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

Skip to comments.

Rubio and Birthright Citizenship
American Thinker ^ | 5/4/2012 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 05/04/2012 7:25:23 AM PDT by Menehune56

Those conservatives who argue against "birthright citizenship" have just been thrown under the same bus as the "birthers" -- whether or not they like it, or the GOP admits it.

The mainstream media, longtime foes against reform of the anchor baby practice, have been happy to help. And instead of quietly watching while a sizeable portion of the Republican party is run over, as in the case of the "birthers," we now have the GOP establishment lending the media a hand in brushing aside many immigration reform advocates -- by pushing the selection of Senator Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; citizenship; constitution; immigration; ineligible; moonbatbirther; naturalborncitizen; nbc; norubio; obama; rubio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-420 next last
To: New Jersey Realist
Indeed. They would also have us believe that Vattel is some sort of pre-Constitutional founder and that his words are sacrosanct and in force not subject to modification.

Well, one sentence of his words at least.

They are either completely ignorant of or ignore Vattel when they make arguments that McCain is not a natural born citizen.

151 posted on 05/05/2012 7:44:32 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA

You are correct in your interpretation. The punctuation is a little confusing and throws people off but one must remember that the transcriber inserts punctuation. The words are the words and read in context with a few sentences prior to that statement quoted the Senator made very clear what he was saying.


152 posted on 05/05/2012 7:46:06 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Indeed. I believe the ONLY thing of use to the framers were Vattel’s views on commerce. I never once thoughout my long life ever heard of Vattel - not until 2008 that is. No one brought it up with Chester Arthur who had a Canadian father as far as I know.


153 posted on 05/05/2012 7:56:30 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Vattel was rediscovered and elevated (well one sentence anyway) late in 2008 as a back up argument in case a particular candidate really WAS born in Hawaii.

Quickly it became revisionist history that this was something everyone knew, was taught in High School, if not with their mother's milk.

And now they make the argument that his obscure and truncated out of any context one sentence trumps all U.S. law and IS the clear and unambiguous meaning of any legal phrase used in the Constitution and not English Common law.

154 posted on 05/05/2012 8:00:47 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Except this is not “naturalization” it is governing who are citizens at birth.
With every reply you make you further prove how idiotic your stance is.
@Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter I › § 1101 - Definitions(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.
(22) The term “national of the United States” means
(A) a citizen of the United States, or
(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

@§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birthThe following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

First and foremost a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a national.

@§ 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth

Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:
Please do keep replying.

Now WHERE - ANYWHERE is there language in U.S. law saying a citizen at birth of any type is considered “naturalized”?
Isn't nationalization part of the naturalization process?

And since I've answered your question, though you'll inevitably say I didn't, how about answering mine...
So you believe that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is secondary to a naturalization law governing aliens that Congress created?

155 posted on 05/05/2012 8:16:04 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Yes - all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are CITIZENS.

The second provision you cite says....

“They shall be nationals but NOT citizens of the United States.”

Obviously they are NOT citizens - this covers non-citizens of these United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1408

“Unless otherwise provided in section 1401 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:”

So how could a law covering those who are NOT citizens mean that one who IS a citizen at birth is naturalized?

Throwing up categories of NON-citizens hardly helps your case that U.S. law and the the U.S. Constitution are subservient to a Swiss philosopher and that ANY meaning of U.S. law describes a citizen at birth as being “naturalized”.

So again - where does it describe a U.S. citizen at birth as being “naturalized”?

It doesn't.

You think we wouldn't notice?

156 posted on 05/05/2012 8:25:12 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

The writers of the constitution knew what they meant by Natural Born Citizen since they also exempted anyone currently living here from the requirement. Otherwise no one would be able to serve as Washington, Adams or jefferson did. They had to include a qualifier because they meant what they said: a natural born citizen has no blood ties to any other country through his or her parents. Obama does not meet that test and neither do Rubio or Jindal.


157 posted on 05/05/2012 8:53:03 AM PDT by RichardMoore (There is only one issue- Life: dump TV and follow a plant based diet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So again - where does it describe a U.S. citizen at birth as being “naturalized”?

Once again...
Isn't nationalization part of the naturalization process?

