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 ...
Regarded as, but that is not the same thing. They never had legal citizenship, they had stolen citizenship.
Most likely we will let them keep it because it will do more harm to all concerned were anyone to attempt to do anything about it.
Ted Cruz’ father, Rafael became a naturalized citizen in 2005 when Ted was 35 years old. Ted’s mother was born in Delaware.
Thus far there have been no court challenges to his eligibility.
The position of many courts has been that if a person qualifies as a “Citizen of the United States At Birth” under the statutory provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, then they are also an Article II, Section 1 Natural Born Citizen.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III/I/1401
they never had it in the first place
The children of Mexicans are Mexicans not Americans...
PING
You are basically saying that hers or anyone else’s citizenship can be retroactively revoked.
Never gonna happen.
Why? Unconstitutional.
It might be possible to end it (birthright citizenship) going forward from here on, but to say that they (her, or those born to illegals even 50 years ago or 5 minutes ago)never possessed citizenship in the first place is fantasy.
When people see what you arguing and others across the web are arguing for you will see legal Latinos coming out of the woodwork to vote at a 99% rate. Trump or any other GOP candidate would be lucky to get 10% of the Latino vote, and you cannot win a general election cycle with that %.
Sure, off-year elections (2010 and 2014) can be won without 35-40% of the Latino vote, but not a presidential election cycle.
Just keep it up and we will lose this presidential election...
I am arguing with the author of the article primarily
If you know, what happened when the Dred Scott decision was overturned to blacks here ?
The determination of what to do with people who were mistakenly deemed citizens is one question. What to do about future situations is another and the mistakes should be remedied.
In theory, but not in practice. Americans would never stomach it, even though they have the legal right to do such a thing.
It might be possible to end it (birthright citizenship) going forward from here on, but to say that they (her, or those born to illegals even 50 years ago or 5 minutes ago)never possessed citizenship in the first place is fantasy.
It is fantasy to think you can successfully revoke it, but it is not fantasy to point out that it was always illegitimate.
“legal Latinos”
who are they ???
about the anchor babies...so you are saying that if I have something I’m not entitled to and my parents never passed on to me, I can keep it even though it belongs to someone else ???
Big bleeding heart much ???
Bill-O is an ill-informed idiot. It is probably illegal to pass retroactive laws, especially one so far-reaching. It defies common sense that anyone would think it possible.
Big Bleeding heart? Yawn, personal attacks...
No, I am just anti-GOP political suicide.
-PJ
Always illegitimate?
Saying that it is illegitimate after Congress would vote to declare birthright citizenship going forward is one thing,
That is one thing.
What you are saying is quite another...
British Common Law way before Lynch that undergirded U.S. law and set the foundation for it and the Lynch case and others both before and after that (1985) work in harmony with the 14th amendment, but not opposed to it.
Case law backs up the words of Sen. Howard.
Please email that info to oreilly@foxnews.com and get The Leprechaun straightened out.
I am for closing this “loophole”, but I dont expect, nor do I think its necessarily correct, to be able to apply this retroactively. Those people would be grandfathered in.
This is a topic I have researched quite extensively, and there is no consensus in 1787 that the US followed British Common Law as regards to citizenship. There is much evidence that we did not do this.
Most of evidence on the Pro-British-Common-Law side comes from William Rawle, (In the guise of his very popular book "A view of the Constitution" which was widely distributed and regarded at the time as a pivotal work on the Constitution.) and I have uncovered a great deal of information that leads me to believe he was deliberately lying about the US following the British Common Law jus soli principle. I go beyond saying he was mistaken, he was willfully and deliberately lying about this because he knew better, and chose to deceive people anyway.
This is actually a very interesting subject, and I have not told a whole lot of people about what I have found, but those whom I have informed think I have a pretty good case regarding this.
Believe it or not, the effort to get people to believe we followed British Common Law and the effort to pass the 14th amendment have far more in common then you would guess.
I applied that birth location concern to Senator Cruz’ situation. It will be interesting to see if there are kegal challenges.
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.