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

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

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Yes, for the subject BORN on British soil. Born in the US does not mean the person is a British subject. Does Blackstone claim otherwise?

[Lmo56]

Yes, for the subject BORN on British soil. Born in the US does not mean the person is a British subject. Does Blackstone claim otherwise?

Blackstone IS NOT English Law, it is a COMMENTARY on English Law ...

The controlling English Law was the British Nationality Act of 1730 - AND YES it DID declare that children born on foreign soil out of the sovreign's dominion WERE INDEED natural born subjects. As long as the child's father was a natural born subject.

[BP2]

Yes, for the subject BORN on British soil. Born in the US does not mean the person is a British subject.

In the eyes of common law, as the Roberts SCOTUS Court will undoubtedly apply this under Original Intent, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

As A.W. Dicey himself states in "Conflict of Laws"
(referenced in "US vs. Kim Wong Ark"):

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions."

This extends up to two generations, regardless of where the infant is born.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

[ops33]

I think it depends upon when the child was born. My daughter was born in 1983 at Landstuhl. She has a German birth certificate but only because I went to the local German county courthouse and obtained one. The German court clerk told me that a few years prior the Germans had changed their law concerning children of foreign military born in their country to say, that unless at least one of the parent was born in Germany, the child was not a German citizen. But this is just what I was told.

[ops33]

2143 Communications Squadron 79-83, if you couldn’t like Zweibrucken then there was no place overseas you would like.

[jamese777]

Being a citizen separated from than naturalization process is not always a natural born citizen; however, being a birth of both jus soli and jus sanguinis certainly does. Moreover to my post from above, the father was told when he registered the birth of his son with the US embassy that he could not run for president of the United States. The State Department certainly did not believe that his son was a natural born citizen.

---

Once again, does the son have US naturalization documents? If he doesn’t then he is either a German citizen or a Born Citizen of the United States. And ever since the passage of the 14th Amendment, there is no distinction in law between a born citizen and a natural born citizen that has been adjudicated in a court of law. Furthermore Congress has passed no law that was signed by any president nor has Congress overridden any veto of any law that distinquishes a natural born citizen from a born citizen.

Just ask Senator John Sidney McCain. I hope that you are aware of the fact that he ran for President of the United States while having been born in the Panama Canal Zone and that he could have served as president had he received about 10 million more popular votes and garnered 96 more Electoral votes. Senator McCain qualified under “Jus Sanquinis.”
The same is true for Barry Goldwater who was born in Arizona Territory before it became a state and the same is also true for Governor George W. Romney (father of Mitt) who was born in a Mormon mission in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, state of Chihuahua, Mexico.

[jamese777]

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

---

And the same is true for the the 15th President of the United States, James Buchanan whose father was born in Ireland and Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States whose father was also born in Ireland. Ireland was a colony of the British Empire during the time of the births of those presidents and their fathers’.
Barack Obama has “Jus soli” born citizenship from being born in Hawaii and “Jus sanguinis” born citizenship from being born the son of an American citizen.

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, the aforementioned James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and in Canada.

[BP2]

Just ask Senator John Sidney McCain. I hope that you are aware of the fact that he ran for President of the United States while having been born in the Panama Canal Zone and that he could have served as president

Well, not to get off topic, but there's a fair number of people who see that, regardless of McCain's military service to his nation, McCain is not a "natural born citizen" as the Framers in 1787 would have seen him. You can rest assured that had McCain won, the Left would be here misquoting and misrepresenting (as they are today) Vattel, Blackstone, etc. to get McCain removed as a "usurper"!

IMO, McCain should not have run in 2008 as President, either, certainly not without being declared Constitutionally-sound by a neutral body like the SCOTUS to avoid a potential Constitutional crisis. He was born at Colon Hospital, which was reportedly 100 yards outside of the Panama Canal Zone. He was also born about 11 months before an important Act in 1937 that would have "assisted" him (statutorily) to be seen as a citizen. Furthermore, the Canal Zone was a land lease and not US sovereign territory, another strike against McCain to be seen as "natural-born".

As we all know, S.Res.511 in April 2008 was written to support McCain's status as a "Natural Born Citizen" to be eligible for President. The non-binding resolution was co-sponsored by then Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Not only did McCain, Hillary and Obama participate in the 2008 Presidential elections, they also ALL THREE had their records tampered with in the March 2008 State Department break-in.

If one was cynical and over-suspicious of those in Congress, one might think there was a Conspiracy at work here.

Of course, as we all KNOW,
Conspiracies in this day and age simply do not exist ... < /sarc>

[Red Steel]

Once again, does the son have US naturalization documents?

You really are an Obot.

If he doesn’t then he is either a German citizen or a Born Citizen of the United States. And ever since the passage of the 14th Amendment, there is no distinction in law between a born citizen and a natural born citizen that has been adjudicated in a court of law. Furthermore Congress has passed no law that was signed by any president nor has Congress overridden any veto of any law that distinquishes a natural born citizen from a born citizen.

The 14th Amendment did not turn babies born of foreign citizens into US citizens who just so happened to be born inside the United States. Even when the Supreme Court opinion in Wong Ark expanded the meaning and intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment to include anchor babies, it did not rise to the level into making Wong or Barrack Obama into natural born citizens. Justice Gray never said Wong Ark was a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court categorized Ark as a native born when they stated the facts in the case and its holdings. I don't even think they mention the guy by name in the reams of dictum in their opinion.