158 posted on 05/05/2012 9:11:54 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“...Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/


159 posted on 05/05/2012 9:50:15 AM PDT by nosf40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“...Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/


160 posted on 05/05/2012 9:50:23 AM PDT by nosf40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Here are all of the quotes you gave so that the debate can be sen in context...

Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. @2212 (1869) (first column, lower left)

I can't seem to find your second quote "Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)" in the Congressional Globe.
Here is @page 96 of The Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd Session
Perhaps your page number is wrong. Any help appreciated.

I did, however, find the quote attributed to one Attorney General Bates @Opinion of Attorney General Bates on citizenship (page 12, second paragraph)

Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. @1117 (first column, 1/2 down)

Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. @570 (first column, 1/2 down)

Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. @575 (1872) (middle column bottom...starts in the middle of the next to last paragraph)

For anyone wishing to check the source see here... @Congressional Globe Debates and Proceedings, 1833-1873

161 posted on 05/05/2012 10:15:54 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The serial comma (also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, and sometimes referred to as the series comma) is the comma used immediately before a coordinating conjunction (usually and or or, and sometimes nor) preceding the final item in a list of three or more items.

Do they not teach English grammar anymore?

who are foreigners, COMMA

aliens,COMMA

who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

-----

That's 3 classifications 1) Foreigner - people here temporarily. 2) Aliens - foreigner's with temporary residency i.e. 'legal' aliens. 3)diplomats.

If, as you suggest, they only meant diplomats, it would have read:

include persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons

But it doesn't.

162 posted on 05/05/2012 10:21:08 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You might find the link to the “Opinion of Attorney General Bates on citizenship” above of interest.


163 posted on 05/05/2012 10:29:56 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist; MamaTexan

Note the date of Bate’s Opinion...1863.


164 posted on 05/05/2012 10:32:20 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
For the life of them they cannot see that they are adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn’t there and never was there.

I trust the words of Thomas Paine from two years after ratification over your words from 221 years later.

Paine was not a Framer, but he wrote of the Framer's intent of NBC as it happened, not centuries later. His book The Rights Of Man stood unchallenged in his claims that natural-born citizens were not half-foreigners, but people with full natural connection with the country.

Ignore Paine's contemporary words at the expense of your own credibility.

What I would like know is why, in Happerett, when the Supreme Court said they had to look elsewhere, they failed to look at Paine in The Rights Of Man. Next to the Federalist Papers, Paine's comparison of the governments of England, France, and the United States is the clearest documentation of the intent of the Framers from the time and in the plain language of the time.

Ignoring Paine's chronicles is like saying that the Washington Post is not a credible chronicler of government today.

-PJ

165 posted on 05/05/2012 10:41:10 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
SHOOT! --sen seen in context
--Bate’s Bates' Opinion

Do they not teach English grammar anymore?
I was taught it. Spelling as well. Remembering it all and proofreading before hittin' "Post" is the hard part. {;^)

166 posted on 05/05/2012 10:41:45 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If the societal decisions of courts today are any indication of what might might be as to eligibility for POTUSA you are probably correct. However I doubt that the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution based/embedded in laws of England. I can’t accept that the law/rule you cite as to English law was anything more of a point of discussion and not nearly as deliberated as to inserting a meaningful term for eligibility for POTUSA. The Founders were well aware of loyalties to family roots. They took particular care to avoid non-loyal heritage for POTUSA.


167 posted on 05/05/2012 11:18:26 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I was taught it. Spelling as well. Remembering it all and proofreading before hittin' "Post" is the hard part.

LOL! I know exactly what you mean.

----

Anyway, thanks for the link. The part you posted is interesting, but the first page even more so.

Who is a citizen? What constitutes a citizen of the United States? I have often been pained by the fruitless search in our law books and the records of our courts, for a clear and satisfactory definition of the phrase citizen of the United States. I find no such definition, no authoritive establishment of the meaning of the phrase, neither by a course of judicial decisions in our courts, nor by the continued and consentaneous action of the different branches of our political government.
Opinion of Attorney General Bates, page 1

------

That was just the point. There was legally no such thing as a 'citizen of the United States' prior to the 14th Amendment. The People were Citizens of THESE united States. The founders simply used the term as a way to reference the People of the States.

