Sunday, July 10, 2011

Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen" Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)



        Morrison Remick Waite
7th Chief Justice of the United States


Obama  Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen"  Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

                                                        By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                  Originally Posted January 2, 2009
                                                Reposted at this Blog on July 10, 2011

I am posting to my blog an article on Minor v. Happersett that I wrote on January 2, 2009, before putative President Barack H. Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2009, and which Robert Stevens posted at the web site of Attorney Orly Taitz on the same day. The article as originally written by me may be read at Ms. Taitz’s web site at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html.  The opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Morrison Remerick Waite.  I also cited and discussed the Minor case and its American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" in the case of Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010), which I filed on January 20, 2009.  Probably the most important statement that any court made in all the Obama cases is that made by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in footnote 4 of its decision where it stated: “We need not discuss Appellants’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ . . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father’ . . . . That assertion goes to the merits of whether President Obama is in fact eligible to hold office, which we cannot address unless Appellants first establish Article III standing.” Hence, the Court never reached the merits of whether this American common law definition of a "natural born Citizen" still prevails today and whether Obama meets this common law definition.  I have also cited and discussed the Minor decision in many of my essays which can be read on this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

I will be following up this post with another article on this precedential decision of our U.S. Supreme Court which relied upon natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law to define citizenship in our society and confirmed the natural law and law of nations definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which prevailed at the time of the founding and writing of our Constitution in 1787, a definition we can find in Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)Vattel and The Law of Nations were a political philosopher upon whom and treatise upon which the Founders and Framers heavily relied in the early years of our Republic.  This definition, which was incorporated into our American common law is a child born in the country to citizen parents which means a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother both of whom are either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States."  No constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court decision, or Congressional Act (not to imply that any such Act could) ever amended or abandoned this American common law definition and it still prevails today, even being confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).   

                                                          Friday, January 2, 2009

OBAMA CANNOT BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” UNDER MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) held that women, while being citizens of the U.S., do not have the right to vote under the Constitution. Of course, we know that this law was later repudiated. In discussing who are citizens of the United States and whether women may be such citizens, the Court explains that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite The Law of Nations, the Court goes into concepts which can be found in that treatise. The concepts of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in E. de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's wanting to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S.

The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. The Court then said the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is:

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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).

Article II of the Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ." From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the "original citizens," those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. It is interesting to note that Jane Randolph Jefferson (1720-1776), President Thomas Jefferson’s mother, was born in the Tower Hamlets of Shadwell, a maritime neighborhood of London, England, and came to Virginia when she was young. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be "natural born Citizens" to be eligible to be President. We learn that "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . " make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, "natural born Citizen" under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a "Citizen" is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship.

Obama, while having his mother's U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father's, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a "natural born Citizen," even if he was born in Hawaii.

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009
Re-posted to this blog July 10, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

124 comments:

atticus finch said...

Vattel's civil law concept of a natural born citizen being born to two citizen parents has never been incorporated into United States Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "natural born citizen" defined.

The drafters of the Constitution wrote the Constitution in the language of English common law. "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." Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888).

Moreover, "The framers of the Constitution were familiar with common-law concepts and the words and phrases employed by common-law lawyers." In re Gannon, 27 F. 2d 362 , 363 (ED PA 1928)

Additionally, "The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917) (Pitney, J. dissenting)

Since the Constitution was written in the English common law language, any term in the Constitution that was not defined it is presumed that the common law meaning of the term would governed. [G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary. Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that "absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction." Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that had a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there was language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

As such, the term natural born citizen was a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

atticus finch said...

The problem I have with the Minor decision is that Justice Waite's did not elaborate as to what "authorities" he was referring who had doubts about citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

What is interesting about Justice Waite's comment about “natural born citizenship” was that it had absolutely nothing to do with the holding of opinion and in fact he later remarked "[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

Contrast Justice Waite's vague and meandering statement about natural born citizenship in Minor case with Justice Gray's articulate and elucidate opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) in which he observed:

"The Amendment [14th Amendment], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. 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 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, THAT ISSUE IS A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT.” Id. at 693 (emphasis added)

Although Justice Gray was speaking about citizenship under the 14th Amendment, he restated the English common law rule a child born to aliens within the jurisdiction and protection of the English monarchy was a natural born subject.

Courts had recognized children born of aliens parents in the United States as being citizens of the United States in the early years of our republic long before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164 (1830) (Story, J., concurring )(" 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.") (emphasis added)

As such, comparing Justice Waite's short shrift treatment of the issue of natural born citizens with vague reference to "authorities" having doubts with Justice Gray's forceful and elegant restatement of the English common law rule of natural born citizenship, there is no question as how the present day Supreme Court would rule in a case about natural born citizenship requirement in the Constitution.

atticus finch said...

Legal scholars in the 19th century
noted that under Jus Soli doctrine that natural born citizenship is established by place of birth not by father's nationality.

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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. George Washington Paschal, “Constitution of the United States defined and annotated, (1868) page 274

Citizenship and nationality being equivalent terms, the acquisition of citizenship in the United States was determined from the outset by the common law of England, i. e ., by the jus soli. All persons born in the limits and under the actual obedience of the United States were its " natural-born citizens"; and it is in this sense that the phrase is used in section one of article two of the constitution. John Joseph Lalor, “Cyclopaedia of political science, political economy” Vol 2. (1883) Page 948


The English common law contained the jus soli at the time of our separation from the motherland; it is therefore the law of the United States, unless changed by constitutional or statutory provision. This has not happened. Now, what is the doctrine of the jus soli upon this point? It is that any person born within the territory of a given state, and over which the state has established government, owes direct and immediate, or better, primary and natural, allegiance to that state, no matter whether his parents be citizens or subjects of, or aliens in, the said state. John William Burgess,” Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law” Vol. 1 (1890) page 223

Acquisition of United States Citizenship by Birth. Citizenship and nationality being equivalent terms, the acquisition of citizenship in the United States was determined from the outset by the common law of England, i. e., by the jus soli. All persons born in the limits and under the actual obedience of the United States were its " natural-born citizens"; and it is in this sense that the phrase is used in section one of article two of the constitution. John Joseph Lalor , “Cyclopaedia of Political Science, “Vol. II (1893) Page 948

Jo said...

The evidence speaks for themselves - Res ipsa loquitor. The elite media, complicit Congress parties, and Military High Command have intentionally cover up the fraud act.

Under Minor vs. Happersett of Supreme Court ruling the evidence has spoken. Mr. Obama is never a natural born citizen of USA. Both his parents must be American citizens. He is not qualified and illegitimate Constitutional President and Commander-in-Chief of our country.

Thanks for posting back the important Supreme Court decision. The enablers of the Usurper will simply ignore the Court ruling. In whatever means they will protect to uphold their Usurper. Obviously not all American citizens can be fooled by them.

Doublee said...

One argument that I have not seen made is the fact that the Constitution does distinguish between citizen and natural born citizen, namely in Article II, Section 1 and the fact that members of Congress, even though they need not be natural born citizens, must be citizens.

So many of our "enlightened" legislators conflate citizen and natural born citizen when they use jus soli to justify that Obama is a citizen and therefore eligible.

The 14th amendment has been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship regardless of the citizenship status of the parents (children born of diplomats excepted).

If birthright citizenship is granted regardless of the status of the parents, then for natural born citizenship to have a distinguishing definition, the status of the parents must be taken into account.

Puzo1 said...

Doublee,

I have made the argument from day one that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes a clear distinction between "natural born Citizen" and "citizen of the United States" and that separate and distinct meaning must be given to the two different terms. I have also argued in so many of my essays that there is a critical distinction between "natural born" and "born." Giving contitutional meaning to each one of these separate terms is critically necessary, as per Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. These two arguments have been two of the many pillars of all my writings on "natural born Citizen."

thalightguy said...

Puzo1 said...
Doublee,

I have made the argument from day one that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes a clear distinction between "natural born Citizen" and "citizen of the United States"...

................................

Mario,

Justice Scalia Points this out in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS – Oral Argument

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/99-2071.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument/

Tuesday, January 9, 2001

“Well, that assumes the person is not an alien simply because Congress says the person shall be retroactively deemed a citizen. But for constitutional purposes, it seems to me, as opposed to statutory purposes, whether the person is an alien or not should depend upon whether the person is a natural born citizen of the United States or whether citizenship must be conferred by Congress.” – Justice Scalia

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"I have made the argument from day one that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes a clear distinction between "natural born Citizen" and "citizen of the United States" and that separate and distinct meaning must be given to the two different terms. I have also argued in so many of my essays that there is a critical distinction between "natural born" and "born." Giving contitutional meaning to each one of these separate terms is critically necessary, as per Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. These two arguments have been two of the many pillars of all my writings on "natural born Citizen."

Response:

The term "citizen of the United States" encompassed both naturalized and native/natural born citizens.


Natural born citizen and native born citizen are analogous terms. They are a subset of the generic term citizen. As courts have explained since the beginning of our nation, that there are two types of citizens: those who are naturalized and those who are native born. "There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized. Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942). There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)


“Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of § 15 [Naturalization Act of 1906] are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens, Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)

The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.(internal citations omitted) Id at 22

Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II,§ 1. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)

Justice Rutledge, in his dissenting opinion in Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 677 (1946) used the term native born as determining the eligibility for the presidency when he wrote:

”I do not find warrant in the Constitution for believing that it contemplates two classes of citizens, excepting only for two purposes. One is to provide how citizenship shall be acquired, Const., Art. I,§ 8; Amend. XIV,§ 1, the other to determine eligibility for the presidency. Const., Art. II,§ 1. The latter is the only instance in which the charter expressly excludes the naturalized citizen from any right or privilege the native-born possesses.”

As such, justices of the Supreme Court since the days of Chief Justice Marshall have been using the term "native" born in place of "natural born" to describe those individuals eligible to be president.

Therefore, the term citizen encompassed both naturalized citizen and native born citizen in which the latter term includes the term natural born.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch, 7-11-11, at 12:14 p.m.,

None of the cases you cite really analyzed the historical development of the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." It is evident that the courts confuse the terms "natural born Citizen," "native," and native-born citizen."

Under natural law and the law of nations a "native" and "natural born citizen" meant the same thing. Think of the "native" American Indians. You cannot get more "natural born" than that. Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus confirmed that “native” and indigenes (later translated to “natural-born citizen”) were of equivalent meaning. In Minor v. Happersett, the Court used “native” and a “natural born Citizen” interchangeably, first saying she was a “native” and then later finding that she was a “natural-born citizen.” Id. at 163 and 167-68. So under the old and correct definition of “native,” it is correct to say that there are only two types of citizens: (1) “native” or “natural born Citizen” and (2) naturalized.

The confusion occurs later on. Through historical development and to show that a "citizen of the United States" was born in the U.S. and was not a naturalized citizen after birth, we adopted the expression "native born citizen." Under this expansive definition of U.S. citizenship, a child could be born in the U.S. to alien domiciled parents and be a “native born citizen.” See U.S. Wong Kim Ark (1898). But by definition we can see that a "native born citizen" is not a "native," for a “native,” like “natural born Citizen,” is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

The Framers wrote a constitution. Each word they selected was critical to its meaning. They chose their words very carefully and wisely. They chose “natural born Citizen,” not “native born citizen.” They probably chose “natural born Citizen” so as to avoid the confusion regarding the use of the word “native” or “native-born citizen.”

Finally, you do not amend the Constitution by changing the meaning of “natural born Citizen” by giving a certain status to someone which does not equate with the status of “natural born Citizen, ” calling that status “native-born citizen,” and then saying that “native-born citizen” is the equivalent to “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

Press release: See the Birther Summit Statement on Unity and Support.

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/9-pressrelease20110711.html

The Birther Summit is being planned for March 2012.

Go to the web site for more information: www.birthersummit.org.

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

"The Framers wrote a constitution. Each word they selected was critical to its meaning. They chose their words very carefully and wisely."

Then how did Revolutionary War hero St. George Tucker get it so wrong?

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague."

paraleaglenm said...

Atticus Finch trembles in holy terror before the gods of the court . . . a true subject.

I, however, am privileged to exercise my God-given rights as guaranteed by the United State Constitution as a CITIZEN or a FREE REPUBLIC.

Atticus, you have some skills in research, but your attitude SUCKS.

If you read enough supreme court cases, through our history you see the courts bend to changes in social morays. In time, the courts correct themselves . . . that is not going to happen if we get any more Sotomayors or Kagans, more suited to administering a NAZI death camp than our highest court.

But, to the point, note how Justice Curtis steps on his own logic, i.e., as one trips over his own shoe laces.

In one section of Dredd Scott, Justice Curtis limits the Art I power of Congress by saying “It is not doubted that this is a power to prescribe a rule for the removal of the disabilities consequent on foreign birth . . .

It was in this sense of conferring on an alien and his issue the rights and powers of a native-born citizen, that it was employed in the Declaration of Independence.” See also Federalist, #42.

“It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.”

Now watch as J. Curtis trips over his own logic, reversing himself.

“First: The power to remove the disabilities of alienage, either by special acts in reference to each individual case, or by establishing a rule of naturalization to be administered and applied by the courts.”

Does not Obama have the 'disabilities of alienage,' in fact from birth?

Don't the naturalization laws, now called nationality acts, work to determine and/or remove 'alienage,' . . . even from birth?

Therefore, Obama was of alienage and, further more by acts of his mother . . . corrected by nationality acts, i.e., our body of naturalization laws in 1952 INA and Title 8 U.S.C. 1401, et al . . . only a citizen by naturalization law at age 19?

Can you imagine the framers allowing for a scion, a son of a British loyalist remaining in the U.S., being eligible to the presidency?

You have the right to decide . . . the judges have said one thing, and as illustrated in Minor, Greisser, and Elk, have said another . . . they are incompetent in their legal analysis.

Jo said...

Our US Constitution clearly maintained the qualification for Constitutional President/Vice President of our Republic form of government that both parents must be American citizens. Herein lies the solid key.

Why insist the Usurper is fully qualified Constitutional President through virtue on mainly being born in the US soil? Whether he is label a US native born citizen by his loyalist supporter it does not change the tenor that he is qualified the US President. How can it be he is qualified the US President for having an alien father?

THEhoundedFEW said...

Surely your charge is inadmissable in a court of law.
Because your evidence is based upon a fraud.

And that is how they did it , and why all has failed.

For you are citing fraudulant information as the truth.


That fraudulant information that forms the basis of your accusation and charge being sourced only by a fraudulant document called a certification of live birth that has been shown to be a forgery.

THEhoundedFEW said...

Surely your charge is inadmissable in a court of law.
Because your evidence is based upon a fraud.

And that is how they did it , and why all has failed.

For you are citing fraudulant information as the truth.


That fraudulant information that forms the basis of your accusation and charge being sourced only by a fraudulant document calling itself a certification of live birth that has been shown to be a forgery.

Kanbun said...

Mario-As you know members of Congress of both parites have replied to constituent inquiries regarding Barry's eligibility with ridiculous interpretations of NBC. The list is long. I have drafted the following to send to these slugs. What, if anything, would you change?

