The reaction to my blog Birther Madness is stunning, with nearly 400 comments in a heated debate over the “term natural born citizen.” Birthers claim our constitution’s framers meant “natural born citizen” born in the U.S. of two citizen parents in the U.S., based on Swiss philosopher Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Birthers critics say Vattel never used “natural born citizen” and common law had long defined natural born citizen as someone who was born a citizen regardless of their parents’ citizenship.

Natural Born Citizen – Jus Soli (law of the soil) vs. Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood)

Sir William Blackstone

Nations define citizenship in two broad categories, Jus Soli (law of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood). England and colonies all followed Jus Soli, so anyone born in England or colonies were natural born subjects regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The most authoritative text on Common Law during the colonial era was An Analysis of the Laws of England by William Blackstone. Blackstone is quite clear about the term natural born in the citizenship context:

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth…

What did Natural Born Citizen Mean When the Constitution was Adopted?

Our constitution doesn’t explicitly define the term “natural born citizen” but there is overwhelming evidence that “natural born citizen” was widely understood at the time and didn’t need definition.

Following independence, the articles of confederation were adopted, which concentrated power in the states, including immigration. Every state embraced English common law, except where it conflicted with their new constitution. For example, the Delaware constitution states:

The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this state, shall remain in force unless they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature, such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Constitution and the declaration of rights, & agreed by this convention.

Virginia’s reception statute:

And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.

English common law became American common law, and no state passed a statute embracing Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood). Immigration power was reserved to the states, until our constitution shifted that power to Congress.

Birther ‘Pretzel Logic’ and Vattel’s “Law of Nations”

Emer de Vattel, Swiss Philosopher

It takes ‘pretzel logic’ to believe our constitution’s framers meant Vattel’s notion of “naturals” to define citizenship, a drastic change from centuries of jus soli. Surely if our founders wanted to make such a drastic change they would have explicitly defined “natural born citizen”, indicating the term was widely understood. Vattel never used the term “natural born citizen.”

The framers did read Vattel, but never quoted the following passage from Emer de Vattel’s 1758 book, “Le Droit des Gens,” or “The Law of Nations.”

§. 212. Les Citoyens sont les membres de la Société Civile: Liés à cette Société par certains devoirs, & sourmis à son Autorité, il participent avec égalité à ses avantages. Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.

The bold phrase in English states les Naturels, ou Indigènes (the naturals or indigenous) are those who were born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Nowhere did Vattel use the phrases “natural born citizen” or “natural citizens.” Moreover, Vattel was Swiss, and his legal framework was Swiss law. Switzerland follows Jus Sanguinis (law of the blood), and in Switzerland one must be born of Swiss citizen parents to be born a Swiss citizen. Naturally Vattel would tend to view citizenship as jus sanguinis, or the two-parent rule.

Blackstones Commentaries

Vattel’s book is a treatise, a book of philosophy about international law. The framers also read law books, among them Blackstone’s Analysis of the Laws of England. Birthers stress the importance of Vattel to bolster their argument, but this analysis by Donald S. Lutz shows Vattel was tied for last place for influence by our founders, while Blackstone was #3 (7.9%), both of whom wrote extensively about English common law. For every founder quote of Vattel, there were 16 of Blackstone!

Birthers Epic’ Failure to Make Their Case!

Keith Russell Judd, Federal inmate number 11593-051. Most prolific birther

Of 337+ birther court decisions (see scorecard), birthers have won ZERO cases and several were fined for frivolous cases! Most losses were for lack of standing, technical deficiencies, but more than a ten judges explicitly ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen. Here’s a list of those cases with links:

• Ankeny v. Daniels
• Fair v. Obama
• Farrar v. Obama (Secretary of State also found Obama is a NBC)
• Galasso v. Obama
• Jackson v. Obama
• Paige v. Obama
• Purpura et al v. Obama
• Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections
• Tisdale v. Obama (appeal too)
• Voeltz v. Obama

####

Bob Quasius is founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Ted Cruz has just been sworn into office, and already rumors of a presidential run are swirling. Pundits are questioning if Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible to run for president. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 of an American citizen mother and Cuban father.

Many incorrectly assume one has to be born in a U.S. state or territory to be a natural born citizen, but the term “natural born citizen” refers to whether the person was a citizen at birth or became a citizen through naturalization. The 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Ted Cruz was not born in a U.S. state or territory, so clearly he is not a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment. However, under federal law, he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen. One criteria for “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories” from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School in the U.S., as well as Rice University, so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Natural born citizen defined

Our constitution doesn’t specifically define “natural born citizen” but is framed in English common law in effect at the time, and under English common law the term “natural born citizen” is understood to be a citizen at birth.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. Blackstone’s commentaries was the most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.