Whether or not Congress had the Constitutional authority to pass such legislation on a national basis is also a matter for contention.

They have the power to make a uniform rule of naturalization for the States to FOLLOW....not to skip the middle-man to implement national legislation.

Be that as it may, Congress ONLY has authority concerning naturalization. Could one forgive the warping of the Law, ALL the 14th Amendment could Constitutionally be is a one time naturalization act specifically for the former slaves. That's why the man who helped write it listed the 3 categories, so it wouldn't be confused with naturalizing foreigners.

The only difference between this and the one time 'at the time of the adoption of the Constitution provision' in the Presidential clause is that the Presidential proviso does pointedly acknowledge the inclusion to natural-born citizenship of People of that time.

It was not so much that the People were born into it, as much as IT was born into them.

-----

So, no, I don't see anything in the 14th Amendment that creates a perpetual grant of jus soli citizenship [naturalization at birth] to a foreigner or alien who happens to be born in the States.

168 posted on 05/05/2012 11:42:33 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
There was legally no such thing as a 'citizen of the United States' prior to the 14th Amendment.
Look out now. You'll be called a bigot and a proponent of "State's Rights".

In the mean time we have to go by the laws on the books.
Congress made 'em, we have to follow 'em.

169 posted on 05/05/2012 12:01:44 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Look out now. You'll be called a bigot and a proponent of "State's Rights".

Yeah....like THAT'S never happened. LOL!

-----

Congress made 'em, we have to follow 'em.

That's just it. Congress has no legal or Constitutional authority to pass laws to changing the original definition of either kind of citizen...particularly the natural-born kind.

Natural borns are made so strictly by the Laws of nature, and THAT cannot be altered by Man.

170 posted on 05/05/2012 12:13:33 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Congress has no legal or Constitutional authority to pass laws to changing the original definition of either kind of citizen...particularly the natural-born kind.
From where I sit they haven't. USC 8 doesn't make anyone a natural born citizen.
Nationalization is part of the naturalization process.
171 posted on 05/05/2012 12:20:21 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

You say: “I trust the words of Thomas Paine from two years after ratification over your words from 221 years later.”

I say. I didn’t offer any words. I quoted congressmen and senators as found in the Congressional Globe. As far as I know Paine had no direct input into the Constitution. While I respect him, he had opinions just like everyone else. He didn’t believe in Jesus either...do you really want to go there?

As far as the rest of your comments, the framers were imbedded in English law and custom. They had love and respect for England but wanted a voice. They didn’t like the taxes. I seem to recall learning in school: Taxation without representation. I do believe that is why our founders broke away from that yoke.

I love my father but I couldn’t stand his rules so I moved out. Same principle.


172 posted on 05/05/2012 12:20:31 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Nationalization is part of the naturalization process.

The indirect administrative authority to make a uniform rule for naturalization isn't the same thing as exercising a direct nationalized authority to naturalize citizens.

Or have I misunderstood your post?

173 posted on 05/05/2012 1:01:14 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Sorry, scratch that quote because of previous typo’s or something I cannot find it now. It is very difficult to find anything in the Globe because there is no search benefit. You can replace that one with the following quote from US V. Wong Kim:

“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


174 posted on 05/05/2012 1:29:04 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
All of which was refuted by reference to the 17th Century and 18th Century English statutory laws which naturalized at birth the children of aliens born in England and deemed them to be subjects made as if they were natural born subjects in most rights. The majority opinion in WKA erroneously omitted these case law precedents in its consideration and commentary. Consequently, the other cases citing WKA are compromised by the same error of omission and lack of consideration in their respective opinions as well.

Before you go around trying to ridicule other people of lacking reading comprehension skills and deriding them as “birthers”, perhaps you can earn a little more respect by tending to your own reading comprehension skills and treating others with more respect. Of course, if treating other people with respect and refraining from deriding them as “birthers” is just too difficult for you to even contemplate, perhaps you will understand why many of us will consider your behavior as unworthy of the courtesy of a reply.

175 posted on 05/05/2012 1:41:52 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

That is a blatant lie. McCain has been frequently cited as yet another example of a person not eligible to the Office of the President, in and out of court.


