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)

[DiogenesLamp]

alas, the FFs stumbled on not providing a solid definition, and we are left with what we have today plus strict constructionist analysis.

As "Citizen" was not defined in the English language in the manner we now understand it, and as "Subject" was the normal and usual way of referring to a servant of the Crown, it is pretty evidence the founders meant the word "Citizen" in the same manner as the only other *REPUBLIC* in the world (Switzerland) understood it.

In the English of 1776, the word "Citizen" meant "Dweller in a City." Or "City-denizen."

In Switzerland, it meant "Member of a nation", but in London, it meant "One who lives in a City."

The Founders intended it in the Republican meaning of the word, and therefore it isn't based on British common law.

And there is even a book from 1817 which explicitly says this was the founders intent.

[DiogenesLamp]

And like a recurring fungal infection, you show up again on another one of these threads to spread your misdirection.

No, "natural born citizen" was not defined by Wong Kim Ark.

[Leep]

Our Republican “representatives” should all be as clear on the subject.

[Penelope Dreadful]

I am going to be charitable to you, and simply presume that you have had long-term exposure to fluoride, and are experiencing cognitive and neurological side effects.

Like this other sovereign citizen -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcZsL1IHGRw

[DiogenesLamp]

This implies to me that they (the FFs) instead chose to signal adoption of the English common law concept of “natural born subject” in its adjectival phrase form (”natural born”), and tacked it onto their usage of “citizen” as a modifier, as is allowed by the English language.

A *LOT* of people want to make that logical leap, but the evidence is against it.

Much of people's desire to assert English Common law as the basis of "Citizen" is the result of William Rawle explicitly saying so in his book "A View of the Constitution."

Rawle was wrong. In fact he was lying. He knew he was wrong, and he printed that in his book anyway.

How do I know that he knew he was wrong? He made this argument in the case of "Negress Flora vs Joseph Graisberry" and the Supreme court of Pennsylvania voted Unanimously that he was wrong and told him he was wrong.

Additionally, Samuel Roberts, a judge in Pennsylvania, wrote a book based on the report of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding what British laws remained in effect, and the book explicitly shows that British Common Law was rejected as the basis of Citizenship. It *SAYS* that Vattel was the source of the meaning of citizenship in the United States.

This book was widely sold in Pennsylvania and the surrounding area, and was also reprinted in 1840. It *TOLD* William Rawle he was wrong about the source of American citizenship, yet he published his book saying the opposite, anyway.

I wish I could take you through the journey that I went through learning all the things I learned about this subject. I am greatly condensing some essential points here, but the evidence indicates the source of US Citizenship is Vattel's definition, not English Common Law.

[DiogenesLamp]

If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it.

Agree with this.

Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition

This part is flat out wrong. It erroneously assumes that the basis of "Citizen", is English common law, when English common law has no recognition of the term beyond it's meaning of "City Dweller."

English common law recognized only "Subjects." It can tell you much about the responsibilities of "Subjects", but it can tell you nothing about "Citizens."

"Citizens" are the domain of a "Republic", not a Monarchy.

"Subject" is the core component of Monarchy. Our "Citizen" is not based on Monarchy, it is based on Republicanism, and the *ONLY* Republic in 1787 was Switzerland. All other nations were Monarchies, and referred to their people as "Subjects."

*ONLY* Switzerland used the term "Citizen."

And guess where Vattel was from?

The fact that the founders picked the word "Citizen", demonstrates that their intent was Republicanism, and to throw off the trappings of Monarchy.

[DiogenesLamp]

If the Constitution were targeted at a French readership, written in French, and familiar with French/Swiss law, I would be more inclined towards a more arcane argument. What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that we chose Republicanism and eschewed Monarchy. "Subject" is Monarchy. "Citizen" is Republican.

The founders also tossed out "Corruption of Blood", "Debtor's Prison", Official State Religion, and a whole host of other ideas which were incompatible with natural law Republicanism.

Why would we want to hold on to the thing that binds us to the King's allegiance? Allegiance derived from the land is Feudal law. Allegiance derived from the family is natural law.

[DiogenesLamp]

ok....i counter single parent, with the age-old international definition of maternal bloodline. mom has to be e stablished citizen.

The Normal rule throughout Western History is "Partus Sequitur Patrem."

Allegiance descends through the Father.

We are Patrialenial in Western cultures. You inherit your Father's name as well as his allegiance.