Dear :

You have apparently responded to inquiries received in your office regarding Barack Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States by declaring that Mr. Obama has produced a valid birth certificate showing he was born in the United States and that this thusly makes him a "Natural Born Citizen" and qualifies him to hold the office of President.

Of course, such a declaration is nonsense and shows you to be weak and disrespectful of your constituents and of the Constitution. Barack Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen" and is not eligible to hold the office of President. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), a precedent setting decision, confirmed that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the United States to two citizen parents. Barack Obama's father was not a citizen of the United States. (But then you are not the only member of Congress to ignore the Supreme court.) Furthermore, because of his father's British citizenship, Mr. Obama was born a citizen of Great Britain - and - he was apparently adopted by his Indonesian step father thereby becoming a citizen of Indonesia and quite possibly lost his U.S. citizenship in the process. It could not be more clear that the purpose of the Natural Born Citizen requirement in our constitution was created by our founders to prevent any foreign influence or allegiance to affect the Commander and Chief of our military. Citizens of other countries are not eligible to be President of the United States.

Let me also point out that the so-called "Long Form Birth Certificate" produced by Mr. Obama on April 27, 2011 has been shown to be a forgery by more document experts than you can count. And, Mr. Obama is apparently using a Social Security Number that was not issued to him. Forgery and using someone else's Social Security Number are felonies, but despite the overwhelming evidence in the public domain of these criminal activities, nobody in Congress, including you, has shown even the slightest concern about these transgressions.

Members of Congress, including you, often refer to the Constitution when discussing some of the decisions made and positions taken on important issues. This is something that you should not ever do, since it is clear that you have absolutely no respect for the Constitution. Any member of congress, including you, that takes the position that Barack Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen" and is eligible to be President has shamefully shown total disregard for their oath to uphold the Constitution and has abdicated their responsibilities under the Constitution as a member of Congress.

I would expect no reply to this message from someone that does not have the fortitude to honor their Constitutional oath. By failing your oath to uphold the Constitution, you bring dishonor to yourself and to the institution that you serve, and you are personally and institutionally culpable in the fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people. I can only hope that your refusal to honor your oath does not result in irreparable harm to our great republic.

Shame on you.

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

"The Framers wrote a constitution. Each word they selected was critical to its meaning. They chose their words very carefully and wisely. They chose “natural born Citizen,” not “native born citizen.” They probably chose “natural born Citizen” so as to avoid the confusion regarding the use of the word “native” or “native-born citizen.

So was Revolutionary War hero St. George Tucker wrong when he wrote,

"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague."

atticus finch said...

Kanbun wrote:

"Barack Obama is not a "Natural Born Citizen" and is not eligible to hold the office of President. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), a precedent setting decision, confirmed that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the United States to two citizen parents. "

Response:

Your reliance on Minor v. Happersett as precedent that Obama is not a "Natural born citizen" is misplaced.


Justice Waite tells us that Minor has standing to sue under the 14th Amendment as a citizen of the United States. Nowhere in the opinion did Justice Waite declare Ms. Minor to be a natural born citizen; in fact, he mentioned Ms. Minor as a citizen several times. He mentioned "natural born citizen" four times in the opinion but none in reference to Ms. Minor.

He mentioned natural born citizen in reference to Constitution wherein he quotes "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" and when he quotes the section of Naturalization Act of 1790 that "that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens."

He mentioned "natural born citizen" in the following paragraph
in which he defines who is natural born citizen:

“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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Id at 167-168.(emphasis added)

Notice in this paragraph he does not preclude the idea that citizen children of aliens could be considered natural born citizens but there were doubts and he further stressed that for purposes of this case it was not necessary for the court to address these doubts.

The reason that Justice Waite’s language regarding natural-born citizen is dicta is that he never mentioned that Ms. Minor was natural born citizen; in fact, he never discussed the citizenship status of Ms. Minor’s parents. Moreover, Justice Waite recognized that Ms. Minor as a citizen had standing under the 14th Amendment to sue but that the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any citizen.

atticus finch said...

Kanbun wrote: "Mr. Obama was born a citizen of Great Britain - and - he was apparently adopted by his Indonesian step father thereby becoming a citizen of Indonesia and quite possibly lost his U.S. citizenship in the process."

Response:

Although Obama was born a British subject through the British nationality of his father, at no time was Obama under "British jurisdiction".

Dual citizenship does not equate dual jurisdiction. All children of alien parents born in the United States have dual citizenship: United States citizenship and citizenship of his or her parents.

Courts have long recognized that foreign nations have no jurisdiction over its citizens in the United States.

"[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize." Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956)
See also Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)("Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.”)

Moreover, United States' jurisdiction over Obama while he was residing in the United States is complete and does not share its jurisdiction with "British jurisdiction" since "British jurisdiction" does not extend beyond British territorial limits. "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)

As such, United States jurisdiction over Obama was exclusive and absolute at the time of his birth. "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute." Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116,136(1812)

As for the Obama's alleged adoption by his Indonesian step-father, even assuming that Obama did in fact became an Indonesian citizen as a minor, he would not lose his United States citizenship under 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3. Section 349 (a), states:

"From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by --

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday:...."

As you can see here, anything Stanley Ann Dunham or Lolo Soetoro could have done to renounce Barack Obama's US citizenship simply would not have worked in the eyes of US law. Barack Obama himself would have had to do so after his 21st birthday, or after his 25th had he not returned to the United States by then and established a permanent residence.

Texoma said...

@Kanbun,

Excellent letter. Keep in mind though, that given that Obama had US citizenship before he went to Indonesia, that he would not have lost his US citizenship upon adoption by his Indonesian step-father. The 1939 US Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg ruled that a US citizen child does not lose his/her citizenship on account of the actions of the parents.

Texoma said...

I strongly recommend that the Birther Summit be renamed to be the Natural Born Citizen Summit. Such a summit would be about the full and correct definition of the term "natural born citizen" (born in the country to citizen parents), which would invalidate Obama's presidency, and demand his removal (not impeachment), which would nullify all of his actions while in office (appointments, orders, and legislation such as ObamaCare). Given this context, such a summit would draw quite a few attendees and the press.

But a summit called the Birther summit, will unfortunately be deemed by most Americans as being only about the birth certificate and the location of Obama's birth (and not about his foreign allegiance at birth from his foreign citizen father), and it will be deemed as having the political purpose of "getting Obama", as opposed to the noble purpose of defending the Constitution.

Does anyone else agree? If so, then send the organizers a message. Here is the contact form:

http://www.birthersummit.org/contact.html

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

I of II

You concede that Obama was born with dual allegiance, but then attempt to underplay that birth circumstance by arguing that allegiance does not equate with jurisdiction. This argument is specious, given the long established precedents in our nation as to the ill effects of being born with dual allegiance. Our court have long stated that there is a serious problems for a child to be born with dual allegiance. Because of what Wong Kim Ark did, we have just learned to live with it. Here are some (and there are many) cases that show that you are simply wrong:

(1) Lynch v. Clarke (1844) explains the problems of dual allegiance and citizenship.

(2) In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Justice Gray recognized the problem of dual allegiance and citizenship. Justice Gray explained that no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent. He said that it is the requirement that a nation consent to have someone be its citizen which prevents creating dual allegiance and citizenship. Id. at 103. He added that a nation’s consent to a person being its citizen relates to granting that person citizenship from birth or citizenship by naturalization. Id. at 104-09. If a person was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, he or she could not be a born citizen and would have to naturalize if he or she wanted to be such a citizen. Again, not to be born with dual citizenship could be possible only if the child’s parents are themselves citizens of the United States.

(3) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Court per Justice Gray recognized the dual allegiance and citizenship created at birth by its ruling because of the jus soli and jus sanguinis rules and the problems it can create.

(4) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329, 59 S.Ct. 884, 887, 83 L.Ed. 1320 (1939), thoroughly discussed the problem of dual nationality and said: “As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality” (footnote omitted). The Court also explained the problems that dual nationality can cause.

(5) Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). America went as far as passing curfew and exclusion laws during World War II which deprived freedom of movement and association to 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” of Japanese descent (their mothers and fathers were Japanese nationals) because of “pressing public necessity” and the need to provide America with every possible protection against espionage and sabotage which jeopardized America’s survival. The Korematsu Court stated that this government action was justified because the “segregation of the disloyal from the loyal” within American 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” of Japanese descent was not possible. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In other words, the Court found that we could not place at risk the survival of our country for the sake of trying to determine who was loyal or disloyal to the cause. Our nation took the drastic action that it did against 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” of Japanese descent because they were dual nationals and children of aliens or foreigners. Hence, even though these persons were 14th Amendment citizens, we still considered and treated them as being subject to a foreign power.

Cont’d . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

(6) Tomoya Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723—736, 72 S.Ct. 950, 955—962, 96 L.Ed. 1249 (1952). The U.S. Supreme Court stated that dual nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.” Kawakita was born with dual allegiances by being born in the United States to alien Japanese parents. Nevertheless, he was still considered a United States citizen “by birth” or “native-born citizen.” This case show how such a citizen “by birth” can still be born with dual allegiances, even an allegiance to an enemy power, and have the option to chose to which country he will be loyal. A “natural born Citizen” simply cannot have such divided and split allegiances, loyalties, and options.

(7) Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). The problem of dual citizenship and allegiance was thoroughly addressed in Rogers v. Bellei where the Court said:

The Congress has an appropriate concern with problems attendant on dual nationality. Savorgnan v. United States, 338 U.S. 491, 500, 70 S.Ct. 292, 297, 94 L.Ed. 287 (1950); N. Bar-Yaacov, Dual Nationality xi and 4 (1961). These problems are particularly acute when it is the father who is the child's alien parent and the father chooses to have his family reside in the country of his own nationality. The child is reared, at best, in an atmosphere of divided loyalty. We cannot say that a concern that the child's own primary allegiance is to the country of his birth and of his father's allegiance is either misplaced or arbitrary.

The duality also creates problems for the governments involved. Mr. Justice Brennan recognized this when, concurring Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 187, 83 S.Ct. 554, 577, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963), a case concerning native-born citizens, he observed: 'We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance * * *.' In a famous case Mr. Justice Douglas wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Tomoya Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723—736, 72 S.Ct. 950, 955—962, 96 L.Ed. 1249 (1952). He noted that '(o)ne who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting,' id., at 733, 72 S.Ct., at 960; that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status 'into a fair-weather citizenship,' id., at 736, 72 S.Ct., at 962; and that '(c) ircumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,' ibid.

(8) And let us not forget that we went to war with Great Britain in 1812 because of claims of dual allegiance and the problems of claimed loyalty that it caused.

This jurisprudence and historical development shows that allegiance to a nation surely give that nation the right and power to exert its jurisdiction over that person and to expect that person to satisfy certain duties owed to that nation. Historically, this has included duties concerning political, military, and taxation obligations.

On the effects of an alleged Indonesian adoption, I agree with you. The alleged adoption would not cuase Obama to lose his U.S. citizen, assuming he had any, unless by way of Congressional Act or treaty. See Perkins v. Elg.

paraleaglenm said...

Case law is instructive, and even binding law. However, citing actual statute is superior.

British jurisdiction over Jr. due to Sr.'s nationality? Absolutely. Britain historically exercised jurisdiction over children of its subjects born outside the realm.

British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. Part II, Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizen by Birth or Descent, .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

(b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later . . .”

Now, citizenship at birth is a more permanent feature than merely naturalized, although citizenship at birth is still controlled by nationality law if one parent is an alien, or the parent does something that changes the nationality of the minor child . . . like, marries an Indonesian and moves to Indonesia.

Bellei lost his right to citizenship by failing to meet legal Retention Provisions, under this very law which I cite as follows:

"Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who "shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad "of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States" who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years. We quote the statute in the margin." See footnote 1

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b) as cited by Rogers vs Bellei, http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/815/case.html#F1

Obama became an Indonesian citizen at age 6, and continued to make convenient use of that nationality/citizenship into adulthood. However, he fulfilled the above law's retention provisions . . . otherwise, he would have lost U.S. citizenship, although regaining it would not require a full naturalization application, but approval by the Sec. of State to apply for regaining citizenship and taking the oath of allegiance.

Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006, concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, “State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage.” Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945 (Berg v. Obama, 08-CV- 04083, First Amended Complaint, pg. 33)

Ray said...

Atticus Finch, at July 12, 2011 4:24 PM "Dual citizenship does not equate dual jurisdiction."

Not so. At least according to current State Department, dual nationals are required to obey the laws of both nations. Get that: obey the laws of both nations... both jurisdictions.

Dual citizenship DOES equate to dual jurisdiction.

"dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws"

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)

e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).

7 FAM 086 CONSULAR PROTECTION AND SERVICES AND DUAL NATIONALITY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)

b. It is a generally recognized rule, often regarded as a rule of international law, that when a person who is a dual national is residing in either of the countries of nationality, the person owes paramount allegiance to that country, and that country has the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country. Thus, in the absence of agreements to the contrary between the United States and the country of second nationality, if a dual national encounters difficulties in the country of the second nationality while residing there, the U.S. government's representations on that person's behalf may or may not be accepted.

7 FAM 1111.4 Dual or Multiple Nationality
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

a. U.S. nationals and citizens may possess dual or multiple nationality and owe allegiance to one or several foreign states. They may even have identified themselves more closely with the foreign state than with the United States, thereby calling into question the propriety of extending protection to them. Since each country establishes its own law of nationality, dual nationality cannot be eliminated, may result in confusion, and could complicate the ability of the U.S. Government to protect its nationals/citizens.

***

c. While a person who has dual or multiple nationality resides in the United States, the right of the United States to claim his or her allegiance is held to be paramount of the right of the other countries of which he or she may be a national. Conversely, while a person who has dual nationality resides abroad in a foreign country of which he or she also is a national, the right of that country to claim his or her allegiance is paramount to that of the United States.

d. It has been the policy of the U.S. Government, when the occasion arises, to intercede on behalf of a person in another country who owes allegiance both to that country and the United States, when the facts clearly indicate that the person has been detained, harassed, or molested by the authorities of the foreign country of which he or she is also a national.

e. The circumstances of a person’s conduct abroad may very well be a determining factor in considering the extent to which such protection should be granted. In the case of a dual national living in the foreign country of which he or she is also a national, the circumstances may restrict, to a great extent, a national’s ability to receive the protection and consular services of the U.S. Government.

7 FAM 1113 DEFINITIONS
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
e. “Dual National”, [sic] for the purposes of this chapter, means a person who owes permanent allegiance to more than one country.

cfkerchner said...

State programmer identifies template for Obama ‘forgery’ – High-level engineer demonstrates how Nordyke birth certificates used [as the source documents] | by Jerome Corsi | @ WND.com
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=321561

Additional proof that Obama Has Forged His Long Form Birth Certificate Posted on the White House Servers and Xerox Copies Given to Reporters on 27 April 2011: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58721290/

Presentation of the Evidence: The American Typewriter – Obama’s ‘Typed’ Long Form Birth Certificate is Forged | by Paul Irey – Type Face Expert: Read Paul Irey’s Full Report Here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59624694/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

cpanon said...

