Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
Yes it says "generally speaking." You understand that does NOT mean ALL children born of aliens??? Tell me you understand that.
Since I have repeatedly in several posts listed for you the exceptions, I obviously do understand it, but it appears you do not. The exceptions are well known: children of foreign ministers or ambassadors, occupying military. If you read Blackstone, he goes on to discuss the diplomatic exception,
The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.This has been explained to you several times. I hope this time does the trick.
The part underlined above is the point I was making. The only persons who are natural-born subjects if they are the "issue of a denizen" are those born in the country AFTER denization. The ones born IN THE COUNTRY before denization are still considered aliens. They do NOT have inheritable blood. A natural-born subject is one who has inheritable blood.
Except that is not what Blackstone, or the common law says. Read Blackstone again for those pieces you want to conveniently overlook:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.If a child is born, in English dominions, to an alien (and the alien is not a foreign minister or ambassador) the child is natural born. If a child is born outside those dominions to an alien, the child is also an alien. If a child is born outside those dominions to an alien that later becomes a denizen, the parent’s later denizenation does not retroactively make the child a subject. You are trying to reinterpret well known and well ligitated issues of English common law.
No, the Supreme Court said this in WKA in the sentence that you have so much trouble understanding. I can teach you what it means, but I can't fix your intentional stupidity.
It only seemed to say that when you butchered the quote to remove the “neither… nor. For your edification once again:
”Except that Bellei clearly states in the opinion that we follow jus soli. “
... in ONE area of law. Elsewhere in the decision it talks about citizenship at birth that does NOT follow jus soli. You're trying to make this mean something much broader than what the decision actually says. .
What they said was pretty clear, without the qualifier you are trying to insert.
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.The decision involves a “modified by statute” case. The general principle is clearly stated.
"If you can't accept the Rogers v. Bellei clear statement that the US follows England in jus soli because the case was not about a citizen born in the US, how hypocritical of you to claim that Minor's statement of doubt is controlling when that case wasn't about citizenship at all, but about suffrage."
Minor was ABOUT citizenship in addition to suffrage. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark and in Ex Parte Lockwood. Selective ignorance does not help you here. .
Funny, the court seemed to think Minor was about suffrage, and denied the validity of an argument based on different types of citizenship. You do read the cases you cite, don’t you?
" Funny, no mention that the Justices thought this only applied to colonial statute.".
It was in the previous sentence in the decision (and as I've requoted it). It's why the part YOU quote says "Thus." Are you intentionally ignoring that for some reason?? .
Happy to post the whole thing, since it does not mean what you claim it does:
So they quote a particular case, then discuss “our law” which makes it clear they are not limiting it to colonial times. Plus if you looked at the case quoted (Weedin v. Chin Bow,) The Chief Justice, delivering the opinion:Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. at 274 U. S. 660. He referred to the cited English statutes, and stated, "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence."Commentary – the court quotes a previous case.
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
Commentary: a general principle is stated, note use of “our law.” Unless the Justice considers himself still a colonial, he does not limit this to pre-Constitutional days.
… [omission of discussion of lack of specificity in the Constitution, attributed to desire to avoid the issue of slavery
omission of the language of the 14th amendment
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
[Commentary No mention of citizen parents in the Constitutional definition! Surprise!]
The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S. Ct. 456, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute;Oh, and the decision was unanimous, which you seem to regard as more binding precedent.
And now, to work. All other replies will have to wait.
This is talking about the children of English subjects born in OTHER countries, not about resident aliens in England and their children. It's also says:
But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception ....
IOW, there AREN'T any exceptions forthwith for the children of subjects born in other countries, so the exceptions you're wanting to cite were negated by statutory law. No one argues that statutory law didn't go beyond natural law in the United States, but in fact, that such common laws were not inherently recognized. And it's meaningless anyway because Blackstone goes on to says again that the children of aliens do not have inheritable blood before the denization of the parents. Thus, they are NOT natural-born subjects. You are trying to make a generality into an absolute but have to ignore this part to do so.
