Newly Revealed Evidence-Madison Admin Req. Citizen Parents - Native-Born Persons

"THE PUBLIUS ENIGMA: Newly Revealed Evidence Establishes That President James Madison’s Administration Required Citizen Parentage To Qualify Native-Born Persons For U.S. Citizenship.

I was recently forwarded an incredibly amazing article from the October 10, 1811 edition of The Alexandria Herald newspaper. RXSID of Free Republic sent it with a brief note, stating, “Check out this case.” The Herald article is entitled, The Case of James McClure. The author is…PUBLIUS.

Publius was the pseudonym used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, for their anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers. By 1811, Hamilton was dead and Jay retired. My research leads me to believe that the article was written by James Madison, but this has not been conclusively established yet. Regardless of authorship, Madison was President at the time the article was written, and it discusses the official position of his administration denying U.S. citizenship based upon simple birth in the country.

The official position of the Madison administration was that persons born in the U.S. to alien parents were not U.S. citizens. This was the ruling concerning James McClure, despite the fact that his parents had been settled in the country for many years prior to his birth. The article makes clear that the United States Minister to France, General Armstrong, refused diplomatic protection for McClure by denying he was a citizen of the United States.

This was the official decision despite McClure having been born in South Carolina in 1785 to a father who was naturalized months later in 1786. Armstrong informed the French authorities that the man was not a U.S. citizen, and McClure was left in French custody. The article by PUBLIUS indicates that Armstrong might have mis-applied the 1802 Naturalization Act, but PUBLIUS also makes clear that McClure was not a citizen by virtue of his native birth in South Carolina:

There was no statute in South Carolina in 1785 which granted citizenship to persons born there similar to Virginia’s statute mentioned in the article by PUBLIUS. Simply being a “son of the soil” was not enough, and this evidence repudiates the contention that the British common law had been adapted in all of the states after the revolution. Since there was no statute in place making those born in South Carolina citizens, McClure was not held to be a native-born citizen. That argument was utterly rejected throughout the affair.

The article goes on to question whether the 1802 act is defective in that PUBLIUS seems to believe citizenship ought to be revoked for naturalized persons who return to their original country and establish domicile there again. But the article makes clear that Madison’s administration steadfastly denied that simple birth in the United States was enough to establish citizenship. This, of course, discredits the conclusions of Justice Horace Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, as well as the infamous New York Chancery opinion of Lynch v. Clark. Both cases contain erroneous assumptions that the British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States.

I tracked down the original article published in the Richmond Enquirer on October 1, 1811, which was then republished in The Alexandria Gazette on October 10, 1811. Both of these newspapers were published in Virginia, Madison’s home state. Furthermore, the PUBLIUS penned article was the grand finale of nearly a year-long argument which went viral in various newspapers of the day starting in January 1811.

I have been up and down the East Coast tracking down the remaining newspaper articles on this as well as other supporting historical information. I have also consulted with professionals and am preparing an extensive section for my forthcoming book which details everything that has been unearthed.

The whole story cannot be understood by way of online searches. The internet is barren on this case. Some of the necessary information isn’t even available in the Library of Congress or National Archives.

Here is what Representative Bihgham said as the prinicpal architect of the 14th Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ”

Thank you. You will note three points: Bingham never specified two citizen parents as you claimed. Secondly, “Not owning allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” is not so cut and dried as you seem to think. After an initial uncertainty, the US accepted the idea of voluntary expatriation, so those who renounced their original allegiance, even while not yet citizens, did not owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. Finally, “Not owning allegiance to any foreign sovereignty” is not what the 14th amendment said, but rather “under the jurisdiction of” which has a different meaning.

Many such as yourself who don't like the truth of these matters seek to counter this clear statement in which "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" is very clear langauge by misrepresenting what others involved in the passage of the 14th Amendment and attacking Bingham despite his distinguished career and respected gift for oratory on the House floor.

And just where did I attack Bingham?

Here is what Senator Trumbull had to say: Senator Trumbull: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

And if you bother to read a bit more in the debates, here’s where Trumbull clarified:

"The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment [to the Act] so as to make citizens of all people born in the United States who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens;' but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer."

Cong Globe, Senate, 39th Congress p. 572

Rep. Wilson, the house judiciary committee chairman of such Congress,said this:

“It is in vain that we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.”

