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

Skip to comments.

Obama, Rubio Birthers Should Read the Law
The Examiner Washington ^ | 05/24/2012 | Byron York

Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus

Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.

But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.

The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.

(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthers; kookyafterbirfers; moonbatbirthers; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncuban; obama; rubio; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-260 next last
To: Rides3

Blackstone, 1765:

“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

I think I’ll trust his opinion of British law instead of yours...


201 posted on 05/31/2012 6:58:57 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 198 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“’Wheresoever’ does indeed mean anywhere, including Virginia.”

Guess “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth” is too tough for you to understand.

And I guess Blackstone was just some Obamabot who didn’t know squat about British law.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


202 posted on 05/31/2012 7:01:55 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 200 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Post 193 is wrong

No, Mr Rogers, the House of Commons Journal is NOT wrong. Children born in England to foreign parents were denizens, NOT natural born subjects.

203 posted on 05/31/2012 7:03:58 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Rides3, or Blackstone?

Rides3, or Blackstone?

Who should I trust to know British law in the 1700s...gee, this is a tough choice!


204 posted on 05/31/2012 7:05:23 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 203 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I think I’ll trust his opinion of British law instead of yours...

I'm not posting my opinion. I'm posting the ACTUAL English law:

"To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise."
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=8318

205 posted on 05/31/2012 7:08:06 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

You are posting ONE SENTENCE, with NO CONTEXT.

And then saying your interpretation of that one sentence outweighs Blackstone.

You are an idiot.


206 posted on 05/31/2012 7:09:55 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 205 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
I've already demonstrated that I know a significant amount of relevant US History. None of Trumbull's statements contradict or negate how he summed it up before Congress:

You've demonstrated you can cherry pick one small part and ignore the rest of the speech he made to Congress, where he explained what he meant. Like this part

It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.
and also from Trumbull
The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens,”
So those who only owe "a sort of allegiance," such as a foreign minister temporarily residing in the US, were excluded. He specifically included others:

Mr. Trumbull: “I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?”

Mr. Cowan: “I think not.”

Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”

Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”

Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”

And quoting something off a blog doesn't mean much, especially when that blog doesn't back up what they say. Try Blackstone instead:
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it....The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such...
The blog you are quoting appears to misunderstand Blackstone, who later said
by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
So to educate the author of the blog you are quoting, those born in Great Britain, unless children of foreign ministers, were natural born subjects. Those born outside of Britain of British fathers were natural born subjects.
207 posted on 05/31/2012 7:10:26 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Who should I trust to know British law in the 1700s

Trust the House of Commons Journal:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=8318#sec1363

...which I've already posted numerous times. Why believe whatever Blackstone decides to say about it when we have access to the ACTUAL English law?

That's what's great about the internet. It gives us access directly to the source so that blowhards can be exposed for what they are.

208 posted on 05/31/2012 7:16:46 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“Why believe whatever Blackstone decides to say about it when we have access to the ACTUAL English law?”

Because, you idiot, you have ONE SENTENCE and NO context. And that one sentence is the name of a bill:

“Bills sent up to the Lords by Mr. Vice-chamberlain to his Majesty”

Thus:

Judgments.

L. 1. B. For Registring of Judgments that may impeach Purchasers or Farmers of Lands.

Aliens Children.

L. 1. B. To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise.

Liberties of the Commons.

L. 1. B. To confirm to the Commons their Freedoms and Liberties.

Horse Stealing, &c.

L. 1. B. To prevent and avoid the common Stealing of Horses, &c.

That is NOT the actual bill. You don’t know if it was passed, or what was in the bill. Yet to your birther brain, reading the title of a bill “sent up to the Lords by Mr. Vice-chamberlain to his Majesty” means you know more about English law than Blackstone did.

I repeat: You are an idiot.


209 posted on 05/31/2012 7:23:44 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 208 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
You are posting ONE SENTENCE, with NO CONTEXT.

I'm posting the ACTUAL English law EXACTLY as it is stated in the House of Commons Journal.

You are an idiot.

Better to direct that comment to the House of Commons. It's their Journal... their published archive of English law.

