Posted on 12/01/2011 10:01:50 AM PST by rxsid
"Debunking The New Natural Born Citizen Congressional Research Propaganda.
Yesterday, attorney Jack Maskell issued yet another version of his ever changing Congressional Research Memo on POTUS eligibility and the natural-born citizen clause. The CRS memo is actually a blessing for me in that I’ve been putting a comprehensive report together on this issue for about a month now. But not having an official source standing behind the entire body of propaganda made my job more difficult.
The complete refutation will be available soon, but for now I will highlight one particularly deceptive example which illustrates blatant intellectual dishonesty. On pg. 48, Maskell states:
In one case concerning the identity of a petitioner, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”221221 Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920). The Supreme Court also noted there: “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.” 253 U.S. at 464.
Reading this yesterday, I had a fleeting moment of self-doubt. Could I have missed this case? Did the Supreme Court really state that the son of two aliens was a natural-born citizen? The Twilight Zone theme suddenly chimed in. I then clicked over to the actual case, and of course, the Supreme Court said no such thing.
The petitioner was born in California to parents who were both US citizens. His father was born in the United States and was a citizen by virtue of the holding in US v. Wong Kim Ark. His mother’ place of birth was not mentioned. Regardless, she was covered by the derivative citizenship statute, and was, therefore, a US citizen when the child was born.
It was alleged that the petitioner had obtained a false identity and that the citizen parents were not his real parents. But the Supreme Court rejected the State’s secret evidence on this point and conducted their citizenship analysis based upon an assumption these were petitioner’s real parents.
Having been born in the US of parents who were citizens, petitioner was indeed a natural-born citizen. But Maskell’s frightening quotation surgery makes it appear as if the petitioner was born of alien parents. The Supreme Court rejected that contention. And Maskell’s ruse highlights the depravity of lies being shoved down the nation’s throat on this issue. I can imagine Mini-Me sitting on his lap while this was being prepared.
When you look carefully at Maskell’s creative use of quotation marks, you’ll see that the statement is NOT a quote from the case, but rather a Frankenstein inspired patchwork. He starts the reversed vivisection off with the following:
“[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son…”
These are the first few words of a genuine quote from the Court’s opinion. Then Maskell goes way out of context for the next two body parts. The first is not in quotation marks:
of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is
And finally, an unrelated quote from elsewhere in the Court’s opinion:
“a natural born American citizen ….”
Put it all together and you get the following monstrosity:
…the Supreme Court of the United States explained that “[i]t is not disputed that if petitioner is the son” of two Chinese national citizens who were physically in the United States when petitioner was born, then he is “a natural born American citizen ….”
But the Supreme Court never said that. Here’s what they actually said:
“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 , 18 Sup. Ct. 456.” Kwok Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457 (1920).
This real quote – when liberated from Maskell’s embalming fluid – does not resemble the propaganda at all.
Maskell avoids the inconvenient truth that the Court took direct notice of the authorities having established that the petitioner’s father was born in the US and that he was a voter:
“…the father of the boy was native born and was a voter in that community.” Id. at 460.
Maskell never mentions that the father and mother were US citizens at the time of petitioner’s birth in California.
This deceitful exercise alone strips the entire memo of all credibility.
Had Maskell simply offered his arguments fairly, using real quotes instead of Frankensteining this crap, I would not have attacked him personally. But such deceptive behavior deserves no respect whatsoever. The memo is pure propaganda, and it’s not even shy about it.
LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL DISASTERS
The timing of the memo’s appearance is alarming. I have been saying for quite awhile now that Obama doesn’t really have to worry about the natural-born issue coming back to haunt him in court unless he attempts to suspend the Constitution. I know that sounds paranoid. And nothing would please me more than to be wrong on that prophecy. If my fears don’t come to pass, I will gladly wear the tin foil hat of shame. But the appearance of the updated CRS memo at this particular moment portends a Constitutional disaster.
If Obama attempts to suspend the US Constitution and/or declare martial law and/or suspend the 2012 election… chances of the natural-born citizen issue finding its way to the Supreme Court on the merits increase exponentially.
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States” — James Madison, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179–82
Do you even know the context of the quote of Madison you provided? It was regarding the citizenship of a newly elected member of the house of representatives. There is NO requirement that a congressman be a natural born Citizen. That requirement is only for the POTUS.
“Congressional Misconduct”
by Jack Maskell
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Congressional-Misconduct-NEW-Jack-Maskell-/160540496840
Good history of publications by Maskell:
Summary of dates:
April 3, 2009 - Original Maskell memo
June 5, 2009 - From P&E link above:
“A June 5, 2009 Congressional Research Service “Transmittal” message to a member of Congress from one Jerry Mansfield, an “Information Research Specialist” in the CRS “Knowledge Services Group,” misinforms the congressman by stating that questions about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate have been “ultimately resolved” in favor of his eligibility based on a series of biased and badly-skewed Internet postings”
Early June 2009 - State Hawaii changes name of birth documents and changes wording on website for Hawaii Homelands qualification.
“Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the state of Hawaii changed its long-standing rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove a birth in Hawaii for the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative.”
7/24/2009 - Joe Klein tell CNN staff that eligibility issue is a - “a dead issue”.
*** At this point it clear that the this was supposed to be dead issue as far as the establishment was concerned - Hawaii had cleaned up its loose ends around COLBs, the main mouthpiece of the press had provided a declaration. Congress had its talking points and specific noisy Congressmen were contacted. So this was supposed to be done. ****
9/3/2009 - Joe Miller of Factcheck post new blog entry indicating that original statements on Obama’s ability to obtain Kenyan citizenship were incorrect.
http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obama-and-kenya-again/
(Note - Joe Miller now works for Congressional Budget Office)
3/18/2010 - Jack Maskell issues another memo on Birth Ceritificates and Eligibility.
4/27/2011 8:09 ET - PDF image of supposed LFBC is released by White House staff.
Also of note - Brian Schatz, then Chairman of Hawaii Democratic Party in 2008 would not sign a document that claimed Obama was constitutionally eligible as required by Hawaii law, even though it was routinely provided by HDP in previous elections. So in 2008 Nancy Pelosi had to provide the document to meet Hawaii legal requirements.
In short - Hawaii refuses to acknowledge that Obama is constitutionally eligible. Even today.
“It is a very very simple concept to understand what the founders of the US Constitution meant by “natural born” as being part of nature, things that naturally occur in life, Gods law or mother nature where no human law (positive law) is needed or required.”
Nations and citizenship are man-made.
The U.S. Supreme Court explained what “natural born” means by quoting British jurist A. V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In the same opinion the Court explained that our Constitution is written in the language of English common law, and, “The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
If my wife and I traveled to Mexico while she was pregnant and gave birth in Mexico, what type of citizen would my child be. Keep in mind you don't know if my intention is to raise the child in Mexico or go back to the states. You must be definitive, as at birth the status is final and natural. You are a nurse working at the hospital filling out the birth certificate, and you choose, simply by what makes natural common sense to you. That would be the laws of nature applied to man, as the founders envisioned :
A: An American.
B: A natural born American.
C: A Mexican.
D: A natural born Mexican.
E: Both a natural born American and natural born Mexican.
F: A mexican and a natural born American.
G: A Natural born Mexican and an American.
After answering this question, answer this one:
A mexican man and wife traveled to America while she is pregnant and gives birth in America, what type of citizen would her child be. Keep in mind you dont know if her intention is to raise the child in mexico or stay in the states. You must be definitive, as at birth the status is final and natural. A simple common sense judgment. Forget the 14th amendment. :
A: An American.
B: A natural born American.
C: A Mexican.
D: A natural born Mexican.
E: Both a natural born American and natural born Mexican.
F: A Mexican and a natural born American.
G: A Natural born Mexican and an American.
Are your answers consistent between the two? Are you consistent with all your logic you have posted?
I say A for the American parents and C for the Mexican parents.
What part of “as distinguished from aliens or foreigners do you NOT understand. Until you deal with your comprehension problem, you’re going to wallow in your present ignorance. Read, son, read.
It took me no time to answer the question. None. The laws of nature are simple. It should take you no time as well.
And you overlooked the part that says "in general" and then YOU comppletely missed the very next sentence by Madison that acknowledges a birthright to citizenship through parentage. "Most certain" does NOT = ONLY criterion.
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.As the CRS explained, “the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century”.
Except that this is an outright lie by the CRS because there is no "settled law" that overrides the Supreme Court's definition of NBC.
I should add H to the mix:
H: Mexican and American.
I should add H to the mix:
H: Mexican and American.
Nonsense. This wasn't presented to explain "natural born" but was simply part of citation intended only to give an overview on British nationality laws. It was from an 1896 legal essay and simply explains nationality from the view of an obligation to the crown, such as is explained here two sentences earlier:
"British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown.
A few paragraphs earlier, Gray says:
... natural allegiance," "may depend on different laws in different countries.
In the United States, as this same justice affirmed, natural allegiance depends on being born in the country to citizen parents, not A.V. Dicey's interpretation of British law.
And another note: "precisely analogous" does NOT mean "exactly the same." Citizen and subject may be analgous, but as Dicey's definition of British subject shows, it is NOT the same thing as being a citizen in the United States. We don't have a crown to which allegiance is owed.