So you acknowledge that those born in the US to a long term legal resident is natural born? So you acknowledge that those born to one citizen parent and a noncitizen is natural born? That’s an advance.

Thus you see what Story plainly says. Common law governs civil rights but political rights and acquiring and governing a national character, which is to say citizenship, are governed by the law of nations which is more general than the common law.

Actually, that’s not what Story says. If you think it is, then you are saying that international law (law of nations) takes precedence over immigration laws passed by Congress. Is that what you believe?

Blackstone himself recognized that the law of nations was more general than and not the same as the common law. He observed in his commentaries that while offenses against the law of nations were "principally incident to whole states or nations ...where the individuals of any state violate this general law, it is then the intersst as well as the duty of the government under which they live, to animadvert upon them with a becoming severity, that the peace of the world may be maintained."

Way to pick and choose! The whole quote gives a different impression, as does the paragraph which follows, it details how individuals may violate the law of nations: violations of safe conducts or passports or committing acts of hostility against allies. "Law of nations" under Blackstone deals with “whole states or nations” or individuals who may cause incidents that may “be just ground of a national war.” Not exactly a question of who shall be a citizen. Blackstone was quite clear that

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.

So Blackstone allows that different nations may have different laws about what makes a natural born citizen. And court cases have held that in the US, we follow English common law.

You have not shown that Tucker regarded "native born" as being the same as the phrase "natural born" in the Constitution

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence...

I don’t see how it can be clearer for you.

In fact the passage you quote shows that like Senator Trumbull years later, Turner understood that the constituional phrase barred other than complete allegiance, which was the Founders' concern. Complete allegiance was particularly important with regard to the father given the status of women at the time. Further "complete allegiance" was clearly more part of the intent at the time of the drafting of the body of the Constitution than it was when Senator Trumbull was speaking of the concept.

Lots of assertions, no evidence. I see nothing in the Constitution about “complete allegiance.” Further, there is James Madison’s (father of the Constitution) quote:

"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; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

p>I will be interested in seeing how you misrepresent what John Marshall said. I have no doubt that you will give it a try.

An insult, as I have said. You accuse, but I have no interest in misrepresenting – what he actually said is clear enough. He was dealing with a case of seizure of goods and ship. The ship was owned by a naturalized citizen who was living in the country of the enemy in time of hostilities. The question, among others, was about whether the merchant was still entitled to the privileges and rights of an American citizen, or whether he had expatriated himself. The case had nothing to do with natural born whatsoever. Marshall quoted a large portion of Vattel, most in regard to whether the merchant was still American.

If you accept that any material quoted by a Justice is definitive, then all the clear quotes by Justice Gray are definitve for born on the soil = natural born.

By the way no less a figure than Scalia has recognized in colloquy in a case in recent years that at the time of the founding the Framers were concerned about dual loyalties with one loyalty being to Britain. M

Citation please. Especially given what Justice Scalia has said:

use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase "the right to be confronted with witnesses against him" -- what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time.

And just where did the Constitution or a law change the definitions? Nowhere. Native born means born on the soil (usual exceptions). Natural born - following common law, which we do - means the same.

The Common law required that you must be born of Parents who were under the ACTUAL OBEDIENCE of the King. I've got TWO references to that from law books of the time. Even Blackstone's says that if you read through it enough. Not even the British laws go as far as you seem to wish we did.

As for slaves and Indians, we've discussed this before. Slaves were a compromise the Founders had to make, and as "property" were not considered citizens at all. Indians were held in a different category, akin to being a foreign nation. If you look in the debates over the 14th amendment, you will see this - and I know I have shown you the quotes in the past.

You keep repeating that Indians were a foreign nation while at the same time arguing that citizens of foreign nations who gave birth on our soil created American citizen children. How can foreigners give birth on our soil to create citizens, when Indians (whom you keep insisting were the same as Foreigners) cannot? Can you not see how your argument contradicts itself?

Nice how you are able to read Tucker's mind.

Not mind reading, just a recognition that people used the terms interchangeably in those days.

Since you don't like to take to heart cases about something else, you surely don't want to rely on Marshall quoting a large section of Vattel when the case wasn't about "natural born" at all, but rather whether goods and ship were rightly seized, and whether the naturalized American citizen merchants were protected from this, living in the country of the enemy.

