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.
Wrong as usual. The holding or judgment in the case, the majority opinion, did not call Ark a Natural born citizen.Read the ruling (or at least my summary) or do not respond. The Court's ruling in the case states:
1) The Constitution does not define "natural born citizen".
2) Therefore, English common law should hold for the definition of this term (since the United States never had a common law).
3) [According to English Common Law,] "Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."
4) Therefore, Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.
To argue that the SCOTUS was not declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, is being deliberately dense.
Living up to your screenname again eh NS?
If your claim is true then virtually nobody can be president.
Of course they can.
As long as their parents became naturalized U.S. citizens and the off-spring was born on U.S. soil, then there's no issues.
Obama's Daddy was born in Kenya, was a British citizen, which automatically transferred to young Zero. Why is this so hard for folks to understand?
We all trace our heritage back to a immigrant from somewhere.
We can all trace our heritage to communist African thugs?
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666] ...”
Equal to but not the same as, correct?
***
Correct ...
But that is just the opinion of a previous court ruling that SCOTUS cited in the Ark case.
The last paragraph of the Ark ruling contains the opinion and order of SCOTUS.
It states that he is a citizen (presumably vis-a-vis the 14th Amendment), BUT stops short of declaring him a “natural-born” citizen - which had been Ark’s attorney’s position in the case.
OTHERWISE, SCOTUS would have declared Ark a “natural-born” citizen in that paragraph ...
I believe that SCOTUS DID NOT want to open up that can of worms, so they hung their hats on the 14th Amendment as written.
The 14th Amendment ONLY declares that anyone born in the United States is a CITIZEN - it makes NO DEFINITE clarification of “natural-born” citizenship ...
You're right, and I did correct myself in my previous post. But my point still stands in relation to Obama.
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.Wong Kim Ark was born of TWO chinese non-citizen parents. The SCOTUS declared him a natural born citizen.
Who cares if Britain recognized Obama as a citizen? Who cares if China did? What the Iranian parliament declared that it recognized everyone in the state of Michigan to be a citizen of Iran? Would that invalidate their American citizenship?
In “U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark” the court found that Wong Kim Ark was “natural born” despite having BOTH parents as non-citizens.
I do not agree with the finding, but it is (so far) the law.
Are you unfamiliar with the findings of “US vs Wong Kim Ark”? It is in the title of the thread.
There is no requirement that both parents be citizens for a child to be a natural born citizen of the USA; and certainly not a requirement that both parents be natural born citizens as that would make attaining the status impossible as EVERY American has a great to the n’th degree grandparent who wasn't natural born.
We can all trace our heritage to communist African thugs?Some of us. Others trace their heritage back subjects of European/Asian/etc thugs.
Obama's Daddy was born in Kenya, was a British citizen, which automatically transferred to young Zero.So if Ahmedinejad recognized everyone in the US as a citizen of Iran, he could prevent us from having a US President?
The 14th Amendment ONLY declares that anyone born in the United States is a CITIZEN - it makes NO DEFINITE clarification of “natural-born” citizenship ...See my reply to Red Steel:
The Framer of the Citizen Clause of the 14th Amendment was Jacob M. Howard. A Constitutional Amendment doesn't need to conform to any previous definition. That is pretty much the reason for it in the first place.
Anyhow, the Citizen Clause states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject ( citizen ) to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
When the Senate was debating this matter, they made it perfectly clear that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.
"Fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" were the precise words of the understanding.
Yes, that means Obama wasn't entitled to any kind of citizenship at birth except for what is granted to him in the naturalization statutes.
Deliberately dense? In no way this case solve the issue.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject ( citizen ) to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."No. No. No. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children of foreign ambassadors born in the US. It does not mean "citizen". And the clause has nothing to do with being a citizen of the US, so it is a really bad source to try to redefine citizenship for the rest of the Constitution, even if you HAD properly understood it. And it doesn't matter anyway after "US v Wong Kim Ark"
When the Senate was debating this matter, they made it perfectly clear that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.They didn't put it in the Constitution, whatever you think they presupposed. And what you think they presupposed is suspect based on your reading of the text of the clause.
