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

Skip to comments.

Babies and Immigration Reform (Not one word in the 844-page law mentions Birthright Citizenship)
American Thinker ^ | 04/24/2013 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last
To: AuntB

With the right lawyer and the right Supreme Court this incorrect interpretation of The Fourteenth Amendment would have been voided out years ago. I am mystified why no conservative lawyers have ever challenged it, say funded by the Heritage Foundation


101 posted on 04/25/2013 2:56:42 PM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing - Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Not everybody born in the US was a US citizen, but some or most of those particular people, legally speaking, actually were. Even if the State Department denied the fact.

Jeff, the U.S. Secretaries of State explicitly cited the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in determining those men weren't U.S. citizens even though born in the U.S.

102 posted on 04/25/2013 2:58:22 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

The government has chosen to consider them citizens. They did so contrary to the decision on what NBC & the 14th mean. Someone here illegally is NOT living under the jurisdiction of our laws. They are not domiciled here. They are the functional equivalent of an invading army - here without the permission of the government. That is a long recognized exception to citizenship by birth.

“There is no requirement that your parents must be citizens in order to become a citizen of the US.”

I never said they did. But the parents must be here in amity with the government - because the government accepts them as living here legally, under our laws.

Why do you keep twisting it around to suggest I’m imposing a citizenship requirement for the parents?


103 posted on 04/25/2013 3:02:21 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Question: Was Birthright Citizenship enshrined in their constitution, or was it simply a matter of passing a law by legislation?

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part,

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has always been understood to be - If you are born and still live here, you are under US jurisdiction.

Now, is it simply a matter of RE-INTERPRETING the clause? Or should we AMEND the constitution?

If the latter, you know the lengthy process it will take...


104 posted on 04/25/2013 3:05:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
There is no longer any such wiggle room when it comes to the children of aliens who actually reside here.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.

And in Obama's case, he had a citizen mother. So there's no argument there.

There actually is no law that supports your assertion. U.S. law covers derivative citizenship to those born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent but the requirement for birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S. is either that they are not subject to a foreign power at birth, or that their alien parent(s) was/were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their birth.

The circumstances of Obama's birth fit neither of those criteria.

105 posted on 04/25/2013 3:13:05 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has always been understood to be - If you are born and still live here, you are under US jurisdiction.

No, it hasn't. Why would you think such a thing?

Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record, 1866:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
106 posted on 04/25/2013 3:21:09 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: Jurisdiction

Aren’t babies born in the United States subject to US jurisdiction?


107 posted on 04/25/2013 3:28:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Aren’t babies born in the United States subject to US jurisdiction?

If they're subject to a foreign power at birth, they owe allegiance to a foreign power and are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. as required by the 14th Amendment.

How do you not know this?

108 posted on 04/25/2013 3:36:15 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court?

The intent of the 14th amendment is to prevent the creation of second-class citizens via legal obfuscations that pretend that some of the people in the United States are not the full kind of “person” who is entitled to the rights it guarantees.

We had some problems with that sort of thing for a century or so.

Babies brought into this world on American soil are exactly who this amendment is designed to protect. They start their lives here, they grow up here, and therefore they are called citizens BY LAW.

Now if you don’t want them to be citizens by virtue of their birth on American soil because their parents are not citizens or illegal, I am with you.

But the 14th amendment CANNOT BE USED for this purpose.

The constitution has to be amended.


109 posted on 04/25/2013 3:57:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 case in which justices upheld the US citizenship of a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrant parents. The parents were in the US legally, however.


110 posted on 04/25/2013 4:00:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Because you are? The 14th explicitly rejects this interpretation.


111 posted on 04/25/2013 5:23:05 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Yes, there is a reason for it to prevail. It is how dual citizenship works in the United States at least. This way the child is entitled to her rights as an American, and Americans give precedence to these rights over her rights and obligations as a British subject.


112 posted on 04/25/2013 5:24:37 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

And how’s that workin’ out for them? Not well! You want to model America’s immigration system after the UK?