When a man points to a treatises of law and says that these are the standards which apply to citizenship, should we really care what are the particulars of the case? This is no different than saying that in a search and seizure case, we should look at the 4th Amendment.

Notice he is NOT pointing to Blackstone, or any other reference on English Common law.

Now we are concerned with the precise letter of the law? As I pointed out, if the 14th amendment was meant to mean the same thing as "natural born citizen" it would have used the term "natural born citizen" instead of just "citizen." In any case, "under the jurisdiction of" does in fact mean "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty", the court simply got that wrong. The precursor to the 14th Amendment is far clearer and less subject to wrong interpretation. It says:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

The only reason the Congress created the 14th amendment was because people pointed out that State Sovereignty would allow individual states to ignore this act of congress. They wanted something that would FORCE the states to do as they were told. (Then they FORCED them to ratify it under the guns of Federal troops.) The purpose of the Civil rights act and the 14th amendment was exactly the same thing. To give former slaves the rights of citizenship without opening the door up to people who have no reason to be loyal to this country.

The Common law required that you must be born of Parents who were under the ACTUAL OBEDIENCE of the King. I've got TWO references to that from law books of the time. Even Blackstone's says that if you read through it enough. Not even the British laws go as far as you seem to wish we did.

And did you read what you posted? Particularly the first portion? Where it distinguishes between those born in Normandy previously, and those “born now”? It says “those born now are aliens, those places not being in the actual possession of the King.” So yes, those who are born in a former, but not current, possession are not under the actual obedience of the King. That is because the King had already relinquished the territory at the time of birth of the person in question. This is reinforced where it declares those born in Scotland before James 1 (before Scotland was under the English crown) are aliens. So those born before the English crown was in possession are not “under actual obedience” either. Pretty self evident stuff, which does not help your point.

It’s clear in the Congressional Globe, from such statements as those on p 571 [emphasis added]

Mr. DOOLITTLE Indians not taxed were excluded because they were not regarded as a portion of the population of the United States. They are subject to the tribes of which they belong, and those tribes are always spoken of in the Constitution as if they were independent nations, to some extent, existing in our midst but not constituting a part of our populations and with whom we make treaties.

and on page 2893, the quote so beloved of the NBC’ers where Trumbull mentions “full jurisdiction”. How does he illustrate this full jurisdiction? By saying that you can’t sue an Indian in court. (And of course, you can sue a foreigner resident in the US in court, unless he is a foreign diplomat). He goes on to say [emphasis added]

It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction who are subject to our laws who we think of making citizens.

Now, are you arguing that foreigners in the US who are not diplomats aren’t subject to our laws? Let Mr. Justice Gray in Elk v. Perkins explain it to you:

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though 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," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

Now, to break it down for you:

Members of Indian tribes were considered to belong to their separate “nation” even though they were in the US.
Justice Gray compares them to subjects of a foreign nation born in that foreign nation, not to children of foreigners who are born in the US.

Understand the difference?

You are in error, as Gray does point to English common law.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King...It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.

This is one, but there are several others, including a specific reference to Blackstone and Calvin's Case, as well as Tucker's Blackstone. Good try.

Which is what you've said every time when a court decision doesn't say what you want.

That is just an artifact of perception. Since I can look at the evidence and also follow their reasoning, when the court deviates from what is correct, I can point out where they went wrong.

In Wong Kim Ark they made two mistakes, and people such as yourself have taken their errors and made even further mistakes.

The Mistakes the court made in the Wong Kim Ark decision were:
1. Not using the evidence of the War of 1812 to dismiss English Common law as the basis for American Federal Citizenship, and:
2. Ignoring the correct meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as explained in the debates.

These are obvious glaring errors in the Court's decision making process, and beyond that, people such as yourself have misconstrued their faulty decision that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen with the notion that anyone born here legally or illegally is also a citizen. You further make the mistake of arguing that being born a "citizen" is the exact same thing as being a "natural born citizen." (or as I like to clarify, born as a "Natural citizen."

Your argument consists of errors compounded on top of other errors.

It also forces you to discount what Senator Trumbull said about his original intent on "owing allegiance" and that even foreign diplomats owe a type of allegiance. And as I have pointed out repeatedly, what matters to current eligibility is what the law is currently held to be.

