That is proof right there that in his mind we were following Vattel, not English common law. The usage of the word "Citizen" is itself proof that we were deliberately eschewing the English law principles of birth allegiance.
Posted on 08/28/2015 9:39:38 PM PDT by upchuck
Some are calling it the “height of hypocrisy,” bordering on demagoguery.
Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s Republican governor, came out last Thursday and blasted possible White House plans to bring Guantanamo Bay prisoners to her state.
The governor called a news conference and didn’t mince words.
“We are absolutely drawing a line that we are not going to allow any terrorist to come into South Carolina,” Haley said. “We are not going to allow that kind of threat, we are not going to allow that kind of character to come in.
...
Yet, at the same time she was drawing a red line against Gitmo terrorists who would stay locked in a brig off the coast of Charleston, Haley was opening her arms wide to welcome “refugees” from jihadist strongholds in the Middle East and Africa.
...
As WND has reported in a series of more than 35 articles over the past year, the refugee program has been fraught with problems. Chief among them has been young men entering the U.S. as refugees and turning out to be terrorists. Some, such as the two Iraqis in Bowling Green, Kentucky, or the Uzbek man resettled in Boise, Idaho, harbored ill intent against America from day one. But others, such as the six Somalis from Minnesota who were arrested after repeatedly trying to join ISIS, or the two brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon, were radicalized after they came to the U.S. as young boys.
According to information supplied recently by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., at least 72 cases have been documented in just the past year of Muslim immigrants becoming involved in terrorist activity.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...
I don’t find it hypocritical.
Yeah, she was wrong on the flag—I was against her choice on that. But that is a different issue. I think that the criticism of her statement could be an overflow from anger still hot over that issue.
There is a DIFFERENCE between people fleeing terror and people committing acts of terror. NH is distinguishing the two...
The current DiC would indicate otherwise.
Plus she was born in the U.S. Get over your ownself
She’s right to refuse to have terrorist knuckledraggers brought to SC from GTMO.
Who is eligible to occupy what office is determined by which set of facts one uses or subscribes to.
Like wise, how the refugee resettlement policies work depend on which set of facts you use.
Gov Haley uses a set of facts that are easily found, that involve congress, the prez, the federal agencies, the voluntary agencies(NGOs), the criteria used, etc. For example: religion is not used as criteria in refugee resettlement.
OTOH, there is a second set of facts surrounding refugees which is used by most freepers, World Net Daily, Sen Jeff Sessions, etc. These are the facts that come from Ann Corcoran and Resettlement Watch. For example: Obama wants to allow only Muslim refugees.
” ...legally immigrated parents.
The parents have to be citizens, and no, I am not going to look her lineage up.
SC has a moon crescent on thier state flag, LMAO. Ironic and sad.
What the hell changes these people? She was great, now she is a Republican. Lost my vote when she banned the flag.
Nikki who?
The crescent (gorget) on the S.C. flag represents not the moon, but the cap insignia worn by S.C. revolutionary soldiers, inscribed with the word “LIBERTY”.
I still have mine from the Bicentennial period when we did historical reenactments.
That said, I fear that South Carolina now has a Muslim problem. There is “Holy Islamville” near York, a compound in the woods that echoes with AK-47 gunfire & local authorities do nothing about it.
And now Nikki Haley wants to welcome muzzie “refugees” to our state!!? They aren’t refugees, they are hostile foreign invaders, for gosh sakes!
There is a mosque in Columbia where for now the local muzzies keep vewy vewy quiet, no doubt believing that the “infidel” majority in S.C. consists of armed rightwing Christian fanatics just itching for a fight with the sons of Mohammed.
Hope we can make them go on believing that.
Our governor already jumped the shark when she called for the Confederate flag to come down. Now this.
Haley was opening her arms wide to welcome “refugees” from jihadist strongholds in the Middle East and Africa.
Apples and oranges. Allowing "refugees from jihadist strongholds" is not the same as allowing terrorists. The refugees probably became refugees by opposing the jihadists.
Your pastiche of inferences is neither law nor incontrovertible language and, by the way, I did not suggest you look up her lineage. Quite simply, the term natural born citizen is not settled law in the US, but absent a Supreme Court ruling or Constitutional Amendment, the closest to a settled meaning is the Act of 1798 - far more than your fervent but ill-informed postings. Incidentally, were your interpretation endorsed by the USSC or enacted by Amendment, such would be welcome ... but it not now law.
Pastiche?
Google: an artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period.
Free Dictionary: A dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the previous works of other artists, often with satirical intent.
Wikipedia: A pastiche is a work of visual art, literature, theatre, or music that imitates the style or character of the work of one or more other artists.
Dictionary.com: a literary, musical, or artistic piece consisting wholly or chiefly of motifs or techniques borrowed from one or more sources.
My interpretation has been "endorsed" by the USSC (United States Supreme Court) at least SIX times. The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
I will be very interested to see if the people of South Carolina return her to office when next she is up for re-election.
That is proof right there that in his mind we were following Vattel, not English common law. The usage of the word "Citizen" is itself proof that we were deliberately eschewing the English law principles of birth allegiance.
B U M P
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.