However, Blackstone also recognizes natural born citizenship for subjects born abroad. English common law is comprised of precedents, court decisions, as amended by statutes.

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2 (passed in 1350). that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and states:

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…

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans. Reposted – original link.

Now that President Obama has been reelected, likely 2016 candidates are emerging, especially Marco Rubio, and undoubtedly the birther movement will question: is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen? Is Marco Rubio eligible to be president? The alternative media started raising doubts when speculation began about Marco Rubio as a potential presidential candidate or VP running mate in 2012, and for sure birther speculation will increase as Marco Rubio is in the limelight as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.

Birthers will also likely ask the same questions about another potential presidential contender, Bobby Jindal, whose parents weren’t U.S. citizens or permanent residents when Jindal was born.

Sadly, one likely reason Marco Rubio was passed over as Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick was the likelihood that Marco Rubio would have been constantly dogged by birthers. In my opinion, Rubio would have helped Mitt Romney immensely with Latino voters once they got to know him better, and low support among Latino voters likely cost Mitt Romney the election, along with his unfortunate self-deportation comment.

No amount of hard evidence can sway conspiracy theorists. If you disagree with them or confront them with hard evidence to disprove their theory, the immediately accuse you propagating disinformation as part of the conspiracy, almost a ‘no win’ proposition.

Anonymous e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the Democratic primaries, igniting the birther movement when conspiracy theorists picked up on the issue. Most prominent among birthers is author Jerome Corsi, who makes a living creating conspiracy theories to sell books. Who can ever forget the North American Union conspiracy, which claimed President Bush would merge the U.S., Canada, and Mexico without the approval of Congress? Corsi even claimed there was a new currency, the Amero, but just try to find one. You can buy Corsi’s book “The Late Great USA: NAFTA, the North American Union, and the Threat of a Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada” for a penny from Amazon.com. Corsi’s North American Union is so lacking in facts and ridiculous that Corsi shouldn’t be taken seriously, but he continues to be a popular author. The more outrageous his conspiracy theories, the more books he sells!

Is Marco Rubio a natural born citizen?

Marco Rubio is undoubtedly a natural born citizen. So is Bobby Jindal, and so is John McCain, though John McCain was born on a U.S. military base in Panama. All three were U.S. citizens at birth and therefore are natural born citizens.

At the time our constitution was adopted, citizenship was determined by English Common Law. Birthright citizenship was part of English Common Law, except for children born of slaves, who were considered slaves rather than subjects.

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years. The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a non-citizen throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If children born of non-citizens were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc. The legal status of their parents is irrelevant.

The only exception to birthright citizenship are children born on U.S. soil to foreign leaders, diplomats and their families, who have diplomatic immunity under treaty and international law, and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a U.S. born child of a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket him for littering, they can claim diplomatic immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants. Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate race forever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding! Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic. The most authoritative source on English Common law for over a century was William Blackstone. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. McCain was born in Panama on a U.S. military base, and thus subject to U.S. jurisdiction when he was born.

Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born. No doubt birthers will seek to delegitimize Marco Rubio’s citizenship by claiming one or both parents weren’t here legally, but it’s clear the legal status of one’s parents isn’t relevant to the child’s legal status. Ditto for Bobby Jindal, whose parents were not yet permanent residents when Bobby Jindal was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship. Most Hispanics are either immigrants themselves, or 1-2 generations removed, and sadly many Americans view all Hispanics as either unauthorized immigrants or ‘fake citizens’ who are citizens due to ‘misinterpretation’ of that pesky 14th amendment.

####

by Bob Quasius, founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans (original link)

By Thomas Martin Salazar (originally published at Cafe Con Leche Republicans Blog)

Growing up my father (a Mexican national) taught me the importance of having three basic priorities that should govern my life. These priorities were to always place God first, family second, and work/school third above everything else. After the spanking the Republicans  received this last election day, it seems as if we as a party could benefit from considering these priorities, especially when it comes to the family.  I understand that not every Hispanic person is the same, nor is every Mexican American for that matter. But I do believe that these priorities are important and relatable to the Hispanic and Latino community. While the GOP tends to do a great job at defending religious liberty and is the most active in the defense of the unborn, it seems to neglect one of the most important priorities – family and fails miserably at communicating the third – work/education.

