Open request to Senator Cruz

So now given the situation of a British army coming to the U.S., when assessing the status of such persons and the allegiance of others aligned with them, would you say the operative rule would associate more closely with the common law precedent of 1) ambassadors or 2) hostile invaders?

You are just one big snowplow when it comes to facts. You simply push them to one side, and none of it gets on you.

Cpn Hook plowing aside facts depicted below.

Those children of British Loyalists had nothing to do with the army. They were born of Colonists who did not wish to be Americans, but preferred instead to remain loyal to the British Crown. They weren't an "INVASION" you idiot, THEY WERE ALREADY HERE! They were that 1/3rd of the existing colonists that wanted to remain part of Britain.

They also weren't ambassadors.

This is why I am so disgusted with you idiots, you simply cannot wrap your mind around the fact that your theories are Just plain wrong, and that the history starkly goes against you. All you have is lawyer babble.

There are no published accounts from any founders that support that view. All such public accounts were speculation from people WHO WERE NOT THERE.

And a published account from someone you contend was there stating that the Declaration and Constitution were predicated on Vattel's theories and not by way of Blackstone or other English sources is where?

Looks up "assertion without evidence." You've got lots of that.

Remember that book that Cpn Kook loves to denigrate as being solely the work of one man who is a big nobody in the founding era? (He never bothered to look at the history of this "nobody".)

I have no reason to doubt Judge Roberts was good person and exercised his judicial duties with diligence and good conscience.

But my point remains that when the 39th Congress was debating the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act, it was stated repeatedly that the clause was declaratory of existing law. I gave you a bit of that history, wherein the report of the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee was referenced. Here it is again.

And what are the authorities for "existing law" were reported to the House? Blackstone, Kent, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke), William Rawle, the Naturalization Act of 1802 (the one St. George Tucker described as "accordant" with Blackstone). These among many others.

Now, by contrast, who WASN'T cited to the Congress on the matter of birth-citizenship: Vatttel, G. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Wilson, Jay, B. Washington, Marshall.

And no mention of Samuel Roberts.

And when the SCOTUS argued and presented both sides of the first and greatest case on birth citizenship (Wong Kim Ark), which authorities were cited by the majority: Coke, Blackstone, Joseph Story, Kent, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke). Among a host of others. Now which authorities weren't cited as to birth citizenship, not even by Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent urging Vattel supply the rule of decision: G. Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jay, B. Washington, Marshall. Oh, and Samuel Roberts.

Like I said, I'm sure Judge Roberts was a good man. But on the question of citizenship, his book is a bit of a tree that falls in a forest with no one hearing it. Unfortunately for you, he is the only one of your writers who actually purports to say our law here differs from England while citing Vattel. Your other sources say that only in your imagination.

No. As to the native-born, "citizen at birth" and "citizen by birth" mean the same thing.

No, they do not. AT birth is acquired by an act of man. Without it, you would not be a citizen.

BY birth is acquired by nature... irregardless of any act of Man.

---

Two things usually concur to create citizenship -- first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words within the ligeance of the sovereign.

I've shown you this applies to residents, not temporary or transient aliens.

Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portionu of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2, Lectures on Law

-----

But out of curiosity, what naturalization law are you suggesting existed from 1776 to 1787 that would create some species of "naturalized at birth" person?

Seriously? Have you forgotten all the quotes both of posted saying 'who HAS become or WILL become' entitled to citizenship? Passing the Act in 1795 is what made the people who already HAD become citizens of their respective states citizens of the United States. They weren't naturalized at THEIR birth, they were naturalized at the nation's birth.

------

For those who are not born here, that is true. But if one is born here, one is a natural born citizen and not an alien.

Again, I've given legal sources otherwise. Not to mention the concept itself is ludicrous. Thinking the Founders would be so vigilant to put the natural-born clause in the Constitution then turn around and mean that qualification was actually just run across the border and squat is just beyond insulting to their intelligence...and pretty much everyone else's, too.

---

I merely contend you don't understand what those were.

Oh, I understand them just fine. I just can't understand if you can't comprehend them, or if you just don't want to comprehend them. They're quite plain.

Irregardless, your constant refutation does not constitute facts, nor does your ignoring facts given constitute an honest discussion, so I will leave you to your own devices.

Have a nice day.

Your response is a tu quoque. I’ve been thinking that I have better things to do.

. . "The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points:

For a long time, I've viewed you as just someone who lets his emotional angst over birth tourism cloud any sense of proper treatment of sources. I'm moving to the view that you're just a bit dim-witted to boot.

Last night you were all giddy about a sentence from Joseph Story that you thought meant he was supportive of your side, when in fact he was stating explicitly he was tracking the reasoning in Calvins Case. But you're a dunce and flunked out on that one.