176 posted on 05/05/2012 1:46:22 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Then you have been willfully and negligently ignorant. Vattel has often been cited in court cases and by the Founders in the 18th and 19th Centuries.


177 posted on 05/05/2012 1:49:35 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

All of which anyone can see is a total pack of lies by reading the court cases in which Vattel was used as a reference and by George Washington’s borrowing and re-lending of Vattel’s book during the Constitutional Convention.


178 posted on 05/05/2012 1:52:39 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Thank fully the issue is pretty much dead.

Only a few hard-core Birthers are left around. There are a few casual Birthers still, but they'll continue to disappear.

179 posted on 05/05/2012 1:57:19 PM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

To be naturalized is to have a public law make a person eligible to the same rights as a person who was natural born without a public law to grant those rigths. A people reproduces itself by the birth of children who are members of that group of people. No law is required to recognize the natural fact that citizen parents give their own citizenship and rights to their children and thereby repopulate the people of their society. Whenever one or both parents of a child are not members of the group of people or reside outside the group of people with local or permanent liegance to alien people, a public law is required to determine to which people the child is in liegance at birth, so such a public law makes natural or naturalizes at birth in accordance with the provisions of the public law what natural law could not and did not determine by an absence of actual or potential liegance to the other people.


180 posted on 05/05/2012 2:06:28 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
"One need not have any citizen parents to be a natural born citizen - as is the case with Marco Rubio."

I'm curious now. If neither parent has to a be a citizen, then any child born in the U.S. can be POTUS? Are you saying there is no other barrier to eligibility today other than age? Please explain.

181 posted on 05/05/2012 2:06:42 PM PDT by Rona_Badger (Heeds the Calling Wind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Evven the English statutory and common-law recognized the only person who was a natural born citizen without naturalization was the person born in England with both parents as English subjects maintaining faith with the Sovereign.


182 posted on 05/05/2012 2:11:53 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

It is not possible to make a public law to convey natural born citiazenship. A person is either born a natural born citizen without the act of a public law, or a person who is not a natural born citizen is made to have some or all of the rights of a natural born citizen at birth or after the birth. The legal principle of ius soli or jus soli is the use of a public law to make a person naturalized at birth like an actual natural born citizen, just as a person may be naturalized by public law at some dte after the birth of the person.

There was no need to legislate a public law to define a natural born citizen, because doing so would perforce result in every person being naturalized at birth or after birth, because no one would qualify any longer as a natural born citizen. A person cannot be a natural born citizen if and when a public law is required to make them a natural born citizen.


183 posted on 05/05/2012 2:23:00 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

“All of which was refuted by reference to the 17th Century and 18th Century English statutory laws which naturalized at birth the children of aliens born in England and deemed them to be subjects made as if they were natural born subjects in most rights. The majority opinion in WKA erroneously omitted these case law precedents in its consideration and commentary. Consequently, the other cases citing WKA are compromised by the same error of omission and lack of consideration in their respective opinions as well.”

“Evven the English statutory and common-law recognized the only person who was a natural born citizen without naturalization was the person born in England with both parents as English subjects maintaining faith with the Sovereign.”

Fine. Back it up. Because the US Supreme Court DID back up what they wrote with numerous citations. And the dissent made no attempt to refute their argument.

One does not naturalize at birth anything. That is why naturalized citizens are citizens who were NOT born US citizens.


In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:

The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.

And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which

the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [p657] must depend,

he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person’s birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. 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.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying:

Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of [p659] that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.

2 Cranch 64, 119.

In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects.

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: “He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York.” 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin’s Case, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.

3 Pet. 155. “The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens.” 3 Pet. 156.

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.

3 Pet. 164.

In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 242, decided (as appears by the records of this court) on the same day as the last case, it was held that a woman born in South Carolina before the Declaration of Independence, married to an English officer in Charleston during its occupation by the British forces in the Revolutionary War, and accompanying her husband on his return to England, and there remaining until her death, was a British subject within the meaning of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, so that her title to land in South Carolina, by descent cast before that treaty, was protected thereby. It was of such a case that Mr. Justice Story, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.

