Kamala Family Dox (FR Debut)

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw] Your theory- A woman can fly into LaGuardia from Iran, have the baby in the airport bathroom, fly back to Iran and raise the next iteration of terrorist/Ayatollah, then fly him back to run for president 50 years later.

I accept your admission that you are unable to argue based on the law. All the court opinions, the statute laws and the state department policies are against you8r birther blather.

Have another helping of Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 Owen 236, 250 (1844)

6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was Ibiind by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to political rights, than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle. The legislative expositions speak but one language on this question. Thus the various acts on the subject of naturalization which have been passed by Congress presuppose that all who are to be benefited by their provisions were born abroad. They abound in expressions of this sort, viz;: the "country from which he came;" all "persons who may arrive in the United States;" the country whence they migrated is to be stated, and the like. This language is inappropriate to a person who was born here, and wholly inapplicable to one who has always resided in the country. If Julia Lynch had remained here till she was of age, the argument in regard to her citizenship would be no different, because during the intervening time she would have been incapable of election, in this state, the constitution adopted by the people in 1822, provides that no person except a native citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the office of governor. Native citizen is used as contradistinguished from citizens of foreign birth, and as a term perfectly intelligible and definite. It is based upon the assumption that there was a known rule of law, ascertaining who were native citizens of the United States; and as has already been shown that there was no such rule known, except that of the common law.

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw] You are a moron.

If you say so, but you are getting repeatedly pummeled by a moron.

What you don’t grasp is that your posts are legitimate, you just don’t understand what you are reading.

Aha! You have been reduced to playing stupid!

You want another helping of Lynch v. Clarke I see. Fair enough.

Have another helping of Lynch v. Clarke, picking up where I left off in my #184.

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 Owen 236, 250-252 (1844). You are invited to make believe that you do not understand what this one says grasshopper.

In various statutes which have been enacted from time to time for more than fifty years past, to authorize aliens to take, purchase, hold and convey real estate, the expression used by the legislature in declaring the extent of the rights granted, is that they are to be as full as those of “any natural born citizen,” or of “natural born citizens.” (See Laws of 1806, ch. 164, § 1, 3; of 1807, ch. 123; of 1808, ch. 175; of 1812, ch. 240; of 1825, ch. 310; 1 Rev. Stat., 720; and many others, both general and particular in their application.) In one statute, passed April 27, 1836, Laws of 1836, ch. 200, the alien was to hold land as fully as if he had been a naturalized or natural born citizen; as if those two constituted all the classes of citizens known to our laws. In the numerous colonial statutes of naturalization to which I have already referred, the expression which is used, is "natural born subjects." Both expressions assume that birth is a test of citizenship; and the continuance of the language subsequent to the Revolution and to the Federal Constitution, shows that the effect of birth continued to be the same as it was before.
The statutes in favor of aliens, enabling them to take, hold and dispose of real estate, have been very general throughout the United States. I refer to the following as exhibiting the similar use of the term “natural born citizen of the United States,” in contradistinction to aliens, or foreigners not naturalized.
In New Jersey, the act of January 22, 1817. (Elmer’s Digest, 6.)
In Pennsylvania, the act of February 11, 1789; which says natural born subjects, instead of citizens. This act was continued in 1792 and again in 1795. (3 Carey and Bioren's Laws, 299.) In 1799, a similar statute, using the same language as in those of New York, (6 ib.,38.) So in 1807; (Act of February 10th;) and again March 24, 1818. (Purdon’s Digest, 39,40: Ed. 1836.)
In Delaware, act of 1811, ch. 172: 4 Laws of Delaware, 483. On the 11th of June, 1788, a statute was enacted in Delaware, giving to all foreigners then or thereafter residing there, on taking the oath prescribed, all the rights and privileges “of natural born subjects of this state,” except the holding of offices, to which they were entitled after five years residence. (2 Laws of Delaware, 921, ch. 174, b.) For similar laws, using the same language—See Laws of Georgia to 1820, p. 182, Act of Feb. 7, 1785; Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1838, p. 67; Rev. Stat, of Wisconsin, 1833-9, p. 179; Laws of Michigan, ed. 1833, p. 282, Act of March 31, 1827.
In Pennsylvania, the old plan or frame of government, adopted at the revolution, (sec. 42,) gave to every foreigner of good character who came to settle in the state, having first taken the oath of allegiance, the right to hold land, &c., and after one year’s residence he was to be deemed a free denizen of the state, “and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject" of that state. (1 Carey & Bioren's Laws of Pa., 8, note a.) In a statute of that state, passed August 31, 1778, to validate titles, &c., it was enacted that heirs of persons not naturalized, or born out of the allegiance of the crown of Great Britain, might hold, &c., as if the deceased had been born in allegiance, &c. (Pardon's Digest, 38.) Ths same assumption in regard to citizenship by birth, is to be found in the statute of Pennsylvania regulating elections, passed February 15, 1799. In order to prove his right to vote, the elector is to take an oath, 1. That he is a natural born citizen of the state, &c. 2. Or that he is a natural bom citizen of some other of the United States, &c. Or 3. That having been a foreigner or alien, he has been naturalized, &c. (Pardon's Dig. 223 ; 3 Carey & Bioren, 340.)
The constitution of Vermont, adopted July 4, 1793, (§39,) contained a provision like that of the Pennsylvania frame of government, except that the limitation as to holding offices was restricted to the highest in the state, and as to those, was at an end after two years residence. The same words were used to illustrate the rights conferred, viz: "natural bom subjects of the state."
In Virginia, an act was passed in 1792, entitled “an act declaring who shall be citizens of this commonwealth,” and providing for acquiring and relinquishing the right of citizenship. The first section provides, “That all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth; all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right of citizenship under former laws, and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth,” &c. (1 Rev. Code of Va., 1819, p. 65. And see Barzizas v. Hopkins, 2 Randolph’s Rep., 278, 281, 282.) This was a substantial re-enactment of a statute passed in May, 1779, ch. 55; (except that the latter was limited to free white persons,) another in October, 1783, ch 16, 17; and another in October, 1786, ch. 10. These statutes in Virginia were in part declaratory. They were enacted, because of the confusion and doubts on the subject growing out of the revolution, and the adherence, of some of the colonists to the British, government, their subsequent return in some instances, and that of their children in others.
In South Carolina, the act of 1721, prescribing the qualification of members of the assembly, required them to be "free born subject" of the British dominions. (3 S. Car. Statutes at Large, 137, § 8th.)
In Tennessee a statute passed in 1819, recites that the policy of the United States has always been to encourage emigration from foreign countries, to increase their population and strength, and that the act enables aliens to take by descent. The first section commences thus: “All pertons not having been bom in the United States, or otherwise citizens thereof.” &c., as if they had been “native citizens” of the United States. (Statute Laws of Tenn., by Caruthers and Nicholson, ed. of 1836, p. 87.)
These instances from the constitutions and statutes of the various states might be multiplied to a great extent. Those already given, will suffice to show that the universal understanding of the representatives of the people of the states in establishing their fundamental and statutory laws, was that every person born within their territory, was by that circumstance alone, a citizen; and in some of the states, the recognition of the doctrine is express.

