Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers

The Post & Email ^ | March 10, 2010 | Sally Vendée

[kyright]

Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.

The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.

The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

[edge919]

Wong Kim Ark spells out the definitions:

“... all children, born in a country of [p680] 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.”

They did not find the child of foreign nationals born inside the U.s. to be a natural born subject. If you think it says so, please cite the exact passage.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

If you know so much then cite the founders?

Yes, I give you the Act of 1790, when pretty much all of the Founders were in the Congress that passed such an Act. I think what's being overlooked are the Acts the first few Congresses passed; they are an AMAZING insight and guide into HOW the men who wrote the Constitution should be actively enacted.

The Constitution is the framework; the legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President is supposed to be the implementation of that framework. During the first few Congresses the same people who wrote the Constitution implemented it via legislation. That's a pretty amazing - and important thing! We get to see how the Founders meant to implement the actual Constitution - and for most of them, even the Declaration of Independence - that they crafted and signed!

Essentially I'm saying carefully consider what those Founders did in their first Congresses, and give it the weight deserved as it was the actual expression of what they believed should be the implementation of the Constitution.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

About the only term the Constitution defines is "treason". And that is because they were changing the commonly accepted definition.

Exactly, which is why we're in the pickle today! I'm just saying that the men who wrote such a phrase - Natural Born Citizen - enacted legislation that defined it pretty well, in the Act of 1790. That's a pretty good collective definition of what they considered to be a natural born citizen, and at a time just months from when they created the Constitution.

Short of that, we have to consider 200+ years of Congressional action and legal opinion, and that leaves us where we're at - still unsettled about just what a natural born citizen really is. People turn to English Common Law, or Vattel's Law of Nations, and we find both accepted AND rejected in legal decisions; it's not defined.

Anyway, I think many are too eager to dismiss the 1790 Act as it was an explicit use AND definition of the phrase natural born citizen, and it was collectively defined and approved by the men who used that phrase inside the Constitution. That's an amazing reference we can draw on, and should not just dismiss lightly.

[BP2]

> The Supreme Court begs to differ.

>> I think you're wrong on that one.

Patience, Non-Sequitur ... patience.

The SCOTUS can only correct so many badly-written Lower Court Opinions and prior SCOTUS Opinions at a time.

The 2008 DC v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion on “to keep and bear arms” overturned nearly 70 years of Lower Court Opinions and Local/State laws stemming from the badly-written and incomplete 1939 US v Miller SCOTUS Opinion.

Such corrections and clarifications can also be anticipated in Lower Court Opinions regurgitating Justice Gray's 1898 discussion on "Natural Born Citizen" and "British subject" in US v. Wong Kim Ark. Those corrections will likely result from one of the quo warranto Obama Eligibility cases working their way up the food chain to the SCOTUS now.

The DC v. Heller (2008) Opinion looked at Common Law and the language used by the Framers, as US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) did. The difference is that in 2008, Chief Justice Roberts rightly looks to “Blackstone's Commentaries” for guidance on Original Intent and Common Law, versus Justice Gray in 1898 who looked to A. W. Dicey’s 1896 version of “Conflict of Laws”.

“Blackstone's Commentaries” has stood the test of time with the SCOTUS; Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has not.

[BP2]

> The Supreme Court begs to differ.

>> I think you're wrong on that one.

Patience, Non-Sequitur ... patience.

The SCOTUS can only correct so many badly-written Lower Court Opinions and prior SCOTUS Opinions at a time.

The 2008 DC v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion on “to keep and bear arms” overturned nearly 70 years of Lower Court Opinions and Local/State laws stemming from the badly-written and incomplete 1939 US v Miller SCOTUS Opinion.

Such corrections and clarifications can also be anticipated in Lower Court Opinions regurgitating Justice Gray's 1898 discussion on "Natural Born Citizen" and "British subject" in US v. Wong Kim Ark. Those corrections will likely result from one of the quo warranto Obama Eligibility cases working their way up the food chain to the SCOTUS now.

The DC v. Heller (2008) Opinion looked at Common Law and the language used by the Framers, as US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) did. The difference is that in 2008, Chief Justice Roberts rightly looks to “Blackstone's Commentaries” for guidance on Original Intent and Common Law, versus Justice Gray in 1898 who looked to A. W. Dicey’s 1896 version of “Conflict of Laws”.

“Blackstone's Commentaries” has stood the test of time with the SCOTUS; Dicey’s “Conflict of Laws” has not.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Except that Obama did not subject himself to another allegiance as Blackstone states; he never chose that other nationality and indeed, based upon US Law, he was not able to choose as he most definitely was a minor! In fact, when he COULD choose (at the age of 18) apparently he did not renounce his US citizenship, nor did he pledge and accept the Indonesian citizenship.

