Posted on 11/12/2010 4:53:42 PM PST by Retired Intelligence Officer
I need some help on this. I was reading where Bobby Jindal was born to immigrants here on visas. If he was born in Baton Rouge before they became naturalized citizens, wouldn't that make him ineligible to become President? I am in a heated argument at another website over this and I need answers to this controversy. Any help would be appreciated.
R.I.O.
It is the same as what Vattel has written, but the words I quoted were used by Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett and later quoted and affirmed by Justice Gary in Wong Kim Ark.
Here’s what ‘natural-born citizenship’ means ...
The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements. [28] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, prepared for the United States Senate by this agency, agrees with the majority of scholarship on the issue, noting that “[ w ]hatever the term ‘natural born’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized’,” that is, one who must go through the legal process of naturalization and, after discussing historical and legal precedents and arguments, concludes that “[t]here is reason to believe … that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. [29]
[28] Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1145-1146 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Jill Pryor, “The Natural Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach to Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty,” 97 Yale LJ. 881 (1988); Charles Gordon, “Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. I (1968); Michael Nelson, “Constitutional Qualifications for President,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. XVII, Number 2, at 384-391 (Spring 1987); Warren Freedman, Comment, “Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents,” 35 Cornell L.Q. 357 (1950); Alexander Porter Morse, “Natural Born Citizen of the United States – Eligibility for the Office of President,” 66 Albany LJ. 99 (1904); Akil Amar, “Natural Born Killjoy, Why the Constitution Won’t Let Immigrants Run for President, and Why That Should Change,” Legal Affairs, 16, 17 (Mar-Apr. 2004): ” … the presidency and vice presidency were reserved for citizens by birth.” For the opposing view, see Isidor Blum, “Is Gov. George Romney Eligible to Be President?,” N. y’LJ., Oct. 16 & 17, 1967, at I. In a more restrictive analyses one author would include children of U.S. citizens who are born abroad when one or both of the parents are abroad under the direction of and officially representing, or on duty for, the United States Government, either in the military or in a civilian governmental role. Lohman, Christina. “Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause,” 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 369 (2000/2001).
[29] The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, S. Doc. 108-17, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. at 456- 457 (2004). The United States Senate has also stated its opinion by way of unanimous consent, in S. Res. 511, 11 Oth Congress, that “natural born citizens” include those persons who are citizens “at birth” by statute by virtue of being born abroad of United States citizens.
By quoting without context you quote without proper explanation.
It was well understood what ‘natural-born’ meant and that it was derived from the common-law term ‘natural-born subject’ ... Vattel also confirms this: ”...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.”
Vattel further states: “I say of itself, for civil or political laws may for particular reasons ordain otherwise. But, I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he has become a member of another society at least as a perpetual inhabitant and his children will be members of it also.”
Judge Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 88 U. S. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
“There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
The consequence of this understanding was to shed light on 14th amendment birthright citizenship clause. It was understood as follows ...
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“”1. Citizenship Defined.—The question of who are and who are not citizens had been left somewhat vague till this amendment (14th Amendment) was adopted. And the exact position of free negros was in doubt. The thirteenth amendment had made all negroes free persons. This amendment now made them citizens. Hereafter there can be no question as to who are citizens of the United States.
All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
Natural and native are derived from latin ‘natus’ or ‘birth’. Natural-born and native-born have been used interchangeably. See this explanation below...
The Constitution itself does not define the term natural-born citizen. At the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, under the common law, the terms native born citizen and natural born citizen were synonymous, but. the customary usage was to refer to such type of citizenship as “natural born” instead of “native born.”
The words “natural” and “native” are both derived from the latin word “natus” meaning birth. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Chapter X, defines natural-born subjects as:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that Is, within the ligence, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens such as are born out of it.”
The first definition of the word “natural” in Webster’s Dictionary Is “of, from or by birth” Literally translated both “naturalborn citizen” and “native-born citizen” mean citizen by and from birth. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “native” as “a naturalborn subject or citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.”
Black defines “natural born” as “In English law one born within the dominion of the King.” Black defines “naturalize” as “to confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same, in regard to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.” Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876) VI, xxvi. 27, states. “Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”
“According to British scholars the common-law doctrine prior to the assent of James 1 & continuing after was: nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth in within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects”
No. Under English common law, the parents could be aliens and the child would still be a natural-born subject of the crown ...
In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at page 655, the court said:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also calling ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’ of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -as expressed in the maxim, protecti trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience or the power, or, as would be said, to this day, within the jurisdiction Of the King.” (Thus, a child born In Mexico of English parents was not a natural-born subject, despite his automatic naturalization by Act of Parliament). Later In the same opinion (l.c. 658) the court said: “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England, of alien parents, was a natural born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
The Court further held:
“The same rule was in force In all of the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continues to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
BTW, you do know who this “Mr Binney” is, dont you?
“Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed In pamphlet at Philadelphia with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, on page 22, said:....”
Oh yeah, a write of a legal pamphlet. Not a court, judge. Just an opinion-maker. One who the Wong Kim Ark majority is using SOLELY to establish that birth in a country (as opposed to the stricter view of ‘jurisdiction’) suffices to establish citizenship at birth.
Justice Fuller, in Wong Kim Ark dissent knew that what was at stake was natural-born citizenship status:
“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.”
> “A supreme court Justice gave a clear definition of natural-born citizen in a court decision”
.
False. - he uttered conflicting words, probably in an enebriated state, that were in clear conflict with a previously given, and well reasoned definition.
> “It was quoted - APPROVINGLY - in Wong Kim Ark.”
.
False again. - Swayne’s words are nothing but idle commentary unrelated to the issue that was before the court, and thus irrelevant. He could have stated, with equal relevence, what he intended to have for lunch that day.
Your agenda is obviously deception and treason.
You attempt to dissolve legitimate constitutional protections against invaders in high office.
I've explained the context at this site several times.
It was well understood what ‘natural-born’ meant and that it was derived from the common-law term ‘natural-born subject’ ... Vattel also confirms this: ”...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.”
This doesn't say what you claim. Vattel says nothing about the term being derived from natural born subject, especially when he's calling this naturalization at birth. A natural born subject under Vattel does not require naturalization.
Vattel further states: “I say of itself, for civil or political laws may for particular reasons ordain otherwise. But, I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he has become a member of another society at least as a perpetual inhabitant and his children will be members of it also.”
... as perpetual inhabitants. The children don't become natural born citizens unless the father is a citizen of the new country.
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
Yes, you understand this is acknowledging that neither the Constitution NOR the 14th amendment defines what it means to be a natural born citizen.
"And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision."
Yes, as an aid, Waite REJECTED the 14th amendment as being necessary to define the citizenship of a natural born citizen. He said, "in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position." And later said, "The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment." Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen because she was born in the country to citizen parents (because the definition of NBC is OUTSIDE the Constitution). Gray affirmed this: "The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ..."
For any other person born in the United States (not born of citizen parents), then you need to see if you fit the parameters of the 14th amendment. This is why Gray stated "whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." Ark was not a natural born citizen, because he was not born to citizen parents. He was a citizen under the 14th amendment because he was born to noncitizen parents who had permanent domicil and residences in the United States, but were not diplomats, and therefore fit the "subject" clause.
Fuller’s dissent on natural-born citizen was based on the argument from the lower court, not from Gray’s opinion. Remember, the opinion of the court did not declare Ark to be a natural born citizen.
> “A supreme court Justice gave a clear definition of natural-born citizen in a court decision”
“False. - he uttered conflicting words, probably in an enebriated state, that were in clear conflict with a previously given, and well reasoned definition.”
ROFLMAO. You just make it up as you go along, don’t you?
Pure comedy!
There is NO definition given by a United States legal authority that has ever contradicted his basic points.
This is Elementary Law!
“Subjects are of two kinds: Citizens and Aliens. A citizen is one who owes to the state, of which he is a citizen, an universal and perpetual allegiance. Citizens of the United States are of two classes: Native born and Naturalized. A native born citizen is one who was born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States is co-extensive with its territory, and embraces all persons resident therein, except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states. The allegiance of the United States includes all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and all other persons, *except Indians and the official representatives of foreign states,) who are permanently domiciled within its jurisdiction. The persons born within this jurisdiction and allegiance are the following: 1) Those born either at home or abroad of parents who are citizens; 2) Those born within the territory of the United States of alien parents (Indians and the official representatives of foreign states excepted) who are permanently domiciled within the United States.” - William Callyhan Robinson, Elementary law, 1882
“Swayne’s words are nothing but idle commentary “
Binney’s words, Vattel’s words, and a host of other sources are nothing but ‘idle commentary’, having no force of law. But Justice Swayne, on the US Supreme Court, was no mere commentator.
“Your agenda is obviously deception and treason.”
More comedy. Quoting the first Republican Supreme Court Justice, a Union man no less, is motivated by treason, eh?
“You attempt to dissolve legitimate constitutional protections against invaders in high office.”
You attempt to dissolve legitimate constitutional protections by slander and lies. Those protections allow someone born in the US to run for President. Using the subterfuge of foreign legal premises no less; why stop with Vattel? Might as well use the Sharia law scholars!
THROW OUT THE FOREIGNERS AND GET BACK TO AMERICAN SOURCES.