Both parents are citizens of their home country, and deserve the respect to have their child assigned the same citizenship.
Both parents failed to deliver their child under natural conditions of their citizenships. The Child is in a foreign country, and may stay there. So neither are natural born citizens. A decision had to be made to assign their child the proper citizenship. It wasn't natural.
Each gets one single country. A citizen can not be loyal to two countries, just as a man can not be loyal to two wives. A slave has one master. Two countries can not compete for their loyalties, yet they both require singular loyalties.
Nature has a logic when applied to the condition of man. Our founders knew this. They based all their theories of government on the nature of man, accounting for both good and evil.
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
I keep pointing out to these people that THAT is a "jus Sanguinus" argument, which Madison is making. :)
For what it's worth, I have read comments from a researcher on this subject that claimed William Smith himself Invoked Vattel in his defense of his citizenship. Today I decided to check if this was actually true.
I found what I believe is the case as it was presented to congress, and as I am reading William Smith's defense of his citizenship, just when it was getting interesting it did this:
Isn't that hilarious?
A subject is property of the king.
A citizen is above a Noble who serves a king, for a king can dismiss him. A citizen can never be dismissed.
A citizen is a shareholder, member, and owner. (My words)
Aligning the two in any meaningful way seems impossible to me.
The court in KWA seems to have used English law to justify a conclusion that they wanted. Nothing more.
However, if memory serves me, the court may have been headed by a judge appointed by Chester Arthur, a British born subject.
Today I was reading an analysis of the Wong Kim Ark decision which noted that the court completely overlooked the fact that the War of 1812 was an explicit rejection of British laws regarding "natural born subjects". We fought that war specifically to reject the British Doctrine of "subjectude" and perpetual allegiance, which of course was the "common law" standard of the time. :)
During the War, Congress enacted a requirement that all officers aboard American Ships, and 3/4ths of the crew must be "natural born citizens."
Having scanned through it, I see no obvious reference to Vattel. As Thomas Edison said of his experiments:
"Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work."
Thomas A. Edison
PA-RIVER asked me: “If my wife and I traveled to Mexico while she was pregnant and gave birth in Mexico, what type of citizen would my child be. Keep in mind you don’t know if my intention is to raise the child in Mexico or go back to the states. You must be definitive, as at birth the status is final and natural. You are a nurse working at the hospital filling out the birth certificate, and you choose, simply by what makes natural common sense to you.”
I’d recommend that, as soon as practical, you go to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to get a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (FS-240). As to your child’s status, the CRS report aptly describes:
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”
I am a bit baffled, PA-RIVER, as to where you got the idea that I’d know how Mexican hospitals handle birth records. If the nurses even write in a citizenship, it’s news to me.
PA-RIVER asked: “A mexican man and wife traveled to America while she is pregnant and gives birth in America, what type of citizen would her child be.”
As long they’re not diplomats exempt from our laws, the child is a natural-born citizen of the United States. I don’t know what status Mexico would grant the child.
PA-RIVER asked: “Are your answers consistent between the two? Are you consistent with all your logic you have posted?”
Yes and yes. As I’ve been explaining since before this CRS report, the second answer has been clear and settled for a long time, while the first is a more recent consensus of legal scholars, and though John S. McCain III did not win the 2008 presidential election, I think his candidacy pretty well settles the question.
See also:
Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma”, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968)
Jill Pryor, “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility”, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).
edge919 wrote: “What part of ‘as distinguished from aliens or foreigners do you NOT understand.’”
I don’t get the class you try to distinguish: citizens from birth who are not natural born citizens, and I don’t get it because it is not there.
Well lookie here. We have Jack Maskell (and Blade Bryan) telling us all that it "has been settled law for more than a century" and Yet Blade quotes us an example of someone he regards as an authority calling it an "Unresolved Engima." !!!!
Shot yourself in the foot with that one I think. :)
The example, the question, is a simple test of rational logic, based on natural law. Not a test of knowledge of national law, or birth certificate procedures.
The point is, natural born Citizen is a condition, not a defined law. It should be the same for both countries, just as Natural born subject would work in similar fashion for neighboring countries. Simply put, a natural condition, inherited at birth.
If natural born citizen is not a condition at birth, but law, please point to the law that the most eloquent legal minds were referring to when they put this in the constitution. You can't, can you? Therefore it must be a condition of man, at birth. A universal condition for all countries and all men.
For the child born in Mexico, why is he not a natural born Mexican, and why is his counterpart born in the USA a natural born American, as you say? Are you saying that natural born Citizen is written law exclusive to the United states, not a condition at birth? Is a child born of Mexican citizens in Mexico a natural born Citizen of Mexico?
Read David Ramsays essay on citizenship. Natural law is what the founders were working with. He was one of them.
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.