"Partus Sequitur Ventrem" only applies to unwed mothers where the father is unknown.

[DiogenesLamp]

Multiple copies of the French language volume of de Vattel were in heavy usage by French-fluent Franklin and many other Continental Congressmen as early as 1775.

Early 1760s. The book was much discussed in the "Whipping post club" among Bostonians such as John and Samuel Adams, James Otis, etc. in the 1760s. James Otis specifically refers to it in his "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved".

The evidence indicates the entire *IDEA* of becoming a Republic of States United into a confederation was put forth in Vattel's book.

Vattel literally put the idea into the heads of the Founders.

"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."

[DiogenesLamp]

One thing that England has separating itself from Europe that the USA does not have to separate itself from Mexico is the English Channel. This in turn might have led England to adopt a more “liberal” attitude towards jus solis based citizenship.

"Jus Soli" pretty much comes from Calvin's Case. And *THAT* was not even unanimous. With the King desperately needing the Judges to proclaim Jus Soli as the basis for Subject status, two Judges yet refused to do so.

Calvin's case was decided on the basis of the political necessity for it to be decided that way, and not because it was the accepted law at that time. Why else would two Judges dissent?

There are English statutes that call into question this blanket "Jus Soli" view of English subjectude.

"Denizens" in England were actually a third catagory. Not an Alien, and not a Subject. They were tolerated, but they could not inherit land, or leave land to their children. They were forbidden from engaging in all sorts of tradecraft and businesses.

They were like second class citizens, but they weren't "citizens" at all. (Nor Subjects.)

[DiogenesLamp]

As soon as I saw your message I said "Let's see if this bubblehead put "sovereign citizen" in her comment.

I scanned through it, and sure enough near the bottom I saw your favorite straw-man "Sovereign Citizen."

Yeah, not the same thing.

[DiogenesLamp]

With Obama, he was born in the US, of a US citizen.

We don't have any good proof he was born in the US. What has been put forth is very shaky.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those courts and others, also told you that your silly theories were just some nonsense that you pulled out of your rear ends.

You *WISH* they were pulled out of someone's rear end. The trouble you have is that there is *EVIDENCE* supporting this view. Evidence even the courts have acknowledged in the past. ("...some authorities...")

Evidence is a pesky thing, isn't it? People like you try to wish it away, yet it persists.

If your theory was correct, there would be no such evidence, but there is.

How can there possibly be evidence contradicting your claim?

But there is.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yet people like you can not read the Wong Kim Ark case and realize that the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was simply an enacted protection of the centuries old common law doctrine that birth within the country, and under the jurisdiction of the country, made a natural born citizen subject.

Centuries old common law applies to "Subjects." (Monarchy)

Which is why it is incorrect when they attempt to apply it to "Citizens." (Republic)

[DiogenesLamp]

Our Republican “representatives” should all be as clear on the subject.

They will avoid it, and for this election, they should.

So far as the vast idiotic legal community is concerned, God has spoken on the subject, and to say otherwise is heresy.

This should not be taken to court until the courts have had their erroneous lessons in citizenship corrected. As it is now, it will lose in court consistently.

[DiogenesLamp]

Like this other sovereign citizen -

A nut condemning other nuts.

The Pot calls the Kettle "black."

[one guy in new jersey]

Very interesting, thanks.

Stonecutters hate de Vattel and any talk of Natural Law.

[Glad2bnuts]

You are correct, but at least that was the strand they pushed as to why he was a US citizen. With Kamelto-a, she was born to foreigners, was raised in Canada mostly. If she makes it in, that means possibly all Chinese babies delivered in the US during the rash of maternal tourism may be next to be running.

[philman_36]

Bless your heart, you’ve been reduced to not even putting up an argument and have nothing but snide to offer.

[philman_36]

Much of people's desire to assert English Common law as the basis of "Citizen" is the result of William Rawle explicitly saying so in his book "A View of the Constitution."

A view of the Constitution of the United States of America by Rawle, William, 1759-1836 (citizen)

same link as above. (common law)

Where do you find that? There are the links so you shouldn't have any problem stating upon which page Rawle does so. I've even made the links available with the search results for "citizen" and "common law" loaded.

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

He made this argument in the case of "Negress Flora vs Joseph Graisberry" and the Supreme court of Pennsylvania voted Unanimously that he was wrong and told him he was wrong.

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.