113 posted on 04/25/2013 5:25:27 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”

Which is not the case here.


114 posted on 04/25/2013 5:35:32 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court?

Those who are born to an alien parent whose country has a nationality law that automatically makes them a citizen/subject of the alien parent's country are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. and are therefore NOT born U.S. citizens.

U.S. Secretaries of State have been quite explicit about that.

See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93

115 posted on 04/25/2013 6:06:02 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark

Indeed, it is. Gray (the Justice who wrote the majority opinion) specifically stated that the ruling was based on the fact that Wong Kim Ark's alien parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth, among other facts agreed upon by all parties in the case.

116 posted on 04/25/2013 6:26:32 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Yes, there is a reason for it to prevail. It is how dual citizenship works in the United States at least.

For those who meet birthright citizenship requirements, yes. Not everyone born in the U.S. meets those requirements. See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93

117 posted on 04/25/2013 6:29:40 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
“In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”

Which is not the case here.

Indeed, it's not. Obama never qualified for birthright U.S. citizenship to begin with. He doesn't meet the 14th Amendment's requirements. See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93

And his alien father was not permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth per the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling.

It is possible that he may have naturalized as a U.S. citizen at some point after the time of his birth. However, naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.

118 posted on 04/25/2013 6:34:05 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Jeff, the U.S. Secretaries of State explicitly cited the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in determining those men weren't U.S. citizens even though born in the U.S.

It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.

That they misused the phrase it in support of their denial of citizenship to children of domiciled aliens really doesn't matter in terms of what it meant.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.

Arguably. Arguably, it didn't. It's arguable either way.

There actually is no law that supports your assertion.

There may not be any STATUTE that supports my assertion, but the rule of citizenship which has always applied supports it. The very definition of "natural born citizen" supports it.

119 posted on 04/25/2013 6:53:29 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.

Actually, that's not true. Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. And even then it was only extended to those whose parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth

120 posted on 04/25/2013 7:12:27 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Actually, that's not true. Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. And even then it was only extended to those whose parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth

Produce one example of someone born on US soil to white non-citizen immigrant parents, who was declared not to be a United States citizen prior to 1880.

121 posted on 04/25/2013 7:15:03 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: Those who are born to an alien parent whose country has a nationality law that automatically makes them a citizen/subject of the alien parent’s country are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. and are therefore NOT born U.S. citizens.

OK here’s a question for you -— I don’t believe that either Bobby Jindal OR Marco Rubio, when they were born had parents who were citizens of the United States. In Jindal’s case, his father was a foreign student. In Rubio’s case, his parents were refugees from Cuba.

And I don’t think they went through the process of naturalization either ( where permanent residents SPECIFICALLY apply for US citizenship ).

Since their parents were NOT citizens at the time of their birth, were they US citizens when they were born?

If not, what makes them citizens of the US now?


122 posted on 04/25/2013 7:21:47 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: Wong Kim Ark’s alien parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth

Permanently domiciled, yes. Green Card holders are permanent residents too ( AKA permanently domiciled ). But were Wong’s parents CITIZENS?

If not, then in what sense were they ( based on your understanding of “subject to jurisdiction” ), subject to American jurisdiction?


123 posted on 04/25/2013 7:24:49 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: Wong Kim Ark

Citizenship under the 14th Amendment includes those born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens BASED ON THE ABOVE PRECEDENT.

The Court then, held that a person born in San Francisco to Chinese parents – who, at the time, were not permitted to naturalize as U.S. citizens – nonetheless became a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

As the Court then explained, “[t]o hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution ex­cludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of per­sons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”


124 posted on 04/25/2013 7:27:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Produce one example of someone born on US soil to white non-citizen immigrant parents, who was declared not to be a United States citizen prior to 1880.

I'll defer to Supreme Court Justice Miller:

"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."
83 U.S. 36 (1872)
125 posted on 04/25/2013 8:06:01 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
OK here’s a question for you -— I don’t believe that either Bobby Jindal OR Marco Rubio, when they were born had parents who were citizens of the United States. In Jindal’s case, his father was a foreign student. In Rubio’s case, his parents were refugees from Cuba.

