The 'natural born Citizen' Two Citizen Parents Issue - And the Anchor Baby Kamala Harris

Calameo ^ | 5 May 2024 | Joseph DeMaio

[CDR Kerchner]

(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION

It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.

Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)

Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)

[Penelope Dreadful]

I know that you hate being classified with sovereign citizens, but you know if the shoe fits. . .

Look, both of you make up Imaginary Laws, then spew out a bunch of ridiculous pseudo-legal nonsense to back up your inane theories. Both of you are incapable of understanding what judges and courts tell you.

But there is one big difference - you two-citizen parents knuckleheads don’t get your windows smashed, you don’t get thrown on the ground and hauled off to the hoosegow, and your land-vessel does not get toted off to the impound yard. What a shame!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x8Tl65rn78

[ladyjane]

He was probably born in Canada. That is where girls went to ‘visit their aunt’ when they had a baby. His father was probably Malcolm X.

[DiogenesLamp]

Very interesting, thanks.

I wish to further add that the idea of several states joining together to form a Republic could come from no other place than Switzerland, for it was treason to suggest a King could be overthrown anywhere in the world.

If you said such a thing in England, you would be arrested. (Look up Samuel Rutherford)

If you said such a think in France, you would be arrested. You could not voice such an idea anywhere in the 1770s without being regarded as a seditionist.

The idea could *ONLY* have come from Switzerland, which was the only Republic in the world in 1770.

It was treasonous everywhere else.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's on page 86.

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

Now I happen to know *WHY* he was deliberately lying about this. It took me awhile to figure it out. See if you can guess why he would LIE about this particular point.

[philman_36]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Anybody who read the Bible was familiar with the word "citizen" and knew what it meant.

Even Paul stated he was a "citizen" of Rome and everybody knew, or was told, what that meant. He was subject to Roman law.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sadly, that case eludes my ability on finding things online. Do you perchance have an online reference? Trust, but verify. You know how it is.

Not anymore. It is a struggle every time I have to find it. I find it, and then lose it.

The transcript of the trial is lost, and we have the verdict and the writings of Rawle, and his co counsel to work with. We also have the history of other freedom cases to discern exactly what Rawle was trying to argue before the court. Rawle's argument was the same argument he always made. Being born on the soil entitled a person to citizenship, and therefore Flora could not be a slave and must therefore be a citizen.

We know the court was unanimously against him, and Flora remained the property of Joseph Graisberry.

[DiogenesLamp]

I know that you hate being classified with sovereign citizens, but you know if the shoe fits. . .

And when it doesn't, you try to pound it on like one of the wicked step-sisters.

Getting *ACCURATE* history, has nothing to do with people who think "l’état, c’est moi ."

[DiogenesLamp]

He was probably born in Canada. That is where girls went to ‘visit their aunt’ when they had a baby. His father was probably Malcolm X.

There is good circumstantial evidence that he was born in Canada, but whether or not Malcolm X is his father is another issue not related to whether he is an American citizen or not.

[philman_36]

I don't see any mention of common law there, which we DO have in America.

https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary

Common law
The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States, which relies on the articulation of legal principles in a historical succession of judicial decisions. Common law principles can be changed by legislation

[DiogenesLamp]

Even Paul stated he was a "citizen" of Rome and everybody knew, or was told, what that meant.

City-State. Also a Republic at one time.

[DiogenesLamp]

I told you to learn about Calvin's Case, and get back with me. If you are gonna discuss this stuff, do your homework.

[philman_36]

And you give no links to enlighten others. Sorry, I’m not going to just take your word for it.

[philman_36]

That’s rich coming from you. You don’t even recognize the validity of USC 8 Sec. 1401 and you want to chalk everything up to the 14th Amendment.

[Penelope Dreadful]

Well, dude, if you were amenable to Reason, you would not be an 2 parent NBC person in the year of 2024. Geeesh, but you have had 15 or 16 years to learn better.

That is the problem with you Birthers, and SovCits, and Flat Earthers, and Moon Landing Denier type folks. And crazy people in general. There is no argument that will get you off your erroneous belief system. You are all of you, dead to Reason.

