citizenship of the child at its birth is determined by...

Albany Law Journal | 1885 | US State Department

[patlin]

http://books.google.com/books?id=qrgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA469&dq=Vattel++%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Important%20Instructions%22&f=false

Further evidence that there was absolutely no law that conferred citizenship on anyone born within the jurisdiction of the United States to alien parents or an alien father married to an American born mother.

[patlin]

http://books.google.com/books?id=qrgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA469&dq=Vattel++%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Important%20Instructions%22&f=false

[dalebert]

how can we make law makers read the law???

[patlin]

how can we make law makers read the law???

your guess is as good as mine but the citizenship law was pretty plain according to all those court cases cited going back to the revolution and the citizenship laws of America were NOT that of feudal law, but of International Law of Nations

[MHGinTN]

BTTT for tomorrow’s reading.

[dalebert]

Maybe we should start a campaigne to educate people since schools are not doing it.

[so_real]

Bump for morning

[Gay State Conservative]

Interesting stuff.

[ASA Vet]

What’s interesting is that no after-birthers are here yet.

[ASA Vet]

NBC Ping

[patriot08]

(snip)
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.

(snip)
But not ONE member of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject. The Constitution does NOT stand.

(snip)
Half of the people you expect to stop this insanity are quiet co-conspirators in the silent coup. The other half is paralyzed by fear, motivated only by political self-preservation.

(Snip)
Americans keep asking what they can do because they see that none of their leaders are doing anything to stop the demise of their beloved country. It’s the right question, because those leaders are NOT going to stop this thing.

JB Williams
Canada Free Press

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999

[bgill]

how can we make law makers read the law???

Did they read the stimulus plan? No.

Did they read ObamaCare? No.

Did they read Arizona's law? No.

They are in office for X years and they know that once in office they can slide by most elections with just name recognition because the sheeple have no clue nor do they care what happens outside their front doors. They know they don't have to kiss the US citizens' butts anytime after that first win.

[Uncle Chip]

What’s interesting is that no after-birthers are here yet.

Nor will they be.

They can't handle threads with documentary evidence. They are too busy on other threads postulating that a photoshopped photo of a photoshopped forgery should/would/could be admissible in a court of law especially if it floated down magically from the blue sky above into the judge's waiting hands who should then just accept it into evidence without question, attestation, or cross-examination.

There are no levels to which the afterbirthers will not stoop to discredit themselves.

[DCmarcher-976453]

Bo must go.”. Ordinarily the citizenship of the child at its birth is determined by that of the father. “ Nuf said.

[tutstar]

bump

[dalebert]

powerful reply. thank you

[patriot08]

JB Williams has the guts to tell it like it is.

[jamese777]

http://books.google.com/books?id=qrgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA469&dq=Vattel++%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Important%20Instructions%22&f=false
Further evidence that there was absolutely no law that conferred citizenship on anyone born within the jurisdiction of the United States to alien parents or an alien father married to an American born mother.

---

However there are some US Supreme Court decisions that have ruled otherwise:
From the precedent setting US Supreme Court decision in the case of US v Wong Kim Ark (1898):
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

“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.’

and

…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.—169 US 649, US v Wong Kim Ark
http://openjurist.org/169/us/649

---

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
The following shows that acquiring dual citizenship does not abrogate the natural born status of a US Citizen.

“And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….”

The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”— Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html

---

Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/253/454/case.html

---

Here the Supreme Court demonstrates the equivalent use of the terms “native born” and “natural born.”

Schneider v. Rusk (1964)
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html

---

Here the Supreme Court notes that only two types of US citizen are recognized.

Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

Note here that “citizens by birth” are contrasted to naturalized citizens, with the former eligible to be president.

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html

---

And with specific regard to the eligibility of Barack Obama to receive a state’s Electoral College votes as a Natural Born Citizen, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled as follows:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

[patlin]

jamseeee, you are very drunk

WKA - erroneous ruling based on english feudal law, not a hundered years of American law

Elg - born to immigrant parents who were at the time of her birth US citizens as they had been naturalized prior to her birth

Elk - held that the 14th was constituional based on the decision in Slaughterhouse that a child born to any parents owing allegiance to a foreign nation was not a US citizen.

Rusk - I have not studied the details of it, but Apuzzo & Donofrio have and your little quip there does not reflect the true nature of the case, you are merely mining for quotes to use

Kwock - never heard of it before today, eill have to read it for myself so I sit on the fence as to a reply to that one & then finally

you bring back the Indiana case - bwahahahaha - it never even saw the light of the ocurt room so to say it precedent when the ruling had nothing to do with the definition of NBC, it was merely a ruling on standing

What does this all show? You dear jamseeee are very drunk and desperate.

[little jeremiah]

Drunk and desperate.