The court doesn't say he WAS a natural-born citizen. I pointed out the obvious, but intentional omission. Since nothing here declare Benny to be a natural-born citizen, then my point is true. He was ONLY declared to be a citizen and ONLY because he was born to resident aliens.
It cites Lynch v. Clarke with apparent admiration for its exhaustive treatment.
Not so much. It pointed out that the Supreme Court didn't uphold the views expressed in that case and another case, AND that the 14th amendment attached provisions that meant not everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, as was expressed by Lynch.
Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country.Obama having had a citizen mother and a father who was here as a resident student (not "temporarily traveling here") would no doubt pass muster with the NJ Court, too.
Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power.
Obama's father was NOT a "resident student." There were three options: visitor, student and permanent resident. Obama Sr. was only admitted as a student. He was NOT a permanent resident. He was NOT a resident alien. His child would NOT qualify under the 14th amendment for citizenship by birth.
Gray cites to Lynch three times, and the first of those is in direct support for Gray's contention (Part III of the opinion) that the U.S. had always followed the "same rule" as England, recognizing that children born here of alien parents were natural born citizens.
Gray does NOT say children born here of alien parents were recognized as natural-born citizens. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who starts deliberately lying. The Benny vs. O'Brien quote proves my point. Benny was not declared to be a natural-born citizen and the NJ supreme court admits that it wasn't enough to be a citizen just by being born in the U.S. As I said before, Gray wasn't stupid. He used Benny as precedent to require permanent residence and domicil before he could apply 14th amendment citizenship by birth to Wong Kim Ark. But he already admitted much earlier in the decision that the 14th amendment does NOT define nor redefine natural-born citizen in any way, shape or form. He affirmed the exclusive definition by Minor: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Cruz cannot meet this definition. Neither can Obama.
LOL. This WAS the Supreme Court upholding the views expressed in Lynch v. Clarke: Gray was citing Lynch in support of the Court's determination that the "same rule" held true in the U.S. as held true under the English common law that every child born to alien parents was a "natural born" citizen/subject, respectively. That, after all was what Chancellor Sandford had reasoned in that case:
By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…
* * *
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.
Observe how what Sandford says comports what Gray concludes in Part II and Gray's thesis for Part III that the "same rule" applied here. And Gray's citation to Lynch no doubt is one of the many reasons found by the dissent to complain the majority conclusion was that someone like Mr. Wong was thus presidential eligible.
AND that the 14th amendment attached provisions that meant not everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, as was expressed by Lynch.
C. Sandford in Lynch noted the exceptions to birth-citizenship for children of ambassadors, just as Gray in Part V stated was the purpose of the "subject to" clause of the 14A. So, again, the opinions are quite harmonious.
Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power.
There were three options: visitor, student and permanent resident.
How the INS may classify someone doesn't dictate how a court may analyze the question. Court determinations trump agency actions. A prime example is the WKA case: the Customs office took one view of Mr. Wong's status; the SCOTUS took another. Obama Sr. was here as more than just a temporary visitor and intended to stay while permitted to continue his studies.
His child would NOT qualify under the 14th amendment for citizenship by birth.
His child DID qualify. The U.S. voters (twice), the Congress (twice), the Electoral College (twice), and multiple courts (including federal circuit courts and state supreme court) have concluded Obama qualified.
Gray does NOT say children born here of alien parents were recognized as natural-born citizens.
He says it when he says "the same rule" held true in the U.S. under the original constitution and doing so immediately after he says that the "rule" in England was that "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject."
•That's the reason for the discussion about why Consitutional terminology, including "natural born citizen" (which he specifically cites) "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."He's supporting his argument that, as to children of aliens, "the same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen" as applied to "natural born subject."
•That's the reason Gray sets out to ascertain the meaning of "natural born citizen" by first tracing (Part II) its predecessor "natural born subject."
•That's the reason why Gray devotes Part III to showing that the "same rule" applied as to "natural born citizen."
•That's the reason why in Part III Gray puts NBS and NBC in side by side comparision in the Rhodes quote ("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. ")
•That's the reason Gray cites to the NC Supreme Court to say "subject" and "citizen" are "precisely analogous" terms.
I'm not going to waste my time with someone who starts deliberately lying.
Yeah, it's pretty apparent by now that you need to manufacture an exit strategy. You're argument is systematically being dismantled.
It's clear that you have NO CLUE as to what the SCOTUS means when it says: ""the same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established." And because you don't account for what the Court says there, you misconstrue the reason it cites to the cases it does. Cases like Lynch v. Clarke support the "rule" that every child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a natural born citizen. But you remain in your head-in-the-sand posture that pretends none of this was part of the opinion.
If I were you, I'd find a way to bail out, too.
If ever you figure out an answer to the question you've ducked and run out on several times now, ping me. But to answer that, you'd need to cease being a Birther, so I'm not holding my breath you'll ever honestly address the question.