Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[syc1959]

Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'

[EnderWiggins]

Night y’all.

[usmcobra]

A simple question for you on born on US soil to anybody who is not a foriegn diplomat or occupying army.....

Is that Supreme Court decision, the Law of the Land?

[Danae]

http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/natural-born-citizen-chapter-6-u-s-v-wong-kim-ark/

Brilliant semantic language analysis in here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Natural Born Citizen — Chapter 6: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

Citizenship case of a child born on U.S. soil to Chinese nationals

Wong Kim Ark alleged that he was born in the United States in 1873 to parents of Chinese decent whom were subjects of the emperor of China. In August of 1895, Wong Kim Ark was returning to the United States from a temporary visit to China wherein he was refused permission to land (dock) at the port of San Francisco by the collector of customs and was restrained of his liberty based solely upon the pretense that he was not a citizen of the United States.[i]

This case, like the Minor v. Happersett case, occurred after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Proponents of Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship status point to the following passage from the opinion written by Justice Gray[ii]:

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. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘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.[iii] (Emphasis added)

Proponents that say Barack Obama is a natural born citizen point to the highlighted portion above concluding that is as much a citizen and the natural born child of a citizen are equivalents in that sentence. Thus, a child born in the United States of a foreigner domiciled in the United States is a natural born citizen child.

First, it can be unequivocally argued that the justices in their affirmative opinion above found Wong Kim Ark to be a 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen. There can be no dispute of this fact regardless of the soundness of the Justices’ arguments. It should also be noted that while domiciled in the U.S. and again in accordance with the 14th Amendment that “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” was the additional argument that the opinion of the court was making.

The crux of the ruling though for our purposes is how it relates to the natural born citizen status of an individual and in the highlighted text above, the Justices clearly state: and his child (snip) [i]f born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. These twenty-seven words may ultimately decide the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the Office of the President of the United States.

The twenty-seven word sentence is the last portion of a much longer sentence, but because it has immediately before it a semi-colon, it stands alone as a complete thought. The portion of the sentence that has been removed (snipped) is a parenthetical statement and is not necessary to the complete thought of the sentence. The parenthetical portion that has been snipped is utilized in the sentence to cite an authority. The fourteenth word of the sentence is the word as (the second time the word as is used in the twenty-seven word sentence) and is one of the most important words in understanding when deconstructing the sentence.

When as is used in this context it is used as a subordinate conjunction. Subordinate conjunctions compare two things, but they do not compare two like things. In order to compare to equal things, correlative conjunctions are used. In the sentence that we have extracted from the paragraph it is clear that a subordinate conjunction is being used, and in a subordinate conjunction there is a dependent clause and an independent clause.

In our sentence, the independent clause is is as much as a citizen and the dependent clause is as the natural-born child of a citizen. The relationship between the two clauses is in fact a comparison though. It is a comparison between two types of American children. One child is a child born in America and the other is a natural born American child. They are not equivalent though because they are separated by a subordinate conjunction rather than a correlative conjunction. The two children represented in the dependent and independent clauses being discussed are clearly two different children, but they are purposely being compared to one another. In the independent clause, the child is a citizen even though his parent is a foreigner domiciled in the U.S. In the dependent clause the child of the citizen is a natural born child. In the independent clause, the child of the foreigner domiciled in the U.S., although the child is concluded to be a citizen, the foreign parent domiciled here is not necessarily a citizen. Whereas, in the dependent clause, the parent of the natural born child is in fact a citizen, the parents as well as the child are both citizens. Two completely different children are being compared to one another making use of the grammatical construct of a subordinate conjunction and determining that both children are citizens but not natural born citizens. This is a critical point and should not be obfuscated.

Proponents of Barack Obama’s natural born citizen status could easily agree with the above grammatical analysis and still come to the same conclusion that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. They might argue even if the subordinate clause in question in itself is not comparing two equivalent children what the Justice is saying is that these two different children are as the final portion of the sentence states “and by operation of the same principle.” [iv] On the other hand, those analyzing the sentence without deconstructing the sentence grammatically may conclude, just on the face of it, or in accordance with their first impression when they read the sentence appears to equate these two children implying that they are both natural born citizens.

In order to understand the Wong Kim Ark case one must know the history of the day. At the time, the Chinese people were beholden to the Emperor of China. The Wong Kim Ark case took very serious the notion of subject to the jurisdiction thereof not only in the sense of jurisdiction held by a nation while you were residing in it as to that nation’s laws, but actual allegiance to the nation in which you were residing. The Wong Kim Ark case had to wrestle with the ability for a Chinese resident of the United States having legal allegiance under the 14th Amendment to the United States versus some political allegiance they have to give to the Emperor of China. In the sentence we have been studying, remember we only took the last part of the sentence after the semi-colon, but the sentence is part of a greater thought on “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The justices concluded in this sentence that both children (the child of resident aliens and the natural born child of a citizen) were both by operation the same principle. Does this actually prove they were both therefore natural born citizens?

