Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[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'

[EnderWiggins]

"To say that the Founding Fathers never defined what a Natural Born Citizen is, is a blatant lie.

Clearly they did and they wrote it into law with the very first Congress...."

According to that "definition" persons born on American soil cannot be natural born citizens. If you believe that, well... you are beyond reasoning with.

[EnderWiggins]

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 allegiance.”

Of course they did.

And anybody born on American soil (who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army) is completely subject to US political jurisdiction, owing our country direct and immediate allegiance to the United States of America.

For the life of me, I have no idea why you keep asking the same goofy question after it's already been answered multiple times.

I know that when I travel overseas, I am completely subject to the legal and political jurisdiction of the country I am visiting. Just as foreigners visiting the US are completely subject to the legal and political jurisdiction of the US. You don't think so? Okay. Go to the UK and assemble an arsenal of assault weapons, then try and tell the Brits "Screw your laws, I'm an American and I have the right to bear arms."

Any and all sovereign nations have complete and absolute control over the laws in effect on their soil. This is why the whole "International Criminal Court" is a total farce. They have no impact, influence or authority over our sovereignty.

This is, by the way, also what de Vattel believed.

I am constantly stunned at the Birther insistence that every other piddly little 3rd world nation on the planet can trump American law on our own soil. "Patriots?" I think not.

The law has also consistently understood that "direct and immediate allegiance" is an obligation a child owes to the government that at birth is providing it protection. I.e. the government that controls the territory on which that child is born. This is covered (as are all these issues) in detail in the Wong Kim Ark decision. For example (depending surprise, surprise on Blackstone rather than de Vattel):

"Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince."

I will, for at least the third time, quote Wong Kim Ark on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of..."

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

[lucysmom]

You pretty much disappeared from FR right before the election in Nov. of 2008, then returned to defend the BC issue.

My mother died and my elderly father needed a good deal of help.

My dad died in August.

Any more profound theories you wish to share?

[Danae]

Panel of three one dissented if I remember correctly. Regardless, WKA made the differentiation between Citizen and Natural Born citizen, but did not define Natural Born Citizen.

You can talk yourself up a wall tillyou are blue in the face. You are still wrong.

There is a difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen.

A citizen can have claim by a number of foreign powers.

A Natural Born Citizen ONLY has that of one Nation, in our case the United States.

Sorry bud, your logic not only fails it fails spectacularly.

A Natural Born citizen is always a citizen. A citizen is NOT always a natural born citizen.

Back to school for you.

[Danae]

I will repeat it until you get it through your thick head.

A Natural Born Citizen is always a citizen. A Citizen is NOT always a Natural Born Citizen.

[EnderWiggins]

Duh.

[Danae]

They won’t have to re-read it. The decision would be overturned on appeal. I have that from a constitutional lawyer. No EggieWiggie I am not going to reveal his name.

This is from my own research paper:

To date, the Supreme Court of the United States has taken several citizenship cases brought to it. In the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, Wong was the son of two Chinese immigrants . He was born in the United States in California, and had gone to China twice for short visits. Upon return to the U.S. in 1895 was denied permission to enter the country by Customs, which stated that he was not a citizen. Wong won his case; the court determined that he was a citizen, but did not state that he was a natural born citizen. As his parents were not citizens, the son could not inherit natural born status from them. He was a citizen by virtue of the fact he was born in California and for no other reason. This case did not specifically define “natural born citizen” directly, but made the direct distinction between the statuses of the two. In fact, Justice Gray in the decision actually quotes part of the decision in Minor v. Happersett, decided in 1875 in the Decision:

“‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’”

[usmcobra]

That’s a bogus argument and you know it.

But I’ll play along....

Do you really truly believe with your whole heart and soul that they wrote the legal definition of Natural Born Citizens to only confer that sole distinction on those offspring born to US citizens born beyond our borders and across the seas?

[Danae]

Ok, so how does that foot feel now that you have shot yourself through it?

[Danae]

I am so sorry for your loss. That must have been a very difficult time for you. God bless youfor being there for your dad! I hope things are a little bit easier for you now.

God bless you and your family!

D

[EnderWiggins]

"Panel of three one dissented if I remember correctly."

You do not remember correctly. Panel of three, the decision was unanimous.

"Regardless, WKA made the differentiation between Citizen and Natural Born citizen, but did not define Natural Born Citizen."

Wong Kim Ark defined natural born citizens at least three different times within its discussion. And the Indiana tribunal has no difficulty whatsoever understanding exactly what that definition was.

"There is a difference between Natural Born Citizen and Citizen."

Again.... duh. Citizen is the general category. It contains two subcategories; natural born and naturalized. There are no others.

"A citizen can have claim by a number of foreign powers."

Yes. This is true for all classes of citizen, including both naturalized and natural born.

"A Natural Born Citizen ONLY has that of one Nation, in our case the United States."

No such law has ever existed in all of American history. You really have to stop making stuff up.

[lucysmom]

Thank you. It is still difficult.

[EnderWiggins]

"Do you really truly believe with your whole heart and soul that they wrote the legal definition of Natural Born Citizens to only confer that sole distinction on those offspring born to US citizens born beyond our borders and across the seas?"

Of course not. That is how I know that the 1790 Naturalization Act does not include the definition of natural born citizen.

[AmericanVictory]

Do you have any citationsz to support your assertions? Or are they just assertions. If Vattel was not significant, then why is it that during the debates there were passazges from his work read aloud?

[EnderWiggins]

You request for citations is ironic, because you are mistaken. No passages from de Vattel were ever "read aloud" during the debates.

Emmerich de Vattel was never mentioned by a single Framer of the Constitution in any discussion regarding the meaning of American citizenship period, let alone natural born citizenship in particular.

[usmcobra]

The First Congress legally defined what a Natural Born Citizen wa, Now you can either admit that a Natural Born Citizen is a child born to US citizen Parents or prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Founders had a different Legal definition then the one they used.

You are basically screwed on this issue, it has already been proved that Vattel’s definition does not make your case and that the First Congress legally defined what a Natural Born Citizen is and even if you twist it into a morbius loop that only grants such an exemption to those US Citizens born overseas, your God Obama does not meet that twisted logic you are putting forward.

That it does not appear in the next version of that act is unimportant and irrelevant, the Legal Definition was set by the Congress and stands until revised, just like so many other legal Definitions in our laws.

My favorite is when Congress defined what Marines should be feed and attached it to a totally unrelated act. Signed into law in the 1920’s it determined that Marines had to be feed a certain amount of Butter every day.

So what? you might ask, well because this particular legal definition of what a Marine must be feed was never re-written to include Margarine, during the cost cutting days of the seventies someone discovered that you could not feed Marines the vile margarine that was being unloaded on the defense department by unscrupulous vendors.

As you can see it does matter what legal definitions are written into US law, and even if those legal definitions are not included in subsequent versions of the law they still carry the full weight of the law until such time as they are revised by Congress even if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional it is the responsibility of the Congress to redefine what the law says.

Nowhere in the subsequent legal definitions does it legally remove or redefine what a Natural Born Citizen is, and by legally remove I mean that there is very specific language that the Congress uses to show that it has been removed by law.

[AmericanVictory]

I think that over there at central for the One they need to train you better. You are wrong. And I again challenge you to show us the passage in Blackstone on an Enlgish decision wehre the phrase “natural born citizen” is used and cited as you assert. I don’t think you have a shred of actual authority to support your assertions.

[EnderWiggins]

"The First Congress legally defined what a Natural Born Citizen wa, Now you can either admit that a Natural Born Citizen is a child born to US citizen Parents or prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Founders had a different Legal definition then the one they used."

They did no such thing.

They briefly extended the definition of natural born citizen (which was already established by three centuries of English and American common law) to children of citizens born overseas.

We know this to be true because that "definition" does not include children born on American soil at all. And that would be, well, stupid. The Framers were not stupid.

[EnderWiggins]

"You are wrong."

Then show me that I am wrong. Since I cannot prove a negative, you can do us all the great service of proving the positive. Please, show us what no other Birther in this or any Free Republic thread has been able to show: a single framer or founder who ever mentioned de Vattel in the same breath as citizenship.

"And I again challenge you to show us the passage in Blackstone on an Enlgish decision wehre the phrase “natural born citizen” is used and cited as you assert."

Well, that's hardly challenging me "again." It is in fact the first time you have challenged me, and I am happy to oblige.

"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."

Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765--1769. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. pp:361--62

[EnderWiggins]

Oh... one more thing. Assuming you intend to hypocritically quibble that "subject" and "citizen" are not the same thing, the Supreme Court disagrees rather explicitly:

"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 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."

and

"Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land."

Both quotations are from the decision in Wong Kim Ark