Both had immigrant parents who had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their births. They are U.S. citizens. That does not necessarily mean they are natural born citizens for Constitutional eligibility purposes.

126 posted on 04/25/2013 8:10:03 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE: Wong Kim Ark’s alien parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth

Permanently domiciled, yes. Green Card holders are permanent residents too ( AKA permanently domiciled ). But were Wong’s parents CITIZENS?

If not, then in what sense were they ( based on your understanding of “subject to jurisdiction” ), subject to American jurisdiction?

No, they were not citizens.

As I've previously explained, birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. And even then it was only extended to those whose parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth. As such, WKA did not have to meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as it was specifically his case that extended birthright citizenship to U.S. born children of parents permanently domiciled in the U.S. Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth. That fact was agreed upon by all parties in the case.

127 posted on 04/25/2013 8:17:27 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
I'll defer to Supreme Court Justice Miller:

"The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

Why don't you defer to the later Supreme Court who said that tiny bit of dicta you just quoted was ill-considered, inaccurate dicta?

[The United States Supreme Court, referring to the EXACT quote you just gave:]

This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. [Do you know what "wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question" means? It means the comment was pure dicta.]

It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside. 1 Kent Com. 44; Story Conflict of Laws § 48; Wheaton International Law (8th ed.) § 249; The Anne (1818), 3 Wheat. 435, 445, 446; Gittings v. Crawford (1838), Taney 1, 10; In re Baiz (1890), 135 U.S. 403, 424.

[So it was DICTA, and ILL-CONSIDERED dicta at that.]

In weighing a remark uttered under such circumstances, it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:

It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821), 6 Wheat. 264, 399.

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And beyond that, the same Court DIDN'T ACTUALLY MEAN IT.

So it was dicta, it was ill-considered dicta, and the Court that said it didn't really mean it.

How many different possible ways could the United States Supreme Court tell you that the sentence you just quoted was totally and completely wrong?

You claimed, "Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision."

Sorry, but that tiny bit of totally wrongheaded dicta, clearly identified by the US Supreme Court as a tiny bit of totally wrongheaded dicta, doesn't cut it.

As I said before:

Produce one example of someone born on US soil to white non-citizen immigrant parents, who was declared not to be a United States citizen prior to 1880.

128 posted on 04/25/2013 8:22:59 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Citizenship under the 14th Amendment includes those born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens BASED ON THE ABOVE PRECEDENT.

Only if the parents have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their child's birth in the U.S.

Gray was very specific in the ruling:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative"
"The single question" asked and answered:
Whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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.

Obama's father wasn't permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of Obama's birth. According to the DoJ, his authorized "Temporary Stay" was set to expire on August 9, 1961, just 5 days after Obama's birth. Note the title of the form:

129 posted on 04/25/2013 8:37:23 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Why don't you defer to the later Supreme Court who said that tiny bit of dicta you just quoted was ill-considered, inaccurate dicta?

I don't need to. I'll refer you to U.S. Secretaries of State, executing the law exactly as Justice Miller described:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=wdgxAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Justice Miller was indeed accurate.

130 posted on 04/25/2013 8:46:10 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

“Because you are? The 14th explicitly rejects this interpretation.”

Please point to a single post anywhere on this thread or any other, where I claim someone needs to have citizen parents to be born a citizen.


131 posted on 04/25/2013 8:54:36 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
So in other words, YOU CAN'T.

I have stated that persons born on US soil, from the founding of our country, to non-citizen immigrant parents, were natural born citizens.

I have acknowledged the denial of this by a few Secretaries of State. This was against the law as it had been from the founding of our country, and it was against PREVIOUS Secretary of State policy, and it was against the previous policy of the United States Attorney General.

In reply to the inquiry which is made by you…whether “the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father’s country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,” I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it.