3 Pet. 248. This last sentence was relied on by the counsel for the United States as showing that the question whether a person is a citizen of a particular country is to be determined not by the law of that country, but by the principles of international law. But Mr. Justice Story certainly did not mean to suggest that, independently of treaty, there was any principle of international law which could defeat the operation of the established rule of citizenship by birth within the United States; for he referred (p. 245) to the contemporaneous opinions in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, [p661] above cited, in which this rule had been distinctly recognized, and in which he had said (p. 162) that “each government had a right to decide for itself who should be admitted or deemed citizens,” and, in his Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, published in 1834, he said that, in respect to residence in different countries or sovereignties, “there are certain principles which have been generally recognized by tribunals administering public law” [adding, in later editions “or the law of nations”] “as of unquestionable authority,” and stated, as the first of those principles, “Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed citizens and subjects of that country.” Story, Conflict of Laws, § 48.

The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6, entitled

An act to enable His Majesty’s natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,

enacted that “all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” might and should thereafter lawfully inherit and make their titles by descent to any lands

from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons, by, from, through or under whom

title should be made or derived, had been or should be “born out of the King’s allegiance, and out of is Majesty’s realms and dominions,” as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors “had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the King’s dominions.” 7 Statutes of the Realm, 90. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called “natural-born subjects.” As that statute included persons born “within any of the King’s realms or dominions,” it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States,” and, without such assumption, the case would not have presented the question decided by the court, which, as stated by Mr. Justice Story in delivering the opinion, was

whether the statute applies to the case of a living alien ancestor, so as to create a title by heirship where none would exist by the common law if the ancestor were a natural-born subject.

9 Wheat. 356.

Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 112, 113, 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

and saying that such a child “was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354.”

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.

19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was “to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law,” and that it was established, with few exceptions,

that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

Garder v. Ward (1805), 2 Mass. 244, note. And again:

The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.

Kilham v. Ward (1806), 2 Mass. 236, 265. It may here be observed that, in a recent English case, Lord Coleridge expressed the opinion of the Queen’s Bench Division that the statutes of 4 Geo. II, (1731) c. 1, and 13 Geo. III (1773), c. 21, (hereinafter referred to) “clearly recognize that to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity is the allegiance of his subjects due.” Isaacson v. Durant, 17 Q.B.D. 54, 65.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.

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. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.

The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.


184 posted on 05/05/2012 2:25:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; New Jersey Realist

“Vattel has often been cited in court cases and by the Founders in the 18th and 19th Centuries.”

Please show where Vattel is used as an authority on US citizenship.

Because Vattel said citizenship followed the parent, as it still does in Swiss law. US law has NOT followed Vattel.


185 posted on 05/05/2012 2:28:17 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Why would I care about dicta from a case that made someone a U.S. citizen via the 14th Amendment.
The issue is natural born citizen, not 14th Amendment citizen.
186 posted on 05/05/2012 3:04:11 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
As far as I can tell we're in agreement. I'm probably not explaining myself very well which apparently seems to happen often.
IMO you're actually further bolstering my argument that USC 8, Section 1401 doesn't make anyone a natural born citizen. All 1401 does is make the child of legal aliens, at the moment of birth, a "national" with U.S. citizenship, not a natural born citizen.
So nationalization is part of the naturalization process Congress is authorized to perform.
187 posted on 05/05/2012 3:13:31 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
A person cannot be a natural born citizen if and when a public law is required to make them a natural born citizen.

Exactly!

188 posted on 05/05/2012 3:36:11 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
I didn’t offer any words. I quoted congressmen and senators...

I should apologize for not providing proper context.

I wasn't posting to you because of what you quoted. I posted to you because you did "offer words." You said:

"I have discovered that you cannot reason with people who have an agenda and these birthers certainly have an agenda. For the life of them they cannot see that they are adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn’t there and never was there."

When you say "...and never was there," you are referring to original intent. This entire debate is about original intent. That's why people are scouring through the books that the Framers are known to have read, such as Vattel, Locke, Burke, and others.

As far as I know Paine had no direct input into the Constitution.