Essentially, what I see as a significant issue is that we’re saying the nationality of an individual depends upon the actions of another nation or person, independent of the desires and wishes of the individual. I have a problem with that, and I’d hope most here would have a problem as well! How can another man or nation decide to change your citizenship by their will? They cannot - that is inherent and limited to the individual only!

[edge919]

Technically, the law in effect when Obama was born didn’t prevent minors from renouncing their U.S. citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark decision seems to suggest that citizenship can definitely be influenced by another person.

“... neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States”

[allmendream]

From Wong Kim Ark.....

The 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;”

RELEVANT PASSAGE:

“for if he (a foreign subject) hath issue here, that issue (or child) is a natual-born subject”

So obviously Wong Kim Ark does say that the child of foreign nationals born inside the USA are “natural born subjects”.

[edge919]

You were asked to find a passage that declared Ark to be a natural born citizen. This passage doesn’t do that. It talks about the 14th amendment’s similarity to English common law on natural born subjects, but it goes on to say, “his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen’” And that is predicated on the condition, “so long as he remains within our territory.”

IOW, a child born in the United States to a foreign national, under the 14th amendment, is AS MUCH a citizen as an NBC, but it doesn’t say they are the same thing. Otherwise it would have only needed to say, ‘if born in the country, the child is a natural-born child of a citizen.’

As written in the former case, this makes a clear distinction between the two concepts of a citizen and natural born citizen. It’s like saying an apple is as much a piece of fruit as a watermelon, but we all know that an apple is NOT a watermelon. Thus, Obama is a fruit and is not a natural born citizen.

[patlin]

So you are telling me that after reading ALL those 3 Acts(1790(repealed), 1795, 1798(amended the 1795)) passed in the 1st 10 years following the ratification, you gained all the knowledge you needed to still conclude that that dual citizenship existed, was not an issue and was protected by law?

You cite a law, based on assumptions of whom was in Congress at the time, yet you fail to study the history of citizenship & the many origins of the many definitions of citizen.

The rationale of the DRONE continues to stymie the mind.

[BP2]

Except that Obama did not subject himself to another allegiance as Blackstone states; he never chose that other nationality and indeed, based upon US Law, he was not able to choose as he most definitely was a minor!

That's incorrect.

It does not matter what Obama CHOSE.

Neither an infant nor a child is able to protect himself. That protection is given by the father, who derives that protection from the King, his army and his sovereignty. As a result of this "contract," the father and his children owe their allegiance and loyalty to the King.

There are many examples of this referenced in "Blackstone's Commentaries" — here is just one of them:

[allmendream]

Trying desperately to ignore that “and if he hath issue here that issue is a natural born subject”?

And if he (Obama Sr) hath issue here (Obama) that issue is a natural born subject.

That is goes on to say that this issue is “as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen” does not imply that he is a differnt type of citizen, as you wish it to, nor does it break from the previous passage that found such issue to be a “natural born subject”.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Excellent, my arsenal is growing!

Thanks again!

[BP2]

> Obama is a fruit

That's the understatement of the year! LOL

[Bigun]

Here is what the Constitution says in VERY plain language.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

No 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Can you not see that the founders quite clearly, and in the same sentence of the Constitution, made a distinction between "citizen", and "natural born citizen"?

[allmendream]

That is not the issue, the issue is if “as much a citizen” means a different type of citizen, or breaks from the previous declaration that the ‘issue’ of a foreign national born in the USA is a “natural born subject”.

[edge919]

Trying desperately to ignore that “and if he hath issue here that issue is a natural born subject”?

No, not at all. Why are you ignoring what I posted?? The discussion is about natural born citizens, not subjects. The passage you cited didn't make Ark a natural born citizen. And yes, Obama would be a natural born subject of Great Britain wherever he was born. He would not be a natural born citizen of the United States unless his father was an American citizen. At best, he's just a citizen. What you cited proves that.

[edge919]

Nothing in what you cited said that a native born child or a foreign national is ‘natural born subject’ of the United States.

Prior to the 14th amendment, having a foreign parent meant you weren’t a citizen of the United States at birth. After the 14th amendment, you would be a citizen, as much as those who were natural born, but that doesn’t mean you are natural born, else it would have said so. It doesn’t.

[allmendream]

It found that the issue of a foreign national, if born in US territory, would be a “natural born subject”.

Subject and citizen are interchangeable as they were quoting from English precedent.

Where is this provision spelled out that to be a natural born citizen one must have a father that is a U.S. citizen?

Making things up again?

[allmendream]

What I cited said DIRECTLY that the child of a foreign national, if born in U.S. territory, was a “natural born subject”.

“And if he (a foreign national, as established in the preceding statement) have issue here, that issue is a natural born subject”