Posted on 08/20/2015 10:00:34 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
The New York Court of Chancery case Lynch v. Clarke (and Lynch) (Bernard Lynch v. John Clarke and Julia Lynch) from 1844 is one of the most prescient and important cases dealing with the matter ... The official report of the case describes ... the circumstances behind the case and of Julia's birth:
Her parents were British subjects domiciled in Ireland. They came to this country in 1815, remained till the summer of 1819, and then returned to Ireland. Julia was born in the city of New York, in the spring of 1819. Her parents took her with them on their return, and she remained in Ireland till after the death of Thomas Lynch [her uncle who lived in New York]. During the sojourn of her father here, Thomas hired a farm for him & paid the rent. Her father occupied the farm for a time, but it is proved that he was not contented here. One witness testified that Patrick Lynch (Julia's father) always wished to return to Ireland...It does not appear that he ever declared his intention to become a citizen under the act of Congress; or ever expressed any intention to reside here permanently.
The case filed by Bernard before the court was that Julia had never been naturalized.
So, was Julia Lynch a citizen? That was the question before the court. The peculiar nature of the case meant that she must either have been a natural born citizen because she was born to her parents, though they were aliens, on U.S. soil, or that she was not a citizen at all because her parents were aliens regardless of the place of her birth and that she had never made any attempt to be naturalized. To make a long story short, the court ruled in her favor.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Few people want an open border, and I certainly do not want this, nor do I like it that there are anchor babies. Sealing the border, putting even more border patrol people and so on than Trump is calling for and ending birthright citizenship from here on is one thing (and may be possible), but saying that it is a fantasy that anyone ever born to illegals in the U.S. doesn't possess citizenship is to say that the citizenship they would now possess (be it even 30-40-50 years old) is null and void? That is the fantasy.
Just seal the border once and for all and put tons of people guarding it, basically what Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly have proposed. It may be possible to end birthright citizenship, though there is a long and lengthy precedent provided by Common Law even before 1788 that does not bode well for Trump.
All that matters are the words of the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan.
He expressly said:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
There, you will find the true meaning and intent of the citizenship clause of 14th.
Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and probably others.
Leaving aside the birth certificate issue, which is unique to Obama’s case... Obama is the only one who had a parent who was an American citizen at the time of his birth, his mother)
- - - - -
When he begins with a false claim, it is difficult to bother reading on.
Rios-Pineda established only that the U. S. born child of an immigrant who had spent 7 years+ dealing with the authorities at the time (as the result of both legal and illegal suspensions) had the right to citizenship. But that citizenship was based not on the child’s birth in the USA but the time (7 years, the magic number for de facto citizenship in those days) the child had already spent in the USA. This has absolutely nothing to do with birthright citizenship. See: INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985), No. 83-2032, Argued: March 20, 1985 Decided: May 13, 1985. [See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/444.html#sthash.8HG5TMl9.dpuf]).
No one is suggesting retroactive application should a bill pass Congress. Steve King's current bill on eliminating birthright citizenship, HR 140 says:
The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
That is not what is being proposed. No one is suggesting we strip citizenship from those that already have it. The proposed law change would change the requirements going forward.
Why on earth would we be discussing a state court case as regards Federal citizenship? Apart from that, the Legislature of New York overturned that verdict by passing new law which rendered that decision moot.
Lynch v Clarke is an interesting footnote in history, but it has no bearing on the salient point. The US Federal citizenship did not utilize English Common law. How could it? By English common law, rejecting your status as a subject of the king was strictly forbidden.
40 million plus are already on this side of the wall having babies as fast as they can. What good is a wall going to do? Especially if there is a big gate in the wall sitting wide open held by both parties.
All the rhetoric from the author re:Joseph Storey et. al. are subject to the intention of the drafters ofvthe Fourteenth Amendment and articulation of the fact by the same that
the Amendment eas intended to specifically exclude foreigners from citizenship.
The fact that judges messed up decisions on the matter is not surprising or unusual.
We can fix this idiocy.
I heard a talk radio talker say that Trump sent guys to Hawaii. He said that Trump said that they found some amazing things. He wondered what those amazing things were and said that Trump never detailed them.
Just what are those amazing things discovered, if true?
Should Trump finally say something about this?
So Julia Lynch can now have her citizenship revoked even after all these years? Nope, not gonna happen.
And in a similar vein, are you going to argue that people born on U.S. soil to even illegals, even 1 or 45 years ago are somehow not U.S. citizens and that they can have their papers declared null and void? Good luck with that...
I went round and round with people yesterday. All I was arguing for was that all those born to illegals here cannot have their citizenship revoked. Ever. even if it was 1 week ago. Trump and Bill-O went round and round about this. Evidently Bill-O thought that there was some hint of people born to illegals here in the U.S. could have their citizenship stripped. Maybe he and Trump need to talk some more then based upon what you said...
It does possess salience.
The point is, and continuing what I was saying yesterday - people born on U.S. soil cannot have their citizenship somehow revoked, even if they were born 1 week ago or 30 years ago or before 1844.
Some were arguing that children born to illegal aliens even recently were never citizens to begin with, and that is false.
Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen as well.
...the main sticking point for the Birthers is that all four of the politicians have at least one parent who was not born in America...
Where the parents were born was never an issue. What mattered was whether they became citizens before the child was born.
-PJ
So you are against what some are saying who agree with me? They agree with me that you cannot retroactively revoke the citizenship of those born to illegal aliens. Ever.
Some argued yesterday that they were never citizens to begin with, and that is false. This was the point of contention that I addressed and still am addressing.
All children born to illegals who are 90 years old even or are 1 minute old as of this post ARE U.S. citizens.
Here we continue on with this:
Those born to parents on U.S. soil long ago (parents who even showed no inclination in becoming U.S. citizens (and those born 90 years ago or even 1 minute ago as of this writing) to illegal aliens cannot have their citizenship taken away.
And yet some yesterday acted as if their citizenship could be taken away, or that they never had it in the first place. Fantasy on their part...
Oh, how I went round and round with them yesterday on this point, which was my point of contention.
We’ve got people here who are descended from grandparents who were illegal aliens. They aren’t going anywhere.
Legally they can, but politically they can't. I very much doubt anyone is suggesting tossing out people who had claimed citizenship under the false doctrine, I expect it would be intended to deal with new cases going forward.
Some were arguing that children born to illegal aliens even recently were never citizens to begin with, and that is false.
No, that is not false, that is quite true, but till we make it explicit in law, we will get constant grief from Liberal Judges over it.
Even if we make it explicit, I suspect a bunch of Liberal judges will simply defy the law as they are so accustomed to doing.
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.