Neither did John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, but their letters and actions later in life are used to define original intent elsewhere in the Constitution (see Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" as an example). Why refer to the words of these Founders as legitimate sources, but not Paine who was actively writing on the matter at the time?

What Paine wrote about the original intent of the natural-born clause is clear: foreigners and half-foreigners were excluded from the presidency. In opposition to the definition of "foreigner" or "half a foreigner," Paine says that only someone with "a full natural connection with the country" can be president. That's as plain-meaning as it gets, and was the common understanding of the clause at the time. "Half a foreigner" was a person with one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent. A "full natural" person had two citizen parents.

You accuse others of "adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn't there." I'm asking you why you are blind to the contemporary facts that are there?

-PJ

189 posted on 05/05/2012 3:58:14 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
All 1401 does is make the child of legal aliens, at the moment of birth, a "national" with U.S. citizenship, not a natural born citizen.

Yes, basically a naturalization at birth.

----

So nationalization is part of the naturalization process Congress is authorized to perform.

Not Constitutionally, no. Congress has NO authority to create types of citizenship whatsoever.

The naturalization rule was to make sure the states didn't have different rules concerning the criteria for becoming a citizen...and that's it.

The general government made the rule, and the STATES followed it.

-----

BTW, I was only repeating what he said about it not pertaining to foreigners. I didn't say I thought they had the authority to be doing it. LOL!

190 posted on 05/05/2012 3:58:49 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
So nationalization is part of the naturalization process Congress is authorized to perform.
Not Constitutionally, no.
Well you may need to clarify your thoughts on that one to me then. As I understand the law a child born on U.S. soil to alien parents, and it seems it can only be born to aliens parents since the law is in USC 8 which deals with Aliens and Nationality, is "at birth" a national and a U.S. citizen.
How is nationalization not part of naturalization?

Congress has NO authority to create types of citizenship whatsoever.
I would agree with that, but Congress does have the authority to grant U.S. citizenship through the rules of naturalization which, to me, is what USC 8 does.
As far as I understand it nobody is being granted natural born citizenship, or deemed to be a natural born citizen, in USC 8.

191 posted on 05/05/2012 5:22:20 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

You say, “I’m asking you why you are blind to the contemporary facts that are there?”

I say: Why are you blind to the quotations I put in my post? Many congressmen and senators discussed this very issue before implementing the 14th Amendment but you refuse to take it seriously. Why are you blind to the fact that no present day politician, conservative commentator, or judge will do what you want them to, i.e., acknowledge that you need citizen parents to be NBC? That ain’t gonna happen pal and you just dont get it. Why are you blind to the fact that Chester Arther was in the same situation and no action was taken? There is more than ample evidence that your definition of NBC is off the wall, cannot be proven by anyone. Do you expect me to believe that you can read the minds of the framers of the Constitution? You and all your ilk instead of PROVING the 2 citizen parent rule, attack, misquote and try to dazzle people with fanciful dreams. Several people in this thread and many more in other threads presented ample evidence to prove that 2 citizen parents are not required. You have presented nothing of substance. You mention names like Paine, Jefferson and Adams like that means something. Jefferson had nothing to say about citizenship and neither did Adams as far as I’m concerned. Both these men had great respect for England and it’s laws; they just didn’t like the unjust taxes and other issues. You make Vattel out to be some hero yet England and the rest of Europe ignored his wild ideas on citizenship. France doesn’t even subscribe to it. You people should do something constructive about voting Obama out, not beating this dead horse. If it isn’t written down it doesn’t exist and EVERYONE knows 2 citizen parents is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or U.S. law. Once again get a judge to go your way.


192 posted on 05/05/2012 8:05:13 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Oh, and one more thing. NO ONE answered my original question which was: If I decide to run for president how do I prove that my parents are citizens? What is the process? Won’t someone step up the plate and take a swing at it?


193 posted on 05/05/2012 8:17:32 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

You could do it the same way Obama voted for in 2005; present a bona fide birth certificate. Too bad he won’t do that now for himself or his parents.


194 posted on 05/05/2012 10:01:10 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; allmendream

“Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92326856/NY-2012-04-11-Strunk-v-NYBOE-Et-Al-Decision-and-Order


195 posted on 05/06/2012 1:37:50 AM PDT by Natufian (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
How is nationalization not part of naturalization?