Now you're all giddy again over this language about the Convention not adopting the common law into the Constitution. Again, you read, but understand you do not.

It's a point about the Supremacy Clause. Starting in 1776, the various states began enacting what are called "common law adoption statutes." And from there, the state legislatures began enacting various statutes to modify, limit, abrogate or otherwise "tweak" the common law rules to fit particular local preferences. Had the Convention in 1787 purported to incorporate the common law wholesale into federal law, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause everything the states had done legislatively (or judicially) since 1776 (or the date of their adoption statute) would have been undone.

You're in vain making the point that English law was rejected in total. On matters of municipal law (e.g, citizenship) they very much adopted and adapted English rules. (See, e.g., Jefferson's Virginia citizenship statute -- Post 379 above). And at the time of the Convention (as I've shown) there had been since 1776 prior, interchangeable usage of "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen." And there is no prior usage of "natural born" signifying "from like parents." So when we arrive at the Convention, it's ludicrous to posit that the Framers picked the term "NBC" and ascribed to it a meaning different from the prior usage in English of "natural born," and that they did this with no record of discussion that such is what they were doing. You've yet to explain that. But, clearly, it's a strained cast on history which you're forced to adopt to make your theory work.

You really need to stick to engineering. You are drowning in the pool of your own idiocy.

‘Yes, and when I’d say that the context was always discussion about native-born persons. Given the extremely low percentage of citizens at birth who are born abroad, I see no need to have put a qualifier on it every time to say “oh, btw, citizens who are born abroad is a different analysis.”’

Except that you NEVER qualified your jus soli propagandizing until you rightly discerned that it could/would get you banned. You’ve been shucking and jiving frantically ever since.

You know, you liberals are unbelievable. So unlike conservatives. When we say something, we typically have to watch our comments being twisted, misstated, truncated, ignored or otherwise misrepresented. We’re happy merely to be quoted correctly, on the very rare occasions when it happens.

You liberals expect to be quoted correctly. You expect credit for exactly what you said. You expect a sympathetic interpretation of your words/the benefit of the doubt, and you expect others to ‘massage’ them so as to make them maximally correct and palatable. But what’s really amazing is, after being credited with what you actually said, you ALSO expect credit for what you didn’t say.

Take Obama. He said, for instance, if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance. He said that lots of times. But when later quoted, he blithely said he was “misunderstood.”

& the MSM accepted that & let it go. At least, they let it go by comparison to what they’d have done to a conservative. The bias is wider than the Grand Canyon.

Take Obama and Yemen. Here’s what he actually said:

“This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out [the Islamic State] wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

But when, a few scant ***months*** later, Yemen fell to terrorists, Obama EXPECTS not to be held accountable. He EXPECTS not to have to admit he was not merely wrong, but childishly, ignorantly, dangerously and DELUSIONALLY wrong. Instead, he expects the MSM, Obots and LIV to understand that he always expected Yemen’s fall. This is because he is, ahem, ‘the smartest person in the room,’ and the, ahem, ‘smartest person in the room’ would not be blindsided by the sudden collapse of one of their favorite ‘success’ stories.

You are just the same. Since you started posting on FR, you have preached jus soli. You never mentioned Madison or jus sanguinis. You said it all came down to jus soli.

Then you suddenly realized that position could get you banned. So now you want credit not for anything you actually said, but for what you didn’t say. Just like Obama. Just like liberals in general. You rationalize why you never said it, and then expect everyone else to see why you should get credit for saying it, even though you didn’t.

It isn’t going to happen. You are not Obama and we are not the MSM. Here you get credit for what you say. You said jus soli like a skipping vinyl record...UNTIL you saw that it could get you banned. Your more recent tap dancing/bobbings and weavings are irrelevant. What you said prior to the great Cruz purge is what you meant. Live with it.

Here’s a sample:

‘Many have read [Wong Kim Ark]. Though some remain in a state of denial that the opinion clearly reasons that “born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an incorporation of the common law, jus soli rule of “natural born citizen.”’

No room for shuckin’ and jivin’ there, Hook. You said it, you meant it, and your subsequent, desperate tap dancing does not and cannot change it. You were just plain wrong.

I have no reason to doubt Judge Roberts was good person and exercised his judicial duties with diligence and good conscience.

And this is a measure of your naivete. Samuel Roberts received all of his legal training from William Lewis a delegate of the Pennsylvania Convention. Furthermore that book wasn't just an offering from the latest "book of the month" club, it was a LAW BOOK, intended for use by lawyers in Pennsylvania, to include the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme court mentioned prominently in it, and of course William Rawle, among others. It was used in every courtroom and lawyer's office in Pennsylvania, if not beyond. It was widely distributed and widely used.

It was reprinted again in 1847.