Justice Gray in writing the opinion of the court in this case went into a very a lengthy explanation of natural born citizens and subjects. In the opinion, he writes:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established. [v]

On the other hand, Chief Justice Fuller whom wrote the dissenting opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case stated the following:

Before the Revolution, the views of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: ‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.’ Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 1, c. 19, 212. ‘The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. … The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. [vi]

We, therefore, have two differing opinions within this one case of the subject of natural born citizen. Granted, weight must be given to the case’s opinion rather the case’s dissent. However, for those whom are still convinced that the Wong Kim Ark case unequivocally argues that a child born on U.S. soil regardless of the status of their parents’ citizenship is a natural born citizen, I ask the following question. Why did Justice Gray not make this argument, place these words in the final paragraph of the courts’ decision when he wrote:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.[vii] (Emphasis added)

Justice Gray could have written, becomes at the time of his birth a natural born citizen of the United States, but he did not use this qualification.

The problem with the original quoted passage from Wong Kim Ark and in particular the sentence that we have been deconstructing is that the sentence is just poorly constructed especially for use within a precedent setting legal opinion. This sentence could have been constructed in a much clearer fashion which would have obviated the confusion we have today regarding Wong Kim Ark’s case and its relationship to the natural born citizen subject. And as stated in the last paragraph, Justice Gray could have removed all doubt in the final paragraph of his written opinion. In fairness to the Justice, the Wong Kim Ark case was not a case that required Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. The case simply needed to prove that Wong Kim Ark was a 14th Amendment citizen. It would have been convenient today if the quoted passage was more clearly defined in terms of natural born citizen status in a subsequent sentence by the Justices, but they felt no compelling reason to clear up any issues with regard to natural born citizens as their case did not require such a ruling.

As a result, it appears to this author that Wong Kim Ark really does not add precedent nor provide a final clarification of the natural born citizen definition, nor did the Minor v. Happersett case as to our legal impression of what was meant by natural born citizen. Therefore, we remain without a legal definition of the term natural born citizen by our courts.

[usmcobra]

That was supposed to read.....

A simple question for you on Wong Kim Ark.....

Is that Supreme Court decision, the Law of the Land?

[little jeremiah]

If I had the energy I’d check its other comments to see if it’s always that stupid but I’m too busy.

Blech.

[Danae]

ROTFLMAO
Wrong again. He did define it.

From my own research paper:

"“The Law of Nations” by Emerich Vattel. The Law of Nations codifies a phrase that was common knowledge, and accepted law in establishing the citizenship of a child in 1758 when it was originally written. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are thofe born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Given that our constitution takes and uses a great many of the definitions in Vattel’s work, it is likely (though hotly debated today) this definition is exactly the one used by the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton described the seriousness the Founders took the matter to be in what is known as the Federalist Papers, this from #68:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.”

Vattel, Emerich. "THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS." 1797. Book I Ch XIX

Alexander Hamilton. "The Federalist No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President." March 12, 1788.

[r9etb]

Not at all. Re-read what I wrote.

No, thanks.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Sure: "without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

....it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

Dude......

[r9etb]

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Er, DUUUUUUDE (said with all possible dripping sarcasm at your juvenile use of the stupid term).

[Danae]

Oh and thank you for making my point for me.

There IS a distinction between the two. Naturalized Citizens and Natural born citizens are both citizens, but Naturalized citizens cannot be POTUS. Therefore NC = Citizen; NBC = Citizen; NC =/= NBC; NC, NBC = Citizen.
Clearly there is a differentiation between types of citizenship, no one disagrees on that.

So therefore, a naturalized citizen cannot be POTUS - why? Because they held the citizenship of another nation. Now take a child who has in particular a father who is a foreigner... That child is going to inherit that parents citizenship as well. Therefore, a child with one parent who is an alien is born with more than one citizenship.

An NBC can be POTUS obviously, but just what IS that?. NBC is a person who never held the citizenship of any other Nation other than that of the USA. Ever. There is ZERO question about that persons citizenship, and THAT was the intent of the founders.

That’s it. The logic is very very clear.

[Las Vegas Ron]

and include as citizens

Funny, it's missing the Natural Born part, isn't it?

I wonder why they would do that, got any clues?.

Posted with the necesarry sarcasm required by your moronic logic and readin skills.

[DoctorBulldog]

You see? There you are forgetting that I read and speak French.

For “naturel” to have any chance of meaning “native,” it would have to be used as an adjective, not a noun. In the context of what Vattel is saying, “naturel” is being used as a noun.