Humor me for a moment. Pretend, that rather than wasting 16 years of your life on something as stupid as this two citizen parent NBC nonsense (TCP NBC), you had elected to pursue an online law school degree, or go part time at a local law school. By 2017 or 2018, at the latest, you could have passed the Bar, and become an actual attorney. You would understand what Common Law is, and you would know how to do actual legal analysis, and you would have long since given up the TCP NBC crap. In fact, you would do everything in your power to cover up the fact that you had ever been so stupid as to have fallen for it.

Now, one day you go into Court, and the Judge tells you, “I am going to assign you to represent an indigent client! The Client is a Sovereign Citizen, who has repeatedly driven without a license, failed to get auto insurance, or get valid tags for his car. He has been arrested multiple times, had his car towed numerous times, and has been assessed a ton of fines and penalties.”

Sooo, you go to meet your new client. His name is, hmmm, OH! Dion Genes. You meet him, and he has a low, Neanderthal look to him, and he has drooled and slobbered all over his clothes. He looks a mess, and smells bad, and he is constantly picking his nose, and eating the boogers. And passing gas. He has several binders of case law, and printouts of what you now recognize to be quasi-legal garbage.

So you try to tell him, Dion Genes, you must get a driver’s license. It is the law. But Dion Genes argues with you, and tells you all about the fringe on the court room flag, and admiralty court, and how his Straw Person has a $ 10 Billion sekrit trust fund.

The sad thing is, that having once been a TCP NBC yourself, you can see yourself in him. He is doing to you, what you once did to others, before you went to Law School and learned better. Sooo, you sympathize with him, and you really want to help him. The problem is, that he is so set in his belief system, that nothing you say penetrates in to his brain. Whatever you say, he has some ridiculous counter-argument.

So, my question to you is, how do you get thru to Dion Genes? What would your tactic be? You can’t argue him out his erroneous beliefs. You can’t tie him up and cult deprogram him. At least not legally.

So, how would you go about helping poor, old stupid Dion Genes???

[DiogenesLamp]

And you give no links to enlighten others. Sorry, I’m not going to just take your word for it.

You don't have to take my word for it. I gave you the name. You can find it just as I would have to do if I were to try and give you a link.

I have posted links to it in the past, but I have not kept track of this. I have so many bookmarks on so many issues that I can no longer find anything.

I give up trying to keep up with links.

You can also research William Rawle, which I did quite a lot of. He is a London trained lawyer (London only teaches British law) who was present in Philadelphia during the Constitutional convention, but who was not a member and so did not participate in any of the deliberations.

His father was a British Loyalist, but he chose to come back to the US after the war.

Look him up. Learn more about him, and then you will understand what he argued, and why he argued it.

It is an interesting story, and you may be glad you learned about this particular aspect of American history.

And i'll give you a hint.

That case referenced with William Lewis and Jared Ingersoll is "Negress Flora v Joseph Graisberry".

[DiogenesLamp]

If you don't want to learn about Calvin's case, then you need to stop asking questions for which an understanding of Calvin's case is necessary.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Client is a Sovereign Citizen,

Found it! Didn't even bother reading your dreck, just did a quick word search for "Sovereign Citizen" and sure enough, it was in your text.

Repetitive and straw manly, that's you.

Not worthy of debate.

[Penelope Dreadful]

OH BeeEss! You read the dreck! I know you did! But you are ashamed to admit it, because you realize that SovCits are a bunch mentally ill idiots, and it just kills you have to admit that you TCP NBC Birthers are their kissin’ cousins, and you are just like them. They are Dobermans, and you Birthers are Miniature Dobermans.

You see, they go into court and assiduously avoid bringing the state statutes that say they have to have a driver’s license. Instead, they make up their own twisted Imaginary Laws.

You Birthers go into court and assiduously avoid bringing up Wong Kim Ark. Instead, you make up your own twisted Imaginary Laws.

Both of you continue spouting off your bullsh!t no matter how many times you lose. Because, as a brilliant person once noted, you are Cuckoos of a Feather!

Plus, don’t go around eating your own boogers like Dion Genes. You can get sick from stuff like that!

[CDR Kerchner]

The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, your message failed the "sovereign citizen" word search test, but I still didn't bother to read it.