That Chester Arthur's father was Irish was so well known that a St. Petersburg, Russia correspondent wrote about the alleged Irish citizenship of Chester Arthur in 1881.You are trying to pull a bait and switch here. The issue is *NOT* that Chester Arthur had an Irish father, it's that his father didn't become a citizen until *AFTER* Chester Arthur was born.
*THAT* is the part that has been attempted to be hidden.
They didn't do a very good job of it if Chester Arthur was claimed by a Russian correspondent to be alien born IRISH. If Chester Arthur was born in either Canada or the United States, how would he have been born IRISH? That could only be if the father's nationality was IRISH at the time of birth. It seems the IRISH citizenship of Chester Arthur's father at the time of birth was known around the world. Certainly by Hinman, anyone who read the Herald or Novoe Vremya, and the Democrat party. Perhaps Chester Arthur as disqualified because William Arthur was distinctly orange.
Chester Arthur was born in 1829. His father, William Arthur, was naturalized 31 August 1843. William Arthur's naturalization date has been a matter of public record since 1843.
Chester Arthur became Vice President and then President in 1881.
It's after 1868, and therefore invalid in understanding natural born citizen.
What magic do you attribute to 1868?
Natural born citizens have not changed since 1776. Natural born has not changed since centuries before that.
You have to use evidence from the Framing era. Crap from the time period *AFTER* Rawle misled everyone is useless.
Nonsense.
Moreover, your 2024 active imagination is the only authority for your silly claims.
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502, paragraph 40, footnotes omitted:
“Simply put, subjective good faith no longer provides the safe harbor it once did.” “There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11.”
Since you slavishly follow what the Courts....
That seems preferable to just making crap up, going to jail, or being laughed out of court, or just making a fool of oneself. YMMV.
Supreme Court. Wong Kim Ark. 1898. Paragraph 113.
The correct citation is 169 U.S. 649, 702-703. The paragraphs are not numbered. Apparently you prefer to use and cite some unofficial copy with some special sauce added.
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
There was no person born outside the jurisdiction involved in Wong Kim Ark. As that issue was not before the Court, it was not decided by the Court. The comment about persons born out of the jurisdiction of the United States is dictum, not holding.
A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has his birth citizenship regulated by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has no relevance to any birth outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States.
A person born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States has his birth citizenship regulated by the applicable Federal law in effect at the time of his birth. All such births since 1952 are regulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended. None are regulated by whatever Federal law was in effect in 1898. Whatever the 1898 Federal law was, it did not apply to Ted Cruz.
The law makes perfectly clear that naturalization confers citizenship subsequent to birth. Anything that confers citizenship at birth is not naturalization.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-i/sec-1101/
8 U.S.C. 1101; Definitions
(23) The term "naturalization" means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.
https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam030101.html
c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth:Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
- - - - -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birthThe following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e ) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)
https://npg.si.edu/blog/chester-arthur-birthplace-controversy-1880
Chester Arthur: A Birthplace Controversy, 1880
Smithsonian
In his work Chester A. Arthur: A Quarter-Century of Machine Politics, biographer George Frederick Howe writes of an accusation cast upon Chester Alan Arthur before the election of 1880, in which Arthur was vice presidential candidate and James A. Garfield’s running mate:If in 1881 the American public was fairly well informed about Chester A. Arthur’s earliest years, it was because of an interesting hoax. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, startled the voters of the country shortly after the election of 1880 by interviews in which he accused General Arthur of being a British subject. To support the claim, he presented an elaborate story of Arthur’s birth, purporting to show that he had been born in Canada, of a British father and an American mother. The enterprising New York Sun investigated Hinman’s tale and published a complete refutation the day after Arthur took the oath as President. His origins were widely understood when he became the twenty-first President of the United States.Had Hinman’s tale been true, Arthur would have been ineligible to run for the United States executive office.
https://reason.com/2012/05/19/chester-arthur-and-the-original-birther/
The following story appeared in the New York Times of Dec. 22, 1880:MATERIAL FOR A DEMOCRATIC LIEST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.—A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.
Arthur Hinman would publish a book, How A British Subject Became President of the United States, the substance of which was related in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article dated June 2, 1884:
The main charge of the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born in Dunham Flats, Canada, on [sic] March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was henceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.Reeves dismisses Hinman's theory, while admitting that President Arthur lied about his age. He cites the Arthur family Bible, held at the Library of Congress, which gives the President's year of birth as 1829, and makes no mention of a child named "Chester Abell."