Now, if we play your game and say that “naturel” means native, then there is no reason at all for Vattel to use indigènes in the following sentence:

Chapter XIX, § 212

“Les naturels, ou indigènes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens.”

Because, if we were to play your game, the above sentence would erroneously translate out as more than a little repetitive:

“The natives, or natives, are those born in the country of citizen parents.”

Hence, there is most certainly a distinction to be made between the word “naturels” and and the word “indigènes.”

In fact, if you actually read the English version of Vattel, you will notice that it DOES translate “naturel” into “natural-born,” but flips the word order:

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Chapter XIX, § 212:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...”

So, what is it? Is “naturels” native? Or, is it more accurately translated to natural-born? If it is “native,” then when did “indigènes” become a better replacement for “natural-born” when translating?

Your whole thesis relies on a mistranslation of the title for Chapter XIX, § 212, but that does nothing to change the meaning of the actual text contained within that section, which still translates out (insert either word here) to “natural-born.”

Cheers

[DaveTesla]

I see you have met EnderWiggins!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2442381/posts?page=584#584
Here he claims Illegal immigrants anchor babies are eligable to become president:

So you arguing that the Constitution calls for making natural born citizens from the anchor babies of illegal immigrants?

"That is the law. Yes.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Claims that John Binghan was not the fraimer of the 14 amendment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2442381/posts?page=528#528

“Neither Emmerich de Vattel or John Bingham were framers of the Constitution.”

Claims that John Bingham was not speaking of the Constitution in my quotation below:

“4. John Bingham wasn’t even talking about the Constitution in that quotation.”

John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866
“Bingham states: I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],
which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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… . . – John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

Claims that John Binghan was not the fraimer of the 14 amendment:

Here he calls the Gospel of Matthew Mark and Luke
a fraud.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2444546/posts?page=81#81
“In short... there is no good reason to believe that any of the “evangelists” are more than unreliable tradition,”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2444546/posts?page=81#81

Here he blames Christianity for the holocaust:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2444546/posts?page=28#28

"I defended my beliefs from an intolerant attack by a Christian who blamed the Nazi-Holocaust on Darwinism, rather than even acknowledge 2000 years of Christian European ant-Semitism.

"Certainly, you would not suggest that only Christians are allowed to respond to attacks in this forum.

"Well, then our symmetry is perfect because I was a devoted and practicing Christian for the first 37 years of my life, and “you seem oblivious to is how ridiculous they look to those who have moved beyond” them."

[American Constitutionalist]

How is it racist ? in your imagination ?
Would you consider it " Racist " when they even questioned John McCain's eligibility... or was John McCain the wrong race and color to you ? to claim racism ?

[patlin]

Interesting 1880 Census results reported in US Congressional hearing in 1892.

Start on page 666: Statement of Mr Louis Schade

Tell me if you come to the same conclusion that the ‘natives’ were those of US citizens either from the time of the revolution or from the naturalization of the ‘grandparents’, who naturalized thus making the grandchild's parents citizens at the time of the grandparents naturalization.

They way I see it, according to this census hearing, children of foreigners residing in the US were also classified as foreigners.

[patlin]

OOPS! I guess a link would help wouldn’t it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-ShAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA54&dq=Immigration+and+Citizenship:+Process+and+Policy&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=71#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[syc1959]

I have that book and by the way, in the Tables of Authorities - Vattel’s Law of Nations is listed - no British Common Law or Blackstone Commenteries are.
Again, British anything fails, just like British Obama

[patlin]

I have a used one on hold at Amazon. Would you recommend the book for ones library for historical reference?

[STARWISE]

Miki Booth is running for Congress in OK .. this is her son's Cert of Live Birth. She was at the Tea Party convention and showed it.

"The woman, Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma’s second district as an independent constitutional conservative. She had presented original long-form birth certificates belonging to her son and husband, dated 1981 and 1949.

“They are the ‘vault’ copies of the original ones filled out at the hospital and sent to the Hawaii State Department of Health Vital Statistics Office,” Booth told WND. “It is from this office that the newspapers get their stats for births, deaths and marriages to announce in the newspapers.”

Her husband, Fred, and son, Alan, were born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii – the same hospital declared as Obama’s birthplace in a purported letter from the president. “What he’s given us perpetuates the mystery of what he’s covering up and gives us more reason to not trust him,” she said."

Can you make out the heading of the space where Japan appears ?

This is her husband's

I see headings and info for birthplace for the parents, which one could speculate would refer to citizenship.

[STARWISE]

And the fundamental premise of Wong Kim Ark
was never adjudicated for a POTUS, which is
the most signifant factor here. Only SCOTUS ..
SCOTUS .. and regarding an entity with
“standing,” as some justice may so decide.