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

To: patlin

The example of the navy ship in Canadian waters; you are a Canadian citizen by birth, per Canadian law. Even if you were born on a US Navy vessel to two US citizens.

Canada grants you citizenship; it is up to you to claim it, but you are a citizen as far as Canada is concerned nevertheless.

That is not hypothetical, that is real. Is your concern over dual citizenship or not?

23 posted on 12/27/2009 6:26:25 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

YES!!! Dual citizenship was NEVER accepted and American Patriots fought and died in 2 bloody wars for our nation’s sovereignty and its sovereign citizens.

It’s time to take our country back & its Constitution & our sovereignty as it was defined by Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

James Kent, Commentaries 1:397–98; 2:33–63 / 1826 1827

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.


We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant.

To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law,

under the well known name of corporations.

There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,
and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.

(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation.

(2.) An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power.

ThIs Commentary also refers to natural born and is quite clear that the definition of natural born, according to English Common law, to be

“children of persons,” both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.

and more here:

[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador.

To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]

[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]

[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.

So you see, as sovereigns as defined by Chief Justice Jay, US citizens owe allegiance to non other than our own nation, the United States of America and it is high time Congress start upholding the Supreme Law of the land!

30 posted on 12/27/2009 7:29:34 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
“The example of the navy ship in Canadian waters; you are a Canadian citizen by birth, per Canadian law. Even if you were born on a US Navy vessel to two US citizens.”

Canandian waters are equivalent to Canadian soil. Such a baby would be a dual US-Canadian citizen at birth, but SCOTUS has not yet clarified whether or not the child would be NBC eligible to be POTUS, per the scholars I trust. Scholars I trust say such a citizen, born outside the US, would be a “statutory citizen” not a constitutionally defined NBC and thus not POTUS eligible.

Kreep and Taitz argued the NBC issue before Judge Carter and he said he was offended that a child of a US serviceman (John McCain) on active duty on foreign soil, as in your example, would be a citizen but might not be NBC eligible to be POTUS. Current State Dept. regs pretty much say the matter has not been resolved by SCOTUS.

The John Jay letter to George Washington rationale for the NBC clause makes avoidance of “foreigners” as CIC (with dual citizenship and dual loyalty) the primary reason for the clause.

36 posted on 12/27/2009 8:20:29 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


78 posted on 12/30/2009 11:26:50 AM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

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

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