There is no possibility that it was obscure or that William Rawle didn't know about it. (Not to mention that the Entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania slapped him down ~1804 by unanimous vote a case in which he made his arguments for common law citizenship. He was trying to argue that a slave was free because according to the common law she was a natural born citizen.)

But now I see you want to argue about what people thought on the issue in 1866. I find this highly amusing because i've been down this road before, and you will not like what you find once you've researched it sufficiently.

Yes, i've seen that statement "declaratory of existing law" plenty of times before. Jeff used to use it a lot. He quit doing that when we showed him examples where the author clarified his understanding.

So you want to talk about the civil rights act of 1866? It is of course getting the cart before the horse, but let's look at it for a minute.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;

That the act invokes the idea that someone can be born in the United States and Not be subject to any foreign power demonstrate that they believed the opposite was a real possibility. One does not invoke clauses that have no serious chance of occurring, so that clause right there is a tantamount admission by the congress that you *CAN* be born in the United States while being subject to a foreign power.

Now you are going to argue that they put that in there for the exceedingly rare exception of the children of ambassadors, but other commentary and writings of the time demonstrate this to be not the case. The act is primarily directed at former slaves and other people who are mundane and ordinary.

And what are the authorities for "existing law" were reported to the House? Blackstone, Kent, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke), William Rawle, the Naturalization Act of 1802 (the one St. George Tucker described as "accordant" with Blackstone). These among many others.

And there is a very good reason for that. I figured it out a long time ago, but I bet you aren't even thinking along the correct lines. Why would they prefer to cite English Law? Why did Rawle say it was what applied when he was most seriously disabused of that notion in his own legal circles?

I think i'll let you twist in the wind while pondering this for awhile. I'll send a private message to Mamma Texan so she can verify that I have an answer to these questions when the time is appropriate.

But you think on it. :)

This is EXACTLY what Blackstone's work said as our country was forming-

And farther down in that same Chapter 10, he writes:

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

Again, this is from the author who was the 2nd most cited political writer and theorist among the Founders' generation in the period 1760 to 1805. I rather doubt this passage was in any way out of view during this period. Tucker, as I've shown, cites this sentence and terms U.S. laws "accordant."

And as it should happen, this is exactly what the Book of English Law which Sat on John Adam's book shelf said as well.( Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736)." )

Proving again, there is not a source you can't manage to misread.

"All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominion."

Last night you hauled out a portion of Story's opinion saying exactly the same: "To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government." Of this you were gleeful, thinking the illustrious Justice Story was saying something to support your position.

No, he wasn't. He was summarizing Calvin's Case. He even says that: "This is clear from the whole reasoning in Calvin's Case." But you, being the idiot you are, can't see this.

Now, the ink is barely dry on my rejoinder to your gaffe there when you turn around, haul out another writer saying the same thing, and again try to brandish this as some great strike against the Terrible CpnHook.

But it's not. It's you making the same stupid mistake twice in the span of less than a day. I mean, seriously, this is ineptitude on a truly grand scale.

If we but move forward about 130 years from Bacon, we'll see that "born within His Dominions and under the actual obedience of the King" is going to become "born. . .in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." And, as shown in the debate on the companion Civil Rights Act citizenship clause, it was understood that these were declaratory of existing law, the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke" and English law being cited as examples of current law.

Oh, and btw, Hook, speaking of Yemen, there is another current event of pertinence to our discussion. Namely, Jordan, ISIS, and the burning of the pilot. In the King of Jordan you see how a real natural born citizen reacts to the brutal murder of one of his fellow citizens. He takes it personally. He is outraged. In as far as he is able, he vows to avenge his barbarically murdered fellow citizen.

Obama, by contrast, is not a natural born US citizen. He is a foreigner, and acts the part. When a US ambassador is brutally murdered, Obama blames NOT the foreigners who killed him—they are his compatriots—rather, he blames a US citizen. How dare a US citizen exercise free speech? For this, Obama will see that he is punished.

A US citizen is butchered and the video shown to the world. Obama, who has no skin in this game, offers a bloodless, perfunctory statement and then goes off to play five-plus hours of golf. Obama identifies with the beheaders, not with the beheaded, so why shouldn’t he enjoy his leisure time on the links?

A Muslim screaming Allahu Akbar massacres thirteen US soldiers and wounds many others. Obama’s response? A two-minute shout out audience members belonging to a Tribal Conference, including a special one to Joe Medicine Crow. Obama hates the US military and identifies with Native Americans, so what could be more natural than to poke his finger in the rank-and-files’ eyes while honoring those with whom Obama shares a true bond?

Obama is not an American, Hook. His actions speak louder than your words, and his actions call you a liar.

Not worth reading.

Also not worth reading. You just skip over problems like British Loyalists and go straight back to your talking points.