Naturalization pertains to the act of naturalizing, but 'nationalization' pertains to a jurisdictional ability. Congress has the ability to make the rule, but it DOESN'T have the jurisdiction to directly make this rule effective. The action of making aliens into citizens belong to the States.

-----

but Congress does have the authority to grant U.S. citizenship through the rules of naturalization

Using the established Constitutional Intent, yes. The problem is they were NEVER given the ability to totally by pass the criteria for residency, NOR the ability to by pass the parent in order to naturalize the child.

In order for an immigrant to become a citizen, they had to live in a State for so many years, stay out of trouble with the law...I think I even remember them having to have witnesses for their character, too.

It WASN'T run-over-the-border-and-squirt-out-your-very-own-US-citizen kind of thing.

----------

As far as I understand it nobody is being granted natural born citizenship, or deemed to be a natural born citizen, in USC 8.

You're right, they aren't.

My beef is they don't have the legitimate, Constitutional authority to create naturalized at birth citizens.....PERIOD!

196 posted on 05/06/2012 2:40:43 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: mek1959

Pinging for your [possible] interest.


197 posted on 05/06/2012 3:03:05 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

LOL!

If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

There are 2 types of 'citizens' in that sentence.

198 posted on 05/06/2012 3:53:26 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“Fine. Back it up. Because the US Supreme Court DID back up what they wrote with numerous citations. And the dissent made no attempt to refute their argument.”

“One does not naturalize at birth anything. That is why naturalized citizens are citizens who were NOT born US citizens.”

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I a Royal Decree that person who were heretofore aliens residing in England for at least twenty years and more and fulfilling various other requirements were to be “reputed natural subjects of the realm,” even though they were or were not born in England as the children of English or alien parents. In other words, whether by order of the Sovereign or by act of the Parliament, a person was subject made to have the same or nearly the rights of another person who was actually a natural born subject by virtue being subject born than being subject made. This ambiguity and imprecision in using the term, “natural born citizen,” often came to be implied by subsequent commentators,. This inconsistency and later implied meaning has ever since confused readers, but it is nonetheless a fact that persons who are or are potentially not under the liegance, allegiance, or may have divided allegiance at birth or after birth have been deemed to be the same in rights as a person who actually is the natural born child of two English parents in England.

“That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom: ... (British Nationality Act of 1772)”

“That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act (7 Ann. c. 5. s. 3.), be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever. (British Nationality Act of 1730)”

Denization by the Sovereign and naturalization by the Parliament, from the time of Elizabeth I, took persons who were otherwise aliens and treated them as if they were “natural born subjects” even though they were subjects made and not subjects born the children of English parents in England. This practice of deeming the children of alien parents born on domestic soil as if they were subjects or citizens at birth is simply a continuation of the centuries old custom and law of denization or naturalization at birth or after birth and then treating the otherwise alien born as if they were natural born.

Thusly a natural born citizen is a person who requires no public law, Royal decree, executive order, or other act of man-made custom or law to terminate any conflicting claims for allegiance and thereby come into existence as a citizen at birth.

A person who is made a citizen at birth by the act of a public law is a statutory citizen and not a natural born citizen, because this person's citizenship is dependent upon the action of the public law and not upon inheritance of the parent's citizenship and the undivided allegiance resulting from being born within the domestic jurisdiction.

199 posted on 05/06/2012 5:19:02 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist

Your question was answered, but you just dishonestly denied the answer.

The father for purposes of determining citizenship is typically going to be the legal father, and not necessarily the birth father.

Hawaii Revised Statutes
§338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child is prima facie evidence if:

(1) The alleged father is:

(A) The husband of the mother; or

(B) The acknowledged father of the child; or

(2) The father and child relationship has been established under chapter 584. Data pertaining to the alleged father acknowledging paternity of the child is admissible as evidence of paternity in any family court proceeding, including proceedings under chapter 584. [L 1949, c 327, §16; RL 1955, §57-15; HRS §338-12; am L 1975, c 66, §2(2); am L 1994, c 23, §1]


200 posted on 05/06/2012 5:51:32 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-420 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