Posted on 08/03/2009 9:32:38 AM PDT by Crush T Velour
Some so-called Birthers are resting their arguments on Chief Justice Marshall's supposed reliance a claimed "Vetter's" definition of "natural born citizenship". They believe that that court has not ruled on this issue otherwise. This is not so.
This case I've linked to regarded whether a certain child was a natural born citizen because he was born to chinese immigrant parents in the United States who were in the country lawfully.
The SCOTUS determined that the child was a NATURAL BORN citizen for the following reasons:
1. The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of "citizen" or "natural-born citizen" by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law [of England], the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.
2. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
Equal to but not the same as, correct?
They could. And some have tried to over the past few years. But the bills never make it out of committee.
The key is understanding that Congress has the responsibility for establishing uniform rules of naturalization. Part of establishing those rules is identifying who doesn't need to be naturalized. Congress could do away with anchor babies with a simple piece of legislation. But they haven't.
Congress cannot legislate changes in the Constitution. For that an amendment is required.
It is by the same token that if a part of the Constitution is going to be ruled upon by the Court then it has to be a part of the arguments submitted to the Court and in the case you cite there was no arguments given to the Court on Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and so it was not at all ruled upon as you claimed before.
You two cannot understand the ruling. I’m sorry for that, but tried to help: I broke it down for you in the original post.
Let’s try one more time.
1) Wong Kim Ark was ruled to be a natural born citizen even though he had TWO parents who were not citizens.
2) One must be a natural born citizen to eligible to be POTUS. So Wong Kim Ark could have been a POTUS.
2) The court ruled that children born in the US to Ambassadors and the like of other countries were NOT natural born citizens.
3) If one required two citizens, who were naturally born by your definition, in order to be a Natural Born Citizen then YOU would not be a natural born citizen if you had even ONE great-great grandparent who was not in the US in 1789.
4) If having dual citizenship precluded Americans from being President, then Yemen could prevent every member of the GOP from being President by recognizing them as citizens.
My mistake. allmendreams DOES understand the ruling.
1) Yes, Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born” citizen, neither parent was a citizen.
2) If Wong Kim Ark won the electoral college vote after attaining the age of 35, then yes, President Wong Kim Ark.
2 again) Yep, if you are in the USA on the business of your home nation you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
3) As I pointed out, nobody would qualify as a “natural born citizen” if both parents had to be; as everyone in America has a great^n degree grandparent who was not a natural born citizen.
4) Yeppers! America doesn't recognize foreign citizenship status, dual citizenship, etc. You either are a U.S. citizen by birth, by naturalization, or you are NOT a U.S. citizen.
TOO LATE! ;)
Already made me agree with you again!
You scoundrel!!!!
I shall not forgive this insult! ;)
So here is Saul Alinsky being read by conservatives, and golly listen to the left complain!I can appreciate feeling pleasure at Obama's unhappiness. But I'm not willing for us to become fools for Obama's sake.
I suspect the reason Obama doesn't want his long form birth certificate to become public is that under "Race" it says "White".
When I see your screen name all I can think of is...
“I have just made it with a woman. Kif, inform the men”
heh heh heh...
Very perceptive!
It’s an old nickname I used as the starship captain in some quasi-Star Trek computer game I played when I was a teen.
This is the ruling that created the anchor baby nightmare.
It is also inherently wrong.
Let's examine this statement....
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom.
Allegiance, Ligealty, (legality?) Obedience, faith and the power of our government are all pieces of what constitutes the jurisdiction of this country, any one that by choice or act places themselves outside of that jurisdiction is not entitled to benefit from citizenship, an illegal alien is an enemy alien because he does not believe that our laws on immigration apply to him or his children, Likewise the child of a foreign national here on a student or special visa who has no intent on submitting to our jurisdiction is also not a US citizen.
Let me explain why this is so in simple terms, a resident alien(green card holder) here legally can be drafted because under the conditions of our immigration they are eligible for the draft. Likewise they also pay income tax as well, and if they wish after a period of time they can apply to be citizens.
Illegal aliens, don't pay income taxes, cannot be drafted and will never be citizens, and the same applies to anyone here on a visa, a visa means they are not subject to those laws that are applied to our citizens, because they do not place themselves under our jurisdiction, meaning that they do not want to become US citizens, and that they want to remain under their own country's jurisdiction.
So much misinformation for such a short post:
“Remember, his half sister born in Indonesia ub 1970 has a similar certificate of birth from Hawaii.”
Does this supposed Maya COLB, which nobody seems to be able to produce, give Indonesia or Hawaii as place of birth? If the former, your comment is irrelevant. If the latter, please provide evidence.
“also, what national passport did he use to visit Parkinstan in 1981 since no US citizen could get a visa.”