Lynch v. Clarke was approvingly cited as good law by the United States Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 664 (1898).

That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

You have extreme cognitive dissonance. Being given the same rights as a natural born citizen does not mean that you are a natural born citizen.

You exhibit a severe learning disability.

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 Owen 236, 250 (1844)

6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

Which part of that confuses you?

As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, and as I quoted in my #186:

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 664 (1898).

That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.

All children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth.

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

United States Supreme Court, Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898).

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 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.

And what order was affirmed? That was the order found in In re Wong Kim Ark District Court, N. D. California. January 3, 1896, No. 11,198.

Arriving at the conclusion, as I do, after careful investigation and much consideration, that the supreme court has as yet announced no doctrine at variance with that contained in the Look Tin Sing decision and the other cases alluded to, I am constrained to follow the authority and law enunciated in this circuit. Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases. But these observations are, obviously, addressed to the policy of the rule, and not to its interpretation. The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority. It may be that the executive departments of the government are at liberty to follow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship which arise between this and other countries, but that fact does not establish the law for the courts in dealing with persons within our own territory. In this case the question to be determined is as to the political status and rights of Wong Kim Ark under the law in this country. No foreign power has intervened or appears to be concerned in the matter. From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment. He has not forfeited his right to return to this country. His detention, therefore, is illegal. He should be discharged, and it is so ordered.

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583., 3 Owen 236, 252 (1844)

Judge Wilson, in his law lectures, delivered soon after our national government was organized, says that an alien, according to the notion commonly received as law, is one borne in a strange country, and in a foreign society, to which he is presumed to nave a natural and a necessary allegiance. He also says, that between a subject natural, and a subject naturalized, the distinction as to private rights is merely nominal: on one they are devolved by his birth, on the other by the consent of the nation. (2 Wilson's Works, 448,449.)

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583., 3 Owen 236, 253 (1844)

Mr. Rawle says explicitly: "Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." (Rawle's View of the Constitution of the United States, 86.
Other authorities to the same point are, 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, title Alien, p. 98, and Allegiance, p. 99.

What is your profession?

Evidently, child care.

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.