Posted on 10/13/2010 2:16:40 AM PDT by patlin
...As a starting point for grappling with this tangle of problems, Congress in 1868 formally announced the traditional policy of this country that it is the "natural and inherent right of all people" to divest themselves of their allegiance to any state, 15 Stat. 223, R.S. § 1999. Although the impulse for this legislation had been the refusal by other nations, notably Great Britain, to recognize a right in naturalized Americans who had been their subjects to shed that former allegiance, the Act of 1868 was held by the Attorney General to apply to divestment by native-born and naturalized Americans of their United States citizenship. 14 Op.Atty.Gen. 295, 296. In addition, while the debate on the Act of 1868 was proceeding, negotiations were completed on the first of a series of treaties for the adjustment of some of the disagreements that were constantly arising between the United States and other nations concerning citizenship. These instruments typically provided that each of the signatory nations would regard as a citizen of the other such of its own citizens as became naturalized by the other. E.g., Treaty with the North German Confederation, Feb. 22, 1868, 2 Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, etc. (comp. Malloy, 1910), 1298. This series of treaties initiated this country's policy of automatic divestment of citizenship for specified conduct affecting our foreign relations. [p49]
...Upon the conclusion of the hearings in June, 1940 ,a new bill was drawn up and introduced as H.R. 9980. The only changes from the Executive Branch draft with respect to the acts of expatriation were the deletion of using a foreign passport and the addition of residence by a naturalized citizen for five years in any foreign country as acts that would result in loss of nationality. 86 Cong.Rec. 11960-11961. The House debated the bill for a day in September, 1940. In briefly summarizing the loss of nationality provisions of the bill, Chairman Dickstein said that
this bill would put an end to dual citizenship, and relieve this country of the responsibility of those who reside in foreign lands and only claim citizenship when it serves their purpose.
Id. at 11944. Representative Rees of Kansas, who had served as chairman of the subcommittee that studied the draft code, said that clarifying [p56] legislation was needed, among other reasons, "because of the duty of the Government to protect citizens abroad." Id. at 11947. The bill passed the House that same day. Id. at 11965.
In the Senate also, after a favorable report from the Committee on Immigration, the bill was debated very briefly. Committee amendments were adopted making the provision on foreign military service applicable only to dual nationals, making treason an act of expatriation, and providing a procedure by which persons administratively declared to have expatriated themselves might obtain judicial determinations of citizenship. The bill as amended was passed. Id. at 12817-12818. The House agreed to these and all other amendments on which the Senate insisted, id. at 13250, and, on October 14, the Nationality Act of 1940 became law. 54 Stat. 1137...
The provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . ." sets forth the two principal modes (but by no means the only ones) for acquiring citizenship. Thus, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (Chief Justice Fuller and Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting), it was held that a person of Chinese parentage born in this country was among "all persons born . . . in the United States," and therefore a citizen to whom the Chinese Exclusion Acts did not apply. But there is nothing in the terms, the context, the history, or the manifest purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to warrant drawing from it a restriction upon the power otherwise possessed by Congress to withdraw citizenship.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0356_0044_ZO.html
Page 356 U. S. 46
...Petitioner was born in Texas in 1909. He resided in the United States until 1919 or 1920, when he moved with his parents to Mexico, where he lived, apparently without interruption, until 1943. In 1928, he was informed that he had been born in Texas. At the outbreak of World War II, petitioner knew of the duty of male United States citizens to register for the draft, but he failed to do so. In 1943, he applied for admission to the United States as an alien railroad laborer, stating that he was a native-born citizen of Mexico, and was granted permission to enter on a temporary basis. He returned to Mexico in 1944, and shortly thereafter applied for and was granted permission, again as a native-born Mexican citizen, to enter the United States temporarily to continue his employment as a railroad laborer. Later in 1944, he returned to Mexico once more. In 1947, petitioner applied for admission to the United States at El Paso, Texas, as a citizen of the United States. At a Board of Special Inquiry hearing (and in his subsequent appeals to the Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Immigration Appeals), he admitted having remained outside of the United States to avoid military service and having voted in political elections in Mexico. He was ordered excluded on the ground that he had expatriated himself; this order was affirmed on appeal.
Now, how about that bogus selective service record with a CT SS# attached to it and that is fraught with discrepancies.
Why, oh why, are you still harping on this? Don’t you know that nothing can be done about it!? /sarcasm
you obviously haven’t had your coffee yet this morning so I’ll forgive your ignorance that there will be future elections to deal with and future candidates that were also born with dual citizenship. At some point, Obama will be exposed for the usurper & fraud that he is and that is what matters. That we get back to the rule of law, the US Constitution & the legally binding qualifications therein.
Speaking of not having had your morning coffee, you blew right past Philman’s sarcasm tag. He even spelled it out completely.
SORRY
Been on doggie duty most of the night...nearly 16 yr old dalmation is not doing well. Her hind quarter muscles are almost gone so it means potty duty every few hours as she has a hard time keeping traction on the wood floor. She does a lot of splits if I'm not there to stable her until she gets out the door & down the steps. Her trucking days are officially over...
Minor made it very clear that it rejected the need for the 14th amendment for the establishment of citizenship in natural born citizens. “The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment.”
Wong Kim Ark affirmed this ruling in two ways. It cited Minor’s definition and it affirmed the operational principle: “Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, ....”
If Obama’s citizenship is dependent on the 14th amendment (as he has admitted on his own website) or a more recent statutory definition, then he is not a natural born citizen.
I'm still laughing, it just never ends and at every turn a new twist comes.
"[29] As pointed out in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898): "The Fourteenth Amendment . . . has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution. .. ."
Now the original NBS common law of England was Jus Sanguinis. The Norman conquest of the 600's reigned in the feudal law of Jus Soli, but as shown here by Judge Freedman and declatory of the real common law of England, the original Jus Sanguinis was the original common law, feudal law was statute law adopted by Parliament and there is nothing natural about man made positive/statute law:
"The doctrine of Jus Sanguinis has found support also in the various statutes passed by Parliament, as declaratory of the common law,[24] beginning with the Rolls of Parliament of 17 EDWARD III (1343), wherein it was decided "children of our Lord the King whether born on this side the sea or beyond the sea should bear the inheritance of their ancestors." A statute was thereupon passed in 25 EDWARD III (1350).[25] In the Yearbook of 1 Richard III (1483) it was noted that ". . . he who is born beyond the sea and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law.... ,,"
Now I have a question for the drones, where are you getting your definition of "common" as there is no common denominator in the feudal law you boast of? The definition of "common" according to every dictionary I have read is equivilent to Universal and the only common/universal, undeniable principle factor in the nature of birth is the parent as stated in the early common law of England prior to the additions of the feudal statute law of Parliament.
...the only common/universal, undeniable principle factor in the nature of birth is the parentS as stated in the early common law of England prior to the additions of the feudal statute law of Parliament.
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.