One more thing. Obama used the Prayer Breakfast—the PRAYER Breakfast—to slam all Christians for the acts of a few, committed many centuries ago, and he established moral equivalence between those ancient acts and the modern savagery of Islam. Obama’s hatred for all things American, including Christianity, is bubbling over like a poisonous caldron. An American citizen would not use the *Prayer Breakfast* to trash Christianity and mitigate Islam’s horrors. But Obama is not an American. He took sick, twisted, perverted pleasure in desecrating the Prayer Breakfast. The exact pleasure an American-hating foreigner would take, because that is what he is.

There is no possibility that it was obscure.

It just doesn't get cited in any subsequent discussion on citizenship -- not in the Congress; not in the Courts. Not even by the SCOTUS Chief Justice when he's trying to make the argument for a Vattel-based original meaning of "natural born citizen." I mean, gosh, is that's your standard of prominent and authoritative, what on earth would constitute "obscure?"

Yes, i've seen that statement "declaratory of existing law" plenty of times before. Jeff used to use it a lot. He quit doing that when we showed him examples where the author clarified his understanding.

Would you agree that the sources cited by the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sufficiently clarified the state of "existing law?"

Or, how about Senator Howard? He was, after all, the draftsman of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause:

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

*Center column, middle)

This seems clear: the natural law "recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." No mention of citizen parents. And his use of "subjects or citizens" shows that he's speaking of the common law as applicable, respectively to England and the U.S.

Very clarifying.

So you want to talk about the civil rights act of 1866? It is of course getting the cart before the horse . .

Huh? The CRA was enacted 2 months before the 14th Amendment passed Congress. How is this getting the cart before the horse?

Now you are going to argue that they put that in there for the exceedingly rare exception of the children of ambassadors, but other commentary and writings of the time demonstrate this to be not the case.

I applaud your clairvoyance:

"This bill provides that all persons born within the United States, excepting those that do not owe allegiance to the United States government, as children of ambassadors of foreign powers, and such are not subject to our laws[.] Rep. Cook, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1124 (1866)

(Bottom Col 1, top 2)

Yep, I'm going to argue that. :)

Why would they prefer to cite English Law?

Kent, the Naturalization Act of 1802, State v. Manuel, Lynch v. Clarke, etc., are not citations to English law. Your question is flawed.

But you think on it.

Well, given in most instances when I've cited something clear and opposed to your position your response has followed this pattern -- a) search around for something not quite as clear, b) adopt one of several possible meanings, c) wave your hands, d) declare I'm wrong -- then my thinking leads me to expect more of the same. Indeed, I expect a tidal wave of hand-waving.

Not worth reading.

Always the sign you can't answer to one or more points made. The ostrich pose.

You just skip over problems like British Loyalists and go straight back to your talking points.

I've already addressed that "problem." It's answered in a single word: "Election." There was a war going on, and all persons were put to choice of allegiance. Minors were deemed incapable of making that election until the lapse of their minority. So even though born on the soil, they were effectively bound by the election decision of the parent. Once the war is over there is no obstacle posed to their common law birth citizenship.

Story explains this, speaking first about "the general principle of common law," but then noting "But a case of more nicety and intricacy is when a country is divided by a civil war and each party establishes a separate and independent form of government." He later adds: "The case of the separation of the United States from Great Britain is perhaps not strictly brought within any of the descriptions already referred to, and it has been treated on many occasions, both at the bar and on the bench, as a case sui generis.

Look up sui generis. War presents its own special conditions and rules that don't operate otherwise. Your fallacy here is trying to argue the special case to defeat the general rule. That won't work.

You're really going to cover that same old Jeff Winston territory aren't you?

Something tells me you've already been presented the rebuttal quotes by Howard, and Bingham, and So forth, but will simply brush them aside. You are Mr Snowplow, pushing unwelcome facts aside.

Let's find out.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said:

“word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

And of course Bingham. Here he is in 1862:

Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

And of course, Bingham again:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

And Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson said much the same thing in 1866:

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Sen. Lyman Trumbull says that it meant:

"not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States."

Sen. Trumbull also stated during the drafting of the 14th amendment that it was the goal to:

“make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language:

"will not, of course, include foreigners."

And of course, the Supreme Court said in 1873 that:

That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

And I will predict at this point that you will ignore everything those men said above.

Your fallacy here is trying to argue the special case to defeat the general rule. That won't work.

My fallacy is in thinking that there is any point to arguing with someone who as Reagan said:

"Knows so much which isn't so."

I suppose I do it for amusement. It is a sadistic streak out of which I really ought to grow.

"The fact is that the Constitution mentions only two kinds of citizenship; natural-born or naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other. And Cruz wasn't naturalized."

An often repeated and unchallenged lie here on Freerepublic. The United States Constitution actually uses FIVE different citizenship terms.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

Look at its sign up date. It is working when it posts at FR, working for the dissimilitudes of the liar-in-chief.