Posted on 07/20/2009 7:40:35 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta
Only in a note, quoting something else. But even that quote indicates a difference between "natural born" and "native born" of alien parents.
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, 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.
But that is the only place in decision where "natural born" is used. Everyone can Verify that for themselves
I’d make my argument in court. You won’t even try yours. Get lost, Acorn-breath.
remember they had to go to the WH and RE-ADMINISTER the oath or has everybody forgot THAT ONE :)
Of course not, the only time such a distinction matters is in eligibility to the Office of President. Otherwise, all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizenship accrue to all categories of citizens. So why would the SCOTUS have had opportunity to make such a ruling.
With any luck, which we're due for I think, they soon will.
So they do make a distinction between a natural born child of a citizen, and the child of an alien, born in the country.
I read it the opposite, there is a distinction without a difference in law. they are saying that these two situations, using 'natural born' in the same sense as Blackstone and English common law - see previous cites - lead to equivalent outcomes in citizenship status. Two situations: Child A born in the US to alien parents; Child B born in the US to citizen parents. They are saying a child A of alien parents IS AS MUCH A CITIZEN as the Child B born to US citizen parents. They are saying there is NO distinction under the law if they are born in the US. If there is to be no distinction under the law, then the child of aliens are equally 'natural born' citizens as those born here of US citizens. The common-law term of art was 'natural-born' to describe those who acquired their status at birth. The reason it wasnt applied to the child of aliens in the above quote is that it would appear to imply the conclusion in stating the argument.
It's valid to say that Kim ruling did not EXPLICITLY call him natural-born citizen, but they didnt need to, that wasnt the topic at hand. However, cite after cite in the ruling referencing English common law takes you back to a very clear and common theme: English common law definition of "natural-born subject" was born in the realm, ie, on the soil. It would be contradictory indeed to apply English common law understanding of "under the jurisdiction" to include for example Obama as a "citizen at birth" but exclude him from "natural-born citizen", since 'natural-born' related to that citizenship by soil concept.
I also have cited Ted Olson's brief which covered this matter as well:
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf
There essentially have been no cases involving "natural born" verses "native born but not "natural born" - And there never will be such cases because there is no distinction in the law, due to the 14th.
They blew it then too. But if he signed a written version of the oath, hopefully before noon January 20th, that's good enough to satisfy that requirement.
The term is quoted and used in more than just that one place. They cited other cases where the term was used, for example:
“In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 662-663 [cit. omitted.]
“I’d make my argument in court.”
Be my guest. These arguments you think are bullet-proof have thus far not advanced very far in actual court cases.
Well, I concede that Wong Kim Ark opened the door to a very unnecessary debate by its wrongheaded and lying approach to the issue of birthright citizenship.
I say lying because the Court was disingenuous, as you are, when you say “the court was pointing out that the 14th amendment concept of citizenship by soil was rooted in English common law ... and lo and behold, the WAY English common law called persons in that situation was “natural-born subjects”.
The 14th Amendment was NOT based on the Common Law and its authors were explicit in this, as were the Framers of the Constitution. When the Court in Wong Kim Ark reached back to find precedent in the Common Law on this matter they were thumbing their noses at the Framers of the Constitution, the Authors of the 14th Amendment, and all legal precedent up to that time.
This case is really abominable law and the issues it addresses are ripe for revisiting.
I should add that arguments based on theories of Obama picking up some other country citizenship along the way will be of no effect ... if he was born a citizen, and never renounced it, he remained so...
Perkins v Elg held a woman born of foreign parents on US soil “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and that status was maintained even through long absense ...
In the Elg Case, the Supreme Court said that US law determines US citizenship, and that fact that a second country might be capable of claiming Ms. Elg as a citizen did not defeat or terminate her status as a natural-born US citizen. The same reasoning would apply to Sen. Obama. And since Sen. Obama’s father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, the British could also have claimed him as a citizen.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
“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
(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
Uuummm you just keeping misrepresenting the facts
Ms. Elg was born to foreign born parents but they both were naturalized United States citizens at the time of her birth therefore the court rightly so she was determined to be called a natural born citizen.
I would appreciate it if you would link to the law that governs the above.
The Elg case was brought up to point this out: “I should add that arguments based on theories of Obama picking up some other country citizenship along the way will be of no effect”
If Obama was a citizen at the time of birth, and never renounced citizenship, then he remains so.
If Obama was born in Honolulu, he was a US citizen at birth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.