Hi All
Lets think out of phase. How about a "reverse Trojan Horse" that we can prove transparently is hollow.

Rather than show the segments and the isolated techniques, we need to show how someone with the intent and skill could produce a document identical or even slightly better than 4/27/2011 fraud on federal servers. There are products like Camtasia, and others that can audit the entire visual screen process in digital video. We could even storyboard it collectively and get the best minimalist required sequence of steps. The final step could be showing how a printed version of the equivalently composed document would look radically different than what was presented if as Bauer stated "MR. BAUER: And you'll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to..."

jayjay said...

Kanbun:

Good letter. Send it to all 535 of the CongressCats (less the Vacant seats) and you might also mention that they need a serious criminal investigation of the Congressionsl Research Service in NOT following the statute law that created the body and under which they SUPPOSEDLY operate!!

They are a bunch of cowards!!!

Texoma said...

Mario,

I have a question that has been nagging me for sometime. It has to do with the 14th amendment and the original interpretation of “jurisdiction” as appears in the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, a primary framer of the 14th amendment said this:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

In 1868, there were two groups of people in the US who did not owe allegiance to anybody else: freed slaves and existing US citizens. After all of the US-born children of freed slaves were made citizens by the 14th amendment, wouldn’t the 14th amendment then be referring to just natural born citizens when it speaks of all persons born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Or is there another group of people who do not owe allegiance to another country, whose US-born children would be citizens at birth but not natural born citizens? Could this other group be people who are considered “stateless” - people who are in the US legally and have not yet become citizens, who either have had their foreign citizenships stripped by their home country or have renounced their foreign citizenships?

If not, then are these born citizens of US citizens (persons not owing allegiance to anybody else) not natural born citizen because 1) it is implied that they are equal to naturalized citizens and/or 2) a natural born citizen is a citizen at birth by natural law and not by any human law, such as the 14th amendment?

cfkerchner said...

Obama Administration Establishing Diplomatic Relationship with the Terrorist Organization Muslim Brotherhood | by Pajama TV | @ drkatesview.com

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/obama-administration-establishing-diplomatic-relationship-with-the-terrorist-organization-muslim-brotherhood-by-pajama-tv-drkatesview-com/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

There is confusion when analyzing “not subject to a foreign power” and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. If the two terms were intended to mean the same, then they simply mean as Senator Howard said, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” The problem is that Justice Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, who had been appointed to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur, who at birth was born to two alien parents, basically eviscerated the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, making it mean only that someone is subject to the laws of the United States.” One can see that under such a liberal interpretation, the two terms no longer mean the same, for one can be both “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and also owe allegiance to a foreign power. Just being physically present in United States territory makes one subject to its laws. But being subject to the laws of the United States does not even come close to meaning that that person is not also subject to some foreign power.

So if “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to mean “not subject to a foreign power,” then one would have to be a “natural born Citizen” to be a born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. If the clause meant only subject to the laws of the United States, then one does not have to be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be a born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, for even a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents is subject to its laws but is not born “not subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-wide prevalence of jus sanguinis citizenship, a court would have to be totally dishonest to say that a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents is born “not subject to any foreign power.” After all, even the United States declares children born abroad to one or two United States citizens to be a “citizen of the United States” “at birth.” So are we now going to make United States citizens under such birth circumstances but deny other nations the same right?

In any event, the way Justice Gray interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in Wong Kim Ark, he only produced a “born” “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born” “citizen of the United States.” Nowhere in his opinion does he indicate that the Court’s decision was intended to either confirm or change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We know from natural law and the law of nations that there have to first be “citizens” before there may be “natural born Citizens” in a society. See Pufendorf; Vattel, Sec. 212; and Minor. What is very telling is that Justice Waite in Minor used natural law and the law of nations which he called “common law” to define a “natural born Citizen” and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark used the English common law to define a “citizen.” Justice Gray also did not make any reckless statements about Wong being eligible to be President like the Lynch v. Clarke (1844) court made about Lynch in that case. Julia Lynch was born in New York in 1819 to alien parents during their temporary sojourn in New York City. She returned with them to Ireland the same year and never came back to America. Imagine that the Lynch court said that she was eligible to be President.

paraleaglenm said...

J. Gray got it right in Elk, that a 'native' born child was not a citizen, if there was innate and natural foreign allegiance.

In order to disregard his own stare decisis, he made the excuse that Indians were 'not taxed, thus limiting the exclusion under the commerce clause. Not a very convincing argument.

It is without doubt, that a child born to Chinese parents, regardless of domicile, naturally acquired the allegiance of his parents. If the parents naturalized, the minor child also was naturalized.

However, as an adult, of parents who returned to China and the Emperor, Wong Kim Ark had to apply for naturalization.

If the Exclusionary Act/Cooley Act barred Ark from applying, then that was an Art III issue in determining if denying Chinese of good character violated the tenets of the Declaration of Independence.

That was the law that Gray partially cited as the Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1845, et seq (from memory, so pardon any mistakes in quoting). It was an insult, and a violation of uniform standards of citation of law that Gray did not name the acts, as the Uniform Naturalization Acts, especially as he was introducing a non-uniformity, i.e., a conflict of laws.

In addition, Gray violated, disrespected, Article I, Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Sec 5 of the 14th Amendment.

Bob said...

Remember, the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 specifically withheld the right of naturalization for the Chinese subjects of the Emperor.

This is what the United States was attempting to enforce in the case of Wong Kim Ark.

However, Wong Kim Ark was able to produce a valid United States birth certificate, thus exempting him from the Burlingame Treaty, and the prohibition blocking naturalization.

This is why the Supreme Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark's favor, and set aside the Burlingame Treaty in his case.

Thomas said...

Fantastic read here.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1852/article_detail.asp

paraleaglenm said...

@ Bob

That is not the reasoning of the U.S. solicitor. Ark was alien because his parents remained Chinese nationals and never naturalized.

Read http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA as well as Chief Justice Fuller's dissent.

The 'birth certificate' was moot as it was stipulated Ark was born in the U.S.

Mick said...

Justice Gray's decision is further narrowed if read carefully. He compared WKA to the children of negro slaves made citizens by the 14A, whose parents were not allowed to become US Citizens before the 14A. His reasoning was that WKA's parents suffered the same condition as Negro parents before the 14A, i.e that they were UNNATURALIZEABLE according to US law(Chinese Exclusionary Acts).
Therefore the holding of the case should be that the Children of Unnaturalizeable Domiciled, Resident aliens, if born in the US, can be naturalized by election of residence at the age of majority.
That reality is a far cry from "born in the US equals natural born Citizen, eligible for POTUS".

Bob said...

The Chinese Exclusionary Acts were the enabling legislation for the Burlingame Treaty of 1868.

Joel Burlingame was Lincoln's ambassador to China.

His sister was the wife late in life to Wendell Phillips, the great abolitionist.

Wong Kim Ark's parent were disallowed from 'naturalizing' as citizens because of the Burlingame Treaty, but their son decided to claim his citizenship by right.

The Supreme Court agreed that his birth on U.S. soil trumped his birth by descent from Chinese parents, plain and simple.

This was the political platform of the old Free Soil Party, which eventually folded into Republican Party of Lincoln.

Wendell Phillips was an old 'Free Soiler.'

Pixel Patriot said...

Some get it...

http://www.whitfieldcountyga.com/E911/911Docs/BackgroundCheckPost-Test.pdf

and some don’t...

SOLDIERS BECOME U.S. CITIZENS AT FORT IRWIN IN FIRST CEREMONY ON INSTALLATION
June 28, 2011
By Charles Melton (USAG Fort Irwin)

http://www.army.mil/article/49219/

"It seems intuitive to us who are natural born that you should have the same rights and privileges that we do but until today you don't and you certainly earned it," he said. "You earned it through your commitment and dedication and your display of the values that we hold dear as Soldiers and Americans."

Mick said...

Bob said,

"The Supreme Court agreed that his birth on U.S. soil trumped his birth by descent from Chinese parents, plain and simple".


Correct, but the reason that he was deemed as US Citizen, per the holding, was that he was born of Domiciled Resident aliens, unnable to naturalize; not that he was simply born in the US.

paraleaglenm said...

You are both forgetting one thing: The Freed Slaves were Stateless, Wong Kim Ark was not.

Ark had to change from Chinese to U.S. allegiance.

He was either Chinese of U.S. at birth . . . that isolates the controlling principle of citizenship either being solis or sanguinis.

In addition, by blurring that distinction, you create conflicts of law and dual nationality at birth, therefore requiring MORE law to fix it.

Gray figured out how to reanimate a 'traditionary' doctrine of jus solis, in itself only part of the English law. That was in conflict with all previous Naturalization and Nationality Acts . . . and in violation of 14th Amend, Sec 5 and Art I, Sec 8.

The clause, under the jurisdiction thereof, coming from 'not subject ot any foreign power' was sufficient law to determine the eligibilty of black slaves to be U.S. citizens at birth, and Ark a Chinese citizen at birth.

Declare the Burlingame Treaty and Exclusionary Act unconstitutional, and SCOTUS was within its jurisdiction.

Ark/Gray was a violation of logic, jurisprudence, and two sections of the constitution.

Puzo1 said...

Read this interesting article, Guyana-Born Man Asks FEC If He Can Run for President, here http://www.rollcall.com/news/guyana_born_man_asks_fec_if_he_can_run_for_president-207326-1.html?pos=hln

The article says in pertinent part:

"Some of those who follow the FEC said Hassan’s request is almost unprecedented because it puts the FEC in the position of defining constitutional law. 'I have never seen anything like it before,' said Paul S. Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center who works on election law issues.

But Hassan rejected the idea that his request was a legal or judicial stunt to clarify an issue that he has found divisive. He said his questions are squarely in the FEC’s jurisdiction of the Federal Election Campaign Act. They include basic queries of whether he can solicit money as a presidential candidate and whether he needs to open a presidential candidate committee after reaching the $5,000 threshold necessary for disclosure."

Notice that looking for clarity on the "natural born Citizen" clause is suspected as a "legal or judicial stunt."

This article was picked up by The Election Law Blog at
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=20419. This is what it says there:

"Fascinating question actually. If the FEC were to say he could not run, would that not get the agency in the business of having to decide who is a natural born citizen? And what then if a Birther files a complaint with the FEC against President Obama’s fundraising?"

Note that the writer, Rick Hansen, considers anyone interested in the enforcement of the Constitution in such a matter a "birther."

It will be interesting to see how the FEC responds. I hope that readers of this blog will keep an eye on this and report the FEC response here.

Bob said...

A good dose of reading history books written in the 19th Century would give a completely different picture of how the court decided Wong Kim Ark.

President Grant's daughter Nellie was caught up in a natural-born citizenship issue because of she married Algernon Sartoris, a British diplomat, in a White House wedding.

After she returned to America, Congress had to restore her 'natural-born citizenship.'

Look it up!

Joint resolution of Congress readmitted Mrs. Sartoris to American citizenship: "Resolution May 18, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 1496) Whereas, Nellie Grant Sartoris, widow, daughter of the late General Ulysses S. Grant, being a natural-born citizen of the United States, married in eighteen hundred and seventy-four, etc.

Puzo1 said...

Bob,

Great find which confirms my previous argument regarding President Chester Arthur. I have argued that Chester Arthur was born not only to a non-U.S.-citizen father but also to a non-U.S.-citizen mother.

I am not aware of his mother ever regaining her U.S. citizenship after she married her Irish husband. Hence, Chester Arthur was born to two alien parents.

cfkerchner said...

G. Gordon Liddy Radio Show: Joe Farah Interviews Susan Daniels (Private Investigator)- Obama’s Stolen Connecticut Social Security Number « CDR Kerchner's Blog
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/g-gordon-liddy-radio-show-joe-farah-interview-susan-daniels-private-investigator-obamas-stolen-connecticut-social-security-number/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Texoma said...

The Guyana article says this:

“The two commonly held constitutional requirements to run for president are that the candidate be 35 years or older and be a 'natural born citizen.'”

Why would the third requirement (14-year residency) not also be “commonly held”?

I have long held that the 14-year residency requirement provides a strong clue as to the thinking of our Founding Fathers. Why was it important for the President to have lived the last 14 years in the US? I contend the Founding Fathers understood that foreign influence came not only from a foreign allegiance due to birthplace and/or birth parents, but also from having lived recently in a foreign country. Living in a foreign country exposes one to foreign ideas, values, customs, etc. Hence, the 14-year residency requirement can be viewed as a sort of cleansing period – a period of time to become cleansed of foreign ideas, values, customs, etc.

The only President that I am aware of who resided outside of the US within 14 years of taking office was President Eisenhower. He served and lived overseas during WW2 and then later was elected President and took office in 1953. However, the 14-year residency should not be enforced for citizens who are sent overseas by the US government on official business, which clearly was the case for Eisenhower. The 14-year residency requirement should be enforced for US citizens who take it upon themselves to reside in a foreign country.

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 does not say that the 14 years have to be the last 14 years of a person's life. It just says, "and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." How do you conclude that it must be the last 14 years?

Otherwise, I agree with you that the 14-years residency requirement is another eligibility component included by the Founders and Framers to keep out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief foreign influence and to assure attachment to the United States.

thalightguy said...

Obama is not the President he is only Usurping the Presidency

Obama’s father was Kenyan he was only visiting the U.S. on a student visa when that visa expired he returned to his Homeland. Obama was born with dual nationality.

The U.S. Dept. of State defines a person with dual nationality as a person who has divided allegiance.

The Constitution took effect in 1789 it replaced the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were replaced because they were weak and would not function as a nation. There was no provision for any individual rights (no Bill of Rights) and the central government was weak because the states (which were independent colonies at the time) did not want a strong central government and thus did not demand any citizen to owe allegiance to the central government of the United States.

The Founders feared foreign influence; they knew naturalized citizens could have divided allegiance so they made it a requirement for the President to be a natural born citizen.

They knew exactly what the term meant; they voted and passed it without a single debate.

All persons born U.S. citizens the day after the U.S. Constitution was adopted were natural born citizens, you could not be born with dual nationality. These citizens were born owing allegiance only to the U.S. It was these citizens that the Founders knew to be eligible for President.

The Founders despised Dual Nationality so much that we had a War over it in 1812. England failed to recognize that their subjects lost such classification when they naturalized as U.S. citizens, England started kidnapping these U.S. naturalized citizens when found on ships at sea and forced them to serve in the English Military. The Founders would have none of this and so we had a War.

The definition of a natural born citizen is the same now as it was when it was inserted into the Constitution.

An act of Congress can change the definition of citizen but to do so with natural born citizen would make it unnatural.

Some people say the Founders knew the definition of the term because it was found in Vattel's Law of Nations. This is only partially true; the term did not appear in the treatise until a revision 10yrs after the Constitution was adopted, before it had listed indigene instead.

But, this does prove that the definition was common knowledge back then and that the person who revised the treatise 10yrs after the constitution was adopted knew exactly what a natural born citizen was.