So let's see... Mr Rogers thinks the House of Commons are idiots because they published an archive of ACTUAL English law and now ayone who bothers to look into it can discover the truth... Children born in England to foreign parents were actually denizens, NOT natural born subjects.

210 posted on 05/31/2012 7:23:55 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; Mr Rogers; New Jersey Realist
You are wrong. Blackstone's commentaries are considered authoritative, and he says otherwise. You are quoting something brought up in the House of Commons in 1604. A little more digging would show you that it never became law.
in 1604 Commons debated a measure to pin down the status of English born progeny of aliens, granting those "of 'the first birth or descent only,' and born within the realm the limited position of a denizen." The House rejected the bill on its third reading.

211 posted on 05/31/2012 7:29:24 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“I’m posting the ACTUAL English law EXACTLY as it is stated in the House of Commons Journal. “

No. You are posting the title of a bill, with no idea of what was in the bill - and then calling Blackstone a “blowhard”.

That will get you far in court....


212 posted on 05/31/2012 7:34:14 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 210 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Thank you.


213 posted on 05/31/2012 7:35:37 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 211 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
You are wrong.

Sorry, I'm not wrong.

Three other sources:
Charles Viner's Abridgment of Law. 1741 and 1756
Timothy Cunningham's Law Dictionary. 1764 and 1783
Giles Jacob's New Law Dictionary. 1729, 1762, 1772, and 1782

I'll save you time and trouble... all three reiterate the English law declaring that English-born children of alien parents were denizens, NOT natural born subjects.

214 posted on 05/31/2012 8:12:08 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Why do I doubt you?

Care to post something besides the names of books, or a list of bills? You have a track record of taking things grossly out of context.


215 posted on 05/31/2012 8:25:33 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 214 | View Replies]

To: Gumdrop

Gumdrop, there is a difference between citizen and “natural born citizen.” That is the issue. Neither of the examples you cited could ever be natral born citizens.

One must be born in USA to citizen parents. Period. Governor Bill Richardson could be elected a state governor but his mother was a Mexican citizen who flew to Los Angeles from Mexico City to give birth to him. Richardson’s Dad was a US citizen residing in Mexico at the time. He was a banker. So Richardson is a statutory citizen, but not natural born and not eligible.


216 posted on 05/31/2012 8:54:12 PM PDT by circumbendibus (Obama is an unconstitutional illegal putative president. Quo Warranto in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Given the inaccuracy of what you’ve posted already, I’m reluctant to accept these say what you think Blackstone, regarded as THE authority on British common law contradicts this, and we now know that the 1604 “law” you cited never passed. Give Quotes or links please, or did you just get these off some blog?


217 posted on 05/31/2012 8:56:06 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Why do I doubt you?

Hell if I know. You don't want to give up your belief system no matter how wrong it turns out to be because change is hard for you?

Do yourself a favor and research the three other sources I just listed. All three reiterate the English law declaring that English-born children of alien parents were denizens, NOT natural born subjects.

The LOC might be a good place to start, or perhaps a university research library.

218 posted on 05/31/2012 9:07:57 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
we now know that the 1604 “law” you cited never passed

Completely incorrect. Research the three other sources I listed.

219 posted on 05/31/2012 9:24:02 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

In other words, you CAN’T cite them. You can only list them, and promise me they support your beliefs.

And that they show Blackstone is a blowhard who didn’t know squat about English law.

I think I’ll stick with the US Supreme Court & Blackstone over a guy who posts a single sentence from a reference he didn’t understand and claims it means Blackstone is an idiot.


220 posted on 05/31/2012 9:25:27 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 218 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell’s State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.

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...

...Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.

