Open request to Senator Cruz

[big bad easter bunny]

The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens. You do not meet that qualification, if I am wrong please straiten me out. If you get the nomination I promise you the democrats will do what the republicans are too scared to do.

Dear Ted I think you are awesome but we all need to know the answer to this.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think I can save myself a lot of trouble just by ignoring whatever it is you write. Especially when you put forth a wall of text. Not going to wade through it. You are just rehashing old crap that didn't fly the first time you tried it.

Don't really care what you think about anything.

[CpnHook]

If he was in either way born a British subject, then he is to be deemed an alien and incapable to take the land in controversy by descent unless he had become at the time of the descent cast an American citizen by some act sufficient in point of law to work such a change of allegiance.

My quote was accurate and contextually sufficient. Story lays out 3 options, given that John Inglis's date of birth was uncertain: 1) if born before July 4, 1776, he was born a British subject, 2) if born between July 4 and September 15, he was born an American citizen (even though parents were British subjects), 3) if born after September 15, then he was born a British subject (born to British subjects on land then under the jurisdiction of England is treated as a "foreign" birth.

So when Story writes "if he was either way born a British subject . . " he's talking about options 1 and 3. Those are the two ways (either/or) Inglis could have been born British.

Justice Thompson, writing for the majority, determines the second case applied: "I shall therefore answer the second question in the affirmative -- that is that he was entitled to inherit as a citizen, born of the State of New York."

So the majority, in finding Inglis was born a citizen, clearly applies a jus soli rule (for it was acknowledged in both the majority and concurring opinions his parents were British subjects).

Now the point that DiogenesLamp and others don't want to acknowledge is that Chief Justice John Marshall signs on to the majority opinion here. If you want evidence that Marshall in his dissent in The Venus wasn't in any way purporting to address a question on citizenship or enunciate a rule as to American citizenship, look no further.

BTW - providing actual links or webpages for other people's perusal is both useful and courteous........ with the side benefit of showing you aren't attempting cherry-pick your quotes

Fair enough. Though I included the portions where Story articulated the 3 options.

If I'm introducing material from a source likely unfamiliar to the readers, I will link the source (as I did with the background material on Blackstone and Justice Story). Though cases like Inglis, Minor, WKA, etc., have been hashed over enough I figure people know where to find them.

Though back to Joseph Story. When he writes -- "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth" -- that is unmistakably an adoption of the English jus soli principle, right? How much clearly could he signal this?

[DiogenesLamp]

Hardly, as the historical question is still "what understanding of English law had the Founders and Framers when they set forth our law?"

They understood it to require perpetual allegiance. They disagreed that they should abide by it. As a result, they founded the new nation on "natural law." They even said so.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

That concept of asserting Independence? That comes straight from Vattel. At the time, no other writer of Natural philosophy had advanced such an idea. It was completely Vattel. Not Grotius, Not Burlamaqui , Not Locke, Not Rousseau, Not Puffendorf, Not Rutherford, and it certainly didn't come from "Blackstone". No other writer but Vattel suggested such an idea.

Where was their citation of English law in the Declaration of Independence? Under what English Authority was such a thing even possible? It wasn't. Only "natural law" could provide the philosophical and moral foundation for the concept of separation with the Mother Country. It was absolutely contrary to ever known principle of English Law, and it was *THOSE PRINCIPLES* that were responsible for the creation of American Citizenship, not English law.

And those are the facts.

The Declaration Itself, the document which CREATED US Citizenship, the very founding document of our nation, testifies against you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Dream on. As I've shown you, Tucker set forth Blackstone's statement:

It's funny. The founders cite "natural law" as their authority, and you prattle on about "Blackstone."

I'm sure George III pointed to him when he was explaining to the colonies why they didn't have the legal authority to secede.

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

Really? You might want to finish Story's thought instead of conveniently ending it where it 'proves' your point-

Jeff used to do that too. Remember how he always chopped off the part where John Bingham explained that it did not apply to the children of foreigners?

Jeff Knew fully well that John Bingham was against him, but he always cut off that quote so it appeared that John Bingham was on his side.

Deceitful B@stards, these Obot trolls.

If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject. If he was in either way born a British subject, then he is to be deemed an alien and incapable to take the land in controversy by descent unless he had become at the time of the descent cast an American citizen by some act sufficient in point of law to work such a change of allegiance.

And to the best I can determine from researching it, this condition applied to about 100,000 children born *IN* the United States, but recognized by both sides as British Subjects.

That is the thing with these people, you can point out the REALITY of 100,000 examples of people NOT being US Citizens even though they were born here, and they just give you a dumb look. It's like they are incapable of understanding that their belief is wrong.