This is from the Congressional record 1967:
” To summarize; a natural-born citizen of the United States, as that term is used in the Constitution of the United States, means a citizen born within the territorial limits of the United States and subject to the laws of the United States at the time of such birth. This does not include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien parents who, although present with the consent of the United States, enjoy diplomatic immunity from the laws of the United States, and, as a consequence are not subject to the laws of the United States. Nor would this include children born within the territorial limits of the United States to alien enemy parents in time of war as a part of a hostile military force, and, as a consequence not present with the consent of the United States, and not subject to the laws of the United States. But, this does include children born to alien parents who are present within the territorial limits of the United States “In amity” i.e. with the consent of the United States, and subject to its laws at the time of birth. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649, Luria v. U.S., 231 US 9, Minor v. Happersett 88 US 162.”
ALL you have is WKA. I on the other hand have quoted from sources in Clark's (Oxford, England) Discourse on political & social dynamics: "In the Savoy", 1738; "State Trials, Vol 2", London 1809 & Clive Perry, "British Nationality", London 1951
I'll stake the reputation of my research facts on English Nationality that are taken from British sources against your usurper appointed justice's personal opinion any day.
courtesy of Red Steel (edited to reflect obot obfuscation)
That’s not the point ... THE POINT IS THAT FULLER RECOGNIZED THAT WONG KIM ARK COURT MAJORITY RULING WOULD NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT WONG KIM ARK WAS A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.
The court majority never said it explicitly, but Fuller did, and also later court rulings subsequent to Wong Kim Ark have made that explicit connection.
Born a citizen in USA = natural-born citizen.
Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):
Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased entryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.
Hey dipshit,
Mr. Wong Kim Ark was born 10 years before the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. He was not an infant when his case was decided; he was a full grown man.
... was published in 2009. Please cite the source for your claim that John Jay had a time machine and traveled to 2009 to consult that book.
There, that's better
I want a source for Jindal saying he isn't eligible to run. Just because he doesn't want to run doesn't mean he thinks he's ineligible.
TRUE or FALSE.......A Natural Born Citizen in born of Citizen Parents.
Just true or false, please.
Exactly.
Jindal should have locked up his birth certificate too!
BUT JINDAL CAN BE VICE PRESIDENT RIGHT?
“I on the other hand have quoted from sources in Clark’s (Oxford, England)”
LOL. You have GOT to be kidding me! All I have is US Supreme Court citations, Blackstone, law dictionary definitions. That’s all. You wanted to toss out English Common law and now you want to make your quotes about it the centerpiece of your argument? Please make up your mind!
If you want to go that route ... your selected and biased quotes are intended to obscure the facts here. This exposition below goes through the English law on natural-born citizenship and its relation to US law, from 1967, entered into the Congressional record:
The words “natural” and “native” are both derived from the latin word “natus” meaning birth. Blackstone’s Commentaries, Chapter X, defines natural-born subjects as:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that Is, within the ligence, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens such as are born out of it.”
The first definition of the word “natural” in Webster’s Dictionary Is “of, from or by birth” Literally translated both “naturalborn citizen” and “native-born citizen” mean citizen by and from birth. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “native” as “a naturalborn subject or citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.”
Black defines “natural born” as “In English law one born within the dominion of the King.” Black defines “naturalize” as “to confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same, in regard to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.” Bancroft’s History of the U.S. (1876) VI, xxvi. 27, states. “Every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural-born American citizen.”
There were several naturalization statutes enacted by Parliament which “declared” or “deemed” persons born outside of the dominions of the King, whose parents were subjects, to be subjects. 29 Car II Cap. 6 (1676) related to children of subjects born during “the late trouble” In foreign countries between June 15, 1641 and March 24, 1660 and required such person to receive the sacrament and take an oath of allegiance and file a certificate with a court. 7 Anne Cap V, par. 31 (1708) naturalized foreign born protestants of natural-born subjects by providing they shall be “deemed” natural born subjects, 4 George II Cap XXI (1731) repeats the Act of 1708 In 7 Anne; and again in 13 George III Cap 21 (1773) repeats the same naturalization act. All of these statutes of naturalization demonstrated that the citizen by birth was the genuine “natural born citizen.” As stated in Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, pp. 32:
“It was almost universally conceded that citizenship by birth in the United States was governed by the principles of the English common law. It is very doubtful whether the common law covered the case of children born abroad to subjects of England. Statutes were enacted in England to supply their deficiency. Hence, it was deemed necessary to enact a similar law In the United States to extend citizenship to children born to American parents out of the United States.”