- Secretary of State William Marcy, 1854

And our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the ” natural born’‘ right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.

- Attorney General Edward Bates, 1862

I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship. I might sustain this opinion by a reference to the well-settled principle of the common law of England on this subject; to the writings of many of the earlier and later commentators on our Constitution and laws; to the familiar practice and usage of the country in the exercise of the ordinary rights and duties of citizenship; to the liberal policy of our government in extending and recognizing these rights, and enforcing these duties; and lastly to the dicta and decisions of many of our national and state tribunals. But all this has been well done by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the case of Lynch vs. Clarke, and I forbear. I refer to his opinion for a full and clear statement of the principle, and of the reasons and authorities for its support.

- Attorney General Edward Bates, 1862

And here's what the former US District Attorney for Pennsylvania had to say, back in 1825:

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

So it is clear that the policies of Secretaries of State in the 1880s and 1890s were new, and in contradiction to how things had always been.

Meanwhile, you claim, "Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision."

When challenged, you produce a bit of ill-considered pure dicta that the Court who said it didn't actually mean, which was actually RULED by the US Supreme Court to be a bit of ill-considered pure dicta that the Court who said it didn't actually mean, and the policies of Secretaries of State of the 1880s and 1890s which are clearly in conflict with our country's previous policy.

And you find yourself completely and absolutely unable to produce one single example of any person who was born in the United States to non-citizen immigrant parents, and ruled not to be a citizen at any time prior to 1880.

So congratulations. You've made it clear that you really don't know what you're talking about here, and your claim doesn't have a leg to stand on.

132 posted on 04/25/2013 9:11:19 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Gosh. How was I certain that this topic revolved around Obama. Quel surprise.


133 posted on 04/25/2013 9:38:39 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Yes, everyone does. That’s the point you are trying to make and why you are attacking birthright citizenship by stripping it from certain people that don’t meet your standards. That’s not birthright citizenship anymore.


134 posted on 04/25/2013 9:44:32 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Thank you. That should hammer it down.


135 posted on 04/25/2013 9:46:00 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I have stated that persons born on US soil, from the founding of our country, to non-citizen immigrant parents, were natural born citizens.

Sorry, no.

I have acknowledged the denial of this by a few Secretaries of State.

Exactly. They were executing the 14th Amendment as written and intended. Trumbull and Howard were quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning in the Congressional Record.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866, on which the 14th Amendment is based, is also quite clear:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States..."

136 posted on 04/25/2013 10:00:48 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
you are attacking birthright citizenship by stripping it from certain people that don’t meet your standards.

They're not my standards. I'm going on the words of Trumbull, Howard, U.S. Secretaries of State, and the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Their words are quite clear and a matter of historical record.

The mistake you and others like you are making is reading what you think into what was actually said. You're projecting, so what you're getting out of the historical documents is distorted.

137 posted on 04/25/2013 10:06:24 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
"The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' meant 'not owing allegiance to anybody else.

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

138 posted on 04/25/2013 10:20:42 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
"The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth"
http://ia700404.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/18/items/digestofselectbr00robe/digestofselectbr00robe_jp2.zip&file=digestofselectbr00robe_jp2/digestofselectbr00robe_0050.jp2&scale=3&rotate=0

"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States"
http://books.google.com/books?id=PM4GAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA2449#v=onepage&q&f=false

139 posted on 04/25/2013 10:31:46 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“I’m going on the words of Trumbull, Howard, U.S. Secretaries of State, and the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark”

And I’m going by the words of the US Constitution. Game. Over.


140 posted on 04/25/2013 11:23:12 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
And I’m going by the words of the US Constitution. Game. Over.

Glad you finally admitted it!

We know from the citizenship clause's originators that the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement means: "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

More historical background info with citations, here:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

141 posted on 04/26/2013 2:52:22 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

You already recieved citations earlier showing just the opposite - that the Constitution after the 14th Amendment interpreted it’s application as this: - born in America - become a citizen. That was the point.

