Coulter: Nirthers Are Just a Few 'Cranks' (Free Republic mentioned)

Little Green Footballs ^ | July 27, 2009 | Charles Johnson

[so_real]

You said ... Surely, you jest. History IS clear. This statement of 1820 PRECEDED the 14th Amendment.

Sir, that was my point. Let's try again and please read more slowly this time. I said ... "Were it not for the 14th Amendment and the subsequent support of the Supreme Court, the children of parents owing their allegiance to foreign governments, even those born on U.S. soil, would not have even been considered "citizens" but through naturalization --- and "natural born citizens" was out of the question." Bingham's and Smyth's statements support that assertion. It's not a misnomer. It is historic fact.

You said ... "The 14th Amendment reset our laws on birthright citizenship"

Alright then, in the framework of U.S. history, let us see what impact was made by this "reset". Let's consult Jacob M. Howard. After all, he was the Senator from Michigan that introduced the 14th Amendment to the United States Senate in 1866. He would know better than I, and far better than you presume to know, what the intent of the 14th Amendment held. Senator Howard spoke ...

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

Well, that's pretty clear, isn't it. Note his use of the interjection "of course" as if to say "this is obvious". And so it was, in the historical context. Mr. Howard contended the law of the land before and after the introduction of the 14th Amendment denied birthright citizenship from persons born on U.S. soil who are foreigners or aliens. So ... it is possible to be "born in the United States" and yet still be a "foreigner" or "alien" (and, by reference to the other historic figures I've mentioned, we accept the allegiance of the parents defines this distinction). It is possible a newborn on U.S. soil could be a non-citizen in Mr. Howard's belief -- a belief he maintained was the accepted law of the land already.

It's not much of a "reset" after all. It simply officiated the commonly accepted position of the day so as to remove "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens".

[WOSG]

The part you needed to make bold is that “Were it not for the 14th Amendment” because that is the key point.

At least you are being logically consistent here, realizing (unlike some others pushing this theory) that you need to argue against the common view of ‘birthright citizenship’ as extending to everyone born in the USA. (Yes, there are exceptions but they are narrow - diplomats and invading armies - and according to latest SCOTUS rulings dont even exclude children of illegal aliens.)

However the case of Obama - born in Honolulu to a foreign father and US citizen mother - is a case where Obama could live his entire life in the US yet not be a citizen. As long as we are doing the original intent thing, consider that the original intent of the 14th was to end such possibilities. He has a stronger case for sure than Wong Kim Ark did in 1898 (who was born in San Fransisco to Chinese national parents) and SCOTUS gave Wong Kim Ark birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Howard quote is a part of the story, but only a part. His quote doesnt contradicate Wong Kim Ark directly.

I have gone through this a few times with others recently, and my bottom line point remains: To pursue this legal theory, you end having to argue that SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark was wrong. maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but it becomes a theoretic exercise to propose that a SCOTUS ruling that has held for over 100 years be overturned.

Under *current law* as *currently* interpreted by the Federal courts, Barack Obama if born in the USA is a US citizen at birth. (Actually he is a US citizen in any case under the 1986 INA 301 grandfathering in cases of people born with one parent a US citizen.)

[WOSG]

How can you claim ignorance about one point
“Was Obama a citizen at birth?”
yet claim sure knowledge about another point ...
“he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States”

That is highly contradictory. Especially since the two are equivalent!

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Can you imagine the inner city riots if it ever really came to a head now with the economy being bad?

Hell, I was looking forward to it.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

How do you know that he is not a natural born citizen?

Because Obama stated that his father was a British subject, not an American.

Even the phony BC says as much.

[steven33442]

Does anyone know if Ann Coulter is a member of the Bilderberg Group? If so, a lot of things would start to make a lot of sense . . . a lot of sense indeed.

[MilspecRob]

I didn’t know “African” was a race.

Have you asked a African nationalist that question?

[AppyPappy]

How do you know that is his father?

