Posted on 07/23/2009 8:07:18 PM PDT by DavidFarrar
And, Arthur wasn't a first generation American. It was only his father who wasn't a native born American citizen.
You seem arrogant and pushy...
I'm just following the clear guidance of the Founders on this issue. If that makes me "arrogant and pushy", to you, then you're obviously on the other side of this.
Listen, I'm not interested in battling with you over what is clearly expressed in our founding charter. It speaks for itself. If you disagree with it, then you are my enemy, and an enemy of freedom from tyranny.
That's as plain as I can put it. Screw the miniutiae and mind-numbing arguments about case law. I've already expressed my opinion on that. You're either in agreement with the first principles of our nation's founding, or you're not.
Which is it? Where do you stand?
Did you read my post? I don't care if some man in a black robe got the Constitution wrong, and neither should you.
The US Constitution is the bedrock that all statute law stands on, and is senior to all of it. Some of that statute law contains serious mis-interpretations of original intent, yet it remains on the books, hampering and hamstringing our ability to adhere to the simple and powerful mandates of the Founders.
If you can't see that the document which created the framework for the freedoms you enjoy has been twisted and subverted by evil, and can't see that you're missing the larger picture, then I'm sorry for you. You obviously don't see where the wellspring of your freedom lies.
You have decided that YOUR OPINION of what the Constitution says is the only thing that counts. I asked you to send me One document that backed up your position so you sent me a link. You first belittled me for not reading it, and now that I have read it and it doesn't back up your position you belittle me for having read it.
We are not talking about "statute" law. No one has brought up "statute law" but you. We are talking about the Supreme Courts Interpretation of the Constitution. Which is how the CONSTITUTION says it should be done. So how can you stand here and bellow about the supreme nature of the Constitution when it is the Constitution that says the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation thereof?
Believe it or not the CONSTITUTION doesn't agree with you. YOUR interpretation of the Founder's intent is not CONSTITUTIONAL. The CONSTITUTION set up a little Court we call the SUPREME COURT and the CONSTITUTION gave that Supreme Court the power to INTERPRET what the Constitution means and what the Founders intent was.
Now if you don't like their interpretation, you have an argument with the Constitution itself. You can't send me this case as PROOF of your point and then reject it because your point is disproved by it. I would suggest you read your own site.
The entire chart that shows the difference between Natural Born Citizen, Native Born Citizen, and Naturalized Citizen shows US v. Wong as it's source. The problem is when you READ US V WONG it completely debunks your entire site's BS.
YOU told me that there were no first generation Presidents of the US. WRONG. AGAIN YOUR SITE SHOWS THAT. Chester A Arthur was the son of Wiliam Arthur who was born in IRELAND and did not become a US Citizen for 14 years after Chester was born! So, whether you like the facts or not, Chester A Arthur, President of the United States from 1881-1885 was born on US soil to a NON-CITIZEN.
So again YOUR PROOF SITE gives proof that you are wrong. Now it's rather ironic that you bellowed about how I was getting a rep with thousands of people who were watching. Let me tell you, my reputation is safe. You however have to live with the fact that your FACTS are wrong.
If your Opinion is that the Framers intended for two US Citizens to give birth to a Natural Born Citizen, then the CONSTITUTION disagrees with you because the CONSTITUTION set up the US SUPREME COURT to make those decisions. Now I can agree that you could still be right, in that the Court is not always right, but your arrogant bellowing like there is no opinion but yours is annoying.
You’re an interesting fellow. You claim to have looked over the evidence concerning the “natural born citizen” concept at the link I provided, then tell me that it doesn’t say what it clearly does say.
What are you, Obama’s attorney? No other theory makes any sense. You’re clearly arguing for the defendant in this “court”. Why?
You say that there’s no data on that page that supports my contention that a Natural Born Citizen is defined as being born on US soil to TWO US citizen parents. That’s not true.
These specifics from the page I referenced clearly support my assertion:
Wong Kim Ark
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Natural born citizen is similar to the meaning of what a natural born subject is under Common Law in England. That is one of the reasons why the framers specifically included a grandfather clause (natural born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution). The founding fathers knew that in order to be president, they had to grandfather themselves in because they were British subjects. If they didn’t, they could not be President of the U.S. The holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen. If you look at the fact of Wong Kim Ark being born in San Francisco, CA, of Chinese parents, that holding is correct.
In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen,” and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (above).
Perkins v.
Elg
Perkins v. Elg’s (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Citizen:
On cross appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 69 App.D.C. 175, 99 F.2d 408. Certiorari was granted, December 5, 1938, 305 U.S. 591, 59 S.Ct. 245, 83 L.Ed. —. First.— On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866:
Ms. Elg was found to be a “citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York)
Native Born citizen:
This principle was clearly stated by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, in Steinkauler’s Case, 1875, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15. The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled at Weisbaden where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years the German Government called upon him to report for military duty and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion: ‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.
Mr. Steinkauler was found to be a “native born citizen” because he was born in the mainland USA (St. Louis)
Natural Born Citizen:
U. S. Supreme Court’s Relevant Facts: Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922 and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939).]