I find it amazing that you’re willing to discard the constitution when you don’t like it. What’s next? Interpreting the 2nd to mean that only militias can be armed?


142 posted on 04/26/2013 4:03:39 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

I already provided evidence (which, you of course ignored, funny that!), showing that dual citizenship in America for those born in America, is treated by Americans no differently than any one else’s citizenship.

Why? Gosh. It might have something to do with that inconvenient 14th amendment.


143 posted on 04/26/2013 4:05:20 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
You already recieved citations earlier showing just the opposite - that the Constitution after the 14th Amendment interpreted it’s application as this: - born in America - become a citizen. That was the point.

Most definitely NOT.

As we can see, INTERNATIONAL LAW plays a role in births to aliens in the U.S. THIS arbitration ruling from 1876 (AFTER ratification of the 14th Amendment) CONFIRMS what Trumbull, Howard, and the U.S. Secretaries of State have ALL said about the 14th Amendment's requirements: children born in the U.S. to aliens are NOT subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S., are SUBJECT to a foreign power, OWE ALLEGIANCE to a foreign power, and therefore AREN'T U.S. citizens at birth:

"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States"
Source:
History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States Has Been A Party
144 posted on 04/26/2013 7:18:30 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

OK, let me get this...

It is your understanding that the 14th Amendment grants Birthright Citizenship only to the following:

1) Babies whose Parents or Parent are Citizens

2) Babies whose Parents or one Parent are LEGAL RESIDENTS of the USA.

It does NOT grant Birthright Citizenship to Babies who parents are NOT legal residents regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally.


145 posted on 04/26/2013 7:27:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

In the case of Jindal his parents WERE NOT permanent residents at the time of his birth.

See here:

http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/bobby-jindal-a-natural-born-citizen/

EXCERPT:

Jindal was born in 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to parents who had just moved there from India to attend graduate school.

So, he should not be a citizen by birth because of this and really should now apply for naturalization?


146 posted on 04/26/2013 7:29:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In the case of Jindal his parents WERE NOT permanent residents at the time of his birth.

From the link you posted: "In fact, it was Gupta’s career move that brought the newly married couple to Louisiana."

Establishes permanent domicile before Jindal's birth.

Note the similarities to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"...of parent 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."

So, yes, via the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, Jindal is a U.S. citizen. Is he a 'natural born citizen' for the Constitutional purpose of Presidential eligibility? Not necessarily.

147 posted on 04/26/2013 7:53:19 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

From the article:

Gupta was accepted as a graduate assistant at Louisiana State University when she was pregnant with Bobby. Her husband, who at the time was an assistant professor at a Chandigarh engineering college, was concerned about her moving overseas in her condition. LSU offered her one month of maternity leave if she joined the program, a deal the Jindals agreed was too good to turn down.

They moved in January 1971. Bobby was born soon after, in Baton Rouge.

How does one obtain permanent resident status as a graduate student? I know of many brilliant graduate students who are here on Student Visas, not green card.

From the article:

“It is clear that the Jindal’s were only here for a few months before Bobby Jindal was born.”


148 posted on 04/26/2013 7:58:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
OK, let me get this...

It is your understanding that the 14th Amendment grants Birthright Citizenship only to the following:

1) Babies whose Parents or Parent are Citizens

2) Babies whose Parents or one Parent are LEGAL RESIDENTS of the USA.

Babies born in the U.S. whose parents are citizens? Yes.

Babies born in the U.S. who have one alien parent? Not necessarily. If both parents have an established permanent domicile in the U.S., then probably yes via the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. If the alien parent is only in the country temporarily, then not necessarily. It would depend on whether the alien parent's country asserts jus sanguinis citizenship that specifically applied to the alien's child, as happened in Obama's case.

149 posted on 04/26/2013 8:05:55 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: If the alien parent is only in the country temporarily, then not necessarily.

Then we have to really check Bobby Jindal’s status. I don’t think his parents were permanent residents at the time of his birth.


150 posted on 04/26/2013 8:07:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last

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.

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