Example:

Event A (natural born citizen was inserted into the U.S. Constitution)

Event B (Vattel's the Law of Nations was revised with the phrase 'natural born citizen' taking the place of the word 'indigene')

Event A Happened

10yrs Later a person fully understood Event A and applied it to Event B

...................................

Everything listed above is based on deductive reasoning using known facts found throughout History.

Bob said...

One thing that needs to be stressed at lot -- because it is a fact, Barack Hussein Obama, II was not born with 'dual nationality' He was born a Brit! Any 'dual nationality' is ONLY with Kenya!

Kenya and the United Kingdom!

Just like his older brothers, and his step-brothers and sisters, including his step-brother with an American mother.

An Englishman considers himself an Englishman, no matter where he is born, and he considers his wife a subject of the Queen, no matter where she was born!

There is no reason for Americans of any stripe to claim him!

So, DON'T!

cfkerchner said...

Birther Summit March 2012 Announcement: 30 Second Spot – Obama is Constitutionally Ineligible! Let Them Know That You Know What They Know! « CDR Kerchner's Blog
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/birther-summit-march-2012-30-second-spot-let-them-know-that-you-know-that-they-know/

Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate Released to the Public on 27 April 2011 is a Forgery!

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Puzo1 said...

The Birther Summit: this might be your last chance to be heard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsdHJYSvENw

Texoma said...

Mario,

In 1833 in his Commentaries on the Constitution, US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said the following:

“It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election.”

Here he is referring to the 14-year residency, and I contend that it can be inferred that it is the 14 years directly before the election. Otherwise, why even mention the election, if the 14 years could have been any 14-year period of the candidate’s life, perhaps even his first 14 years of life?

Joseph Story later says this:

“A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government.”

The best opportunity for the people to know the “character and merits” of a presidential candidate is when the candidate was a resident of the country in the years (14, per our Founding Fathers) prior to the election – years in which the candidate “mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government.” Could a candidate, having lived abroad from age 15 to 35, have done all of that in his first 14 years of life?

Reading further, I learn that Joseph Story certainly exempted men (such as Eisenhower) who were sent abroad by the US government:

”By ‘residence,’ in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility.”

atticus finch said...

Doublee wrote:
"The 14th amendment has been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship regardless of the citizenship status of the parents (children born of diplomats excepted).

If birthright citizenship is granted regardless of the status of the parents, then for natural born citizenship to have a distinguishing definition, the status of the parents must be taken into account."

Response:

Courts have never recognized "natural born citizen" as being classified as an ubercitizen or super-citizen in that the natural born citizen has special endowed legal powers far superior to those of mere mortal native born citizens.

Courts have never distinguished native born citizens from natural born citizens.

"There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)

"The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen." ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)

In Luria v. United States, 231 US 9(1913), the court observed: Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of § 15 [Naturalization Act of 1906] are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens." Id at 24.

The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATIVE CITIZEN in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added) Id at 22

Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do NATIVE BORN CITIZENS.” (emphasis added)

As such, the drafters of the Constitution never intended to create a “SUPER CITIZEN” who was different from a native born citizen. If they had the courts would have recognized three classes of citizens: natural born, native born and naturalized.

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

Very good presentation on how you arrive at the last 14 years rather than any 14 years. Your argument makes very good sense and is very persuasive.

But there can be arguments made for any 14 years. First, the first 14 years of life are very critical to a person's development. So many things that are learned then cannot be unlearned later. Second, the Constitution itself does not say the last 14 years.

Conclusion: It appears that 14 years of life are important no matter when they are spent. This is a hard one. I would like to see more of your thoughts in light of my response.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
" Given the world-wide prevalence of jus sanguinis citizenship, a court would have to be totally dishonest to say that a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents is born “not subject to any foreign power.”

Response:

Justice Gray was not being "totally dishonest" when
he wrote:

"By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed," were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 149 U.S. 649, 688 (1898)

Contrary to birthers claim, Justice Gray's above quoted remark
was not pull out of thin air but was based on established common law principles that a child born of alien parents was a natural born citizen of the country where he or she was born.

Debates during drafting of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 support this argument:

Senator Cowan: I will ask whether it [Civil Rights Act of 1866] will not have the effect of naturalizing children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?
Senator Trumbull: Undoubtedly

Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)


If the citizenship status of parents of children born in the United States is crucial to the citizenship status of these children so where is the language in the above debates is there a discussion about the citizenship of their parents?

In President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 he objected on the ground that the Act would make citizens of the United States to Chinese and Gypsies:

"This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks.… Every individual of these races born in the United States is by the bill made a citizen."

As such, members of Congress acknowledged the common law rule that a United States citizen is a person born in the United States when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Moreover, contemporary legal scholars acknowledged that a child born of alien parents was not "subject to any foreign power"

"In our territory, the alien is "subjected," no less completely than the citizen, to the jurisdiction of our courts (jurisdiction in the narrower sense) and to the general authority of our government (jurisdiction in the wider sense). Aliens, in the language of the common law, are temporary subjects of the state in which they sojourn; they owe the sovereign who harbors them in his domains temporary or local allegiance. The phrase "born subject to the jurisdiction" is therefore precisely equivalent to the common law expression "born under the actual obedience." — The constitution, then, invests with citizenship all persons born under the jurisdiction or obedience of the United States, without regard to the nationality of their parents or to the opposing claims of foreign states. Munroe Smith, “The Law of Nationality”
(1883) Page 948-949

Texoma said...

Mario,

Thanks. Another strong indication that the Founding Fathers were referring to the last 14 years comes from examining the language for requirements for Representative and Senator:

Representative: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, …”

Senator: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, …”

Note the similar language to the 14-year residency: “…and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Representatives and senators had to have been US citizens for at least 7 or 9 years or longer, and common sense says that this is the 7 or 9 years prior to their election. Otherwise, are we to believe that the Founding Fathers would have been OK with this scenario: A foreigner comes to the US and naturalizes. He then lives in the US for 7 or 9 years as a citizen. He then leaves the US and repatriates back to his home country. Years later, he returns to the US and naturalizes again. A year later, he runs for the House or Senate, and our Founding Fathers would consider him eligible? I think not.

Now, residency is easier to change than citizenship, but not that much easier, especially in the 18th century, given the distance of the US from other countries and the relatively slow modes of transportation. Just as the Founding Fathers were thinking that the minimum period of citizenship for Representative and Senator were the immediate years prior to the election, so it was (I contend) with the US residency of the President. The common language used (“and been …”) strongly backs up my contention.

Also, going back to the first quote from Justice Story, if the 14 years could have been any 14 years in the candidate’s life, then it would have sufficed to say “… and for fourteen years.” There would not have been any need to qualify that with the additional words: “before his election”. Any 14-year period in the candidate’s life would have chronologically taken place before the election, and so if that is what Justice Story meant, then he would not have needed to say that the 14 years had to be before the election. But he did say “before the election” and I contend he said this to emphasize that the 14 years were the 14 years just prior to the election. Just as our Founding Fathers chose their words carefully, so did men like Justice Story, and I doubt he would have unnecessarily added the words “before the election”.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

You said:

"As such, the drafters of the Constitution never intended to create a “SUPER CITIZEN” who was different from a native born citizen. If they had the courts would have recognized three classes of citizens: natural born, native born and naturalized."

First, there is no "super citizen." The Constitution itself in Article II, Clause 1, Section 5says that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, one needs to be a "natural born Citizen," not just a "Citizen of the United States" to be eligible to be President. We have accepted this rule since the creation of our nation. Now to serve your political agenda and to protect Obama, you accuse those of wanting to enforce this constitutional rule of wanting to create a "super citizen."

Second, you are confounding what the Founders and Framers did with what the Court did later in history. For the Founders and Framers, after July 4, 1776, citizens could be made only by birth or naturalization. Birthright citizenship was reserved only to the U.S.-born children of U.S. citizens. All the rest had to naturalize.

It is only in Wong Kim Ark, 111 years later, that the U.S. Supreme Court per Justice Gray, created a born citizen who, while born in the U.S., was not born to U.S. citizen parents and called him a "citizen of the United States.” Note that the Court did not call him a "natural born Citizen."

What is incredible about Wong Kim Ark is that it declared Wong a "citizen of the United States" so that the U.S.-born children of white European aliens could also be citizens like the U.S.-born children of blacks under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal problem for the judicial branch of government was that while the U.S.-born children of blacks were not born subject to any foreign power, those born to alien white Europeans were. Such a policy concern belongs to Congress, not to the judicial branch of government. But that did not stop the Wong Kim Ark Court.

What the Court did to achieve its policy objective was obliterate the significance of the clause "not subject to any foreign power." It did so by focusing our attention on "subject to the jurisdiction" and saying it only meant subject to the laws of the United States. So now the child at birth had to be only subject to the laws of the United States (which occurs automatically from simply being present in its territory) rather than to be born not subject to any foreign power which is what Justice Gray told us was the test for citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins.

So today, we just all make believe that the test for citizenship is just being born in the U.S. and subject to its laws rather than being born in the U.S. and not subject to any foreign power.

But let us not forget that a "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment is not necessarily an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Bob said...

In his commentaries, William Blackstone says this --

“Natural allegiance,” says Blackstone, is “due from all men born within the king’s dominion immediately upon their birth. [It] is a debt of gratitude which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place or circumstance. . . . [T]he natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another put off or discharge his natural allegiance.”

Barack Hussein Obama II has a 'natural allegiance' to Kenya through his father. According to Blackstone, it is not possible to put off, even by 'swearing allegiance to another.'

That is how an Englishman thinks, and the United States went to war with England in 1812 on this very issue, impressing American seaman into the service of His Majesty.

Texoma said...

Atticus Finch is trying to equate the citizenship status of English-born children of alien parents to that of US-born children of alien parents, but that equation cannot be made.

Aliens (aka “alien friends”) in England suspended their home country allegiance and owed a temporary allegiance to the English king. They were expected to take, or at least comply with, the Oath of Allegiance, whereby they promised that, while on English soil, they would "bear faith and true allegiance” to the English king. This temporary allegiance was sufficient for their English-born children to be given subjecthood -- they were called denizens and were deemed to be natural-born subjects by statute. But it was the children of English subjects (persons who were under the “actual obedience” of the King) who were natural-born subjects in fact and not by any law.

In the US, aliens do not suspend their home country allegiance. They are not expected to take, nor at least comply with, any type of Oath of Allegiance until such time as they become citizens (naturalization). While residing in the US, these aliens do not “bear faith and true allegiance” to the US – their faith and true allegiance remains with their home country. Hence, there is no allegiance on the part of aliens residing in the US which would allow their US-born children to be deemed natural born citizens. It is only the US-born children of American citizens (persons who do bear faith and true allegiance to the US and are under the “actual obedience” of the US) who are natural born citizens – citizens at birth in fact by the laws of nature, and not by any law of man.

Puzo1 said...

Be sure to read this excellent article by Dean Haskins entitled, Eligibility: Our Line in the Sand, accessed at http://www.birthersummit.org/news/15-eligibility-our-line-in-the-sand.html

In his article, Mr. Haskins explains that the Obama eligibility constitutional scandal is only a symptom of our corrupt government. He shows how our government leaders have refused to listen to concerned Americans on the question of Obama's eligibility because in the grandeur sense they are only concerned with safeguarding their own lucrative political careers. What Mr. Haskins warns is that these politicians are acting only to protect their self-interest at the expense of the survival of our constitutional republic.

Mr. Haskins proclaims that the Birther Summit is about being American and caring for America's preservation and success. He urges all Americans to join us at the Birther Summit.

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

Your argument is noted. Again, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 does not say "before the election" or any similar limiting language. Also, regarding Justice Story, please note that he applied jus soli citizenship for births after July 4, 1776. See his minority concurring opinion in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830). The majority in Inglis, which included Chief Justice Marshall, disagreed with him. The majority applied Vattel and jus sanguinis.

Also, while I am on the Inglis case, please note that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark totally ignored the majority opinion and cited and quoted Justice Story's minority view which was rejected by the majority.

juniper55 said...

This is the website for Abdul Hassan, the Guyana-born dude who is running for president. His legal filings are linked there. Interesting.

http://www.abdulhassanforpresident.com/

It doesn't say when Hassan became naturalized nor how long he has been in the US.

Here is his work website: http://abdulhassan.com/

here is the FEC link with the Hassan filing seeking clarification.

http://www.fec.gov/press/Press2011/20110715digest.shtml

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"Your argument is noted. Again, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 does not say "before the election" or any similar limiting language. Also, regarding Justice Story, please note that he applied jus soli citizenship for births after July 4, 1776. See his minority concurring opinion in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830). The majority in Inglis, which included Chief Justice Marshall, disagreed with him. The majority applied Vattel and jus sanguinis.

Also, while I am on the Inglis case, please note that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark totally ignored the majority opinion and cited and quoted Justice Story's minority view which was rejected by the majority."


Response:


If Inglis majority holding that a child who was born in the United States was not a United States citizen because of "the condition of his [alien] father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also," then why haven't subsequent court cases followed Inglis' rationale and hold that a child born in the United States to an alien father wasn't a United States citizen?

In fact, Shepardizing Inglis case reviewed that no other court has ever cited Inglis in its holding regarding citizenship of a child born in the United States to alien parents.

On the other hand, there are court opinions that hold that a child born in the United States to alien parents is a United States citizen.

“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.). United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)

“At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)(internal citation omitted)

In Re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905,(1884) Mr. Justice FIELD, in delivering the opinion of the court, in which SAWYER, SABIN, and HOFFMAN concurred, says,(p. 359:) "The inability of persons to become citizens under those laws (of naturalization) in no respect impairs the effect of their birth, or of the birth of their children, upon the status of either, as citizens of the United States." See also Ex Parte Chin King, 35 Fed. Rep. 354 ( Cir. Ct. D. Oregon 1888)

"In fact, it seems to have been the general rule before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment that a person born in this country, though of alien parents who had never been naturalized, is deemed to be a citizen under the laws of the United States. Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 639. Stadtler v. School District 71 Minn 311,318 , 73 N.W. 956 (Minn. 1898)

19th century legal scholars/commentators noted:

The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties, with regard to this country, which do not attach to the father. Alexander Porter Morse “A Treatise on Citizenship, by Birth and by Naturalization”(1881) page 241

Children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States. 10 Op., 328, Bates, 1862. See U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S., 28.Francis Wharton,“Digest of International Law of the United States”, Vol 2(1887) page 402

As such, the hold in Inglis regarding the status of a child born in the United States to an alien father has never been cited with approval by any subsequent court cases either in the federal or state level.

paraleaglenm said...

Those American lawyers and jurists who 'worship' English law's jus soli in their analysis of U.S. citizenship at birth completely ignore the whole of British law, and the discrimination by the states and supreme courts of which English laws and statutes had 'force of law.'

English law (1772 British Nationality Act) made natural born subjects of British children born outside of the 'king's dominion.'