If Republicans wish to gain back the support of the Latino vote, especially that of the Mexican Americans in many southwestern states, then we need to end the rhetorical attacks on their families. Hispanics are not going to vote for any candidate whom they  think is going to deport their abuelita or go after their parents, husbands or wives.  They also will not support candidates of a party who want to end birthright citizenship. If we are to be the party of family values which I believe we are, then we must let go of our rhetoric and reach out in good faith to work towards some form of immigration reform just as George W. Bush tried to do. Conservatives seem to think and fear that Hispanics are inherently liberal. I disagree. The Democratic party does not hold our values; but neither do they pander to the immigration enforcement only crowd as republicans tend to do. I am not calling for open borders or lax enforcement. I am suggesting that we use our enforcement resources on the border and go after the criminals and the cartels, meanwhile, finding a humane way to keep families united and help build a better future for America and the Republican Party. When the Republicans finally embrace pro-family policies and cease the rhetoric that has been perceived as anti-Hispanic, then the door will be opened for further dialogue.

After we reach out in good faith, then we, as a party, must communicate better toward Hispanics and Latinos in general. We need candidates and organized groups to reach out and educate them on economic issues. Both employment and education are top priorities for many Hispanics, but if they do not see the connection from the policy played out in their daily lives, then we are failing to communicate.  Republicans must do a better job at explaining how raising tax rates and continued deficit spending will negatively impact them. While at the same time, Republicans need to articulately respond with fiscally sound economic policies that will lead to economic growth and rising incomes. Moreover, we need to defend the free market and explain how it is their inherent right as human beings, created by God, to choose how to spend and use their money. Republicans should also educate Hispanic voters on  the myriads of federal regulations and taxes that are inhibiting his or her ability to freely choose, by decreasing growth and upward mobility.

Furthermore,  we need to work harder at  defending educational choice for parents. We have an over regulated education system that sends billions of dollars to bureaucrats in the Department of Education, while spending on students and their classrooms  are both neglected. Moreover, Republicans can definitely win on the issue of school choice. School choice is not a federal program; it is the right for parents to have the choice whether to send their children to public, private or charter schools or even homeschool if they wish. Parents should be afforded all options because each child learns differently and no one size fits all federal education program will meet those needs. We must oppose federal one size fits all cookie cutter educational standards and move  towards state rights  and parental rights. Education is a pivotal issue for each and every Hispanic mother and father. This goal will be hindered if  we do not reach out and clearly articulate to Hispanic voters our educational polices.

Thus, we must do better at articulating our values to the Hispanic and in particular  the Mexican American community. I do believe this goal is attainable and I am optimistic.  Just recently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity, came out in favor for immigration reform and the Speaker of the House,  John Boehner, said he is “confident”  that the Republican congress can reach a deal on an immigration reform bill. Again, we are the ones who need to reach out in good faith and restart the dialogue. Therefore, I pray that the GOP will heed these words and consider the three top priorities of this frustrated Republican: God, family, and work/education. If we do anything less, failure is inevitable.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

By Thomas Martin Salazar, (content originally Published through Cafe con Leche Republicans)

In 2008 President Obama made a promise to many Hispanics and Latinos that said he would make immigration reform priority. He promised that immigration reform was an important issue that should not wait to be addressed down the road, but during his first term.

Here we are four years later and in an interview with Univision, Obama tells the American people that his greatest failure was not passing comprehensive immigration reform.  This would be ironic if it was not such a tragic understatement. In fact, President Obama and his administration are aggressively  enforcing  immigration laws.

In the last four years President Obama rounded up and deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants. Moreover, he masqueraded as an immigration reformer – working to seduce the Latino community, by suing Arizona all the way up to the Supreme Court for passing SB 1070 and by opposing Maricopa county Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Yes Obama and his campaign surrogates boast with pride about how Obama is the immigrant’s champion, but they neglect to tell the truth about Obama’s own immigration policies.

