
[...] whether through cowardice or complicity, or ignorance. After all, what is left to say when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg purposely chooses to ignore the NBC clause as it relates to her grandson? Is it any wonder that the [...]
October 8th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Vattel – Law of Nations, book 1, section 212 - 215
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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. (1) 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 (2) 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. (3) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and (4) 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, (5) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, (6) if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213. Inhabitants.
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. (7)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.
§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
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. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
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) (8) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); (9) 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.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
[...] whether through cowardice or complicity, or ignorance. After all, what is left to say when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg purposely chooses to ignore the NBC clause as it relates to her grandson? Is it any wonder that the [...]
October 25th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Dear Shocking…..I have one problem with the article you placed the link in for. John McCain’s parents were BOTH American citizens. The only reason John was born in the Panama district was because his dad was STATIONED there because he was serving in our military. John PROVED his love and allegiance to this country during the Viet Nam war by putting his life on the line. He was tortured and held prisoner, and though I didn’t agree with all of his stances during the campaign, he’s still an American hero in my book. What more proof can one ask of someone than to suffer both physically and mentally at the hands of our enemies for the love of his country?
On the other hand….there is absolutely NOTHING that Obama has done before taking office, or since, to prove that his allegiance is to the United States of America. In fact, his actions show just the opposite. From the first records taken of his interviews by the press during his seat in the Senate in IL to his current policies, he has proven that he hates this country and wants to destroy it. There is a big difference between the 2 men. But John McCain’s eligibility was, in fact, presented to the court and they found him eligible. Obama’s was NEVER even questioned. Why?