Listen Up: Here Is Proof That Native-Born Citizens And Natural-Born Citizens Are Separate

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”

In Post 223 you used ellipsis to modify the meaning of the 1779 citizenship law in Virginia. You changed it to "all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth... shall be deemed citizens" which is not what the law says.

No, I didn't change the meaning. That's just idiotic.

Flat-out idiotic.

And once again, it illustrates how far people like you will go to twist and misrepresent the meaning of ANYTHING in history or law that YOU DON'T PERSONALLY LIKE.

The meaning is clear enough to anybody with one eye and half sense who doesn't have a stupid birther axe to grind.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "AND?"

Or are you so bent on your silly little false theory that you're willing to try to twist and misrepresent the meaning even of that simple word?

That law in relevant part:

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.

Seriously, that is the most blatantly idiotic thing I have ever seen you post.

It even comes close to the most idiotic thing I've ever seen ANYONE post.

And do you not understand the meaning of "ALL?" As in ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THIS COMMONWEALTH?

Do you not understand that every one of the above categories were named as CITIZENS?

Or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

"Morse is translating Vattel."

On page 7 of his treatise, Morse writes,

"This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2"

And in footnote 2: ”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be "within the jurisdiction"'].”

And on page 125,

"§ 90. A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they become citizens by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation ; for we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenize a citizen who has become such either by the natural process of birth or the legal process of adoption."

"The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former."

http://books.google.com/books?ei=Oq9dUbH_COOJjAKB6ICIBg&dq=morse+a+treatise+on+citizenship&jtp=125&id=GijrAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

This second quote is actually unattributed from the 1862 opinion of Attorney General Bates.

"We have natural born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, § 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact, the mass of our citizens; for all others are exceptions, specially provided for by law. As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenise a citizen, who has become such either by the natural process of birth, or by the legal process of adoption. And in this connection the Constitution says not one word, and furnishes not one hint, in relation to the color or to the ancestral race of the "natural born citizen." Whatever may have been said, in the opinions of judges and lawyers, and in State statutes, about negroes, mulattoes, and persons of color, the Constitution is wholly silent upon that subject. The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former."

http://books.google.com/books?ei=2LFdUba3MYn-iQLQ_YCACw&output=text&id=zo5EJE0sorgC&dq=opinion+attorney+general+bates&jtp=8

The easiest way to look at Virginia’s citizenship laws is to compare them.

1779:
“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”

1783
“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons, born within the territory of this Commonwealth; all persons, not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under the Act, intituled, “ An Act declaring who shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth;” and also all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner herein after mentioned.”

1792
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That all free persons born within the territory of this Commonwealth, all persons not being natives, who have obtained a right to citizenship under former laws, and all children wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of the birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in the manner hereinafter mentioned.”

It clearly separates the different types of citizens into

1) Born in Virginia.
2) Immigrated into Virginia.
3) Born outside Virginia to Virginia citizen parents.

Because the 1779 law was making a change to the existing situation, they had to make the extra provision or grandfather clause for those not born in Virginia but who had resided “therein two years next before the passing of this act.”

Do I understand "all"? Do you understand semicolons?

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.

It is a complex sentence.

Semicolons are being used as "super commas". There are several clauses separated by semicolons.

The first clause specifies the general case.

The second clause modifies the first clause by imposing conditions on it.

The third clause specifies a specific case.

The fourth clause specifies a specific case.

The specific terms of a statute override the general terms.

The specific terms of the third clause override the general terms of the first clause. Hence, the citizenship of the minor child follows that of the parents.

The Virginia statute: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html

But it is clear from all early authorities that those BORN citizens IN AMERICA were very clearly considered to be natural born citizens.

As explained to you

Prior to WKA there were two kinds of citizenship: native or natural born, and naturalized.

Subsequent to WKA this is no longer true.

Broadening the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment to include domiciled aliens which heretofore were not "subject to the jurisdiction" created a distinction between native born citizen and natural born citizen.

"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." - Sen. Trumbull, framer of 14th Amend.

The Court ignored naturalization acts and naturalized the children of domiciled aliens.

This broadened interpretation of the 14th Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction" clause naturalized the children of domiciled aliens creating a distinction where none had existed. It severed native born citizen from natural born citizen.