They have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to accepting the facts versus the theory which they wish to believe. People born in this country to British Parents after July 4, 1776 were BRITISH SUBJECTS, not US citizens.

FACT!

[MamaTexan]

Too busy focusing on making our government look like the one in England I think. You know, that one with a *KING* or something.

And government just kept trying, too.

That's what cracks me up about anyone quoting 'Sharswood's Blackstone'. George Sharswood decided to edit Blackstone's Commentaries in 1893...over 100 years after the Founders said the English common law was not adopted by the federal government and Tucker had already illustrated the parameters for English influence in the American States.

Thanks for the quotes by Wilson, BTW. I was reading more of his lectures yesterday, and discovered he could have some pretty salty language at times (LOL!).... but like the rest of them, his points were exceptionally clear.

[Fantasywriter]

Just as an aside, while Jeff was deceitful and routinely went overboard (with his repetitiveness) he was at least polite. Also, once in a blue moon he would acknowledge a point in common with conservatives. Not often, yet quite sincerely on those rare occasions when it happened.

Our current Obot is just rude. Not as sharp as Jeff, as you pointed out, but just plain boorish. That would be what I dislike about him most...if it weren’t for the evasions and deceit. So it’s a three-way photo finish, but at least no one will ever confuse him for the never-banned J. Winston.

[DiogenesLamp]

Natural born citizenship is hereditary...you get it from your parents because you inherent their Allegiance.

So is the family name. People can become a member of a family through adoption (which is analogous to naturalization in a country) but if you would believe the arguments of these Obot trolls, you would only need to be born in someone else's house to be a member of their family.

People can recognize this idea as nonsense when you apply it to a family, but they don't see the silliness of it when you apply it to a nation.

Newly acquired citizenship should be contingent upon the deliberate acquiescence of the adopting nation. No foreigner should be able to decide to "give" American citizenship to their children. It is not their's to give.

We went far afield back in the early days of the 19th century, and I for one blame Rawle and others for deliberately muddying the waters.

[DiogenesLamp]

If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.

And you know, this quote puts Joseph Story firmly against the idea that citizenship is decided solely on place of birth. He explicitly acknowledges the role the Parent's citizenship plays in establishing the citizenship of the child.

These Obot trolls would have us believe that place of birth creates automatic US Citizenship, but Story clearly states that it does not.

I expect this realization will cause some more circuit breakers to pop in Liberal heads who are arguing that Story is on their side. Looks to me like Story just switched solidly over to our side.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[DiogenesLamp]

My quote was accurate and contextually sufficient.

Sure. If you want to MISLEAD PEOPLE about what Joseph Story actually meant. It's not "contextually sufficient" if you want them to have a correct understanding.

Mamma Texan's filling in of the rest of the quote demonstrates conclusively that Joseph Story did not regard birth on the soil to be the exclusive criteria for acquiring US Citizenship. He explicitly says that the Allegiance of the parents apply.

You just Lost Joseph Story as someone you can claim supports your side. He certainly does not, and that quote proves it.

100,000 children of British Loyalists born after July 4,1776. You would have thought someone would notice that, and it appears that Justice Story certainly did.

Justice Joseph Story:

Welcome to our side. You are in very good company. Meet your old collegues John Marshall and Bushrod Washington. We now have three Kings instead of two.

[Fantasywriter]

I don’t know if you saw this, but TheBirtherReport had a post re: Vattel yesterday:

‘Unearthed: Does This Further Prove Founders Used Vattel’s Natural Born Citizen Definition!?’

Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/02/unearthed-does-this-further-prove.html#orbCUQ6flSMopVHA.99

Some interesting research in the comments section.

[Fantasywriter]

If go to the link, pay special attention to the comments of a poster going by the screen-nmae of ‘Gail Evoy.’;

[MamaTexan]

Justice Thompson, writing for the majority, determines the second case applied: "I shall therefore answer the second question in the affirmative -- that is that he was entitled to inherit as a citizen, born of the State of New York."

Since his actual date of birth was unknown, (and having no proof to the contrary) the court had no justification for denying Inglis his inheritance, but his inheritance didn't hinge on him being natural born, just being a citizen.

The question is, what kind of citizen was he? The Justice said - I shall therefore answer the second question in the affirmative -- that is that he was entitled to inherit as a citizen, born of the State of New York."

And he's correct. Inglis was 'entitled' to inherit as a citizen the same way ALL the members of the Founding generation were....with the 1795 Naturalization act.

November 22, 1788
……and Phillip Theobald & John de Polerisky, upon taking the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth before two Justices of the Peace, & paying to the Secretary the fee in such case required, shall be deemed adjuded and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born Citizens.
Acts and Resolves of Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court of Massachusetts
Page 39

Being made a citizen via a Naturalization Act in order to have the entitlements of a natural born citizen doesn't make one natural-born.