The US government does not recognize the claims of citizenship by other countries. It grants citizenship and revokes it on its own terms. If another country happens to consider you a citizen, it doesn't matter to the US government. Iraq has so far recognized ALL Iraqi diaspora everywhere in the world as it's citizens having the right to vote in national elections. Are you saying that suddenly made an American born to two naturalized Iraqis unqualified for President? You still have not resolved this paradox however many times I've offered it.
No, just reading your posts again. I really should know better.
As long as their parents became naturalized U.S. citizens and the off-spring was born on U.S. soil, then there's no issues.
That's not what you said in your reply 16. Natural born citizenship requires two natural born parents. Are you retracting your position now?
Why is this so hard for folks to understand?
Maybe because there is nothing in the Constitution or the law or legal precedent that supports it?
I’m sure you have already seen this, but read the last 3 paragraphs of the article and you will know what the founders meant.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2299541/posts
If you want to make a case about citizenship I wouldn't quote Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott decision, and the man who said that blacks were not and could never be citizens. He wasn't a founder, and he was dead by the time the 14th Amendment passed out of Congress.
It excludes more than that. It excludes foreigners, aliens and Indians as well as ambassadors. And, since they clearly considered that a baby could be born on US soil and still be any of those things, the status obviously devolved from a parent. "Fully and completely" determines that both parents must be US citizens.
The US government does not recognize the claims of citizenship by other countries.
You just admitted that it does with the ambassadors.
"It excludes more than that. It excludes foreigners, aliens and Indians as well as ambassadors."Foreigners and aliens in the country legally are POSITIVELY subject to the jurisdiction of US laws (unless they are in San Francisco). There's a reasonable argument that illegal aliens are a different entity, but they are still within the *jurisdiction* of US laws. So there is still a reasonable claim for the children of illegal aliens being natural born citizens. Which is how they are treated. (I agree a Constitutional amendment is justified although I doubt we'll get it.) Indians are not exactly on US soil, and so, yes, they were not natural born at the time of this amendment UNTIL the US finally naturalized all of them. Now they are. AMBASSADORS are not subject to the jurdiction of US laws.
"You just admitted that [the US government recognizes the citizenship claims] with the ambassadors."No it does not. You are confused, but you wouldn't be if you would bother yourself to read "US v Wong Kim Ark" which I have conveniently posted a link to. The Court addressed this issue. IT IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM ENGLISH COMMON LAW. The children of ambassadors are not within the jurisdiction of US laws at birth, so they are not natural born citizens...nor naturalized citizens either. I reiterate: The reason children of ambassadors born in the US are not natural born US citizens has NOTHING to do with the competing claim of citizenship from their parents' country. NOTHING whatsoever. That is not an issue for US citizenship for anybody.
You are having difficulty following my argument and I’m sure that is partly my fault. Let me try to get there a different way: A Saudi Ambassador knocks up an American girl on US soil, what sort of citizenship will the child be born with?
A Saudi Ambassador knocks up an American girl on US soil, what sort of citizenship will the child be born with?Where he knocks her up is irrelevant. If the child is born on American soil, then the child will be be a Natural Born citizen based on "US v Wong Kim Ark". Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a natural born citizen (not needing naturalization) even though he had TWO parents who were not citizens.
This was based on English common law because the Constitution itself does not define the term "natural born citizen". The Framers were well aware of English common law and the US had no separate common law.
I presume that if the Saudi ambassador chooses to recognize the child as his own, then KSA will recognize him as a citizen. But whether they do or don't, the US government doesn't care. For example, lets say 2 years later the ambassador changes his mind. Let's say he pulls strings in the KSA records department to unrecognize the child and has his/her citizenship revoked. It would still not affect the child's status as a citizen of the US: he/she would still be a natural born American citizen. What KSA does or doesn't think is irrelevant.
What the heck, go ahead and post it a few more times (just to be sure).
It just occurred to me that you probably have another issue in mind as well.
Is the child subject to US jurisdiction? Yes...unless the Saudi ambassador married the mother and did whatever paperwork is necessary to have the child added to his household. I don’t know what that would entail. I also don’t know what rules the State Department uses with the families of ambassadors if they get into legal trouble. I imagine this would be a sticky issue if a member of an ambassador’s household was also an American citizen. If I were making the decision, I would insist within the paperwork that the child be removed to KSA during the time that the ambassador was posted to the US. But I don’t know what would actually happen.
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.