The two types of natural born subjects are described in British law as citizens 'by descent,' and 'otherwise than by descent.' Note that the latter categorizes jus soli birthright with naturalized citizens.

It is curious, if not revolting, that a jurist such as J. Gray would invoke English law based on an inferior authority, such as Coke, Blackstone, or dissenting opinions . . . even ignoring his own stare decisis in Elk vs Wilkins . . . to force jus soli on U.S. law in violation of both Art. I, Sec. 8 and 14th Amend., Sec. 5.

Those who invoke jus soli are ignorant of the law holistically, and are dangerous lawmakers . . . as is clearly evident in the fruits of their error.

Puzo1 said...

It looks like the registrar who allegedly signed Obama's birth certificate has been identified. A "crack researcher/commenter at WTPOTUS" has solved the mystery. Her name is Verna K. L. Lee, not "U K L Lee." See the full story here:

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/1961-hawaii-department-of-health-registrar-identified/

Now we just have to make sure that Mrs. Lee really signed an Obama paper, long-form Certificate of Live Birth rather than someone just borrowing her signature from some other real birth certificate and electronically inserting it into a manufactured electronic image of the long-form Certificate of Live Birth that Obama release on the intenet on April 27, 2011.

Texoma said...

Mario,

Thanks again, and your point about Justice Story is well-noted. However, I do think he understood what was meant about the 14-year residency.

You mentioned that the 14-year residency could even have been the first 14 years of a candidate’s life. But from what Justice Story wrote at the end of his commentary, we can at least rule out that the 14 years were during the candidate’s childhood (the years prior to the age of majority):

“…No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility.”

Here he is clearly referring to an adult, someone who could be “abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation”, and he gives an example of someone who is “a military or civil officer”.

Note also that he refers to the War of 1812 (“Canada during the late war”), which ended in 1815, and how a candidate could have lost his eligibility. If you add 14 years to 1814 you arrive at 1828, which would have been a recent election at the time that Justice Story wrote his commentaries. This timing certainly supports my contention that the 14-year residency is the 14 years just prior to a presidential election.

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

Showing that certain events should not cause one to be disqualified under the 14-year residency rule does not prove when those 14 years should run. War was a very likely event in the early 19th century and it is reasonable that Justice Story would have written that being away at war defending your nation should not cause one to be disqualified from being eligible to be President.

But none of that necessarily proves that the 14 years were the last as opposed to the first or any 14 years for that matter.

Again, the polestar in Constitutional interpretation is the text. The clause simply does not say which 14 years and going by the word of Justice Story alone, which is not supported by the text at all, is tenuous.

Nicletour said...

Read the darned ruling! Minor vs. Happersett never says that both parents must be citizens. It simply says that if both parents are citizens then there is no doubt that the child is born a citizen.

President Obama is a natural-born US citizen by virtue of two characteristics of his birth -- either of which would confer "natural-born citizenship." (1) He was born in the U.S. (2) He was born to a US citizen parent.

The ruling also states "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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." The ruling is clearly stating here that it is not intended to address the issue of children born in the US without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Mick said...

Nicletour said...
"Read the darned ruling! Minor vs. Happersett never says that both parents must be citizens. It simply says that if both parents are citizens then there is no doubt that the child is born a citizen."



And you would be wrong obfuscator. It says that there is NO DOUBT that the child is a natural born Citizen, not "born a citizen".


Nicletour said,

"President Obama is a natural-born US citizen by virtue of two characteristics of his birth -- either of which would confer "natural-born citizenship." (1) He was born in the U.S. (2) He was born to a US citizen parent. "



Such nonsense. So birth abroad to 1 US Citizen and i alien equals natural born Citizen? See that's where your "born a Citizen equals natural born Citizen" goes WAY off the track.
Nice to see the desperation of the Obama Internet Operatives though.

jayjay said...

Nicletour:

Your "reading memory" seems both very brief and very selective. Your understanding of what the stare decisis states is gravely flawed AND incorrect.

Read the darned ruling again yourself ... and this time read more than just the phrase as you wish it to be. It goes on to say that those with 2 US parents are natural born citizens.

Go peddle the misinformation elsewhere.

Puzo1 said...

Nicletour,

Read the darn Constitution!

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides for "natural born Citizen" and "citizen." These are separate and distinct terms which must be given their own meaning. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be President. Hence, the issue with Obama is whether he is a "natural born Citizen," not a "citizen."

Your argument that the Minor Court did not provide a definitive definition of a "natural born Citizen" has no merit. The "natural born Citizen" clause is a constitutional eligibility clause which had and continuous to have a specific meaning. The idiomatic clause is a word of art which must have a special meaning in order for eligibility to be certain. Given that it is an eligibility clause, it has specific parameters like the other requirements of eligibility, i.e., 35 years old and 14 years a resident.

The U.S. Supreme Court has always defined a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in the country to citizen parents. It has never given any other definition. This American common law definition was confirmed in Minor which dealt with the citizenship issue head on in order to determine whether Mrs. Minor had the privilege to vote as a “citizen of the United States” under the Constitution.

Also, Minor did not resolve the question of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents is a “citizen.” But the Minor Court explained that it knew what a “natural born Citizen” was. The Court had no doubts about that definition. It defined the term under natural law and the law of nations as codified by Vattel in Sec. 212 of The Law of Nations. In fact, the Court took Vattel’s definition almost word for word. Including in the definition of a “natural born Citizen” a reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents, the Court clearly did not rely upon the English common law. What it did not decide and did not need to decide was the question of what is a “citizen.” Since Virginia Minor was a “native” or “natural born Citizen,” there was no need for the Minor Court to address that issue and left it open to another day. This question of what is a “citizen” was addressed and answered in Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

I challenge you to provide me with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that defines a “natural born Citizen,” not a “citizen,” in any way other than a child born in the country to citizen parents. And please do not tell me that a “citizen” is the same as a “natural born Citizen,” for as I have explained above, Article II distinguishes between the two terms in a critical way.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"And please do not tell me that a “citizen” is the same as a “natural born Citizen,” for as I have explained above, Article II distinguishes between the two terms in a critical way."

Response:

Natural born citizen is a subset of the term citizen. Courts have informed us that there are ONLY two classes of citizens: native born citizens and foreign born (naturalized) citizens. Faruki v. Rogers, 349 F. Supp. 723, 730 D.D.C. 1972)("Our conclusion that classifications between native-born and foreign-born citizens warrant strict scrutiny is not disturbed by the Constitution's inclusion of durational citizenship requirements for senators and representatives.")
See also Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211(10th Cir. 1951)("There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.")



The difference between a native born citizen and a naturalized citizen is that the former is eligible to be president under Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution. "Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens. All alike owe allegiance to the Government, and the Government owes to them the duty of protection."United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)
See also Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)("We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1")

Justice Frankfurter in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)observed: "Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency."

The Supreme Court in Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654,658 (1946) noted " Citizenship obtained through natuvalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained BY BIRTH in this country "save that of eligibility to the Presidency." (emphasis added). Noted that court didn't mention by birth of parent citizens but only by birth in this country.

Finally, the court in Fernandez v. State of Ga., 716 F. Supp. 1475, 1279 (M.D. Ga 1989) made this distinction between naturalized citizens and native born citizens when it stated: "The only distinction drawn by the Constitution is that only native-born citizens are eligible to be President."

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

None of the cases you cite really analyzed the historical development of the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." It is evident that the courts confuse the terms "natural born Citizen," "native," and native-born citizen."

Under natural law and the law of nations a "native" and "natural born citizen" meant the same thing. Think of the "native" American Indians. You cannot get more "natural born" than that. Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus confirmed that “native” and indigenes (later translated to “natural-born citizen”) were of equivalent meaning. In Minor v. Happersett, the Court used “native” and a “natural born Citizen” interchangeably, first saying she was a “native” and then later finding that she was a “natural-born citizen.” Id. at 163 and 167-68. So under the old and correct definition of “native,” it is correct to say that there are only two types of citizens: (1) “native” or “natural born Citizen” and (2) naturalized.

The confusion occurs later on. Through historical development and to show that a "citizen of the United States" was born in the U.S. and was not a naturalized citizen after birth, we adopted the expression "native born citizen." Under this expansive definition of U.S. citizenship, a child could be born in the U.S. to alien domiciled parents and be a “native born citizen.” See U.S. Wong Kim Ark (1898). But by definition we can see that a "native born citizen" is not a "native," for a “native,” like “natural born Citizen,” is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

The Framers wrote a constitution. Each word they selected was critical to its meaning. They chose their words very carefully and wisely. They chose “natural born Citizen,” not “native born citizen.” They probably chose “natural born Citizen” so as to avoid the confusion regarding the use of the word “native” or “native-born citizen.”

Finally, you do not amend the Constitution by changing the meaning of “natural born Citizen” by giving a certain status to someone which does not equate with the status of “natural born Citizen, ” calling that status “native-born citizen,” and then saying that “native-born citizen” is the equivalent to “natural born Citizen.”

Texoma said...

Mario,

There was one part of my argument, which you did not address, which I believe is the strongest, given that it is based upon word usage from the Constitution: the use of the words “and been” for the citizenship requirements for Representative and Senator, which are the same words used for the residency requirement of the President.

If the phrase “and been fourteen years a resident …” is to be construed as being any 14-year period in the candidate’s life, then the phrases “and been seven years a citizen …” and “and been nine years a citizen …” must also be construed as being any 7 or 9-year period in the candidate’s life. If that were the case, then are we to believe that a 60-year old candidate, who naturalizes at age 21, expatriates at age 30, lives abroad for 30 years, returns to the US, becomes naturalized one day before the election, would be eligible for either the House or the Senate? This person would have been a foreigner for 51 of his 60 years, including the last 30 years.

Surely, the Founding Fathers meant that a Representative or a Senator had to have been a citizen for the last 7 or 9 years preceding the election. They used the words “and been” to express this, and they used the same words to express that the 14-year residency of the President was the 14 years preceding the election. And note that the requirements for Representative and Senator (Article I Sections 2 and 3) were written before those of the President (Article II Section 1). After having used the words “and been” for the Representatives and Senators, they used the same words for the President.

phil stone said...

I am sure that Obama is not a natural born citizen due to his British father and has dual citizenship - thus not eligible to be president. The obvious typography discrepancies found in his latest created birth certificate cause only one conclusion - FORGERY. We need a presidential candidate who will at least talk about eligibility - not another wallowing in the trough career politician who will not fully investigate the Obama administration's transgressions.

paraleaglenm said...

It a useless practice, a futile exercise, quoting American jurists. Their opinions are myopic and tunnel-visioned due to a misplaced love for English common law.

From our nation's very beginning, English precedent and statutes were limited in their 'force of law' by the following: 1) their dispositive value pari materia, and; 2) statutes formally listed by the state supreme courts as authoritative, and; 3) not in conflict with Congressional legislated acts.

It is true, and we can safely stipulate, that the American colonies relied solely on jus soli from the English common law. However, once the colonies became states of a constitutional republic, their jurisdiction extended fully over their citizens as determined solely by Congressional legislated act, e.g., the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790, as authorized by U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8.

Only the most biased and disingenous judge could interpret any reliance on jus solis in the 1790 Act, et seq. Per Dr. Ramsay's petition in the eligibility case of Mr. Smith (1789), and his Dissertation on the same subject of citizenship, the congress was relying on jus sanguinis and Emer. de Vattel's scholary treatise on citizenship within the principles and laws of nations.

In addition, none of the jurists, or scholars (except a very brief mention by Blackstone) mentioned that England relied heavily on jus sanguinis, the right of its subjects to confer natural born citizenship upon their children, whether born within, or outside the British dominions.

In fact, natural born citizenship was called 'otherwise than by descent,' suggesting that 'descent' was the primary 'principle' of citizenship, not 'place of birth' as suggested by Madison in the Smith case.

thalightguy said...

Isn't it funny how all of Congress say that they believe Obama is a natural born citizen without giving any information as to how they came to that conclusion.

It's just like when the people in charge back in the Fifteenth Century told Columbus that the World was Flat.

Just because you have been told something your entire life doesn't make it true.

paraleaglenm said...

@ thalightguy

Because of lack of due diligence, simple minds, and the perfidious holding of Wong Kim Ark, most U.S. citizens assume mere birth in the U.S. automatically makes one a citizen, and that such a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen.

Stranger things have happened. Billions on this planet think a murderous rapist, thief, and pathological liar is a greater 'prophet' than Jesus Christ.

Kudos to Herman Cain.

Patrick said...

I wouldn't expect you to reply to this comment, or even allow it to remain, because birthers are, first and foremost, unrepentant liars.

But you claim, "In other words, 'natural born Citizen' under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil."

It's very interesting to note that birthers who cite this rule will, as you did, claim that the only way you can be a natural born citizen is to be born in the U.S. of two citizen parents. But what birthers -- even lawyers, such as yourself, who should know better -- don't seem to want people to read what's in the very next paragraph.

"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens."

Note that last portion that I bolded, which clearly states that children born "beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural born citizens."

Clearly, being born in the U.S. to citizens is not the only way to "natural born citizenship."

So, my question for you is simple: Why did you lie just now when you claimed that you had to be born in the U.S. to citizen parents to be considered natural born?

For it is plain your statement is false. Whether you, as an attorney, are too stupid to read an entire ruling before weighing in on it and somehow missed this portion, or you actually knew it was there and didn't want people to see it is immaterial. It's plain that your statement is false, and I want to know why you made it.

Bob said...

Patrick --

The simple answer is history. Actually, Congress repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it, when it occurred to them that by using the term 'natural born citizen' in its legislation adopted under its 'naturalization' authority granted under Article I, would require a Constitutional amendment.

Further, Thomas Jefferson and his followers strongly objected to this liberalization of 'naturalization,' and among the famous Alien and Sedition Acts brought about by a huge influx of refugees from Revolutionary France, he adopted such tight restrictions that the same children called 'natural born citizens' by George Washington, were considered 'aliens' under Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson's law was in effect until 1855, when it was repealed and replaced.

So, that matter is not as simple as you want to declare it to be.

If the Framers were writing today, they may have used the term 'second-generation Citizen' to define what they meant by 'natural-born Citizen,' but even that definition has problems, too.

What we know, bottom line, Barack Hussein Obama, II was born British, and he has failed to prove that he has ANY claim to U.S. Citizenship whatsoever.

Bob said...

Patrick --

Did you know about this? During a visit to Russia with Senator Lugar,

'Russian authorities detained Obama and Lugar, threatened to search their plane, and examined their passports. Strangely, an official report from Lugar’s office about the trip ignored the incident.'

During that visit to Russia, it was ONLY Obama who was detained (not Lugar) and the United States State Department had to intervene.

He was interviewed for hours by the KGB about his PASSPORT!

How many United States Senators do you know who have been held by the Russians and examined about their PASSPORT? Any?

Remember, when the Russians were in Afghanistan, Obama was in Pakistan (not possible with a U.S. Passport at the time).

Senator Lugar has been unwilling to discuss this incident, ever!

This is the kind of thing I think the Framers of the U.S. Constitution thought it would be best to avoid with their language that the Commander-in-Chief be a 'natural-born Citizen.'

