Posted on 03/11/2010 8:25:03 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
It's comparing TWO different things. "As much as" is different than saying two things are "the same." The child of the citizen was called 'natural born' by Binney. The child of an alien was not called 'natural born.' There's no reason for Binney to make a comparison if it is the same thing.
The following quote does not break from the statement that a foreign national that “hath issue” here “that issue is a natural born subject”, it supports it.
... except that it makes a distinction between the child of an alien and a natural born child of a citizen ... only one of the two was called natural born.
That there are or were differences in the law on how citizenship at birth is established in relation to having a father or mother that was a citizen does not establish the definition you want to, that to be a natural born citizen one must have a citizen father. Your quote doesn't support your made up definition.
The part I quoted pertained to calling children born overseas 'natural born citizens' and was dependent on the citizenship of the father. There are plenty of other quotes that show the same thing, such as this one from WKA: " the citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned ..." Vattel wrote: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." As you can see, and hopefully be honest enough to admit, I made nothing up.
Wrong again. It directly says that “if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject”. Both were called “natural born”.
“As much a citizen” doesn't mean, a citizen but not natural born, no matter how much you desire to read that into the statement. “As much a citizen” means exactly that, not ‘almost as much a citizen, because they are not natural born’ as you are apparently attempting to read it.
I agree totally.
You know, this cuts both ways - if you consider a child born in the United States, regardless of parentage, a natural-born citizen under jus soli ...
Then you must consider a child of U.S. citizens, born in Great Britain, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom. Unless, you assert that the United States has the right to declare that child a natural-born citizen of the United States since the United Kingdom has no claim on the parents. The same caveat applies if a child of two British subjects is born on U.S. soil.
This is a fallacy.
And, in this case, you have a child [born on U.S. soil] of a natural-born U.S. citizen mother and a natural-born British subject father. Each nation has an equal claim on the nationality of the child.
What matters is what the Founding Fathers' concept of being natural-born was at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
If Blackstone is referenced [which, BTW, is ONLY a commentary on English Law and NOT the law itself], natural-born subjects may have ONE AND ONLY ONE allegiance.
Blackstone also states that ALL children born in England, regardless of parentage, are natural-born subjects. However, he inserts a caveat to this proposition - and that is "GENERALLY SPEAKING".
He stated that the usual application of the caveat meant that the children of foreign ambassadors WERE NOT natural-born subjects [since their fathers owed an allegiance to a foreign sovreign]. However, what he really meant was that a natural-born subject COULD NOT owe allegiance to more than ONE sovreign.
How could the children owe an allegiance to England and another country at the same time - and be considered a natural-born subject of England. The answer is that they cannot.
However, children of foreign ambassadors are not the ONLY persons in this category. Children born in a country to a parent who is a natural-born citizen of that country and a parent who is natural-born subject of another country might share the same quality - if each nation lays a claim on the child's citizenship.
FYI:
The prevailing English Law at the time of the Founding Fathers was the British Nationality Act of 1730 (4 Geo. 2) C A P. XXI. It stated in part:
" ... the Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her said late Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, should be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born Subjects of this Kingdom to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever: [10 Ann. c. 5]
... all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever [7 Ann. c. 5. s. 3.] ..."
The Founding Fathers' concept of "natural-born" followed these tenets of English Law:
A natural-born citizen, regardless of parentage, is born within the jurisdiction of the country in which he is born - PROVIDED that he owe ONE ALLEGIANCE AND ONE ALLEGIANCE ONLY to the sovreign of that country.
If another nation lays claim upon citizenship, that person is still a citizen of the country where he was born - but he IS NOT a natural-born citizen.
Sorry, but this passage is NOT cited by itself. It isn't strong enough to stand alone, else there would be no reason for the 14th amendment to include any passages about citizenship. What you quoted is immediately followed by a passage that differentiates natural born from born to an alien. That passage is not cited in the conclusion of the decision. The decision does not describe Ark as a natural born citizen and even a contemporary judge admits as much in Ankeny v. Daniels: "... the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language ..." See, a judge gets it. Why don't you??
What follows is that it says he is “as much a citizen”, it does not differentiate natural born from born to an alien, once again you are making things up; it says that the child of foreign nationals is a “natural born subject” and “as much a citizen” as the children of citizens.