[nclaurel]

Why are you concerned that Obama’s records showing how he identified himself in schools would be open to the public? It matters to many of us because if he identified himself as Indonesian, Muslim, Arab or anything other than American, where does his allegiance lie? Do we need a President who doesn't consider himself one of us?

[WOSG]

“Why are you concerned that Obama’s records showing how he identified himself in schools would be open to the public? “

I am not concerned at all. That’s the point. Even if Obama releases them, it wont impact him at all. It has no bearing on his eligibility to be President, so it wont impact that. And he will only release them if it is to his benefit.

“It matters to many of us because if he identified himself as Indonesian, Muslim, Arab or anything other than American, where does his allegiance lie?” And if he was US citizen the whole time, you are going to change *your* mind? Doubtful, so why would you expect it to change other people’s minds, people who heard about Rev Wright but still voted for Obama.

“Do we need a President who doesn’t consider himself one of us?” the idea that you can glean his mindset from his early school records is absurd.

[WOSG]

“How do you know that he is not a natural born citizen?”
“Because Obama stated that his father was a British subject, not an American.”
It’s clear public knowledge that Obama’s father was not a US citizen, so how come with 50 opportunities to knock Obama off the ballot on this ballot in each of the states, only a few crank lawsuits were tried and none was successful?
Perhaps the premise is wrong?

[nclaurel]

Registering in universities as a foreign student would not be early school records. Fight on to defend his right to secrecy...it hardly changes the truth and it will hopefully be made public.

No, my mind won’t be changed if he were born in HI or Mars as every act he does is against the best interests of Americans. However it will influence many to see the truth.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

How do you know that is his father?

Because I sneaked up and bit off a piece of O's ear, dug up BHO Sr and using my Junior Chemistry Set, did my very own DNA comparison.

Why the hell do you think people are having this discussion?

[Glenn]

ALIENATE EVERYONE!

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I have wondered who was listed as informant on the original documentation. Was Sr. even there?

[Osnome]

Ann Coulter is being factual and realistic.

The ‘Birthers’ are barking up an empty tree.

[so_real]

and my bottom line point remains: To pursue this legal theory, you end having to argue that SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark was wrong.

That is the position our liberal counterparts would prefer us to take, as the battlefield is groomed against such an affront, but that is not so. Even you concluded in your own statement Howard's "quote doesnt contradicate Wong Kim Ark directly" --- though I would say the opposite, that the decision in Wong Kim Ark does not contradict Howard's statement directly.

Therefore, it is a natural perception that the purpose of the ruling in Wong Kim Ark was simply to officiate the status of "citizenship", but not specifically "natural born citizenship", to a child born on U.S. soil. Whereas everyone can agree with that statement, you would be hard pressed to argue against it by concluding the intent of The Court in this ruling was to define, or redefine, or even clarify the term "natural born citizen". Why? Simply because The Court *can't* do that. The Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench; only Congress is granted the ability to define a "uniform rule of naturalization" by Article I of the Constitution. Congress sets the bar for citizenship, not the Supreme Court. That's an easy debate to win. The Court simply drew upon historic definitions of citizenship in its many forms to decide the question posed before it.

The question posed before The Court in Wong Kim Ark correlates nicely with this premise :

The question presented by the record is 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 domicil 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Especially so given the statements by congressman at the time of the 14th Amendment, including its authors, setting a distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" as allowed for by the 14th Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark was settled : "For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Ergo, Wong Kim Ark was "a citizen" at the time of his birth and nothing more or less.

Mr. Obama, presumably though not proved to have been, born on U.S. soil would a be "a citizen, nothing more or less. The overwhelming preponderance of historical context, however, precludes Mr. Obama from being considered a "natural born citizen". I have no desire to prove Mr. Obama is less than a citizen. Even though his mother was too young at the time of his birth to legally convey citizenship to him as provided by the laws in Hawaii at the time. Still, she was an American and I respect that. I'll let others battle that if they desire ... I have no dog in that hunt. I will not, however, toss the Constitution aside and willingly elevate him to a status to which he is not entitled, an act the Framers themselves warned us inheritors of this nation against and implemented protections to deny.