Hmmm, about that Thrasher case
It would seem that Thrasher was born to US citizens living in Cuba who got himself into a wee bit of trouble as Justice Fields points out in CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES CASE(1872):
And upon this point we entertain no doubt. The claimants were residents in the United States prior to the commencement of the rebellion. They so allege in their petition; they were therefore bound to obey all the laws of the country not immediately relating to citizenship during their sojourn in it, and they were equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws. “The rights of sovereignty,” says Wildman in his Institutes on International Law, [Footnote 7]
“extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection.”
By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.
This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen. In the case of Thrasher, a citizen of the United States resident in Cuba, who complained of injuries
Page 83 U. S. 155
suffered from the government of that island, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of state, made, in 1851, a report to the President in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives in which he said:
“Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”
And again:
“Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.
Nice try, no dice. Thrasher was a US citizen by his birth to US citizens abroad aka jus sanguinis.
This one case proves our point that jus soli citizenship is not automatically established at birth per International law.
Gee, I wonder who has been saying this all along? Oh, I know, the originalists and I guess Grey too. He conferred citizenship on WKA by his mere swearing an allegiance to the US and promising to return in a certain amount of time to his residence in the US in which he did, thus he became naturalized under the 14th. You do understand from the case that he had to swear his allegiance & promise to return before he was given the paperwork to return didn’t you? At his coming of age, he elected his allegiance. WKA was past the age of tacit consent and could now speak for himself and that is just a mere fact of natural law.
You see what happens when you parse & edit to fit your cause. More often than not, it blows up in your face.
KABOOM!
I just checked my face and I have dribbled a little chocolate milk on it, but I can detect no signs of a KABOOM level explosion. Look at your excerpt:
““Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”
Yes. Obama was born here and subject to our laws. Should he have driven on the wrong side of the street, he would have gotten a ticket. He would not have been able to raise the defense that his poppa was British for a while. That is why Obama is an NBC according to Wong. Born here andsubject to our laws.
Plus, there is a little date thing you keep ignoring. An 1898 SCOTUS opinion trumps an 1853 anything. It even works from that point on to trump anything except a SCOTUS case which overturns it. Have you ever played Rook?
parsy, who has put on his safety glasses just in case you ever pull a rabbit out of your hat