“As much a citizen” doesn't mean ‘as much a citizen but not natural born’ as you seem intent upon reading it as.
| It's comparing TWO different things. "As much as" is different than saying two things are "the same." The child of the citizen was called 'natural born' by Binney. The child of an alien was not called 'natural born.' There's no reason for Binney to make a comparison if it is the same thing. Yes, people wrongly apply Binney as well Lord Coke and Wong Kim Ark... Interestingly enough, this reference of Binney's "Alienigenae of the United States" that Justice Gray used in 1898's US v. Wong Kim Ark has only been used THREE times in ALL SCOTUS cases. One of those cases was the Wong Kim Ark decision itself. The last time Binney's "Alienigenae of the United States" was used by the SCOTUS was in a 1998 Certiorari to the USDCDC. This is the passage:
The first statute on the citizenship of children born abroad, enacted in 1790, stated: "[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided , That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104. Statutes passed in 1795 and 1802 similarly conditioned the citizenship of the child born abroad on the father's at least one-time residence in the United States. Act of Jan. 29, 1795, 3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of Apr. 14, 1802, 4, 2 Stat. 155. This father's residence requirement suggests that Congress intended a child born abroad to gain citizenship only when the father was a citizen. That, indeed, was the law of England at the time. See 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *50-*51 (hereinafter Kent's Commentaries); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731). The statutory language Congress adopted, however, was ambiguous. One could read the words "children of citizens" to mean that the child of a United States citizen mother and a foreign father would qualify for citizenship if the father had at some point resided in the country. See Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States, 2 Am. L. Reg. 193, 203-205 (1854). Or, as Chancellor Kent observed, the words might mean that both parents had to be United States citizens for citizenship to pass. 2 Kent's Commentaries *53. |
A neighbor on mine eldest son, of two American citizens, was born at the US Army’s Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in 1981, and subsequently his son was issued a German birth certificate. When he became of age, the German government sent him a letter to his United States residence that said he would have to do compulsory military service as he was under the jurisdiction of Germany.
So is his son a natural born citizen?
Here’s some reading material for you as well.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#14th
Two previous presidents had dual citizenship, both British through Ireland: (1) James Buchanan whose father, also named James was a citizen of Ireland who immigrated to the United States and was naturalized. Ireland at the time was part of the British Empire. Under the force of “nemo potest exuere patrium,” the elder Buchanan remained a British subject for his entire life under British law and he thus bestowed this status to his son at his son’s birth. President Buchanan, the son never officially relinquished British citizenship.
(2) Chester Alan Arthur’s situation was similar to Buchanan’s, his father was born in Ireland and was a British subject even after becoming a naturalized US citizen. Unlike Buchanan, Arthur’s British nationality was rescinded with the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1870 when Arthur was 41 years old. The Democrats attempted to smear Arthur with claims of disloyalty due to his dual citizenship. It didn’t work so they switched tactics and claimed that Arthur had been born in Canada, not Vermont. That didn’t work either.
The bottom line is that Section 301 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8USC/Section 1401) states that anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof (meaning anyone other than a child of a foreign government’s representative with diplomatic immunity)is a person having US citizenship from the time of birth.
??? You're seeing things. I said the exact opposite and showed how a modern judge agreed that WKA did NOT call the plaintiff a natural born citizen.
What follows is that it says he is “as much a citizen”, it does not differentiate natural born from born to an alien, once again you are making things up; it says that the child of foreign nationals is a “natural born subject” and “as much a citizen” as the children of citizens. “As much a citizen” doesn't mean ‘as much a citizen but not natural born’ as you seem intent upon reading it as.
Binney called the children of citizens 'natural born' not the children of aliens. And following suit, Justice Gray only deemed Ark to be a citizen and not a "natural born citizen." Since Obama's father wasn't actually a permanent resident like WKA's, he arguably wasn't even a citizen at birth ... plus we STILL don't know where he was born.
You seem to be making conflicting arguments. Not sure what your real point is.
Except that the child of an alien WAS called a “natural born subject”.
As follows other than the parenthetical addition for context....
’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he (a foreign national) hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and 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 by operation of the same principle”
Obviously your above statement is in error. They did call a child of an alien “natural born”, they said he was a “natural born subject”.
And “as much a citizen” doesn't in any way imply, “as much a citizen but of a different type”.
There are only two ways to become a U.S. citizen, and only two types of U.S. citizenship mentioned under U.S. law; natural born or naturalized.
National character as incident to birth in a particular locality was the creature of feudal times and of military vassalage, and was described as the jus soli ; national character as the result of parentage was the rule adopted by freer peoples and more enlightened communities, and was designated jus sanguinis?
§ 10. The language of Vattel ^ is : “ By the law of nature
alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and
enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no
change in this particular ; for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. Children born at sea, out of the country, in the armies of the state, in the house of its ministers at a foreign court, are reputed native citizens. Every man, born free, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he finds that it will be of no advantage to him to remain in it, he is at liberty to leave it.”
These and similar expositions of public or international
law, by civilians and publicists generally, are only confirmatory, and constitute developments of the doctrine Jus sanguinis, which prevailed among the ancient free republics, preceding the feudal doctrine jus soli, which had its existence and recognition in a governmental system based upon feudal tenures and military vassalage. The influence of the wiser principles and more liberal ideas of the early republics is felt, and is apparent to-day in the legislation and practices of modern European states and of America.