A 1952 Supreme court opinion (see below excerpt) of who is a 14th Amendment citizen. Notice the parents are foreign citizens and the subject Kawakita was born in the USA The Supreme Court did not call him a natural born citizen because they use a lexicon, a concordance, that is exact when categorizing citizens of the United States.

"U.S. Supreme Court

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

Kawakita v. United States

No. 570

Argued April 2-3, 1952

Decided June 2, 1952

343 U.S. 717

-snip-

[From the facts of the case] At petitioner's trial for treason, it appeared that originally he was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States; went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented by the outbreak of war from returning to this country. During the war, he reached his majority in Japan,

-snip-

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner, a national both of the United States and of Japan, was indicted for treason, the overt acts relating to his treatment of American prisoners of war. He was

Page 343 U. S. 720

convicted of treason after a jury trial, see 96 F.Supp. 824, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 190 F.2d 506. The case is here on certiorari. 342 U.S. 932.

First. The important question that lies at the threshold of the case relates to expatriation. Petitioner was born in this country in 1921 of Japanese parents who were citizens of Japan. He was thus a citizen of the United States by birth, Amendment XIV, § 1 and, by reason of Japanese law, a national of Japan. See Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U. S. 81, 320 U. S. 97...."

-end snip-

Do YOU SEE where it says Kawakita was a NATIVE BORN and THUS a citizen of the United States by BIRTH per the 14TH AMENDMENT? You can't miss it since I bolded and underlined the words above. This is not rocket science. It is easy to understand except for Democrats, trolls, and assorted other idiots.

[patlin]

We have English Common Law and Vattel

We certainly do not have English common law at the national level. I think you had better read the post at the following link, then go back to the history books. Common law only remained at the local level and even then, the parts of common law that remained was quite different from state to state with some states only keeping a bit that pertained to laws of public safety & the judicial system.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2468791/posts?page=246#246

[PugetSoundSoldier]

When the US Supreme Court refers back to English Common Law in creating their decisions, we have English Common Law influence at National level.

[Red Steel]

You can rest assured that had McCain won, the Left would be here misquoting and misrepresenting (as they are today) Vattel, Blackstone, etc. to get McCain removed as a "usurper"!

Yes. There is no doubt in my mind that would be the case today had McCain won the election. I would bet the same Democrat FR operatives defending Obama's presidency would be arguing for McCain's removal under the cloak of conservationism.

[patlin]

Actually, the Founding Fathers borrowed relied heavily from many sources. English Common Law, Grotius, Vattel, and English jurisprudence, etc. As many of them were lawyers trained in English Law, I believe that they based mostly on the English legislation that was in effect at the time.

According to the TX education, they are stripping Jefferson and in his place putting Blackstone as a reference to our founding. This is an insult and a slap in the face to the founders. The founders did not look to English common law in place at the time of our founding, they went to the common law in place before feudal England. It was the common law of the enlightenment period and was the common law of nations & natures law. By continuing to reference common law as if it is the same as English feudal common law is the main reason people are so confused.

The only practices used from Blackstone's commentaries were limited to the structure of the judicial & courts and even then, the concept was expanded upon. The English laws themselves were repudiated. People need to read James Wilson to get a good understanding. Until they do, they will only be punting at any attempt to try and understand & define our founding laws.

[thecodont]

Thank you for this.

By the same wording, BO is (assuming the Hawaiian birth story is true) a native of the United States and a national of Kenya.

[patlin]

I'm not talking about case history. Much to your dismay & common practice, case history is not law in itself as recently stated by Breyer & Scalia. Also, why do you refuse to read the works of the ‘forgotten founder’. You claim to know the law, yet you have not given one reference from any founder as to the laws origin. Do you think that Congress commissioned Wilson to write the 1st commentaries on American law just for the fun of it? And why was it he they commissioned? Maybe because it is his works that one must start with when attempting to define original intent and he was so outspoken about the fact that Blackstone & English feudal law being in complete conflict with the laws adopted by the US. Yep, that would be my conclusion because like I said, what better place to start than by reading & studying the works of the framer who was only second to Madison during the framing and it was Wilson's pen who put the words on the parchment.

[edge919]

You’ve oversimplified. There were the same two kinds of citizenship before the 14th amendment too. The only difference is that fewer people were considered stateless or aliens after the 14th amendment was passed. It didn’t redefine natural born citizens ... and not all citizens at birth can be president.

[edge919]

Not sure why we’re focusing on McCain, but he was born at the hospital on the submarine base according to the newspaper in 1936, his own mother and the birth certificate he had one of his staffers show to a Washington Post reporter.

[Red Steel]

Correct.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

And you’ll ignore the enacting of the Constitution by the first Congress, even when that Congress contained most of the Founders.

So I’ll leave you with this: please provide an explicit definition - from settled US case law or a legal formation document like the Constitution - of what a Natural Born Citizen is.

The point is THERE ISN’T ONE. And thus running around and claiming what it is simply is illogical and untenable and definitely not reasonable. There’s not settled definition nor written in US statute definition. You cannot reasonably claim Obama is or isn’t a natural born citizen because you cannot provide proof.

So I guess I’ll bid everyone adieu here...

[patlin]

So I’ll leave you with this: please provide an explicit definition - from settled US case law or a legal formation document like the Constitution - of what a Natural Born Citizen is.

1st a bit of history as to the common law of the US as adopted in our Constitution:

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.

The definitions:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen
-Rep. John Bingham, one of the framers of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives (March 9, 1866 )

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of 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.-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

“Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year [1906] . In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.”...“The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.” - Chief Justice Hughs, in Perkins v Elg ( 1939)

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy -Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008)