Statutes 11 and 12 of William III, Cap 6 (1700-1707) was a statute to permit Inheritance of children born outside of the King’s realm and dominion of his majesty’s natural born subjects as though such children “had been naturalized or natural-born subjects.” (See McCreary v. Sommerville, 22 U.S. 354 l.c. 356,357),
Generally, when we speak of the English Common Law we mean the lex non scripta or unwritten law as defined by Blackstone. that portion of the law of England which is based, not on legislative enactment, but on immemorial usage and the general consent of the people. Levy v. McCartee, 31 US 16 Pet) 102. As stated in the latter case, “It is too plain for argument, that the common law is here spoken of, in its appropriate sense, as the ‘unwritten law of the land: independent of statutory enactments.”’ In Bouvier Law Dictionary it is stated in respect to common law, “Those principles, usages, and rules of action applicable to the government and security of persons and of property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express or positive declaration of the will of the legislature.” Citing 1 Kent Com. 4.29. It should be borne In mind that the English common law did not become the common law of the United States. But, the English common law is referred to in explaining the meaning of the language used by ‘the framers of the Constitution who were familiar with its terminology. Thus, in determining the meaning of the term “natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution, we should inquire what the language meant to the members of the Constitutional convention, and not what the English common law and statutory law was in all of its ramifications relating to the subject of citizenship. It is clear that under the English common law this term “natural born” meant “native born”, i.e. within the realm and dominion of the King. While naturalization and other acts of Parliament had afforded to foreign born allen children of English parentage certain rights to citizenship and inheritance by being “deemed” to be “natural born” (i.e. “deemed” native born when not so born), st!ll, the fact remains that the genuine “natural-born” citizens were the “native-born” citizens. It was this genuine “native-born” citizen (rather than one who was not. but by act of Parliament was “deemed” to be) to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term “natural-born citizens” as one of the qualifications for the President. The English common law is explained In detail in Calvins case, 7 Coke 1.
In Wong Foong v. U.S., 69 F 2d 681, the court said:
“Under the common law of England a child born abroad of a father who is a subject of England does not become a citizen of England.”
And in Weedin v . Chin Bow, 274 US 657, l.c. 663, the court said
“under the common law which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but aliens.”
In Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308, 100 Reprint 1031, Lord Kenyon stated:
“The character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any or the statutes, was incidental to birth only; whatever were the situations of his parents, the being born in the allegiance of the King, constituted a naturalborn subject.”
Shedd ins v. Patrick, 1 Macg 535, l.c. 611 (House of Lords) The Lord Chancellor stated:
“I need not state to your Lordship that, Independently of statute, everyone born abroad is an alien. I state the proposition too generally, because the children of Ambassadors and some other persons were excepted; but as a general proposition, all persons born abroad were aliens. That state of law was interferred with first by a very early statute …. In the reign of Queen Anne, it was enacted by statute, passed for ‘naturalizating foreign protestants’ that children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligence of his majesty should be ‘deemed,’ ‘adjudged’ and ‘taken’ to be natural-born subjects of his Kingdom.”
The case In Re Guerin (Queen’s Bench), 37 Weekly Reporter 269, (Feb. 2, 1889) dealt with the term “natural-born” In the Extradition Act of Parliament and the term “nativeborn” in an extradition treaty with France. It was contended by Guerin that a person born abroad of British parents was a “natural-born” British subject within the meaning of the extradition treaty with France. Sir Alfred Wills, Judge, speaking for the’ Court stated:
“The first question in this case in logical order is whether Guerin is a person to whom the extradition treaty with France applies; and that depends on whether he can bring himself within the exception which says that “native-born or naturalized subjects” are exempt, from the operations of the treaty. The onus of proving that he comes within the exception lies on the prisoner. Now there are only two methods in which a person, other than a temporary resident in the kingdom, can acquire status as a British subject; viz, by naturalization or by reason of the circumstances of his birth. I am unable to draw any distinction between the expression .’naturalborn’ used in the Extradition Act and ‘native born’ used in the treaty. It means a person who is a native by reason of the circumstances of his birth.”
In Dicey’s Conflicts of Law (1896) It is stated: (pp.173).
“Natural-born subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of birth.
“A naturalized British subject means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject. (pp 175) Rule 22. Subject to the exceptions herinafter mentioned. any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.”
In the “comment” which followed it was stated:
“This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality. ‘Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, Which binds the subject to the King, In return for that protection which the King affords the subject’. But every person born within British dominions does, with rare exception, enjoy at birth, the protection of the Crown. Hence, subject to such exceptions. every child born within the British dominions is born ‘under the ligence’ as the expression goes, of the Crown, and is at and from the moment or his birth a British subject: he is, in other words, a natural-born subject.”
The exceptions mentioned are those whose fathers are alien enemies or ambassadors or diplomatic agents.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20829167/Natural-Born-Citizen-Congressional-Record-6-14-1967-p-15875-80
DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS DEFINITION? YES OR NO?
Albert Orville Wright, AN EXPOSITION ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (31st Ed.) (1888)
“All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized....”
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.