Really? You might want to finish Story's thought instead of conveniently ending it where it 'proves' your point-
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. >>> 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.
-----
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.
Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor 28 U.S. 99 (1830)
Thanks for that clarification, MT. There is no excuse for dishonesty. Yet it’s difficult to defend a pathological liar without deceit. Lies spawn more lies, and more lies spawn bigger lies. Without such lies, Obama would never have made it into the primaries, much less beyond. But when state officials and the MSM are all willing to lie, the way is cleared for the worst, most destructive POTUS in history.
And somehow, for some reason, this makes the Obots happy.
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?
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!
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.