The earliest statute was passed in the reign of Edward III. In the Rolls of Parliament of 17 Edw. III (1343), it is stated that,

before these times, there have been great doubt and difficulty among the Lords of this realm, and the Commons, as well men of the law as others, whether children who are born in parts beyond sea ought to bear inheritance after the death of their ancestors in England, because no certain law has been thereon ordained;

and by the King, Lords and Commons, it was unanimously agreed that

there was no manner of doubt that the children of our Lord the King, whether they were born on this side the sea or beyond the sea, should bear the inheritance of their ancestors; . . . and in regard to other children, it was agreed in this Parliament that they also should inherit wherever they might be born in the service of the King;

but, because the Parliament was about to depart, and the business demanded great advisement and good deliberation how it should be best and most surely done, the making of a statute was put off to the next Parliament. 2 Rot.Parl. 139. By reason, apparently, of the prevalence of the plague in England, no act upon the subject was passed until 5 Edw. III, (1350), when Parliament passed an act entitled “A statute for those who are born in parts beyond sea,” by which — after reciting that

some people be in doubt if the children born in the parts beyond the sea, out of the ligeance of England, should be able to demand any inheritance within the same ligeance, or not, whereof a petition was put [p669] in the Parliament

of 17 Edw. III, “and as not at the same time wholly assented” — it was (1) agreed and affirmed

that the law of the Crown of England is, and always hath been such, that the children of the Kings of England, in whatsoever parts they be born, in England or elsewhere, be able and ought to bear the inheritance after the death of their ancestors;

(2) also agreed that certain persons named,

which were born beyond the sea, out of the ligeance of England, shall be from henceforth able to have and enjoy their inheritance after the death of their ancestors, in all parts within the ligeance of England, as well as those that should be born within the same ligeance:

(3) and further agreed

that all children inheritors, which from henceforth shall be born without the ligeance of the King, whose fathers and mothers at the time of their birth be and shall be at the faith and ligeance of the King of England, shall have and enjoy the same benefits and advantages to have and bear the inheritance within the same ligeance as the other inheritors aforesaid, in time to come; so always, that the mothers of such children do pass the sea by the licence and wills of their husbands.

2 Rot. Parl. 231; 1 Statutes of the Realm, 310.

It has sometimes been suggested that this general provision of the statute of 25 Edw. III was declaratory of the common law. See Bacon, arguendo, in Calvin’ Case, 2 Howell’s State Trials, 585; Westlake and Pollock, arguendo, in De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch.D. 243, 247; 2 Kent Com. 50, 53; Lynch v. Clarke,1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659, 660; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356. But all suggestions to that effect seem to have been derived, immediately or ultimately, from one or the other of these two sources: the one, the Year Book of 1 Ric. III, (1483) fol. 4, pl. 7, reporting a saying of Hussey, C.J.,

that he who is born beyond sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law, but the statute makes clear, &c.,

— which, at best, was but obiter dictum, for the Chief Justice appears to have finally rested his opinion on the statute. The other, a note added to the edition of 1688 of Dyer’s Reports, 184a, stating that, at Trinity Term, 7 Edw. III, Rot. 2 B.R., it was adjudged that children of subjects born [p670] beyond the sea in the service of the King were inheritable — which has been shown, by a search of the roll in the King’s Bench so referred to, to be a mistake, inasmuch as the child there in question did not appear to have been born beyond sea, but only to be living abroad. Westlake’s Private International Law (3d ed.) 324.

The statute of 5 Edw. III recites the existence of doubts as to the right of foreign-born children to inherit in England; and, while it is declaratory of the rights of children of the King, and is retrospective as to the persons specifically named, yet, as to all others, it is, in terms, merely prospective, applying to those only “who shall be born henceforth.” Mr. Binney, in his paper above cited, after a critical examination of the statute and of the early English cases, concluded:

There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

Binney on Alienigenae, 14, 20; 2 Amer.Law Reg.199, 203. And the great weight of the English authorities, before and since he wrote, appears to support his conclusion. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 17a, 18a; Co.Lit. 8a, and Hargrave’s note 36; 1 Bl.Com. 33; Barrington on Statutes, (5th ed.) 268; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; I: ord Chancellor Cranworth, in Shedden v. Patrick, 1 Macq. 535, 611; Cockburn on Nationality, 7, 9; De Greer v. Stone, 2 Ch.D. 243, 252; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 17, 741. “The acquisition,” says Mr. Dicey, (p. 741) “of nationality by descent is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.”

