Replies

What you said above makes no sense.

Sorry, but this is your typical lazy excuse to avoid admitting you've lost the argument ... again.

Look at Rogers v. Bellei, that decision is clear that birth on the soil is sufficient.

Not for natural-born citizenship. Try being intellectually honest. Here's what the court said:

Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:

Do you understand what this says??? It's saying there was NO formal definition of "native born" citizenship until the Civil Rights Act, but it doesn't affirm anything about "birth on the soil" being sufficient to obtain citizenship. Instead, this is conditional (which would preclude Obama):

"[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . ."

Where is your SCOTUS case confirming "NOT legally characterized as natural-born"?

Minor v. Happersett. It describes two classes of birth citizens. ONLY ONE is characterized as natural-born. We've been over this. All you do is deny and/or bail out when you can't refute the facts.

Several courts have affirmed that much of the US Constitution and law follows English common law. SCOTUS has said specifically that the US follows this in jus soli citizenship.

... only through the 14th amendment and statutory law, BUT subject to other conditions and requirements. Natural-born citizenship is a combination of jus soli AND jus sanguinis without any other requirements. The court made this clear in three cases that I've already cited, plus in TWO more cases that you've cited.

In English common law "born on the soil" equals "natural born" (usual diplomatic and military exceptions.)

This is statutory naturalization when it concerns the children of foreigners and aliens. Such persons have to have actual obedience to the crown. There's nothing equivalent to this in the United States ... at least not UNTIL the 14th amendment, but that is NOT natural-born citizenship. The court said specifically that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. You can't get around this inconvenient fact, so you might as well admit you're wrong and save yourself further embarrassment.

Further for your fantasy that "14th amendment citizenship" is somehow different than "non 14th amendment citizenship, " see Rogers v Bellei, quoting Afroyim v Rusk:

It was explained quite specifically in Wong Kim Ark. NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution. The so-called fundamental rule of "citizenship by birth" was defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment. These are TWO different types or classes of citizenship. Also, you're relying on a quote from the dissent in Bellei about NATURALIZATION which was describing comments from Afroyim that were used only in conjunction with the PROTECTION of citizenship in relationship to naturalization. Here's the majority quote from Afroyim:

Held: Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. Perez v. Brownell, supra, overruled. Pp. 387 U. S. 256-268.

(a) Congress has no express power under the Constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by Congress before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a mature and well considered dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827, is to the same effect. Pp. 387 U. S. 257-261.

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment's provision that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. Pp. 387 U. S. 262-268.

This doesn't say anything about the 14th amendment conferring citizenship on NBCs nor that it redefines citizenship for NBCs. Nothing here undermines nor changes the fact that the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed and upheld the Minor definition of NBC ... and affirmed that NBCs were excluded from the operation of the birth clause in the 14th amendment. That the rest of the amendment applies to NBCs is not disputed. It does not confer citizenship on NBCs.

Where to start with all your errors and deliberate misunderstandings?

NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution.

Those of your beliefs claim it was defined by a Swiss author. SCOTUS cases have said it was adapted from English Common Law. Want to guess what English common law says about "natural born"? It is "born on the soil". We've been through this but you refuse to believe it. Despite many Justices, law texts, etc. explicitly saying that much of the Constitution comes from common law.

The so-called fundamental rule of "citizenship by birth" was defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment. These are TWO different types or classes of citizenship.

You keep claiming that, but have nothing to back it up. The US Constitution, and US law recognizes two classes of citizens only - natural born and naturalized. Nowhere does it speak of "not natural born and not naturalized citizens". Good try.

Minor v. Happersett. It describes two classes of birth citizens. ONLY ONE is characterized as natural-born. We've been over this. All you do is deny and/or bail out when you can't refute the facts.

On the contrary. You are falling into a composition fallacy - Minor v Happersett said [emphasis added]

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.

Are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge what this means? The Justice describes one group as natural born citizens, and explicitly says this case will not address other groups which may or may not be categorized as natural born. One again - IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS CASE. So you can stop claiming Minor v Happersett backs you up, because it doesn't.

"SCOTUS has said specifically that the US follows this in jus soli citizenship."

Funny, you claim other conditions and requirements, a combination of jus soli and sanguinus, but I don't see those in the Constitution, or in any current law. If you want to go back to when it was only White men, you can find conditions that no longer apply.

Your understanding of English common law, it appears to be deficient. You say "This is statutory naturalization when it concerns the children of foreigners and aliens. Try reading WKA more carefully. From WKA

except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law,

and

The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

. As to English common law, it is quite clear that born on the soil (usual diplomatic and military exceptions) is natural born. From WKA

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.

To clarify for you - children born in England of alien parents (as long as they were not at war with England) are natural born.

Nothing here undermines nor changes the fact that the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed and upheld the Minor definition of NBC ... and affirmed that NBCs were excluded from the operation of the birth clause in the 14th amendment.

Good try. That's not what Minor said (instead it said there was doubt, which it wouldn't address), and WKA did not "uphold" Minor v Happersett. It also didn't affirm anything about NBCs being excluded from anything in the 14th amendment.

the court said specifically that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. You can't get around this inconvenient fact, so you might as well admit you're wrong and save yourself further embarrassment.

And the court goes on to say that "natural-born" must be interpreted in light of the common law. See above quotes for what the common law says about natural born. You are the one who should be embarrassed by either your lack of reading comprehension, or your refusal to acknowledge what is clearly stated.