Well, Senator Howard said this when he introduced the Amendment:

“The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Senator Trumbell (who cosponsored the Amendment) said:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

The court INTENTIONALLY ignored this. As justice Gray said:

"Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words...

And then the silly bastard does exactly what he says cannot be done. He admits into his consideration the debates in Congress in order to clarify his opinion.

Continuing..."But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.

Well which is it? Do we use the Debates in Congress or don't we? Looks like to me he uses them when it suits him, and ignores them when it does not.

Bad Judge! Bad bad Judge! (hitting him across the nose with a metaphorical newspaper.)

That is just an artifact of perception. Since I can look at the evidence and also follow their reasoning, when the court deviates from what is correct, I can point out where they went wrong.

How wonderful! This means we have no need of courts henceforth, since you always know what is correct, despite not being a lawyer! [I respect your research, in this instance I must say you are taking your faith in your abilities too far. :)] Did you ever campaign against this decision you feel is so misguided before 2007?

In Wong Kim Ark they made two mistakes, and people such as yourself have taken their errors and made even further mistakes. The Mistakes the court made in the Wong Kim Ark decision were: :

:1. Not using the evidence of the War of 1812 to dismiss English Common law as the basis for American Federal Citizenship, and:

Oh dear. I don’t know how to let you down gently, but starting very early in our history the issue of voluntary expatriation was discussed; and the opinions varied (even after the war of 1812.) It was seen as separate issue from jus soli. For instance, Chancellor Kent’s commentaries (1826)

the principle which has been declared in some of our state constitutions, that the citizens have a natural and inherent right to emigrate, goes far towards a renunciation of the doctrine of the English common law, as being repugnant to the natural liberty of mankind, provided we are to consider emigration and expatriation, as words intended in those cases to be of synonymous import. But the allegiance of our citizens is due, not only to the local government under which they reside, but primarily to the government of the United States; and the doctrine of final and absolute expatriation requires to be defined with precision, and to be subjected to certain established limitations, before it can be admitted into our jurisprudence, as a safe and practicable principle, or laid down broadly as a wise and salutary rule of national policy. The question has been frequently discussed in the courts of the United States, but it remains still to be definitively settled by judicial decision.

Note that Kent mentioned no such uncertainties when it came to “natural born””

'And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the king, and under the king's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.' "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.'

Justice Gray quoted this in WKA. I think Justice Gray was a little more familiar with the issues than many posters here. (And I will include myself).

You may see also Talbot v Jansen. 1795

In some instances, even in time of war, expatriation may fairly be permitted. It ought not then to be restrained. …Admitting he had a right to expatriate himself, without any law prescribing the method of his doing so, we surely must have some evidence that he had done it

This was a distinct and acknowledged divergence from the English common law. Our Founders did not throw the baby out with the bathwater – they kept the parts of common law they liked. After some initial doubt, courts and legislators acknowledged the right of voluntary expatriation, and in 1868 Congress passed the Expatriation Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

2. Ignoring the correct meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as explained in the debates.

You appear to be ignoring Senator Trumbull’s statement on “subject to the jurisdiction of” which I provided for you in post #168. I’ll repeat for you:

It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction who are subject to our laws who we think of making citizens.

Jurisdiction means “subject to our laws.” Diplomats were not “subject to our laws.” Indians were mostly outside the jurisdiction of our laws, because they were held to be under Tribal authority akin to living in a sovereign foreign nation even while within US borders.

Oh? I didn’t realize 0bama’s parents were illegals. You have proof?

You further make the mistake of arguing that being born a "citizen" is the exact same thing as being a "natural born citizen." (or as I like to clarify, born as a "Natural citizen." Your argument consists of errors compounded on top of other errors.

Funny, I keep showing you errors, such as the pages on English law you posted which did not in any way support your point. Although you sometimes acknowledge error (thank you!), many times you don’t, merely drop it, and then bring it back up months later as if it was never debunked.

Well, Senator Howard said this when he introduced the Amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

And this simply means what I have been saying all along – families of diplomats are aliens and remain aliens. They do not become natural born citizens despite being born in the US.

As justice Gray said: "Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words... And then the silly bastard does exactly what he says cannot be done. He admits into his consideration the debates in Congress in order to clarify his opinion.

Insults because you disagree? Not you, too!