It has been pertinently observed that, if the statute of Edward III had only been declaratory of the common law, the subsequent legislation on the subject would have been wholly unnecessary. Cockburn on Nationality 9. By the [p671] statute of 29 Car. II, (1677) c. 6, § 1, entitled “An act for the naturalization of children of His Majesty’s subjects born in foreign countries during the late troubles,” all persons who, at any time between June 14, 1641, and March 24, 1660, “were born out of His Majesty’s dominions, and whose fathers or mothers were natural-born subjects of this realm” were declared to be natural-born subjects. By the statute of 7 Anne, (1708) c. 5, § 3, “the children of all natural-born subjects, born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors” — explained by the statute of 4 Geo. II, (1731) c. 21, to mean all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England

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 be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.

That statute was limited to foreign-born children of natural-born subjects, and was extended by the statute of 13 Geo. III, (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects, but not to the issue of such grandchildren; or, as put by Mr. Dicey, “British nationality does not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation.” See DeGeer v. Stone, above cited; Dicey, Conflict of Laws 742.”


But hey? Rides3 says there are books that say the opposite. All the quotes above? A kangaroo court, writing about stuff they didn’t understand. And if you don’t believe what he posts, just go to Washington DC and read the titles he has listed but cannot quote...


221 posted on 05/31/2012 9:31:27 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 218 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; Mr Rogers
I found a PDF of Timothy Cunningham's Law dictionary, and it contradicts what you claim. Timothy Cunningham's Law Dictionary (1771) says, on PDF page 97 toward the bottom of the right hand column:
All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.
(Cunningham, p.95, in section entitled "Aliens") Not quite what you claim. Also, I found the PDF for John Adams copy of "New Abridgement of the Law" by "A Gentleman of the Middle Temple" original page 77 (PDF page 105) has the identical quote. Given these two, and the estimable Mr. Blackstone, I won't bother tracking down any more of your citations on this matter.
222 posted on 05/31/2012 9:41:07 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

“All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.”

Aliens, living in the country, were under obedience to the king. Blackstone discusses it. So if aliens had kids while in the UK, they were under the obedience and their kids were born in country - and thus the kids were natural born subjects.

That statement is in complete agreement with the discussion in WKA. So your reference agrees with Blackstone, WKA and me.


223 posted on 06/01/2012 5:44:23 AM 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 222 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Sorry. 5:30 AM here. Thought I was replying to Ride3. Should be smart enough by now not to post anything before drinking a cup of coffee...maybe I should go feed the horses and have some coffee, and THEN read FreeRepublic!


224 posted on 06/01/2012 5:53:56 AM 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 222 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; sometime lurker
Aliens, living in the country, were under obedience to the king. Blackstone discusses it. So if aliens had kids while in the UK, they were under the obedience and their kids were born in country - and thus the kids were natural born subjects.

No. You're reading into it what you want it to mean.

Children born in England to aliens could NOT inherit property, holdings, etc., from their parents. Children born in England to English subject parents could. So while Blackstone may choose to say that "children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such," the fact remains that there indeed were significant differences in the rights and privileges of each. That's why Blackstone deliberately uses the disclaimer, "generally speaking." He knows they were not the same, as should you.

225 posted on 06/01/2012 8:00:07 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; sometime lurker

“Children born in England to aliens could NOT inherit property, holdings, etc., from their parents. “

Proof?

“So while Blackstone may choose to say that “children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such,” the fact remains that there indeed were significant differences in the rights and privileges of each.”

Proof?

Many of the original cases involving NBC were ones of property, and I can’t recall any that hinged on if the NBC/NBS had alien parents or not.

Lynch, for example, was born in the USA of English parents visiting here for a few months - but she was declared a NBC.

Blackstone hedged with “generally speaking” because there were exceptions, such as ambassadors.


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.

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.


226 posted on 06/01/2012 8:27:37 AM 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 225 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“Children born in England to aliens could NOT inherit property, holdings, etc., from their parents. “ Proof?

It's in Blackstone's own work. The same exact one in which he states, "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."

