Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Campion
That's a distinction that doesn't exist in the law.

Yes, it does.

Wong Kim Ark
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.

------

This is like saying a car is just as much a vehicle as a truck.

A true statement on it's face, but it doesn't make a car INTO a truck.

Wong Kim petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen. The court agreed he was such, but the finding made the distinction between natural-born and native born.

Had there BEEN no distinction, the finding would not have been worded as it was.

55 posted on 09/30/2011 5:35:50 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan

“Wong Kim petitioned the court as a NATIVE born citizen. The court agreed he was such, but the finding made the distinction between natural-born and native born.”

According the majority opinion in WKA, the language is based on English common law, and the Court quotes British jurist A.V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” Thus the distinction between native-born and natural-born is that natural-born also included citizens from birth who were not born in the U.S., such as John S. McCain III.


92 posted on 10/02/2011 3:44:46 AM PDT by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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