‘ § 11. The father or mother, who transmits his or her status to the child, may change his or her condition in the interval between the conception and the birth of the child. When it is the father who transmits nationality to the child, the status of the father at the time of conception is considered. If, on the contrary, it is the mother who transmits nationality to the child, —which would be the case when there was no marriage between herself and the father of the child, — attention is paid to the moment of delivery.^
Citizen and person are synonymous terms.* Citizen is analagous to subject at common law.^-Morse (1881)
analagous: Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin
synonymous: Having the same or a similar meaning; Equivalent in connotation
In Ludlam v. Ludlam (1863), judge Selden of the New York Court of Appeals provides a historical explanation:
The subject of alienage was very elaborately examined in Calvin’s Case (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I). Among the principles settled in that case and which have remained unquestioned since are these: (1) that natural allegiance does not depend upon locality or place: that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot therefore be confined within certain boundaries; or to use the language of Coke that “liegeance and faith and truth which are her members and parts are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.”22
Judge Selden concludes that “as a result of necessity from these principles, the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural-born citizens of England.”23 Thus, parentage and not the accidental place of birth determine “natural born citizens” under common law principles.
IN ENGLAND. Not in the United States. This citation wasn't strong enough to stand alone and certainly not strong enough to call WKA a natural born citizen. I made no error. You're hanging onto a defeated argument.
There are only two ways to become a U.S. citizen, and only two types of U.S. citizenship mentioned under U.S. law; natural born or naturalized.
Natural born citizenship exists outside of U.S. law. There are several types of at birth laws on citizenship, but they are not all natural born.
A neighbor on mine eldest son, of two American citizens, was born at the US Army’s Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in 1981, and subsequently his son was issued a German birth certificate. When he became of age, the German government sent him a letter to his United States residence that said he would have to do compulsory military service as he was under the jurisdiction of Germany.
So is his son a natural born citizen?
Wikipedia’s entry on “Natural Born Citizen” has an interesting discussion of this issue:
“The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or more U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time. Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as “citizens at birth,” including (for example) all persons “born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s].”
The definition of the “United States”, for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands. Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of “outlying possessions of the United States” (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. “nationality” but not U.S. “citizenship”) is now restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island.
Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department’s Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:
“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
The foregoing section of the FAM only addresses citizenship by jus soli: In short, what is the geographic scope of the “United States”? This does not affect citizenship via jus sanguinis, i.e. those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship. The State Department also asserts that “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” This position seems to be at odds with the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents.
According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
If Mr. McCains father passed his USA citizenship to John McCain in Panama, then Mr Obama Sr. passed his Kenyan Citizenship to Obama Jr. in the USA.
So when did the constitution change to allow Kenyan born Citizens to qualify for the US presidency? There must must be an amendment that we are not seeing.
The quoted English precedent to establish that WKA was a “natural born subject” and “as much a citizen” as the child of citizens. If your misstatement was not an error than it was a deliberate untruth.
There is no provision under U.S. law for any type of citizenship or any way of gaining citizenship other than being a “natural born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen”. There is no third category of citizenship established in the Constitution or under U.S. statute law.
You keep citing one phrase out of WKA without researching the case in which it was taken from. You take one tiny portion & make it as if it was holding when it was not:
Calvin’s Case (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I). Among the principles settled in that case and which have remained unquestioned since are these: (1) that natural allegiance does not depend upon locality or place: that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot therefore be confined within certain boundaries; or to use the language of Coke that “liegeance and faith and truth which are her members and parts are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.”
Further research confirms that the US did not merely replace the term subject with citizen.
Dictum in 8 Peters’ Reports, 658 : “ It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. When, therefore, a common law right is asserted, we must look to the state in which the controversy originated.”
Dictum, 1 Blackford, 205 : “The common law of England is not in the United States, as a federal government.”
There is no rule of law in the United States, by which it is laid down that the form, structure and organization of the government of the United States is to be interpreted by the principles of the common law of England. That portion of the common law which related to the form of government of England was expressly set at defiance in the declaration of independence.
The principles of the government were founded in pure reason which was the immutable, eternal and universal law of mankind. On this same rule are founded the principles of international law which govern the intercourse between independent societies and involved in the question of intercourse is that of expatriation. “ Our knowledge of international law is not taken from the municipal code of England, but from actual reason and justice, and from writers of known wisdom, and they are all opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.” 9 Op. Atly-Genl. 356.
That passage does NOT mention Wong Kim Ark. It's background. They're explaining what was said in a 1607 court case followed immediately by what was said by an essayist, but when they get to the conclusion of the decision, they do NOT ... again, NOT ... call WKA a natural born citizen. Your dots don't connect. Sorry. Better luck next time.
Of course not. They haven't ruled either way. And probably won't if they can possibly get out of doing so.
But as to "born citizen" and "natural born citizen" being the same thing, that extra word "natural" wasn't put in there just to make the clause longer. As Rush says, "Words mean things".
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.