Blackstone's own words:

"A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him"
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

Do you even read any of what you post? Or understand any of it if you do happen to take the time to read it?

Like I said, Blackstone uses the disclaimer "generally speaking" because he knew for a FACT that the English-born children of aliens did NOT have the same rights and privileges as English-born children of English subjects.

227 posted on 06/01/2012 8:45:47 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; Mr Rogers

You are conflating who was natural born with inheritance laws. Talk about reading into it what you want it to mean!


228 posted on 06/01/2012 8:47:59 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
You are conflating who was natural born with inheritance laws.

Backpedaling on your part. The Blackstone quote submitted is, "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."

I've just shown WHY Blackstone uses the disclaimer, "generally speaking." Blackstone later admits in his own words that English-born children of aliens IN FACT did NOT have all the privileges of English-born children of English subjects.

229 posted on 06/01/2012 8:53:28 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son.

You have it backwards. It is not a restriction on the natural born subject (though it affects him,) but rather a restriction on right of the the alien to pass along property.

The natural born son of an alien may pass along his property, lands, etc. as any other natural born subject.

You appear to be grasping at straws, here.

230 posted on 06/01/2012 8:54:32 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; Mr Rogers

No backpedaling on my part. As Mr Rogers points out, there are exceptions, the most well known being children of foreign diplomats.


231 posted on 06/01/2012 8:57:18 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
The natural born son of an alien may pass along his property, lands, etc.

But may NOT inherit, as English-born children of English subjects CAN. That's a privilege restricted to ACTUAL natural born subjects, NOT Blackstone's interpretation of "generally speaking" natural born subjects.

Blackstone needed to use the disclaimer "generally speaking" because he knew the rights and privileges of English-born children of aliens were NOT the same as those of English-born children of English subjects.

Blackstone deliberately used a disclaimer. I know it's hard for you to wrap your mind around that, but it is what it is... a DISCLAIMER.

232 posted on 06/01/2012 9:01:36 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

As for backpedaling, first you claim an entry in the House of Commons Journal in 1604 proves that a law was passed, when in fact it was not, merely debated.
Then you claim Blackstone is wrong. Now you are trying to instead parse Blackstone to make his commentaries support your point, when he clearly states the contrary.
Finally, you put up three authors (none so well known or considered as authoritative as Blackstone) and claim they support your point without giving quotes, specific cites, or links. In fact, the ones I bothered to look up DON’T support your point, but rather agree that those born on British soil whose parents were “under the legiance” are natural born subjects. There are plenty of definitions (including Blackstone) to show that under the legiance meant not born of foreign diplomats or enemies.

Talk about backpedaling!


233 posted on 06/01/2012 9:02:43 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
Now you are trying to instead parse Blackstone to make his commentaries support your point

I'm not parsing. I'm quoting Blackstone's own words.

Blackstone deliberately used a disclaimer because he knew that what he was stating was not factually correct.

234 posted on 06/01/2012 9:07:03 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Sheesh. Can you not read English? The disclaimer was because there are exceptions, as several of us have laid out for you many times.

There are clear statements that these are natural born subjects. More to the point, the Supreme Court has recognized Jus Soli “born on the soil” in the US. You don’t like it? Fine, get the law changed in the US, but don’t make yourself ridiculous by claiming British common law didn’t say what it clearly said.


235 posted on 06/01/2012 9:08:03 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
There are clear statements that these are natural born subjects.

"Generally speaking" natural born subjects that do NOT have the same privileges as ACTUAL natural born subjects? Um... NO.

FAIL.

236 posted on 06/01/2012 9:15:03 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
the Supreme Court has recognized Jus Soli “born on the soil” in the US

For citizenship? Yes.

For Constitutional natural born citizen, the only SCOTUS definition is Minor v. Happersett: born in the US to US citizen parents.

237 posted on 06/01/2012 9:21:42 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
You have misunderstood, whether deliberately or because your reading and scholarship abilities are subpar. Blackstone is pretty definitive:
natural-born subjects having a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born within the king's ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour: the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the two first books of these commentaries. The same is also in some degree the case of aliens; though their rights are much more circumscribed, being acquired only by residence here, and lost whenever they remove.

