tazzygirl
Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
Considering Vattel, in one place, was deciding that citizenship required only the father to be a citizen, meaning mothers could not pass on citizenship to their offspring, how many of you are still illegal citizens? Unless someone actually had a direct male ancestor apply, and be granted, naturalized citizenship, then, according to Vattel, you are not a citizen of the US.
De Vattel talks about the relationship between individuals and government in Book 1 of The Law of Nations. He describes two types of citizen. In § 212. Citizens and natives. He says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” When de Vattel’s translator uses the phrase “natural-born citizens” (this phrase is not literally in the French language original) he is invoking a principle of natural law, as he shows when saying: “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.” And finally, to emphasize what was said before, de Vattel concludes: “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.”
This last sentence, that discounts place of birth entirely is somewhat in contradiction to the first which asserts “born in the country” in addition to citizen parents. Note that parents (plural) does not imply two citizen parents, since clearly it is only the father who is considered. Parents is in parallel to citizens (also plural).
The second type of citizenship is discussed in § 214. Naturalization. Of Naturalized citizens de Vattel says: “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.” These are made citizen by the law of the country or the grant of the sovereign. De Vattel makes it clear that even citizens at birth who are not born of citizen fathers are “naturalized”. He said:
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
Note that de Vattel’s wording is contrary to English law, which describes such a person a “natural born subject”, not a naturalized subject.
How would de Vattel look at the issue of citizenship in the new country of the United States in the case of children born to foreigners there? We have an answer from § 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. 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.
De Vattel appears to be flexible about citizenship for situations outside his “preferred scenario” where parents, birth place and law all coincide.
We have seen in these other articles:
Natural Born in Georgia
Natural Born in South Carolina
Naturalization Acts of New York (1770)
that the laws in Colonial America, following those of England, considered natural born citizenship based on the country where one was born, without regard for whether ones parents were citizens or not. De Vattel would say that “their regulations must be followed” even though it went against his view of natural law.
Historical aside:Â de Vattel would have considered President Chester A. Arthur a natural born US Citizen according to his view of natural law because the President’s father, albeit a British Citizen when Chester was born, was clearly a permanent resident of the United States (who was naturalized later).
Conclusion
We see that Emmerich de Vattel wrote that according to his understanding of universal natural law, that a person’s allegiance follows that of his father, not the place of his birth. We see that de Vattel admitted only two kinds of citizen, natural born and naturalized. He also understood that not every society agreed with him and that the laws of particular countries may be different, and they must be followed.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/de-vattel-for-dummies/
_____________________________
Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.
|
RE: Birthers unhappy with Georgia Ruling - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread