Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.
Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'
Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?
Natural subjects can inherit — Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character — every man must be the one or the other of these.
A Natural subject is one born within the king's allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person's being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.
An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.
A treaty with a foreign nation where the king's powers are competent to it as in this which is a case of peace & war, supersedes all law.
If the king's powers were not competent before, the act of parliament of 1782 has made them so. An American citizen adult cannot inherit then.
Qu.2. The father a British subject; the son in America, adult, and within the description of an American citizen, according to their laws. Can the son inherit?
He owes no allegiance to Great B. The treaty acknowleges he does not. But allegiance is the test of a natural subject. Were he to do an act here which would be treason in a British subject he could not be punished should he happen to go there.
He owes allegiance to the states. He is an alien then and cannot inherit.
Obj. The state of the father draws to it that of the son.
Ans. In Villenage it does, but in no other case at the Com- [mon] law. Thus a Natural subject having a son born in a foreign state; the son was an alien at the Com. law. The stat. 25.E.3. st.2. first naturalized him if both parents were, at the
-251-
time of his birth, natural subjects; & 7.Ann.c.5. & 4.G.2.c.2l. where the father alone was. So an Alien in England having a child born there, that child is a natural subject. A denizen purchases land. His children born before denization cannot inherit, but those born after may. The state of the father then does not draw to it that of the child, at the Com. law.
But does it by the statutes? No, for here are statutes first making the son born abroad a natural subject, owing allegiance. Then comes a treaty of peace wherein the king absolves him from his allegiance & declares him an Alien. This then supersedes the authority of the statute. It is said 2.P.W.124. 1.B1.357. that natural allegiance cannot be cancelled but by act of parl[iament].(2) But surely national treaties supersede acts of parl. The oath of allegiance took it's origin from the feudal oath of fealty. But as the fealty of the vassal could be relinquished by the lord, so can the allegiance of the subject by the king. If he withdraws his protection allegiance is gone. But he can withdraw his protection without consulting parliament.
Qu. Were the k[ing]’s subjects in France aliens?
If they were not, did they not become so when given up?
Must they not of course become so when taken from him by a superior power?
Qu. 3. The father a British subject. The son as in Qu. 2. but an infant. Can he inherit?
1st. by the Common law.
We have seen before that the state of the father does not draw to it as an accessory that of the son where he is an adult.
But by the common law.
Denization may be 1. by parliamt. 2. by letters pat[ent]. 3. by Conquest. As if the k[ing] & his subjects conquer a kingdom, they become denizens of kingdom conquered. Calvin's ca. 6.a.
If an alien have issue born within the k[ing]’s obedience, the issue is a natural only: ib. This excludes enemies possess[in]g a town &c. ib.
Abjuratur still owes allegiance because he may be restored. 9.b. So an outlaw. ib. 14.a.
The law of nature is part of the law of Engld. 12.b.
If a noble of another country come to Engld., he sues by his proper name, not by that of his nobility, because on a plea in abatemt that he is not noble, it is not tried by jury but by the record of parliamt. 15.a.
Ambassadors having children born in foreign nation, they are naturl subjects by the com. law. 18.a.
-252-
While the kings of Engld. had possessions in France, those born during such possession were naturl subjs. of Engld. 19.a. So is it now of Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Man, Alderney, &c.
If a woman alien marrieth a subject she shall not be endowed. 25.a. An alien cannot be ten[ant] by the courtesy. ib.
If Engld & Scotld. sh[oul]d by descent be divided & governed by several kings, those born under one sovereign while the realms were united would remain natural subjects & not aliens. 27.b.
He cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligiance of a king of another kingdom. 18.a.
“There is a group of 5 unrelated children. Each of them has one parent who is a plumber, and another who is not.
Are they the children of a plumber? Or are they the children of plumbers? “
Ok, I was wrong. That was the stupidest thing I ever read. Until this post. Now this one has won the top spot as the stupidest.
“” Since “children” is plural, their parents cannot be singular.””
Let’s pose this situation. A plumber and his wife have 5 kids. Since the children are plural, they can’t have one set of parents????? You are a wierdo.
You Wrote: “So, I take you up on it and show you that Calvin’s Case (which Ark cited as the relevant English Common Law) declared that a natural born subject is born both within the sovereign’s dominion AND under a SINGLE SOLITARY allegiance to that sovereign AND THAT SOVEREIGN ONLY. And I even give you the relevant text by cut and paste ...”
Wig Wrote: It is hardly my fault that I cannot find a genuine argument in that act. After all, it is exactly the same thing that Wong Kim Ark says. That “single solitary allegiance” is a function of birthplace, not parental citizenship.
____________________________________________________________
No, it means that a single solitary allegiance is a REQUISITE to being a “natural born subject” that YOU have argued — for many days now — equate with “Natural Born citizen”
If a child’s first allegiance (loyalty) would be to his parents... and if the parents have a NATURAL allegiance (loyalty) to the State that they are a subject/citizen of... then it follows that the allegiance of the parents would be transmitted to their born child (not of age)through jus sanguinis.
By the way, we don’t necessarily need Vattel (although he would agree)to argue the above.
I think we would be employing “Natural Law.”
I believe Obama enjoyed “dual allegiance” at birth precipitated by his father’s allegiance to a foreign entity.
My argument(in part)from a former post:
The question has ALWAYS been one of Loyalty.
I am not a lawyer but I think the logic behind my short post makes sense.
Child is to parent (of age) as parent is to state.
Just as the child is under the protection of the parent; the parent is under the protection of the state.
Concomitantly, allegiance (obedience) is expected (extracted) of the child toward parent; as allegiance(obedience)is expected (extracted)of the parent by the state.
This is NATURAL!
Now if a baby is born in the united states to an American mother and a foreign national father: would the baby be considered to have a dual allegiance, or would his birth in the country of his mother OVERRIDE the allegiance transmitted by the father?
You would, of course, say that “place of birth” (jus soli) would override the allegiance to a foreign government transmitted (jus sanguinis) by the father.
Now if we were to weigh this on a scale you would be correct!
However, the key word here is SPLIT loyalty.
Even if something is split 90/10 it is still split.
END
From Calvin’s Case:
“Calvin declared that place of birth was highly desirable, but that ligeance {allegiance: LOYALTY} to ONE SOVEREIGN{NOT SPLIT} was paramount.”
(Emphases mine)
STE=Q
“And yet... you couldn’t answer the question?”
I wouldn’t answer it. It had nothing to do with the statement I called STUPID.
That would be like saying if EGGS are plural, Chickens can’t be singular. Anything after a STUPID statement like that, doesn’t deserve a serious response.
Oh... I see. You can answer the question, but you just won’t.
I guess when you don’t like the answer you would have to give, that’s as good a fallback position as any.
“So go on. Give mine a try. You might be surprised how simple the answer is.”
Since your situation had nothing to do with you previous STUPID statement, I will not dignify, by answering, any attempt to try to dig yourself out of the STUPID hole you’re in.
“I guess when you don’t like the answer you would have to give”
I’m indifferent to any answer I would give, but I swear I’m seeing you actually getting more STUPID before my eyes. This is fun.
On another note, Are you trying to tell people what a Natural Born Citizen “IS” or what a Natural Born Citizen “IS NOT”
Just curious.
I love all of you on this thread. Minus the sick bastard/s, of course. (Sorry if I left out anyone.)
You all deserve great rewards for courageously standing up for truth in the face of psychopathic, treasonsous, thuggesque dishonest tricksterism.
I could never do what you do even if I had a brain. My deepest respects to you all.
It depends on the post.
Those sickies, serve a purpose! They make us research all the harder to prove our arguments. We are answering questions of history that NO ONE in the press is asking. And doing it well!
Its getting into the blogosphere!!! People like Limbaugh, Coulter, Rove, etc read this stuff, and I hope to hell they are taking the time to get clear on this: We don’t care about the birth Certificate. We care about the Constitution. Right now it appears it has been violated with means we all have been violated, and we are at the mercy of a government that is literally uncontrolled by ANYTHING, even itself.
That ought to scare the piss out of anyone!
God bless everyone here, even EW. He has only made our arguments stronger, though it seems that was not his intent!
:)
:<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<) :<)
Wiggie Wrote:
What part of this Supreme Court decision do you not understand?
“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.”
We impose lot’s of “limitations” as to who may, or may not, be deemed a citizen within “the jurisdiction of the nation” (where else?)
What’s your point?
That we can’t make laws that preclude dual allegiance?
As I pointed out all naturalized citizens swear an oath of allegiance to our country.
Why do we do that?
If we did not think dual allegiance was a potential DANGER it would not be unnecessary to extract such an oath in the first place.
What you are arguing is that it’s possible to pass a law that does not “recognize” the danger of dual allegiance and, therefore — willy nilly — the danger does not exist!
It’s like saying that we don’t recognize steeling because we have passed a law that does not recognize “steeling” as a crime!
Do you have ANY idea how stupid that is?
The very reason for the Natural born citizen clause — the “strong check” (as John Jay called it)was to preclude dual allegiance in the executive... a dual allegiance that could — POTENTIALLY — lead to usurpation of the presidency.
What Theodore Roosevelt wrote about an immigrant to our shores would apply with the same force (if not greater)to a Natural Born citizen!
No divided allegiance:
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American.
There can be no DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but ONE SOLE LOYALTY and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
END
By the way... did you get those “debating metals” for winning a sophist of the year contest?
Not to say that your dialectic acrobatics are not amusing.
STE=Q
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.