If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Posted on 03/10/2022 4:49:25 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
This paper on Birthright Citizenship was brought to my attention by a researcher of citizenship law. Some key excerpts pointed out by him are herewith shared. You can get a copy and read the full paper via the link .
PDF document p. 14: In McKay v. Campbell, the U.S. District Court for the district of Oregon considered whether the plaintiff could be deemed a U.S. citizen, and should be allowed to vote. The defendants argued that McKay was British, since he was the child of a British subject, and had been born at a point when Britain and the United States had agreed-for the moment-to occupy the territory jointly. Judge Deady, evaluating the case, narrowed the issue to that of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which he interpreted in terms of the common law; as he asserted, eliding jurisdiction and allegiance, “The case turns upon the single point – was the plaintiff born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – under its allegiance? Citing Calvin’s Case, the Judge recalled Lord Coke’s statement that “To make a subject born, the parents must be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of birth be within the king’s obedience, as well as within his dominion. According to Judge Deady’s reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is “nothing more than declaratory of the rule of the common law,” and, therefore, the citizen’s allegiance at birth must be evaluated. In McKay’s case, “The child, although born on soil … subsequently acknowledged to be the territory of the United States, was not at the time of its birth under the power or protection of the United States, and without these the mere place of birth cannot impose allegiance or confer citizenship. ... read more at the link
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
She’s still not a NBC.
Neither was Barry.
Ted Cruz?
Can we send Barry the Muslim and his husband back to Kenya now??
Since when did legal citizenship matter to Democrats?
If you would like more information about what’s happening in Oregon, please FReepmail me. Please send me your name by FReepmail if you want to be on this list.
Heck, I would argue Kamala Harris is not even a Citizen at all. Her parents were only temporarily sojourning here on student visas when she was born. See: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/Kamala-Harris-petition-not-constitutionally-eligible-for-VP-or-Pres.pdf
Judge Deady was in a time and place when they still remembered what it meant to a subject, and how that was determined.
He understood the difference between territorial jurisdiction (the police power) and political jurisdiction (the concept of being the subject of a sovereign, whether a potentate or a state).
Eastman and Meece made this clear in their brief in Hamdi.
Those born in this country whose parents are non-immigrant aliens inherit the nationality of their parents. Period.
Harris isn’t even a citizen, and neither is the child of the gobernadora de Baja California Sur, who drove to Brawley from Mexicali to drop her spawn.
The geographic location of birth is only part of the equation.
That’s correct. She’s not.
Mark Levin is of the opinion that Ted Cruz is eligible and so are many of Ted’s fans.
Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids are just as eligible, born of one citizen parent in a foreign country.
Winston Churchill’s mother was an American, too.
Congress bestowed “honorary” citizenship on him in the 1950’s, I guess they didn’t know as much as Levin...../s
bump
NBC includes them, stop with the foolishness.
What needs to happen is for Congress to legislate that people who are here only temporarily—here illegally, or on tourist, student, or permanent residence cards—the children they have while here are *not* citizens.
People who are here on green cards— their minor children will become citizens when they become citizens.
And the children of US citizens born abroad must live here for a certain amount of time while growing up (something like 5 years or more) in order to receive US citizenship upon completion of their residency period.
(This is because there are people who come here, get their US citizenship, then return to their home country with the added value of being a US citizen—i have met people who do this. Definitely helps in the marriage market, but they don’t want to be here or contribute to this nation.)
Until this is legislated, all those you mention are NBC so it is foolish to run around saying they are not
The founders would not think so.
Yep. But the Constitution means nothing to Democrats and it hasn’t been actually functioning Law since FDR and company kicked much of it to the curb.
Cruz isn’t eligible either.
Regarding Ted Cruz, he is not constitutionally eligible to be President or VP since he is not a “natural born Citizen”. Also, whether is was even a U.S. Citizen at birth has been the subject of debate regarding whether his mother became a Canadian citizen when they moved to Canada and where of course Ted Cruz was born. See: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/petition-tedcruznotnaturalborncitizen.pdf
Baloney. Harris and Cruz are not NBC’s. Read this and learn what the founders and framers understood the term “natural born Citizen” meant when they wrote it and where they go it: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
This isue is going to come up again very soon.
Thanks for a good read.
Original intent of the 14th Amendment
Senator Jacob Howard (served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the 14th) clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside):
[T]he 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.
Sen. W. Williams:
I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Senator Jacob Howard states the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment published in the Congressional Record May 30, 1866.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
We have, at a minimum, 3 different Senators who were involved in drafting the 14th Amendment, stating on record in Congress that subject to the jurisdiction can not, does not, apply to foreigners or aliens (even if here legally).
The only thing missing for correcting the wrong introduced in the 1960's, is political will. We must do the right thing, and return to original intent of the 14th!.
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.