They conveniently ignore the fact that Obama has pioneered the Secure Communities program. According to a Research Report by Aarti Kohli, Peter Markowitz, and Lisa Chavez, President Obama took this pilot program, which was started under President Bush, from 14 jurisdictions to 1,595. This program empowers state and local police all throughout the United States, to do the very exact things for which his administration sued Arizona and Maricopa county Sheriff Joe Arpaio. More revealing statistics from the same research study states,

“Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States;”

And

“Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge as compared to 14% of all immigration court respondents who are granted relief”

This is unequivocally a disproportionate assault on Latinos. But the facts do not stop here.  The President has deported more than 1.5 million illegal immigrants, which averages to just below 400,000 people a year. Furthermore, Obama’s immigration policies have left more than 5,000 American citizens in foster care because their parents were rounded up and deported. His administration in the name of national security continues to deny passports to United States citizens whose birth certificates came from midwife and not through a hospital. This has disproportionately affected Latinos. This new policy of no longer accepting midwife birth certificates as an acceptable form of Identification goes far beyond just impacting Latinos who are seeking to obtain passports; in fact, there are even incidents where Federal immigration officials coerced United States citizens into signing away their citizenship. These are not the actions of a man who cares about immigrants and their families nor is it the actions of an immigration reformer.

Recently Obama has again been making his rounds – reaching out to Latinos with his promise and message of reform. Ironically, Obama and his campaign want Americans to believe that immigration reform will become a reality within the next four years. Indeed, it is such an important issue to our President that he failed to even reference immigration in his new glossy pamphlet. Thus it seems that immigration reform is not as important as the President claims.  Then again, in the first four years immigration reform was supposedly a high priority.

While the President plays the victim, blaming lack of bipartisanship for why he has failed to pass immigration reform, I would ask you to look at his real record on immigration. Look at the millions of people he has rounded up and deported. Moreover, how debased it is that our government would see fit to seize children from their own parents, and place them in the foster care system. What type of nation have we become, when basic parental rights and child rights are neglected? Sadly, under President Obama this is a reality. Obama needs to be held accountable for his deception. In the end, Latinos have a choice of either voting for the deporter-in-chief or they can vote for a new direction.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

by Bob Quasius

If you think the Obama administration is pro-Latino then you need to read our news release (below) about the Obama administration’s refusal to recognize the citizenship of hundreds, perhaps thousands of Latino U.S. citizens who were birthed by midwives rather than in hospitals. Our news release resulted two CNN news stories, one in English and one in Spanish.

The problem is especially severe for elderly Latinos from border areas such as South Texas, as there were few hospitals in the Rio Grande valley at the time, and needless to say it’s hard to locate records typically demanded when Obama’s State Department refuses to accept official state-issued birth certificates. For example, how  many of us could locate our own prenatal medical records or records from every school we ever attended? Imagine an elderly person trying to locate these records from over half a century ago! Often, even after producing a mountain of documentation Obama’s State Department still refuses to issue a passport and a lawsuit is necessary.

Ironically, even though the U.S. Supreme Court upheld voter photo ID, Obama’s DOJ is making an all-out effort to block states from requiring photo ID to vote, claiming there’s a disparate impact on minority voters who supposedly are less likely to already have photo ID. The courts have generally upheld voter photo ID because those who don’t already have ID can obtain state-issued photo ID at no charge. The only government agency denying photo IDs to minorities is Obama’s State Department! Doesn’t the State Department’s practice of denying passports to Latino citizens birthed by midwives have a disparate impact on Latinos? We don’t know of a single state denying photo IDs to U.S. Citizens based upon Hispanic surname and midwife birth. Why isn’t Obama’s DOJ investigating Obama’s State Department?

National pro-immigrant group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today blasted the Obama administration for stripping U.S. Citizens of their citizenship under the pretext of fighting birth certificate fraud. Overzealous officials from the Department of Homeland Security and State Department are refusing to issue U.S. passports and in some cases have cancelled passports for U.S. Citizens who were birthed by midwives. One U.S. Citizen was trapped in Mexico for two years when his U.S. passport was confiscated by CBP in Laredo, following a visit with his dying Grandmother in Mexico. The alleged basis was a typographical error in his birth registration card, supposedly showing that he had been registered a few days before he was born. Another U.S. citizen had his passport voided during a visit to Mexico, resulting in his inability to return home for many months while litigation was pending. Many others have experienced similar problems.

Also, many of these U.S. Citizens have been detained for hours, sometimes days, by agents of Customs and Border Protection and pressured into signing false statements admitting they were born in Mexico, and then returned to Mexico, where it is very difficult, if not impossible, for them to prove their U.S. citizenship. According to the Government, even people with facially valid U.S. passports are not entitled to counsel when stopped at the border, or challenged at a U.S. Consulate abroad, unless and until criminal or immigration charges have been filed. Unlike criminal cases, ICE and CBP have broad discretion to detain suspected undocumented immigrants, with no right to bond. Often these citizens have limited English proficiency and do not understand legalese, and are pressured or tricked into signing these untrue statements to get out of detention, not realizing they will be deported and potentially barred for life from the nation where they were born and spent most or all their lives. This reminds us of pre-Miranda days when police often detained suspects for hours, perhaps days, pressuring them until they signed confessions.