This has been thoroughly debunked. 1981 NYTimes article on Pakistan travel:
Letter from U.S. Consul welcoming tourists:
U.S. travel advisory on how 30-day tourist visas available at Pakistan airport:
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
“Finally, he attended school in Indonesia while living with his step father. To attend school there you had to be a citizen of that country and I suspect he was adopted for this purpose.”
Please provide evidence. I have seen stories that there was a law BANNING Indonesian-Chinese from attending their own schools (which comports with the general intention of public schools) but no credible reports that foreigners were banned from Indonesian schools. Since Indonesians attended U.S. high schools as AFS exchange students (an Indonesian AFS high school exchange student in California, with the first name of Soetoro is one of Orly’s snipe hunts), this is doubly unlikely.
You’ll have to do much better.
Illegal aliens, don't pay income taxes, cannot be drafted and will never be citizens, and the same applies to anyone here on a visa, a visa means they are not subject to those laws that are applied to our citizens, because they do not place themselves under our jurisdiction, meaning that they do not want to become US citizens, and that they want to remain under their own country's jurisdiction.I agree. However, I don't think it has been tested in the courts yet. I bet the SCOTUS will never review such a case unless a lower court agrees with you and me. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the right to define naturalization rules, so if they treat anchor-babies as immediately naturalized citizens (right or wrong), they are not beyond their legal rights to do so. If such an anchor baby ever runs for POTUS, there will potentially be a Constitutional crisis unless Congress and the SCOTUS ignore the issue.
As for Obama, he had at least one parent in the country legally. So, by US v Wong Kim Ark, he is a natural born citizen.
If we admit that there are exceptions, then how is it determined which exceptions are or aren't constitutional?
I don't think you need to look beyond the Framers’ intent in regards to the Citizen Clause of the 14th Amendment. The author was Senator Jacob M. Howard and the Framers’ intent can be determined by reading the debate.
The understanding was that foreigners, aliens, Indians and ambassadors aren't citizens by being born on US soil. That status is determined by the status of the parents, obviously.
"Why are children of ambassadors and diplomats not natural-born citizens if they are born on US soil? It's not the child's fault who his parents are."It's not an issue of fairness. It's an issue of English common law. Ambassadors are under the leigeship of a foreign government. Their bodies and households are foreign soil. For that reason, foreign consulates are considered foreign territory. So a child of an ambassador is born in the land of its parent wherever that birth takes place. Beyond that, the status of the parents make no difference.*
* A possible exception might be if BOTH the parents were in the US illegally. But the issue has never come up in an elected POTUS, so who knows? As it is, the congress treats children born in the US to illegals as (at the very least) NATURALIZED citizens, and the Constitution gives them the right to determine the qualifications of naturalization.
I don't think you need to look beyond the Framers’ intent in regards to the Citizen Clause of the 14th Amendment.That debate was not participated in by the Founders. Nor does a debate hold the force of law. "US v Wong Kim Ark" does have the force of law.
Wrong as usual. The holding or judgment in the case, the majority opinion, did not call Ark a Natural born citizen.
Don't the designs of the Framers trump your English common law?
Don't the designs of the Framers trump your English common law?The SC justices relied on English common law because the Framers did not deign to define "natural born citizen" or even "citizen" in the Constitution.
Now, if you can show that the Framers (not Justice Marshall or some senator 86 years later) universally presumed some other definition of "natural born citizen" than English Common Law, we might have something to debate about.
But it would still not affect Obama unless the SC decides to override "US v Wong Kim Ark" or the Congress/States amend the Constitution to otherwise define "natural born citizen". Even then, it would not affect Obama, since he was elected before the law went into effect.
I say it is.
I'm a FReeper too.
Sure you are. Just like you're a "lifelong Republican but..." More like a seminar FReeper.
Not all FReepers agree with you on this. In fact, I'll warrant that most of us don't.
You're the one that's in the minority, not me.
Read the damn 110 year old ruling.
Irrelevant to whether or not Zero is eligible for POTUS.
You don't know what you are talking about. It's embarrassing.
Uh, ok.
THe Constitution NOWHERE says you have to have two natural born citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
It doesn't have to state it. Writings and other subsequent interpretations by the Founders validate my argument. P> If it were so, it would mean that you have to be the direct decendant ON MOTHER'S AND FATHER'S SIDE of a couple in the US in 1789.
The Founders grandfathered themselves in. Was Obama born in 1789?
Because if you come from immigrants since then NONE OF THEIR DECENDENTS could ever be a "natural born" citizen. It's ludicrous.
Was Obama's father a legal immigrant of the U.S.? Was he one of those idyllic immigrants who came here and became naturalized?
His communist, alcoholic, skirt-chasing old man was born in Kenya, you effing doorknob! He was a British citizen and per the 1948 British Nationality Act his citizenship automatically transferred to Zero. It does not matter where Obama was born, he held dual-citizenship loyalty which is prohibited under the Constitution for POTUS!
ROFL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.