238 posted on 06/01/2012 9:22:25 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
No. Minor was about whether Virginia Minor had the right to vote. And the court specifically said it was not going to decide the matter you refer to. Good try.

The "natural born" crowd makes themselves look very foolish with this claim, as they rely on a quote by the justice in Minor, who said the case was not going to address the doubts. This claim is a composition fallacy as well, since the Chief Justice mentioned who were undoubtedly natural born citizens, but never specified that others were not.

WKA addressed this more directly, (although still not as directly as many of us could wish). A few quotes from WKA to start you off

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
and quoting Chancellor Kent
"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
and
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.
. And now, off to work.
239 posted on 06/01/2012 9:42:50 AM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The elite has the media, still. They will stonewall and be ok.


240 posted on 06/01/2012 9:54:25 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (The First Bystander must be removed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Here is how Blackstone explains it as it involves aliens - and aliens are a more accurate item of discussion for our purposes:

“SIR Edward Coke50 also holds, that if an alien comes into England, and there has issue two sons, who are thereby natural born subjects; and one of them purchases land, and dies; yet neither of these brethren can be heir to the other. For the commune vinculum , or common stock of their consanguinity, is the father; and, as he had no inheritable blood in him, he could communicate none to his sons; and, when the sons can by no possibility be heirs to the father, the one of them shall not be heir to the other. And this opinion of his seems founded upon solid principles of the ancient law; not only from the rule before cited,51 that cestuy, que doit inheriter al pere, doit inheriter al fits [he who is heir to the father is heir to the son]; but also because we have seen that the only feudal foundation upon which newly purchased land can possibly descend to a brother, is the supposition and fiction of law, that it descended from some one of his ancestors: but in this case as the immediate ancestor was an alien, from whom it could by no possibility descend, this should destroy the supposition, and impede the descent, and the land should be inherited ut feudum stricte novum [as a fee strictly new]; that is, by none but the lineal descendants of the purchasing brother; and, on failure of them, should escheat to the lord of the fee. But this opinion has been since overruled:52 and it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other. And reasonably enough upon the whole: for, as (in common purchases) the whole of the supposed descent from indefinite ancestors is but fictitious, the law may as well suppose the requisite ancestor as suppose the requisite descent.

IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance. But inconveniences were afterwards apprehended, in case persons should thereby gain a future capacity to inherit, who did not exist at the death of the person last seized. As, if Francis the elder brother of John Stiles be an alien, and Oliver the younger be a natural-born subject, upon John’s death without issue his lands will descend to Oliver the younger brother: now, if afterwards Francis has a child, it was feared that, under the statute of king William, this newborn child might defeat the estate of his uncle Oliver. Wherefore it is provided, by the statute 25 Geo. II. c. 39. that no right of inheritance shall accrue by virtue of the former statute to any persons whatsoever, unless they are in being and capable to take as heirs at the death of the person last seized: — with an exception however to the case, where lands shall descend to the daughter of an alien; which daughter shall resign such inheritance to her after-born brother, or divide it with her after-born sisters, according to the usual rule53 of descents by the common law.”

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book2.15.html

To repeat for emphasis:

“IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance.”

To make matters more complex, aliens were not allowed to hold property:

“As aliens cannot inherit, so far they are on a level with bastards; but, as they are also disabled to hold by purchase,47 they are under still greater disabilities. And, as they can neither hold by purchase, nor by inheritance, it is almost superfluous to say that they can have no heirs, since they can have nothing for an heir to inherit: but so it is expressly held,48 because they have not in them any inheritable blood.”

However, an alien could have property in a foreign country - for example, in the US.

The Venus is a painful case to read, but it gives an idea of the complexity that could be involved:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html


241 posted on 06/01/2012 10:02:12 AM 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 227 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker
Minor... the court specifically said it was not going to decide the matter you refer to.

No. SCOTUS specifically said it was not going to decide if the US-born children of aliens or foreigners were even citizens at all. In Minor, SCOTUS specifically defined Constitutional natural born citizens as those born in the US to US citizen parents.