Puzo1 said...

Patrick,

A "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents. See, among other places:

(1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: “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.’”

(2) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, stated: “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. . . .” It should be noted that Justice Daniel took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively.

(3) Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment stated Vattel’s definition thus: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). Bingham had stated the same thing in 1862.

(4) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): Providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

"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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never provided a definition of a “natural born Citizen” other than this one.

As Bob said, the Naturalization Act of 1790 Act was repealed by that of 1795.

Bob said...

Patrick --

One final point, and it is linguistic --

In 1790, under President Washington, when children of American citizens were born 'beyond the sea' they were ‘considered as’ (meaning: ‘NOT, but JUST LIKE’) ‘natural-born CITIZENS:’ “and the children of CITIZENS of the United States that are born beyond sea (nati ultra mare), or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as ‘natural-born CITIZENS’”

We use 'considered as' differently from 1790 -- we mean 'exactly the same,' but they meant 'just like.'

You see they were different from 'natural-born CITIZENS' because there was a 'residency' required (only 2-years), exactly the same residency requirement that was required of 'naturalized CITIZENS.' So, you see, they were not exactly the same as 'natural-born CITIZENS,' for whom no 'residency' was ever required.

This good feeling of the first years following independence did not last long.

Newcomers fleeing from the French Revolution were arriving with hereditary titles. America was a ‘melting pot,’ and citizenship was NOT 'hereditary,' at least in the eyes of Thomas Jefferson.

Therefore, after April 15, 1802, unless you were ‘domestic-born,’ that is, ‘born on American soil and a CITIZEN of any one of the said states, you were required to meet the same 5-year residency the ‘Naturalization Laws’ required (lowered from 14-years in 1798), whether your parents were Americans or not.

This was the Law for more than fifty (50) years.

Simplified: “Born here, you’re in; born there, you’re out!”

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:
"3) Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment stated Vattel’s definition thus: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). Bingham had stated the same thing in 1862."

Response:

During the congressional debates of the drafting of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 the following language was discussed:

"That all 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;"

In these debates various Senators and Congressmen observed that United States citizenship was based on being born in the United States and not on the status of the father's citizenship.

Below is an exchange between Senator Cowan and Senator Trumbull on January 30, 1866:

Senator Cowan: I will ask whether it [Civil Rights Act of 1866] will not have the effect of naturalizing children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this Country?
Senator Trumbull: Undoubtedly

Senator Trumbull later stated: "I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time."
Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)


In President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 he objected on the ground that the Act would make citizens of the United States to Chinese and Gypsies:

"This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks.… Every individual of these races born in the United States is by the bill made a citizen."

As such, members of Congress acknowledged the common law rule that a United States citizen is a person born in the United States when they enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Texoma said...

I contend that the reason why the words “natural born” were removed from the phrase “natural born citizens” in the 1795 Naturalization Act is because the 1790 Naturalization Act was just that: a naturalization act.

A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth by the laws of nature and not by any human law, and a naturalization act is a human law. Hence, the inclusion of natural born citizens in a naturalization act has the effect of establishing a natural born citizen by a law of man. A natural born citizen is already a citizen at birth (by the laws of nature) and needs no human law to establish that fact, as was the case with Virginia Minor.

I contend that our Founding Fathers realized that, in addition to getting the definition of “natural born citizen” wrong in the 1790 act, they had established a natural born citizen by human law, and quietly corrected this mistake in the 1795 act. They understood that the foreign-born children of US citizens were not natural born citizens, but that they would be naturalized US citizens at birth – naturalized at birth by a human law.

Texoma said...

I contend that the reason why the words “natural born” were removed from the phrase “natural born citizens” in the 1795 Naturalization Act is because the 1790 Naturalization Act was just that: a naturalization act.

A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth by the laws of nature and not by any human law, and a naturalization act is a human law. Hence, the inclusion of natural born citizens in a naturalization act has the effect of establishing a natural born citizen by a law of man. A natural born citizen is already a citizen at birth (by the laws of nature) and needs no human law to establish that fact, as was the case with Virginia Minor.

I contend that our Founding Fathers realized that, in addition to getting the definition of “natural born citizen” wrong in the 1790 act, they had established a natural born citizen by human law, and quietly corrected this mistake in the 1795 act. They understood that the foreign-born children of US citizens were not natural born citizens, but that they would be naturalized US citizens at birth – naturalized at birth by a human law.

Puzo1 said...

Bob,

Regarding the Naturalization Act of 1790, "shall be considered as" was language typically used in naturalization acts. See Timothy Cunningham, A New and Complete Law-Dictionary, Or, General Abridgment of the Law (1783). Hence, these children nati ultra mare were being naturalized by this naturalization act, to be as "natural born Citizens." Since they were naturalized by law, they were not in fact "natural born Citizens."

You also said: "Simplified: 'Born here, you’re in; born there, you’re out!'” I am not sure what you mean by this statement. Being born in the US was not sufficient to confer U.S. citizenship on anyone. One had to be born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents in order to be conferred birthright citizenship. This rule changed with Wong Kim Ark which allowed a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents to be an Article II and Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States," not to be confused with an Article II "natural born Citizen" which continued to require and still today requires birth in the U.S. to citizen parents.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

You fail or refuse to recognize that our original Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, treaties, and the U.S. Supreme Court have always made a distinction between a "natural born Citizen" and a "citizen of the United States." Simply stated, a "natural born Citizen" is one born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. "Citizens of the United States" include every class of citizens, including the "natural born Citizens." All "natural born Citizens" are "citizens of the United States." Not all "citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens."

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

I have written extensively on the concept of naturalized at birth by positive law and therefore we both agree on the concept. I have also argued that if Obama were born in Hawaii, not being a "natural born Citizen" because of reportedly not being born to U.S. citizen parents, he would be naturalized at birth under the 14th Amendment. We can therefore call Obama a "naturalized born Citizen" of the United States." We cannot call him a "natural born Citizen" of the United States.

As to why the First Congress used the term "natural born citizen" rather than just "citizen of the United States" is not an easy question to answer. In any event, we know that Congress does not have the power to define any clause in the Constitution and that the 1790 Act was a naturalization act and nothing more. Whatever the reason may be for what the First Congress did and there may be several, the Third Congress made the right decision when it removed "natural born Citizen" and replaced it with "citizen of the United States."

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote: "All "natural born Citizens" are "citizens of the United States." Not all "citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens."

Response:

I agree that all natural born citizens are citizens of the United States; however, not all citizens are natural born citizens since the term citizens encompassed both natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote: "We can therefore call Obama a "naturalized born Citizen" of the United States." We cannot call him a "natural born Citizen" of the United States."

Response: "naturalized born citizen"? that is a novelty legal concept that I have never heard of. Isn't it a oxymoron? I mean how can a person be naturalized under the same jurisdiction that he was born under?

So, it is my understanding that under your concept of citizenship we have four classes of citizens:

native born citizen
natural born citizen
naturalized born citizen
naturalized citizen

How can all the justices and legal scholars since the ratification of the 14th Amendment missed this additional class of citizens: naturalized born citizen?

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:"Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment stated Vattel’s definition thus: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). Bingham had stated the same thing in 1862."

Response:

Bingham's personal opinion about the language in the 1866 Civil Rights Act is irrelevant.

Courts have held that opinions by individual legislators during debates are not appropriate source as to the meaning of the language of the statute.

"While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body." Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904) (internal citation omitted)

"It is not our purpose to relax the rule that debates in Congress are not appropriate or even reliable guides to the meaning of the language of an enactment." United States v. St. Paul, M. & MR Co., 247 US 310, 318 (1918)

"The arguments of individual legislators are no proper subject for judicial comment. They are so often influenced by personal or political considerations, or by the assumed necessities of the situation, that they can hardly be considered even as the deliberate views of the persons who make them, much less as dictating the construction to be put upon the Constitution by the courts."
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 US 244, 254 (1901)

Here is my favorite quote from your hero Justice Scalia:

"We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself . . . ." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history. . . .
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends." Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)

jayjay said...

atticus finch:

What part of "duh" do you not understand???

bdwilcox said...

Atticus,

You forgot one: "Professor Fairman’s 'history' relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means." (Justice Hugo Black, from his concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 [1968])

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch at 7-23-2011, at 9:19 p.m.,

Naturalization at birth has been with us since before the creation of the new Republic. Consider this:

1. “Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right, since the descent of the Crown of England.” Id. at 142. Sir Edward Coke, The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke, ed. Steve Sheppard (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003). Vol. 1. Chapter: Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati at 142. This does not even include all the colonial era British naturalization statutes that made "natural born subjects" of person from birth whom otherwise would not have been under the English common law.

2. The Founders and Framers used "natural born" Citizen and not just "born" Citizen. Hence, they knew that one could be a "born" Citizen but not necessarily a "natural born" Citizen. Under the Constitution, there are only "natural born Citizens" and naturalized Citizens. You have conceded this point. Hence, if one is a "born" Citizen but not a "natural born" Citizen, then a fortiori one must be a "naturalized born" Citizen.

3. The Founders and Framers gave Congress power to naturalize persons to be citizens "at birth." Congress first used this power in 1790 and has continued to use this naturalization power to the present by creating "ciitzens of the United States" "at birth." See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq. Congress also used this same naturalization power in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which it then constitutionalized by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei clearly recognized naturalization at birth. Also, in Rogers v. Bellei, J. Black dissenting, said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization." Id. at 814.

5. Pinckney G. McElwee explained: “[T]he fact remains that the genuine ‘natural born’ citizens were the ‘native-born’ citizens. It was this genuine ‘native-born’ citizen (rather than one who was not, but by Act of Parliament was ‘deemed’ to be) to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term “natural-born citizens” as one of the qualifications for the President.” Pinckney G. McElwee, “Natural Born Citizen,” Congressional Record-House 15876, June 14, 1967. Here too, we can see how McElwee distinguished between a person who was a genuine “natural born” citizen and one who at birth was only “deemed” to be. This distinction can be explained only by concluding that the former was a “natural born Citizen” and the latter a “naturalized born citizen.”

This is just some evidence that shows that we have in our national culture a citizen that is naturalized at birth. That no one in recent times has recognized this reality does not mean that it does not exist.

The “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to a U.S. citizen father and mother. All other U.S. citizens are “citizens of the United States,” but not “natural born Citizens.” See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212-217, as confirmed by several U.S. Supreme Court cases and other historical figures.

Hence, any one who gains the national character of "citizen of the United States" "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress who cannot show that he or she is a "natural born Citizen" under natural law, i.e., that he or she was born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to U.S. citizen parents, is necessarily at best a "naturalized born” “citizen of the United States" and not a "natural born” “citizen of the United States."

What this means is that in our nation we have “citizens of the United States.” Of these, the great majority are “natural born Citizens.” The rest are just “citizens of the United States” who are either naturalized “at birth” or after birth.

Bob said...

Mario --

I agree with your remarks, but was pointing out that the Framers read Greek, Latin, and used the English of the King James Bible.

Therefore, when knowing how the King James Bible translated a phrase in Greek lends clarity to what the Framers meant when they wrote the Constitution, language which is preserved to this day.

Also, it helps to know how the Vulgate translated Greek or Hebrew to understand how Emer. de Vattel wrote in French. By knowing that, it is possible to see where he used 5 books of Moses.

This may have been one of the reasons that the Framers used Emer. de Vattel, because he was a Swiss Republican, and they were entirely conversant with his way of thinking.

The phrase I used was a simplification of the arguments of James Madison, who used 'residency' as a substitute for 'soil,' when a citizen was born across the sea.

By the way, the whole of Dred Scott's argument was based on 'soil.' So, I think you are understating the importance of jus soli to the Framers.

Jefferson and Madison both certainly would not agree with you, but many New Yorkers and New Englanders (like Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies) would agree with you.

One or the other is just not that clear, as can be seen in the Federalist Papers.

Therefore, the real answer is the chart you have shown, which includes both jus soli and jus snaguinis in the definition of a 'natural bon CITIZEN.'

Puzo1 said...

Bob,

I do not understand your point. Maybe you can explain how I am "understating the importance of jus soli to the Framers."

Also, you said: "Jefferson and Madison both certainly would not agree with you, but many New Yorkers and New Englanders (like Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies) would agree with you." Please show me regarding what Jefferson and Madison certainly would not agree with me.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:"4. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei clearly recognized naturalization at birth. Also, in Rogers v. Bellei, J. Black dissenting, said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization." Id. at 814.(sic)(841)

Response: Your quote from Justice Black's dissent left out the prior passage in which he stated:
"The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship OTHER THAN BIRTH IN THIS COUNTRY. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization" id at 841
(emphasis added)

In reading the complete quote from Justice Black he is saying that to acquire citizensip by naturalization is dependent upon Congress other than birth in this country.

In other words birth in this country is not subject to naturalization laws of Congress.

As such, there is no such legal term as "naturalized born citizen" if the child is born in the United States.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote: ". U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark . . .clearly recognized naturalization at birth."

Response:

A review of the Wong Kim Ark case doesn't revealed that the court recognized "naturalization at birth.

On the contrary, the Wong Kim Ark
court held that there are only two sources of citizenship: Birth and naturalization. There is no hybrid third source called "naturalized born". "The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution." United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).

Furthermore, no one was naturalized at birth at the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was the codification of the Jus Soli doctrine that existed even before the ratification of the Constitution. "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." Rogers v. Belli, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971)

"An alien domiciled in England owes temporary allegiance in return for protection afforded him and, hence, his child born in England is born in the allegiance of the crown which allegiance, in the child's case, is permanent. Such was the law of the colonies and the law of the United States down to the 14th amendment; and such is still the law here and in England. . . ..The 14th amendment affirms the common-law rule that citizenship follows birth. An alien owes allegiance to the United States while domiciled here, and his children born here are born in the United States and under its jurisdiction. Such allegiance is but local and temporary; still it is strong enough to confer citizenship on his children born here. Samuel Fox Mordecai, Dean of the Law School, Trinity College. “Law Notes –Brief Summaries of the Law (1911) page 167

Texoma said...

This is how I break down the two classes of citizens (natural born and naturalized):

1) Citizens by Natural Law (Natural Born Citizens):

Born in the US.

Born to US citizen parents.

2) Citizens Naturalized by Man-made (positive) Law:

a) Original citizen - Naturalized by the adoption of the US Constitution.

b) Foreign-born to foreign citizen parents - Naturalized as an adult by naturalization laws.

c) US-born to foreign citizen parents - Naturalized at birth per the 14th Amendment.

d) Foreign-born to US citizen parents - Naturalized at birth per Title 8 Section 1401 (federal statute).

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

So first you said there was no such thing as naturalization at birth, that it was an oxymoron. Now you have adjusted your argument in light of my response. I take it that you have conceded that there is naturalization at birth for those born out of the United States who are made “citizens of the United States” “at birth.” Now you say there is no such thing as naturalization at birth for one born in the United States.

