Posted on 06/21/2011 1:55:34 PM PDT by rxsid
I really don't see how you can read it that way. (I'm not even sure what "born citizens whose citizenship would be in doubt" means.) But I've been reading birther legal analysis for a couple of years now, and it usually leaves me thinking "how can anyone read it that way?" so there's probably no point in pursuing it further right now.
Bingo! Excellent.
Thanks. The double negative reads a little strange, but the meaning is the same. Minor defined NBC. Wong Kim Ark could not be declared an NBC because he was not born to citizen parents.
What's so hard to understand?? Minor said "Some authorities" go further and declares as citizens children born in the country WITHOUT regard to the citizenship of the parents. This group of citizens might include NBCs, but for those who aren't, there is doubt about their citizenship. It doesn't say "some authorities" declare these persons to be natural born citizens, just citizens. For that class of citizen there is doubt, but some that can be resolved, some that can't.
Explaining again how you read it doesn't help me understand how you could read it that way. Why would the court bother to make the distinction between NBC and "regular" born citizens at this point? Minor wasn't running for president, she just wanted to vote--"regular" citizenship would have been fine for that, and introducing the term "natural born" would be unnecessary.
Also, right after the sentences we're talking about, they write, "It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." That wording--"all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction"--is what you claim defines an NBC, and yet the court doesn't say "natural born" again. You claim they've just finished making this vitally important distinction between two types of born citizens--and then they immediately drop the subject.
Sorry, to me it's obvious that the whole section only makes sense if they're using "citizenship of the United States...by birth," "new citizens...born," "natural-born citizens," and "became themselves, upon their birth, citizens" to mean exactly the same thing. Otherwise you have them veering wildly among classes of children and classes of citizen for no good reason.
Because of the 14th amendment. Viriginia Minor claimed she was a citizen by virtue of that amendment and the court rejected her claim because she was a natural born citizen.
That wording--"all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction"--is what you claim defines an NBC, and yet the court doesn't say "natural born" again.
Why would they need to?? The decision cited Art II Sec I for the term and then they defined it in the next paragraph. How many more times does the term need to be mentioned for the point to be understood??
I don't think that's right. From what I've read, she didn't claim that the Fourteenth made her a citizen--i.e., that she was not a citizen before that. Rather, she claimed that the Fourteenth's provision that "no State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" meant that Missouri couldn't abridge her voting privilege. (If you have a source that says her case was that the amendment made her a citizen, I'd be interested to read it.)
The court didn't reject her claim because she was a natural born citizen as opposed to a Fourteenth-made citizen. Rather, they said that because people who were obviously NBCs before the Fourteenth had always been subject to voting restrictions, voting must not be among the "privileges or immunities" guaranteed by the Constitution to all citizens.
Why would they need to??...How many more times does the term need to be mentioned for the point to be understood??
And yet you claim that their failure to mention it in the "Some authorities go further" sentence means they were drawing this incredibly important distinction between one kind of born citizen and another. So I'll ask you the same thing: by that point, they'd already mentioned born citizens, citizens by birth, natural born citizens, and natives. How many more times does the term need to be mentioned for the point of the "some authorities" sentence to be understood? Apparently you think that they didn't say it in one sentence on purpose, to communicate this vital distinction, but didn't say it in another sentence because they'd said it enough already. Like I said, I really don't see how anyone can read it that way.
Question is, why? What's your motive?
How so? Are you saying what the court said in their finding...that that is dicta?
"Minor also raises the issue of whether a person born in a country, to two parents who are not both citizens of that country, is a natural born citizen"
Since birthers such as Donofrio don't buy the argument that "citizen" and "nbc" are interchangeable terminology, I think the response, noting that MvH doesn't actually say "nbc" at this point, would be to simply accuse you of not being able to read plain English. There's no contradiction because MvH is here addressing the other category of citizenship.
That's nonsense, of course, but I think a lot of birthers aren't going to take your point.
Well, aside from the fact that that makes mincemeat of the English in MvH, you are presupposing that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are distinct categories of citizenship. Since most birthers predicate that argument largely on MvH, you're treading dangerously close to circular reasoning here.
It may be Cantonese.
I think what Squeeky means is the name doesn't sound "Chinese" (i.e., Mandarin), because in Mandarin syllables never close with "m" or "k". To my ear, it sounds Cantonese (and perhaps Wong himself was a Cantonese speaker). At that historical juncture Cantonese names were commonly used in the West -- e.g., "Peking" for "Beijing".
FIFY.
No I’m not troll boy.
This one is so stealthy we’ll never guess why it signed up JUNE 21, 2011!
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.