242 posted on 06/01/2012 10:14:58 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Blackstone is very clear on this: "...the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him"

Aliens are those who have not yet become denizens.

There should be no confusion on your part. The English-born children of aliens DO NOT have the same privileges as English-born children of English subjects. That's why Blackstone deliberately used the disclaimer, "generally speaking."

If they were the same, there would be no need for the disclaimer Blackstone used.

243 posted on 06/01/2012 10:22:09 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; sometime lurker

Blackstone IS very clear:

“But this opinion has been since overruled:52 and it is now held for law, that the sons of an alien, born here, may inherit to each other. ...IT is also enacted, by the statute II & 12 W III. c. 6. that all persons, being natural-born subjects of the king, may inherit and make their titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral; although their father, or mother, or other ancestor, by, from, through, or under whom they derive their pedigrees, were born out of the king’s allegiance.”

If a denizen died, the property he had would go to a son born after the denization. If a son had been born in the UK prior to denization, that son was a NBS and could inherit from anyone. But a son who was not a NBS, and who was born before denization, was not eligible.

You cannot take a sentence fragment out of context and then proclaim yourself an expert in British law. You actually have to read whole sentences, and maybe even paragraphs. To fully appreciate it, you would have to study for years.

Blackstone wasn’t a blowhard. He was an expert. But even with Blackstone, you can’t take a sentence fragment and declare victory.


244 posted on 06/01/2012 10:44:27 AM 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 243 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Blackstone wasn’t a blowhard. He was an expert.

An expert who KNEW he needed to use a disclaimer. So he deliberately used one.

Had such NOT been the case, Blackstone would have simply stated his opinion as fact. He did not. He specifically framed his opinion as "generally speaking."

245 posted on 06/01/2012 11:16:23 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

And the exceptions have been explained to you.

The children of aliens, born in the realm, were natural born subjects. They could inherit from anyone. They were full up natural born subjects.

Exceptions to that rule were for ambassadors and invading armies. There was also some variation based on who controlled what land during war.

Obama Jr wasn’t the son of an ambassador. His father wasn’t part of an invading army. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then control of the territory was not open to dispute. If born in Hawaii, he falls under the Founder’s understanding of natural born citizen, because he met the rules for a natural born subject.


246 posted on 06/01/2012 11:38:48 AM 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 245 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The children of aliens, born in the realm, were natural born subjects. They could inherit from anyone.

FALSE.

Blackstone: "...upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may."

English-born children of aliens CANNOT inherit from their parents, even AFTER their parents become denizens. What about that do you not understand?

247 posted on 06/01/2012 11:55:04 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

What I understand is that you are incapable of reading even a single sentence without getting it backwards. Blackstone, and other authorities I’ve cited, DO make it clear. But there is no cure for stupid. And there isn’t much doubt about why you are a birther.


248 posted on 06/01/2012 12:05:28 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 247 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Blackstone deliberately included a DISCLAIMER in his statement because he knew it was NOT factually correct. Furthermore, Blackstone specifically states, "upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may."

Blackstone is telling you right then and there that there are SIGNIFICANT differences between the privileges of ACTUAL natural born subjects and the "generally speaking natural born subjects" on which he opined.

You're calling me stupid when YOU can't understand what Blackstone actually wrote? When you can't tell the difference between fact and an opinion qualified by a disclaimer? Look in the mirror when you say that, man.

249 posted on 06/01/2012 12:14:26 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Ducking back in for lunch - your reliance on Minor v Happersett is again the result of looking at a snippet without reading the context, and is also a composition fallacy.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.

So looking further than your snippet, the court instanced one category (to which Virginia Minor belonged) of which there was no doubt. The court then mentioned a category of which there have been doubts, and declared it was not going to address that doubt for the purposes of the case at hand. Note that the court gives only two classes of citzens: born and naturalized.

Note also that later cases, such as WKA did address the issue, and that SCOTUS in Rogers v. Bellei declared

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.

250 posted on 06/01/2012 12:14:53 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-260 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