The Founders and Framers were well aware of naturalization at birth occurring for some persons born in the territory of a nation. In defining naturalization, Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite publicist, explained in Section 214 of The Law of Nations: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Vattel informed that the children born in England to alien parents were naturalized at birth by the mere circumstance of being born in British territory.

Many Founders and Framers sat in the First Congress. That First Congress passed the 1790 Naturalization Act which reveals that a child born in the United States to alien parents had to naturalize. This rule followed what Vattel wrote in Section 214. This same rule was also adopted by Jefferson who wrote the citizenship laws of Virginia, laws that based citizenship in Virginia for children on jus sanguinis. This rule was passed down through all the subsequent naturalization acts and was not changed until the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Remember that the United States argued in Wong Kim Ark that Wong, who was born in the United States, was an alien because, notwithstanding his birth in the United States, he was born to alien parents.

We know that the Fourteenth Amendment makes a person born in the United States and “subject to its jurisdiction” a “citizen of the United States.” This amendment replaced the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which Congress passed under its naturalization powers and which applied to person born in the United States. But Congress has also passed an act under its naturalization powers which mimics the Fourteenth Amendment. See 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a). Why would Congress again pass such an act under its naturalization powers concerning the citizenship status of a person born in the United States? The passage of such acts by Congress can only mean that it believes that it can exert its naturalization powers over persons born in the United States.

The misunderstanding regarding naturalization "at birth" is created with the different procedures existing for those who are naturalized “at birth” and those who are naturalized after birth. For those naturalized “at birth,” there is no need for any other Congressional Act to naturalize the person. There is no need for the person to do anything else in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” Their mere birth in the United States automatically naturalizes these persons at birth. See Vattel, Section 214. The naturalization is not subject to later revocation should it have been procured by fraud. While we do not explicitly say that the person was naturalized, in effect the person was naturalized because the person is a “citizen of the United States” but not a “natural born Citizen.” Because these persons do not have to do anything to be a United States citizen after birth, we do not view these persons as having been naturalized.

With those naturalized after birth, they have to satisfy all the requirements of a Congressional Act of naturalization or even a treaty. Naturalization is always subject to revocation in the event it was procured by fraud. For these persons, we explicitly say that they have to naturalize under a Congressional Act or treaty in order to become “citizens of the United States.” But regardless of how we view these two different classes of citizens, by law they are both naturalized, one “at birth” and one after birth.

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote:"That First Congress passed the 1790 Naturalization Act which reveals that a child born in the United States to alien parents had to naturalize. This rule followed what Vattel wrote in Section 214. This same rule was also adopted by Jefferson who wrote the citizenship laws of Virginia, laws that based citizenship in Virginia for children on jus sanguinis."

Response:

The Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Acts regarding children of naturalized persons was only applicable to FOREIGN BORN CHILDREN OF THESE PERSONS NOT NATIVE BORN CHILDREN.

Case law supports this application.

"A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1." In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)


“As respects the two children who were born in this country while their parents were resident and permanently domiciled here, the decision of the supreme court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U. S. 649, 693, 704, 18 Sup. Ct. 456, seems to me not distinguishable from the present; and I must therefore hold that these children, being citizens of the United States and not aliens, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the immigration officers under the statute upon which they have been excluded.”
In Re Giovanna, 93 Fed. 659, 660 (District Court, SD NY 1899)



The Act of April 14, 1802, was made applicable to children born WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES of alien parents, provided such parents became naturalized during the minority of such child and further provided that citizenship should begin at the time such minor begins to reside permanently in the United States. United States v. Karnuth, 19 F. Supp. 581, 582 (WD NY 1937)(emphasis added)

Revised Statutes of 1874, § 1993. The law was enacted in response to scholarly concerns that its predecessor statute granted citizenship to only the FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN of persons who were U.S. citizens on or before April 14, 1802, and not to foreigners whose parents had become citizens after that date. Aguayo v. Christopher, 865 F. Supp. 479, 481 (ND Il 1994)(emphasis added)

As for Jefferson's 1779 Citizenship Bill for the State of Virginia, the relevant passage of the Bill as set forth below:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN WITHIN the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens."
(emphasis added)

In reading this Bill it is clear that WHITE PERSONS BORN in Virginia were citizens regardless as to the status of their parents and that INFANTS WHERESOEVER BORN
whose father who is living were deemed citizens also.

In other words, if a white infant was born in Virginia he or she was a citizen of Virginia. Infants other than those white infants born in Virginia would be entitled to be citizens whose father was living.

Any other construction of this bill would rendered the phrase
WHITE PERSONS BORN meaningless since it is obvious that Jefferson
understood the Jus Soli doctrine when studied to be a lawyer.

paraleaglenm said...

@ Apuzzo

If one considers the British term of art, 'citizenship by descent,' both parents must be British subjects.

The other type of citizens are those of 'citizenship otherwise than by descent.' Isn't it curious that such citizens include both naturalized, and jus soli citizenships at birth.

One may continue your reasoning that Obama was a U.S. citizen by force of positive law, i.e., naturalization act, and therefore NOT a natural born but, rather, a naturalized citizen.

If one studies Scotland becoming part of Great Britain, Scots born from tht time onward were British citizens at birth, but also remained allegiant to Scotland as their homeland. It was a dual allegiance of sorts, and understandable.

The American colonies were just the opposite; conversely, they threw off English rule and created a constitutional republic.

As Blackstone opined, the natural forces of allegiance of a helpless child to a King's protection no longer applied once legislated act, i.e., the 1790 Act, adopted jus sanguinis.

Jurists who worship jus soli, forcing it to fit into our law by any means possible, did not do their due diligence, and their worship of Wm Blackstone was tainted by not considering the full effect of his writings, in sufficient detail, and his being, after all, a Tory loyalist, not a U.S. citizen.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

You do not cite any pre-Wong Kim Ark Case which supports your position. I did say that our courts gave a different interpretation to our naturalization statutes after Wong Kim Ark. What you need to prove is that I am wrong in the pre-Wong Kim Ark period. Also, remember that I maintain that Wong Kim Ark only affected the status of a "citizen," not a "natural born Citizen."

On Jefferson's 1779 Citizenship Law for the Commonwealth of Virginia, I do not agree with your interpretation. As we can see from reading the statute, the statute has two groups of people, "white persons" and "infants." If one was not an “infant,” then the rule for "white persons" applied. If one was an “infant,” then the rule for "infants" applied. Also, "wheresoever" means anywhere in the world, including Virginia. Hence, jus soli citizenship only applied to “white persons,” i.e., those persons who were already born and were white adults. For those who were minors or to be born, they had to have a father or mother (if the father was dead) who was a citizen in order to be a citizen of Virginia. Note also that the adult had to be white but the infant did not. This follows from the natural law and law of nations rule that an infant followed the condition of his or her parents. Hence, there was no need for Jefferson to say that “infants” also had to be white like the parents had to be.

Reading the statute the way you do would not make sense, for “persons” would have to be white but infants would not. And it would not make even more sense given that you contend only “infants” born out of Virginia would not have to be white but those born in Virginia would have to be. The Jefferson scheme, other than the racial requirement, followed the same logic as the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

juniper55 said...

Answer to Bob who posted July 22,

Regarding Lugar/Obama trip to Russia: much as I dislike Obama I regret to say that in this case I don't think there is anything here to the conspiracy about Obama being singled out over everybody else in the travelling delegation because of his passport - at least, I can't find any credible evidence to that effect.

I certainly don't think a guy like Obama would be a spy for anyone, least of all the British - well, maybe for George Soros. O is the kind who employs spies, not the other way around. Personally I think he was just happy to get a chance to visit the country his grandparents and Frank Marshall Davis held in such high regard. "Hoosier Daddy" is fun and prophetic. Contemporary sources of the time in question follow:

Lugar delegation detained
http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/nuke_industry/co-operation/39511

US senators detained
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-08-29-senatorsrussiaapology_x.htm

Excerpt from "Jet" magazine
http://books.google.com/books?id=cLUDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=lugar+obama+detained+in+russia&source=bl&ots=eWpYajyx5v&sig=j95Tql77Xtu2h21AuJ7EEFzNbSQ&hl=en&ei=XKUuTuaTLILAgQfqr_2hAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=lugar%20obama%20detained%20in%20russia&f=false

Russia hints it could block deal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/5750962/Russia-hints-it-could-block-nuclear-arms-deal-with-US-President-Barack-Obama.html

US delegation detained
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-08-29/news/17385399_1_delegation-nuclear-warheads-russian-ministry

US senators detained
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167265,00.html

Hoosier Daddy
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.larson.html

atticus finch said...

The Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875) case that the birthers
believed to be the "be all and end all" of case law in defining who is a natural born citizen misconstrued Chief Justice Waite's language reference to natural born citizens. The birthers assumed that Chief Justice Waite's opinion about natural born citizens was germane or crucial to the case. However, this assumption is misplaced since the status of Ms. Minor's citizenship had nothing to do with her seeking the right to vote under the 14th Amendment.

In fact, Chief Justice Waite noted that Ms. Minor “ has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Id at 170. Moreover, Chief Justice Waite made no reference as to the citizenship status of Minor’s parents.

Therefore, Chief Justice Waite’s gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court. In fact, he himself remarked “[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

In other words, even Chief Justice Waite himself admitted that for the purposes of deciding whether or not Ms. Minor had the right to vote as a citizen under the 14th Amendment that he didn't need to solve these doubts as to the status of citizen children born to parents other than citizen parents.

That is why Chief Justice Waite' language regarding natural born citizen is dicta because it was not necessary in determining that citizen women citizen did not have the right to vote under the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice Marshall long ago cautioned against reliance on dicta:

"It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the Court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it, are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated." Cohens v. Virginia 19 U.S. 264, 399-400, 6 Wheat. 264, 399-400 (1821)

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

The Minor Court was compelled to address the question of Minor's citizenship status given that Minor argued that as a citizen she was entitled to the privilege of voting under Article IV, Section 2 and that under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Missouri could not abridge her privilege of voting. Hence, since the Court had to address the citizenship issue and analyzed that issue thoroughly, its definition of a "natural born Citizen" is central to the Court's decision and binding precedent on later courts. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor for that same exact definition. So Minor’s definition of citizenship was also cited with approval by a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Since the Court said there were doubts whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen,” it had to decide that it was necessary for Minor to have been born to U.S. citizen parents in order for the Court to declare her both a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Court not deciding the citizenship status of a child born in the U.S. to alien parents only went to whether that child was a “citizen,” not whether that child was a “natural born Citizen.”

atticus finch said...

Puzo1 wrote: "Since the Court said there were doubts whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen,” it had to decide that it was necessary for Minor to have been born to U.S. citizen parents in order for the Court to declare her both a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Court not deciding the citizenship status of a child born in the U.S. to alien parents only went to whether that child was a “citizen,” not whether that child was a “natural born Citizen.”

Response:

If of all, The Minor Court didn't even addressed Ms. Minor as a natural born citizen. In fact,
the Minor court noted Ms. Minor was a citizen at birth not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

As for whether or not a child of an alien parent is a citizen, the Minor Court already conceded that
these children were "CITIZENS CHILDREN."

Now whether or not these CITIZENS CHLDREN were in fact "natural born citizens" the Minor Court very clearly stated "[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

As such, since the Minor court on its own admission declared that it wasn't necessary to address the natural born citizenship status of these CITZENS CHILDREN then the Minor court's language regarding natural born citizen is dicta.

In other words, the Minor court stated that children of citizen parents were natural born citizen but as to citizens children of alien parents that question would have to be addressed by another court.

Texoma said...

Atticus Finch makes reference to a quote that equates the subjecthood and allegiance of English-born children of aliens to that of the citizenship and allegiance of US-born children of aliens. This equation is in error.

Aliens (aka “aliens in amity”) in England suspended their home country allegiance and owed a temporary allegiance to the English king. They were expected to take, or at least comply with, the Oath of Allegiance, whereby they promised that, while on English soil, they would "bear faith and true allegiance” to the English king. This temporary allegiance was sufficient for their English-born children to be given subjecthood -- they were called denizens and were deemed to be natural-born subjects by statute. But it was the children of English subjects (persons who were under the “actual obedience” of the King) who were natural-born subjects in fact and not by any law.

In the US, aliens do not suspend their home country allegiance. They are not expected to take, nor at least comply with, any type of Oath of Allegiance until such time as they become citizens (naturalization). While residing in the US, these aliens do not “bear faith and true allegiance” to the US – their faith and true allegiance remains with their home country. Hence, there is no allegiance on the part of aliens residing in the US which would allow their US-born children to be deemed natural born citizens. It is only the US-born children of American citizens (persons who do bear faith and true allegiance to the US and are under the “actual obedience” of the US) who are natural born citizens – citizens at birth in fact by the laws of nature, and not by any law of man.

Puzo1 said...

In defining a “natural-born citizen” and a “citizen,” the Minor Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment but rather to “common-law.” The Court said that under “common-law,” a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents. The definition that the Court gave was almost a quote from Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations. Hence, this “common-law” could only refer to natural law and the law of nations which became part of American common law and adopted as part of the Laws of the United States.” Article III.

The Court said that “there had been doubts” whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Court said that it was not necessary to resolve those doubts because based on what was before the Court it could decide the case without doing so. The Court decided the case without resolving those doubts because Minor was born in the country to citizen parents. So, it was not necessary for the court to determine if someone born in the country to alien parents is a “citizen.” Hence, the Court did not have to decide the sub issue of what was a “citizen” because Minor was a “natural born citizen.”

It was absolutely necessary for the Court to address and determine Minor’s citizenship status because the Court had to analyze whether the right of suffrage was a right that came automatically with being a “citizen of the United States.” If Minor was not a “citizen,” she could not argue that as a “citizen” she was entitled to the privilege of voting under Article IV, Section 2 and that under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Missouri could not abridge that privilege. In other words, being a citizen was a condition precedent to her constitutional privileges argument.

Minor convinced the Court that she was not only a “citizen,” but also a “native born” “citizen of the United States” which the Court informed us was equivalent to a “natural-born citizen.” Since the Court did not resolve the legal question of whether one born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen,” the Court had to factually conclude that Minor was born in the country to citizen parents or else the Court could not have declared her a “citizen” and because she was born in the country to “citizen” parents also a “native[] or natural-born citizen[].” The Court would have never reached the question of whether the right to suffrage automatically attached to a “citizen” if it did not first decide that Minor was in fact a “citizen.”

The Court showed how the citizens of the states were not all invested with the right of suffrage. Hence, it concluded that the right of suffrage was not “one of the rights that belonged to citizenship,” not an “absolute right[] of citizenship,” and was therefore not one of the necessary privileges of a “citizen of the United States.” The Court, therefore, did not rule that Missouri’s constitution and law which only allowed “male citizens of the United States” to vote was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause. The Court did recognize that women probably should have the right to vote, but it said that that was a matter for the legislature to resolve, not the courts. We know that the Nineteenth Amendment eventually granted to women the right to vote.