-----

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth" -- that is unmistakably an adoption of the English jus soli principle, right?

The key word your missing is 'resident'. It doesn't mean just being there....not even in England.

Story illustrates this further down with his points concerning the laws of the state-

We must, then, give a rational interpretation to the word, consistent with the rights of parties and the accompanying language of the ordinance. By "abiding" in the ordinance is meant not merely present inhabitants, but present inhabitancy coupled with an intention of permanent residence.

(snip)

But even admitting that his parents did elect to become citizens of New York before 15 September, 1776, still I am of opinion that the demandant, if he was born after the British took possession of the City of New York in September, 1776, while his parents were under the protection of and adhering to the British government de facto, was to all intents and purposes an alien born. To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government
Page 28 U. S. 168

[MamaTexan]

He explicitly acknowledges the role the Parent's citizenship plays in establishing the citizenship of the child.

Yep..and even the place of birth has conditions. Check out post #313.

[DiogenesLamp]

And government just kept trying, too.

Years ago I read an excellent commentary that said "In 1776, our Founders created a new form of government which had never existed before. Ever since, the Aristocracy as been trying to reimpose the old system."

That is what we have now. The Leadership of the Democrat party wants there to be only two classes of people; The Elite, and the peasants.

The Democrat Party, which runs most of the government, fancies itself as "those who know better". It also includes very wealthy and upper income class people, as well as the rich Hollywood Celebrity types.

All of these people see themselves as the nomenklatura, the "elite", the natural aristocracy, the people who OUGHT to be ruling the rest of us. They really do favor Monarchy/Aristocracy over a Free Republic.

That's what cracks me up about anyone quoting 'Sharswood's Blackstone'. George Sharswood decided to edit Blackstone's Commentaries in 1893...over 100 years after the Founders said the English common law was not adopted by the federal government and Tucker had already illustrated the parameters for English influence in the American States.

I believe there has been a lot of revision to our history. A lot of things seem to make a lot more sense when you ignore whatever happens to be the common narrative nowadays and look for motives and deeper meanings.

Thanks for the quotes by Wilson, BTW. I was reading more of his lectures yesterday, and discovered he could have some pretty salty language at times (LOL!).... but like the rest of them, his points were exceptionally clear.

Yes, Wilson is a good read, and he is exceptionally eloquent by today's standards. But then, so is everyone from that era. I am often just amazed at the clarity of thought you see in any of the writings from this time period.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t know if you saw this, but TheBirtherReport had a post re: Vattel yesterday:

‘Unearthed: Does This Further Prove Founders Used Vattel’s Natural Born Citizen Definition!?’

No, I didn't see that. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Earlier a friend and I were having lunch and I mentioned to him about our current Obot troll and how I had mentioned to it that of all the philosophers on natural law from that era, only Vattel asserted the idea that a body of people had a right to break away from a larger government and form one of their own. Only Vattel suggested the concept of "Independence."

He suggested that it was a very dangerous concept for the time, and that anyone suggesting it would likely have the King's soldiers knocking on his door. I opined as how that was very likely true, because the concept would be regarded as justifying treason to the crown.

He said he wondered how Vattel got away with it. I pointed out "That's easy. He didn't live under a King. At the time, he lived in the Only country in the world that didn't have one. Switzerland was a Republic".

Then it dawned on me. This idea could not have COME from any other philosopher. All the rest would have been tossed in the dungeon for suggesting it. Only a man in Switzerland could have argued that Independence was a right.

This demonstrates that the fate of this nation and our founding document are all the more strongly linked to the work of Emmerich De Vattel, because no one else could have dared put such an idea on the table.

[DiogenesLamp]

Doh!

[Ray76]

> To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government

This was later said by Sen. Trumbull regarding the 14th Amendment:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just as an aside, while Jeff was deceitful and routinely went overboard (with his repetitiveness) he was at least polite. Also, once in a blue moon he would acknowledge a point in common with conservatives. Not often, yet quite sincerely on those rare occasions when it happened.

I'm drawing a blank when attempting to recall such occasions. Obviously they were rare indeed! :)

I remember hammering him to death with his deceit on that Bingham quote, and he never acknowledged that he was wrong about Bingham supporting his position, and indeed, would continue to use that truncated quote to claim support from Bingham.

I remember him trying to wheedle on occasion, but I regard that as different from being polite. He was only so polite as he thought he needed to be to induce people to agree with him. When he realized you weren't going to, the fangs would come out again.

I am glad he is gone. If I have any regrets it's that I can't continue mocking and taunting him further. :)

[MamaTexan]

Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Yep. The co author of the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard said the same. The evidence is all over the place.

---

BTW > Howdy, Ray! :-)