Early authorities that citizens born here were natural born citizens are correct. It is no longer true after WKA.

I wondered whether Morse knew about Bates' Opinion.

He sure didn't seem to know about what Rawle or St. George Tucker had to say.

So he quotes Bates, who directly contradicts him, but then puts forth his (Morse's) idea of what US law is anyway, in contradiction to all of the above authorities.

Thanks for finding and noting that.

"This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2"

2. ”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be "within the jurisdiction"'].”

Holy bananas, Batman!

So does Morse directly contradict himself in his own treatise, or has his treatise simply been misread by birthers?

As explained to YOU:

WKA didn't create a new kind of citizenship. The ruling said that the 14th Amendment affirmed the ancient rule which had always applied.

The entire PURPOSE of that Amendment was NOT to create some new kind of citizenship, but simply to ensure that the rules that had ALWAYS applied, applied to BLACK people.

And those who introduced the 14th Amendment believed that it was simply declaratory of the law as it already was.

Rawle tells us back in 1825 what the rule was:

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

This is the way the Amendment is understood by the Supreme Court and every competent legal authority.

Are you so obtuse that we have to go endlessly repeating the exact same things we already said?

The first clause specifies the general case.
The second clause modifies the first clause by imposing conditions on it.

If so, does that mean that the second clause (about oaths and assurances of fidelity) is a condition imposed on white person born within the commonwealth? If not, I don't think you can simply divide the sentence up the way you have--there's no comma or semicolon or anything else separating the "born within" group from the "resided therein two years" group. If the condition applies to the second group but not the first, as common sense suggests, then the semicolons aren't doing the job you claim.

The fourth clause specifies a specific case.

So you're claiming that "all infants wheresoever born" overrides "all white persons born"? Unless you know of a way for someone to be born and not be an infant, what's the first phrase doing there at all, if it's only going to be overridden later in the same sentence?

A later Supreme Court ruling than Minor v Happersett, US v. Wong Kim Ark implicitly cited as stare decisis on Article II, Section 1 eligibility

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling required non-citizen parents to be permanently domiciled in the U.S. Obama's father was only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa and was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply in Obama's case.

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

“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.” - Sen. Trumbull, framer of Amend. 14

And when Trumbull said those words, who was he talking about?

The children born here, in American society, of non-citizen parents?

NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

HE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT INDIANS, BORN IN INDIAN TRIBES.

Here's the entire quote:

Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes… Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?

This is what people who make the kinds of claims you're making do. Take a quote, strip it of its context, and make it say something IT NEVER SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The FACT is, Trumbull NEVER, EVER said that non-citizens living in our society were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," and he NEVER, EVER said that the children born here of non-citizen parents were anything other than natural-born US citizens.

So once again you TWIST AND MISINTERPRET our Constitution, all the while PRETENDING to act like a conservative.

I don't know about your politics, but your BEHAVIOR is not that of a conservative. Because conservatives CONSERVE the Constitution that our Founders gave us. They don't misrepresent it and attempt to rewrite it according to whatever they want it to say.

Who else would it apply to, the infant?

No, it would apply to "all who shall hereafter migrate into the same." So you are claiming that "all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth" had to "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" in order to be citizens? At what age did they take those oaths? Do you have any historical evidence of Virginians actually doing that?

Adults born in the colony

Are you saying that the initial "all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth" refers only to people already born, not to those who would be born later?

Morse may feel one way about it, but also recognize the existing law.

Much like Judge Morrow.

“Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases. But these observations are, obviously, addressed to the policy of the rule, and not to its interpretation. The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority. It may be that the executive departments of the government are at liberty to follow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship which arise between this and other countries, but that fact does not establish the law for the courts in dealing with persons within our own territory.” Judge Morrow, North District of California, Wong Kim Ark

By the way, the full quote from Trumbull illustrates what TRUMBULL understood "subject to the jurisdiction of" to mean.

So it clear that, according to Senator Trumbull, those who:

are members of our society, with whom we do not make treaties, and those who

are subject to our LAWS.

People who participate as a part of our society, rather than some other society that we make treaties with, and who are SUBJECT TO OUR LAWS, according to Senator Lyman Trumbull, are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Wong Kim Ark

Again, The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling required non-citizen parents to be permanently domiciled in the U.S. Obama's father was only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa and was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply in Obama's case.

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.