All this shows that Minor was a precedential U.S. Supreme Court decision on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and “citizen.”

paraleaglenm said...

Waite's reliance on common-law and language familiar to the court determined that children of citizens, in the manner and style of language of Vattel's §§ 212 and 215, were natural born citizens.

The citizenship status of those born jus soli of aliens was yet to be determined, and Waite did an analysis of the 1790 Act, et seq through 1855.

Therefore, Waite's determination of natural born citizenship was judicial notice, and one of common knowledge.

As for the natural born citizenship status of those born of aliens, the 1790 Act provided an avenue for naturalization of the parents, and thus that of minor children.

Today, liberals have so misconstrued the law as to give the minor children the power to force municipalities and states to give de facto citizen status to alien parents, merely from children born jus soli.

It is clearly common knowledge, and intentionally integrated into legislated Act, that the parent's allegiance determined that of the children.

Yes, Madison relied on 'place of birth' under English laws in the Case of Mr. Smith, but that was 10 months prior to passage of the first naturalization act. The jus soli provisions practice for a century of colonial subjection had not yet been superseded by jus sanguinis/albinatus of the 1790 Act . . . better suited to free citizens of a constitutional republic.

phil stone said...

Obama claims to have knowledge of constitutional law - thus he must know about the presidential eligibility requirement to be a natural born citizen. Obama stated on his website that he was a native born citizen and that he was a british citizen. From his statements the conclusion of the most casual observer must be that he is not eligible and he knows it. In the eyes of an old engineer
the arguments of Finch who apparently wants Obama to be eligible just do not hold water.
old marine Phil Stone

Mick said...

Proof of the Precedential value of Minor v. Happersett as to Original Citizenship, and not only "voting rights" is found in Boyd v. Nebraska.
Waite's reference to A2S1C5 and Original Citizenship is cited DIRECTLY to the holding of the case. Since Boyd was a Citizen of Nebraska Territory prior to it's admission to the Union, he was deemed a US Citizen at the time Nebraska was admitted, and thus was a US Citizen, eligible to be governor of Nebraska.
Here:

"As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167: 'Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen, – a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.'"

And the holding of the case:

" We are of opinion that James E. Boyd is entitled to claim that, if his father did not complete his naturalization before his son had attained majority, the son cannot be held to have lost the inchoate status he had acquired by the declaration of intention, and to have elected to become the subject of a foreign power, but, on the contrary, that the oaths he took and his action as a citizen entitled him to insist upon the benefit of his father's act, and placed him in the same category as his father would have occupied if he had emigrated to the territory of Nebraska; that, in short, he was within the intent and meaning, effect and operation, of the acts of congress in relation to citizens of the territory, and was made a citizen of the United States and of the state of Nebraska under the organic and enabling acts and the act of admission."

When an on point "who is a natural born Citizen" case arrives, Waite's Minor v. Happersett definition of natural born Citizen will be equally as precedential.

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

In defining a “natural-born citizen” and a “citizen,” the Minor Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment but rather to “common-law.” The Court said that under “common-law,” a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents. The definition that the Court gave was almost a quote from Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations.

Hence, as is evident, Minor's reference to "common-law" in defining a "natural-born citizen" was not and could not be to the English common law which was based on jus soli and made no reference to the citizenship of the child's parents (except for ambassador and invading military parents). We also know that the Court could not have been contemplating the English common law to define a “natural-born citizen” and “citizen,” for it later said that “there had been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “citizen.” Clearly, under English common law such a child would have been a "natural born subject." Before the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, jus soli had been the basis of birthright citizenship in the United Kingdom for at least 375 years. Today, a child born in Great Britain must be born to at least one parent who is either a British citizen or “settled in the United Kingdom” in order to be granted British citizenship by birth. So if the Court were referring to English common law to define national citizenship in the United States, it would not have said that "there had been doubts" whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a "citizen."

Rather, the “common-law” to which the Court referred could only be natural law and the law of nations which became American common law and adopted as part of the “Laws of the United States.” See Constitution, Article III. The historical record shows that the law of nations was adopted by the new Republic as part of its common law. That is why Minor referred to that body of law as the "common-law."

atticus finch said...

paraleaglenm wrote:

"As for the natural born citizenship status of those born of aliens, the 1790 Act provided an avenue for naturalization of the parents, and thus that of minor children."

Response:

One minor correction at the end of your sentence. It should read:
"the 1790 Act provided an avenue for naturalization of the parents and thus that of FOREIGN BORN minor children."

Courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are citizens.

"CITIZEN CHILDREN have, of course, an absolute right to remain in the United States. The Cerrillos' citizen children were born to Mexican nationals here illegally.
Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, 809 F. 2d 1419, 1423 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added)

"Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951 both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July 1951 the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November 1951 their child was born; the child is, of course, an AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH." United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S.72, 73(1957)(emphasis added)

"Doris C. Oforji appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without opinion, the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Oforji argues on appeal that the BIA erred by failing to appropriately weigh and consider the evidence presented; in failing to extend derivative asylum and relief to Oforji on behalf of her UNITED STATES CITIZEN CHILDREN; and in issuing an affirmance without opinion. We affirm."
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F. 3d 609, 611 (7th Cir. 2007)(emphasis added)

"It is also established under California law that ineligible aliens may arrange gifts of agricultural land to their citizen children." Oyama v. California, 332 US 633, 640 (1948)

"We believe it clear that some CITIZEN CHILDREN who are eligible to attend Texas schools live with their illegal alien parents." Doe v. Plyler, 628 F. 2d 448, 460 (5th Cir. 1980), affirmed, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)(emphasis added)

Please explain again why a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a citizen

atticus finch said...

paraleaglenm wrote:

"It is clearly common knowledge, and intentionally integrated into legislated Act, that the parent's allegiance determined that of the children."

Response:

Courts have held that alien parents' allegiance is irrelevant regarding the United States citizenship status on their children who were born in the United States.

The focus on the allegiance of the parents in determining the citizenship status of the child is misplaced since Blackstone wrote that "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth."

“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.).
United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also
Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928) (child born in the United States to German nationals)


A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1. In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. “ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
(internal citation omitted)

paraleaglenm said...

I must take exception to relying on the 14th Amendment to define a purely jus solis citizen at birth.

Stare Decisis, legislated act, Sec 5 of the 14th Amendment, and clear intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment only created a jus soli citizen when no foreign jurisdiction existed through the parents.

J. Gray violated jurisprudence in his holding in Wong Kim Ark, and that decision MUST be overturned when Congress finally has the courage to address illegal immigration.

The 'native-born' children benefitting from the 14th Amendment were primarily children of freed slaves. It is also a benefit to children born of alien parents dispossessed of their nation, oppressed aliens granted sanctuary, and foundlings.

A minor child of an alien remained alien until the father naturalized; that was clearly the intent and clear language of legislated act.

Please make it a practice to disqualify 14th Amendment birthright citizenship as generally accepted as the result of liberal and incompetent Judicial Fiat.

Proof of classic liberalism is the fact that the Federal court now forces states to treat children of illegal aliens, of parents unlawfully domiciled in the United States, as citizens.

This is as much an attack on U.S. sovereignty as Obama putting Stimulus on Steroids, increasing the Debt:GDP ratio to catastrophic levels . . . both intended to destroy the United States.

paraleaglenm said...

@ atticus

Error promulgates Error which Compounds geometrically into Lawlessness. That is our 20:20 perspective of Wong Kim Ark.

The courts are in error forcing jus solis into the jus sanguinis and jus albinatus precepts that our Naturalization acts, 1790 et seq to 1855.

Jus solis was relied upon by the colonies because they were limited in jurisdiction by the monarchy. Once the colonies became states, they had as much power over persons in their jurisdiction as England.

If English law was 'followed' by the states, then all of English law was relevant, which only relied on jus soli in a feudal sense; jus sanguinis, or 'citizenship by descent,' is the primary method of British nationality.

In addition, under Art I, Sec 8, the courts had no subject matter jurisdiction.

You may prefer being a 'subject' to judicial error and fiat, but a free 'citizen' has fractional sovereignty, and can, no, MUST, speak out against incompetent judges.

Speaking of which, two gay judges violated Rules of Judicial Conduct in participating in the gay agenda. (Oh, I believe in gay marriage myself . . . a male homosexual can marry a lesbian freely and legally.) Last week in Albuquerque, NM a Bernalillo County District Court judge resigned and faces 'rape' charges for forcing oral sex on a prostitute.

Judges MUST be held to higher standards.

You can cite Ark, and subsequent error till the cows come home . . . it doesn't erase the 'original sin' which taints our current 'laws.'

Puzo1 said...

Atticus finch,

Your analysis is flawed. You fail to recognize that under the Constitution, there are two different types of birthright citizenships.

There is no indication in its text or in the history of its debates that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to or that it did in fact define or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Constitution makes a distinction between an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States" and a Fourteenth Amendment "born" "citizen of the United States." The Constitution provides for different birth circumstances for these two different classes of citizens upon whom it bestows birthright citizenship. These are two different types of birthright citizenships.

In Article II, the Constitution demands the status of "natural born." In the Fourteenth Amendment, it demands "born" in the United States and "subject to its jurisdiction" at the time of birth. Only a child born in the country to citizen parents can be an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States." Minor v. Happersett (1875). In contradistinction, a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents can under the Fourteenth Amendment be a "born" "citizen of the United States." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989). Assuming he was born in Hawaii to his reported parents, Obama can be the latter, but he cannot be the former.

All the cases that you have cited do not contradict my position or otherwise show that I am in error.

Jo said...

Addition to Bob & juniper55 -
Lugar/Obama trip to Russia

Part 1
Suspecting Billionaire Mr. G. Soros of playing the spy game on its own with both he and "O" are apparently on the same score make two spies not one to adore.

Lugar is one of the most left-wing Republican Senator on foreign policy issues, advocator of pro-government world. World Federalist Association, endorser of the group for passage on treaty of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea. He enthusiastically supported two-pro abortion Supreme Court Justices appointed by "O." Lugar nowadays has carefully manuevered its breathing space away from "O" for he is up for Indiana senatorial election on November 2012.

In the company of leftist Lugar, his mentor on foreign affairs, "O's" trip to Russia in 2005 was set to ensure "O's" support for maintaining and even expanding foreign aid to Russia through Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)Program. Government Accountability (GAO)reveals that funds to destroy outdated weapons in Russia, instead Moscow was going to replace with high-tech arms and provide salaries for their scientist. CTR program has over $6 billion in funding and un-estimated amount are sneak-in to Moscow weapons upgrade.

The counter espionage dramas between Russia and US have guarded patterns that are improbable to decipher for the street guy point of view. There are constant exchanges of information and disinformation to cover-up political agendas.

Hoosier Daddy of Washington Monthly is devoted to politics with progressive perspectives.

Jo said...

Addition to Bob & juniper55 - Lugar/Obama trip to Russia

Part 2
*Cliff Kincaid --New START and
"Obama's" Mysterious Trip to Russia
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff434.htm

In fact, the trip by Lugar and "Obama" to Russia in 2005 was designed to promote the scandal-ridden "Cooperative Threat Reduction Program" (CTR), also known as the Nunn-Lugar program for its original Senate sponsors. Lugar and "Obama" co-sponsored a follow-up program. (Paragraph 16)*

... Lugar one of the leading globalist in the Senate was a mentor for then - Senator "Obama" during controversial three-day visit they made to Russia and Eastern Europe. (Paragraph 1)*

Lugar had sought out "Obama" for a spot on the committee shortly "Obama" won his seat in 2004, and their relation was so deep that Lugar came to be considered an informal senior adviser to "Obama" after his election to the Presidency. (Paragraph 22)*

@Bob's references posted June 22:
During the visit, Russian authorities detained "Obama" and Lugar, threatened to search their plane, and examined their passports. Strangely, an official report from Lugar's office about this trip ignored the incident. (Paragraph 2)*

... Lugar and "Obama' were kept in uncomfortably in stuffy room for three hours and allowed out onto adjoining porch area only after they surrendered their passports. (Paragraph 28)*

**Russia holds "Obama" for Suspicion of Being a British Spy Back in 2005! Invistigator in Chicago Fingers Obama for being a British Spy As Far Back As 2004.

Cloak's exclusive August 2005 story exposing "Obama's" Kenyan birthplace forces "Obama" to sanitize his passport file.

Cloak's co-host S. Skolnick prior to 2004 election fingered "Obama" running in Illinois for the US Senate as a British Intel agent born in Kenya. Skolnick as a co-spy watcher unmasked "Obama" on his regular CLOAK program.

Today Russian President V. Putin ordered US Senator "Obama", who is also tight with MOSSAD, to be held in custody under suspicion of being a British operative illgeally spying in Russia at off-limits secret facilities. (Paragraph 11)**

Spying with Obama, who was locked-up, was US Senator Lugar, pro Bush was detained by Putin but unlike "Obama", quickly released. (Paragraph 12)**
(http://www.americanreporter.wordpress.com/2009/09/06
(http://www.rightwire.net/2011/04/2005-russia-detains-obama-as-british.html)

Links:
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publication/id.6745/pub_detail.asp
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12867159/Former-Clinton-Official-Named-asRussian-Dupe
http://www.simon/2011/07/29/obama-manchurian-president/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/171656791

Further Links:
Rich Kelly: The Nunn-Lugar Act A Wasteful and Dangerous Illusion
http://www. cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-039.html
Gabriel Schoenfield; US Should Repel Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
online.wsj/article/SB10000142405297020370660474368524278888240.html

FamilySecurityMatters.org
Articles:
New START is a Non-Starter;
New START leads to Bad End;
False START;
Exclusive: Spies Amongst US - How Many More?;
White House Secrecy Over Russian Nuke Negotiations: Why;
A Late Look at a Troubling Treaty;
Flashpoint: Atomic Affairs - Nervousness Over Nuclear Moves

What The Russian Spy Scandal Is Really About? By R. Oliphant
http://www.fastertimes.com/russia/2010/07/01

One document in the spy case reveals that Moscow had "requested information on the US position with respect to a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, Afghanistan, and Iran's nuclear weapons program." It is said Russian agents were directed to obtain information on[Russia] policy team members," but the names of four "Obama" Administration officials who were targeted in this effort were deleted. (Paragraph 5)*
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publication/id/.6745/pub_detail.asp

cfkerchner said...

Listen to CDR Kerchner (Ret) on the Terry Lakin Action Fund radio show via PodCast at: http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/images/stories/audio/tlafaug08.2011-16kbpsva.mp3

Donations to help CDR Kerchner's print media efforts to expose the criminal and usurper Obama can be made at:
ProtectOurLiberty.org
http://www.protectourliberty.org

SaipanAnnie said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Regarding your remarks to Atticus Finch:

Your analysis is flawed. You fail to recognize that under the Constitution, there are two different types of birthright citizenships.

it isn't that he fails to recognize it, he REFUSES to recognize it!

kittitianhill said...

A number of independent nations have adopted citizenship programs that make it possible for people of high worth to acquire citizenship provided they make a direct contribution to the state, which will, in turn help the development of the country.

St. Kitts citizenship