[Beckwith]

Re: “Actually that is an affidavit that the attorney filed reporting what the judge is alleged to have said. I have been searching for the actual case and currently cannot find it.”

I've looked, and I can't find it either.

I don't believe the headline is correct, and Wong Kim Ark is the wrong case to use as precedent, unless the judge wanted to find that ANYONE born in the US is “natural born."

Anchor babies, Chinese vacation babies, and Ayman al-Awlaki are all “eligible” according to some very misguided individuals.

[armordog99]

The problem is that the misguided individuals seem to be the the majority of court rulings since Wong Kim Ark.

While researching this I have found that the birthers are missing the fact that Wong Kim Ark decision changed this. They site the translation by Vattel and other supreme court cases prior to the Wong decision. I am not a lawyer but why would the dissenting judges in Wong say:

“I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.

The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such — as was the fact from the beginning of the Government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged — is, from the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, any act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.

The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule
was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;

and

that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

The dissenters further state:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

Again I emphasize that this is the dissenters words. Every law school site I go to says the same thing, anyone born on American soil is considered a natural born citizen.

I don't like it and think that Wong was wrongly decided. However, It is no good to the cause to turn a blind eye to the truth and keep slamming our heads against a brick wall. What we need to do is pass a constitutional amendment defining these terms once and for all.

[armordog99]

The problem is that the misguided individuals seem to be the the majority of court rulings since Wong Kim Ark.

While researching this I have found that the birthers are missing the fact that Wong Kim Ark decision changed this. They site the translation by Vattel and other supreme court cases prior to the Wong decision. I am not a lawyer but why would the dissenting judges in Wong say:

“I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.

The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such — as was the fact from the beginning of the Government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged — is, from the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, any act of Congress to the contrary notwithstanding.

The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule
was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;

and

that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

The dissenters further state:

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

Again I emphasize that this is the dissenters words. Every law school site I go to says the same thing, anyone born on American soil is considered a natural born citizen.

I don't like it and think that Wong was wrongly decided. However, It is no good to the cause to turn a blind eye to the truth and keep slamming our heads against a brick wall. What we need to do is pass a constitutional amendment defining these terms once and for all.

[DaveTesla]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Declared Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen under the 14th amendment.

Never a natural born citizen.

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;” 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.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the
country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the
President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[DaveTesla]

One of the framers (John Bingham) of the 14th amendment had this to say:

Center column 3rd paragraph down:

Source:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=2
>! you have to turn to page 1291 !>

Bingham states: 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… . . – John Bingham, framer of the 14 amendment in the United States House on March 9, 1866”

Charles Pinckney
Signer of the United States Constitution, Governor of South
Carolina. Senator and a member of the House of Representatives.
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born
citizen of the United States means those persons born
whose father the United States already has an established
jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are
themselves citizens of the United States.”