Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
You contend that there are only two classes of citizen -- natural born and naturalized -- thereby making anchor babies eligible to be CiC.

Your contention is that there is no reference to "native born" in the law.

You are simply wrong.

Here are legal references that proves you are misinformed to the max -- and I have more:

Native Born citizen:

This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.

Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a “native born citizen” because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis).

Other "Native Born" references:

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) -- The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a "native born citizen."

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) -- The cross petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants

Now go back under your rock.


262 posted on 12/03/2009 3:57:17 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies ]


To: Beckwith
You are simply wrong.

Hardly.

Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a “native born citizen” because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis).

Maybe you need to read the letter rather than Birther sites. In the letter AG Pierrpont says, "The status of young Steinkauler, and his right to protection from the Government of the United States, depends primarily upon his nationality. Nationality is either natural or acquired. The one results from birth, the other from the operation of the laws of kingdom or states...Young Steiukauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..."

Attorney General Pierrepont agrees that there are two forms of citizenship, and that natural-born and native born are synonymous. Link

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) -- The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a "native born citizen."

No, the holding was: "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

Ark was found to be a citizen by birth, AKA a natural-born citizen. Nothing in the Ark decision supports the idea that there are three or more classes of citizenship. Nothing in the decision identifies or implies that there is a difference between citizen at birth and natural-born citizen. Link

Now go back under your rock.

Now stick your head back up where it usually resides and keep on looking.

263 posted on 12/03/2009 4:28:17 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson