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

To: Kleon
The article is not defining what a native citizen and naturalized citizen...

Another troll who does not know what it claims to speak of. The articles state, and I quote:

Naturalization Question: Attorney General Black’s Opinion Upon Expatriation and Naturalization
New York Times
Published: July 20, 1859

[H]ere none but a native can be President…A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the government of the United States…One of the never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. [end quote]

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FB0C13FB34551B7493C2AB178CD85F4D8584F9

THE NATURALIZATION QUESTION.; THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION DEFINED. Important Official Paper.
New York Times
Published: July 15, 1859

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60C14FB34551B7493C7A8178CD85F4D8584F9

This release from the Executive Office reads the same. Native, native-born & natural-born are used synonymously and once the immigrate absolutely & entirely abjures and renounces all foreign fidelity, thereby owing direct and absolute allegiance exclusively to the United States, he stands on the same ground as the former with the exception of being president as stated in the corresponding release from the US Administration.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means “Exclusive allegiance to the United States, one at birth and the other upon naturalization”. Period. But then again, I wouldn't expect the logic of a troll to conclude anything different than: "The 1859 DOJ issued two different conclusions in the very same case and had them printed in the public domain within 5 days of each other."


43 posted on 03/19/2011 8:31:08 AM PDT by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: patlin
-- "Subject to the jurisdiction" means "Exclusive allegiance to the United States ..." --

Yep. And it is that phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," that has been construed (incorrectly, as far as I can tell) as meaning something tantamount to "can be arrested in the US" or "has to obey speed limits like everybody else here."

The construction applied in the Wong Kim Ark case is that if a person doesn't have absolute immunity from US law (i.e., is a diplomat), then they are subject to the jurisdiction, and therefore, citizenship of children, of course, naturally follows, regardless of where the parents national allegiance lies.

The One Worlders, and Congress is full of them, are anxious to eliminate nationalism and national pride. We're all citizens of the earth.

49 posted on 03/19/2011 9:06:08 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | 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