This problem is especially severe for the elderly on fixed incomes and the mentally disabled, who often do not comprehend the complex legal issues involved with immigration law, or simply lack the estimated $5,000 to $15,000 to bring a legal case to defend their citizenship in court. Local immigration attorneys claim there are now over 500, and possibly as many as 1,000 Latino U.S. passport applications were denied, and many more Latinos likely have not applied for passports due to the issue. Local immigration attorneys are seeking class action certification in pending legal cases due to the thousands of citizens affected by this travesty of justice.
Lawsuit

The South Texas counties affected by this travesty of justice are 90% Latino. 44 States allow midwives to create documentation that result in issuance of birth certificates, yet amazingly this intense level of scrutiny only seems to be applied in predominately Latino communities.

There have been isolated instances of a few Rio Grande Valley midwives issuing false documents for births that actually took place in Mexico. However, the reaction from the Bush and Obama administrations is symptomatic of the ‘enforcement on steroids’ climate promoted by DHS under the leadership of Janet Napolitano in response to heavy public pressure to “secure the borders” before true immigration reform can be addressed . Not surprisingly, a recent report found 3,600 U.S. Citizens had been arrested and detained by ICE under the Secure Communities Program, 93% of those detained under Secure Communities are Latino versus 78% of the undocumented population, and non-criminal arrests are approaching 50%, a strong indication that Latinos stopped for traffic or other minor infractions are being arrested rather than cited in order to funnel them through jail house screening.

We call on the Obama administration to cease and desist from this appalling practice of citizenship stripping, and we call for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct a complete and thorough investigation and hold those responsible accountable.

#####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have chapters in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

by Bob Quasius

For more than two decades, anti-immigrant politicians and activists have stridently sought to redefine birthright citizenship. Harry Reid even introduced a bill in 1993 to redefine birthright citizenship, to exclude the children born of unauthorized immigrants. Hypocritically, Reid now criticizes Republicans who introduce anti-immigrant laws!

Opponents of birthright citizenship claim the framers of our constitution and authors of the 14th amendment meant something entirely different than what our courts have consistently ruled for over 100 years.

The plain language of the 14th amendment is crystal clear, which explains why no court has sided with birthright citizenship opponents. Section 1 of the 14th amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Opponents deliberately confuse “allegiance” with “jurisdiction”, claiming that children born of unauthorized immigrants owe allegiance to their parents’ home nation, not to the U.S., and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Black’s law dictionary defines jurisdiction as:

The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient.

In layman’s terms, if a court or government can hold you accountable under laws, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. Applying common sense, virtually everyone present in the U.S., regardless of any allegiance to any foreign government, is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If an unauthorized immigrant throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in violation of anti-littering laws, they can be given a ticket or arrested. That’s jurisdiction! If unauthorized immigrants or their children were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” then they would be immune to U.S. courts, could not be sued, fined, deported, etc.

The only present exception to U.S. jurisdiction are foreign leaders, diplomats and their families including U.S. born children, who have diplomatic immunity and cannot be arrested or sued in U.S. courts, and therefore are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. If a diplomat throws a gum wrapper on the sidewalk in front of a cop and the cop tries to ticket for littering, the diplomat can claim immunity under international law and U.S. courts cannot fine him for littering.

Another frequent argument against birthright citizenship is that the 14th amendment was merely intended to ensure that newly freed slaves would be considered citizens and not to grant citizenship to children born of unauthorized immigrants.

Its true the purpose of the 14th amendment was to address citizenship of slaves. Under English Common Law at the time the U.S. became a nation, children born of slaves were not considered subjects or citizens, and the 14th amendment was needed to reverse the infamous Dredd Scott decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blacks could never become citizens.

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men “are created free and equal,” is universally accepted and made the basis of all our institutions, State and National, and the relations of citizenship–the rights of the individual–in short, the status of the dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed, many (perhaps most ) American communities have latterly sought to include him in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the superior race.

This confusion is now at an end, and the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, has defined the relations, and fixed the status of the subordinate raceforever–for that decision is in accord with the natural relations of the races, and therefore can never perish. It is based on historical and existing facts, which are indisputable, and it is a necessary, indeed unavoidable inference, from these facts.