If a child is born, in English dominions, to an alien (and the alien is not a foreign minister or ambassador) the child is natural born. If a child is born outside those dominions to an alien, the child is also an alien. If a child is born outside those dominions to an alien that later becomes a denizen, the parent’s later denizenation does not retroactively make the child a subject. You are trying to reinterpret well known and well ligitated issues of English common law.
Wrong. I'm going by what it says. Those children born of denizens before denization (and there's nothing stated here about the place of birth being "outside the dominions" as you have invented) are NOT natural-born subjects because they do NOT have inheritable blood, which is a criteria Blackstone uses to distinguish between aliens, denizens and natural-born subjects. If what you believe is true, then why does Blackstone say that the children born after denization can inherit. If all children born of aliens were natural-born subjects, why does he make this distinction??? Think, lurky, think!!
It only seemed to say that when you butchered the quote to remove the “neither… nor.
Wrong. It says the same thing whether the "neither ... nor" is included or not, because the factual premise of the relevant parts are not conditional to that phrase. I've broken down in to all the relevant parts. I've presented similar analogies and used your own analogies to show that you're wrong. Your analogies were butchered as well as your comprehension. That's all.
Amazing the change butchering the quote causes, eh?
No, it's not amazing at all when YOU butcher the quotes and use a completely different sentence structure that doesn't resemble the sentence used in WKA. It only shows how you have butchered it.
What they said was pretty clear, without the qualifier you are trying to insert.
There is still a qualifier in the sentence where it says "in this area" which is based on the context of the previous sentence, which said, "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence." Again, show some intellectual honesty, Mr. Quote Butcher.
Funny, the court seemed to think Minor was about suffrage, and denied the validity of an argument based on different types of citizenship. You do read the cases you cite, don’t you?
Where do you think it says anything abuot denying the validity of an argument based on different types of citizenship??? I'm interested to see where this kind of crazy comes from.
So they quote a particular case, then discuss “our law” which makes it clear they are not limiting it to colonial times.
Dude, yet again, you're making my argument for me. Did you not read what you've cited?? We've already noted that NBC is outside the Constitution and outside the law (according to WKA). The Roger quotes says "our law in this area" and "an express constitutional definition of citizenship" ... do you get it?? When it says "jus soli" applies in "our law in this area" or as "an express constitutional definition of citizenship," it is talking only about the 14th amendment and NOT NBC.
So they quote a particular case, then discuss “our law” which makes it clear they are not limiting it to colonial times. Plus if you looked at the case quoted (Weedin v. Chin Bow,) The Chief Justice, delivering the opinion:
You're making another one of your ignornant strawman arguments. I didn't say that anything was "limited" to colonial times. I said the context of their quote was only affirming jus soli for the statutes prior to Independence. When they said "our law in this area," they are NOT talking about natural-born citizenship because it isn't defined by law. The laws we have do not mention natural-born citizenship. Neither does the 14th amendment. WKA has ALREADY acknowledged the NBC is outside of the law.
Further, the comment about jus soli fails because, as you've shown, the Rogers decision goes on to cite THREE criteria for Constitutional citizenship (IOW, it's not just solely jus soli (pun intended)).
But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States.Nothing in Rogers v. Bellei contradicts this that NBC is defined outside the Constitution. Nothing in Rogers says NBC is defined as jus soli. All it does is support that the common law was incorporated into the 14th amendment ... although the common law required that the parents adhered to the United States. Originally this was expressed by being citizen parents. Under the 14th amendment, it required as interpreted in WKA, it required permanent residence and domicil, with domicile being defined as by the SCOTUS in earlier cases as having expressed the intention of permanent residence in the United States. This still excludes Obama from being a 14th amendment citizen since his father was sent home to Kenya. Obama should have been deported too.
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.