U. S. Supreme Court’s Holding: The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000) declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. [Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 350 (1939).]
Rationale of the logic is as follows: The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907. The Expatriation Act of 1907 extended the logic linking a woman’s citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse.
Ms. Elg was found to be a “natural born citizen” because she was born in the mainland USA (New York) of TWO US citizen parents.
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called '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, 'Protectio 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 at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king. ===snip======= In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion Page 663 that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
And stop trying to insult me because I don’t agree with you. I’m no more in support of Obama than you are. I think he is ineligible for different reasons. You obviously think anyone who doesn’t agree with you is an imbecile. That’s a very immature attitude. Especially when most of what you think comes from your inability to read the cases correctly.
“Insult” you?
I’ve done nothing except indicate your obvious refusal to read and acknowledge clearly stated documentary evidence. You’re behaving exactly like an attorney for the defense, which in this case is Barack Obama.
I haven’t insulted you. I’ve simply upset you with the truth. See my tagline.
The other case does not say that you MUST have 2 parents that are citizens, it says that she has 2 parents that are citizens and that is DEFINITELY natural born. They specifically say in the case that they don't have to consider children without citizens as parents because that issue isn't discussed.
You evidence is a clear case for why there are attorney's. Laymen read cases to find what they want to find and they ignore all else in the case. These cases that you site are clearly AGAINST your position and you can't see it.
The only part you got right is I am an attorney. Just not for the defense, I don't really care where the law leads me, just that I am not interpreting what I want to see into the law. That is what you are doing.
You have at least a couple of times jumped to really bad conclusions. Now I'll just let you live in your delusions and ignore you. Your cases prove you wrong.
I understand your feelings, and don’t disagree that’s how it SHOULD be, but that’s not how the law works.
Actually that is my feeling on what the law is, I don’t believe that illegal immigrants place themselves under our jurisdiction, since they are unwilling to go through immigration legally.
Immigrants that enter the country legally are under our jurisdiction, immigrants that enter illegally are not under our jurisdiction until they get caught, at which time they should be deported.
I would even argue that someone here on a student visa like Obama’s father for instance, who has no intent on becoming an American citizen, is under the same sort of diplomatic protection as an ambassador when it comes to their children born here, If they have no intentions on becoming US citizens then their children should not be citizens. They fall into a legal grey area where they are here for their country to study in ours, and nothing more than that and the only part of our jurisdiction they are submitting to is what by treaty they have to.
For instance, does a foreign student have to pay federal income tax, do they have to pay social security, are they required to register for the draft? Of course not treaties we have with their countries say that they don’t have to because those sort of things only apply to those under our jurisdiction, citizens and legal immigrants.
To say that everyone in America is automatically subject to our jurisdiction is to deny the law, it wasn’t until 1924 that native Americans or American Indians became American Citizens by law.
They were not under the jurisdiction of the United States by treaty with the Indian Nations, however most had gained U.S. citizenship through marriage, military service, allotments, treaties or special laws but they were still barred from the immigration and naturalisation process because they were born here. A catch 22 if there ever was one.
So as you can see Jurisdiction isn’t as cut and dry as we would like to think it is, there are legal boundries which come into play. I would say that a Mexican child abandoned here at birth who become a ward of the state, and is raised by two US citizen adopted parents is a natural born citizen, however the child of two illegal immigrants born here who have NO intention to become US citizens through legal channels cannot be a natural born citizen, those that do not obey our laws have no right to profit by them.
Can you show me where it says it is legal to profit from an Illegal act?
OK, when you start a post with jibberish like this, you can rest assured i won't waste time reading the rest of it.
Then don’t respond to me anymore.
Just trying to point out that law trumps your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings on the matter. Good luck.
I believe that my feelings on the law are closer to the way it should be read than your feelings are, since I have stated examples that are based in fact rather than the common beliefs held by many that have not studied the problem or even know what the 14th amendment actually says or why it was written.
Your feeeeeeeeeeeeelings are not what the law states. I wish your feeeeeeeeeelings were how the law worked, as I agree with it, but that’s not how it is. Oh well.
Your feelings on how the law should work are based upon the liberal principles of anyone that comes here should be legal no matter how they got into our country.
Again I have based my opinions on facts such as treaties and our own laws where as you have yours based on what? The ignorance of the masses!
Holy crap, did you even read what i worte?
How the hell can I debate you when you totally ignor what I wrote.
I friggin agreed with you that’s how it SHOULD BE, but that’s not the law.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION ESPECIALLY WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU!
Friggin DUH! What the hell is your major malfunctions. Damn.
Your feelings are not the law.
And what you have stated is an ignorance of the law that has been perpetuated by a misunderstanding of what the law actually says.
My “feelings” are more correct then what you have stated as fact, liberals in an attempt to flood this country with even more welfare servants have allowed this sort of illegal immigration and illegal citizenship to fill their voting blocks with people that have no right to be in this country to begin with and that includes their children that are born here, they have no right to gain our citizenship through an illegal act than you have the right to the cash assets of a bank because you broke into the bank’s safe.
That’s not what the 1874 case says.
A citizen, but not a “natural born” one within the meaning of the Article II language.
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.