There is little doubt the purpose of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dredd Scott v. Stanford and ensure that Southern states respected newly freed slaves as citizens. However, transcripts of the Congressional debate showed that the status of children born of immigrants was vigorously debated. Some members of Congress wanted to exclude children born of Chinese immigrants, but when the vote was taken the 14th amendment passed.

Transcripts of debates in state legislatures that ratified the 14th amendment would no doubt show that citizenship of children born of immigrants was also considered. There is no grand historic misunderstanding. Congress did not intend to exclude the children born of immigrants from birthright citizenship. and a plain reading of the 14th amendment is crystal clear.

A good explanation of the 14th amendment can be found in this briefing by the Cato Institute. It is especially noteworthy that slaves imported after the ban went into effect in 1808 were among America’s first unauthorized immigrants, as well as many impoverished Irish immigrants who bypassed legal ports of entry to evade a head tax which they could not afford. In light of the ban on the slave trade which continued anyway, it is logically inconsistent to argue Congress meant to exclude anyone who immigrated illegally.

Prior to the 14th amendment, English Common law provided for birthright citizenship except for slaves. Upon independence, states passed reception statutes to implement and continue English common law except where it conflicted with state constitutions.

So just what did English Common law say about birthright citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted until after the Second World War.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, and he argued that even if a natural born subject later swears allegiance to another nation, they are still natural born subjects of England. When America became a nation, we called ourselves citizens rather than subjects, but the concept of birthright citizenship remained. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

Allegiance, both express and implied, is however distinguished by the law into two sorts or species, the one natural, the other local; the former being also perpetual, the latter temporary. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themselves. Natural allegiance is therefore a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature. An Englishman who removes to France, or to China, owes the same allegiance to the king of England there as at home, and twenty years hence as well as now. For it is a principle of universal law, that the natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former: for this natural allegiance was intrinsic, and primitive, and antecedent to the other; and cannot be devested without the concurrent act of that prince to whom it was first due…

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. 

Since Obama’s election, another dimension to the birthright citizenship debate emerged, claiming that one is not a “natural born citizen” unless both parents were citizens.  Article Two of our constitution requires that our president be a “natural born citizen” but does not define that term:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

A 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

This conclusion is entirely consistent with Blackstone’s commentary on English common law:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

Blackstone also notes that children born abroad of diplomats are still considered natural born subjects:

Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

As per Blackstone’s commentary, Americans such as John McCain, who was born of American citizen parents on a U.S. military base in Panama, who would have been considered a natural born subject of England under English common law. Ditto for Marco Rubio, whose parents were permanent residents of the U.S. when he was born.

The  Congressional Research Service also notes:

The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the  term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. The use of the phrase in the Constitution may have derived from a suggestion in a letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Convention expressing concern about having the office of Commander-in-Chief “devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” as there were fears at that time about wealthy European aristocracy or royalty coming to America, gaining citizenship, and then buying and scheming their way to the presidency without long-standing loyalty to the nation. At the time of  independence, and at the time of the framing of the Constitution, the term “natural born” with respect to citizenship was in use for many years in the American colonies, and then in the states, from British common law and legal usage. Under the common law principle of jus soli (law of the soil), persons born on English soil, even of two alien parents, were “natural born” subjects and, as noted by the Supreme Court, this “same rule” was applicable in the American colonies and “in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution …” with respect to citizens. In textual constitutional analysis, it is understood that terms used but not defined in the document must, as explained by the Supreme Court, “be read in light of British common law” since the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law.”

So why on Earth are some groups trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and legal precedent? Clearly the birther movement is behind the effort to redefine ‘natural born citizen’ to de-legitimize President Obama, who clearly is a natural born citizen. There’s also a subliminal message that Obama ‘is not one of us.’

Note that I am no fan of Obama, and believe he’s our worst president in modern history. However, I do believe Obama is a natural born citizen per the legal precedent in place at the time our constitution was adopted. We should get rid of Obama, but at the ballot box, not in the courts. Its noteworthy also that the birther movement is batting ZERO in over  100 court cases.

Clearly there are also those who do not like Marco Rubio because he is Hispanic and the son of immigrants. By raising the issue of ‘natural born citizens’ some hope to derail any chance that Marco Rubio might become a VP running mate or a future presidential candidate.

With regards to immigration, there is clearly an effort afoot to generate hostility to groups that are perceived either as immigrants or recent offspring of immigrants. It’s also become acceptable in many quarters to hate unauthorized immigrants, blaming them for a range of social problems. By making an issue of birthright citizenship, now it becomes OK to also hate citizens who are perceived as benefiting from birthright citizenship.

Original posting