Well which is it? Do we use the Debates in Congress or don't we? Looks like to me he uses them when it suits him, and ignores them when it does not. Bad Judge! Bad bad Judge! (hitting him across the nose with a metaphorical newspaper.)

Do you see yourself and your co-NBC’ers in that mirror? Perhaps you should hold on to that newspaper!

How wonderful! This means we have no need of courts henceforth, since you always know what is correct, despite not being a lawyer!

At this point it seems evident that one cannot see the truth if one has been contaminated by legal dogma. Some people need to unlearn some crap before the light will shine through. Determining what is correct works just like math. Anyone can do sums as long as they weren't taught to do them wrongly.

I respect your research, in this instance I must say you are taking your faith in your abilities too far. :)] Did you ever campaign against this decision you feel is so misguided before 2007?

A curious question. One which is Constantly being asked by people known to be Obama supporters, and about which no one who is not seems to care. I'll answer the same as always. Till it mattered, it didn't matter. It didn't matter in 2007 because NO ONE thought the Democrats would be so stupid as to nominate that incompetent idiot. (No one could have predicted the Media lies and International money onslaught that enabled him to skate past his record.)

the principle which has been declared in some of our state constitutions, that the citizens have a natural and inherent right to emigrate, goes far towards a renunciation of the doctrine of the English common law,...
...The question has been frequently discussed in the courts of the United States, but it remains still to be definitively settled by judicial decision.

If you are arguing that some people were confused about the issue, I accept that as a given. Too many British Law trained lawyers floating around, and not enough instruction on why Americas existence is a result of a rejection of this Feudal based Common law doctrine.

Note that Kent mentioned no such uncertainties when it came to “natural born””

'And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the king, and under the king's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.' "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.'

I do not think your quote means what you think it means. He is asserting that the two terms are similar in that both require an allegiance to the government within which they are born. He even mentions that the term "Citizen" is more appropriate to free men. (The term itself is a rejection of English Common law regarding Subjects.) He also acknowledges that the requirements of who may be regarded as a citizen are modifiable by statute or law. As I have pointed out to you, many states did exactly that. New York SPECIFICALLY excluded the children of Transient Aliens.

That brings up another question. If New York was able to declare by statute that the Children of Transient Aliens could NOT be citizens,(Adding them to the list currently occupied by slaves and Indians) then how does that comport with your theory that it was the accepted law that anyone born on the soil is a citizen? Obviously this theory was not enough to sway the legislators of the State of New York. They disagreed.

That's enough for one message. Continued on the next one.

You may see also Talbot v Jansen. 1795

In some instances, even in time of war, expatriation may fairly be permitted. It ought not then to be restrained. …Admitting he had a right to expatriate himself, without any law prescribing the method of his doing so, we surely must have some evidence that he had done it

This was a distinct and acknowledged divergence from the English common law. Our Founders did not throw the baby out with the bathwater – they kept the parts of common law they liked.

They threw out the feudal based law of subjugation, and replaced it with a Natural law basis for citizenship. The "baby" was evil and had to go.

After some initial doubt, courts and legislators acknowledged the right of voluntary expatriation, and in 1868 Congress passed the Expatriation Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

We expressed our belief in the Natural law principles of Expatriation when we broke from England in 1776, and reaffirmed those principles in 1812. Our government would lay no feudal claim on someone just because they were born within our boundaries. As I've said before, the "jus soli" doctrine makes sense for a King who is grabbing servants, but makes no sense for a Republic who's existence is based on the principle of Liberty.

You appear to be ignoring Senator Trumbull’s statement on “subject to the jurisdiction of” which I provided for you in post #168. I’ll repeat for you:

It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction who are subject to our laws who we think of making citizens.

This makes consistent sense with the notion that people who came here to be Americans could have children who were Americans. No where in this quote do I see any indication of an acceptance for people sneaking across the border to create "anchor babies." Why you see this quote as benefiting your argument I cannot comprehend. I know of several examples of statutes that declared the children of Immigrants would be citizens provided their parents had come to be citizens. George Washington Himself intimated the same notion in his letters.

This is not the same thing as a transient Alien popping one out while temporarily in our country. Rightfully the Child should have gone back with him and been raised in the country of his father.

Yes, You keep repeating that Indians are EXACTLY like foreigners, with the difference that you claim Foreigners can have citizen children here while Indians can't. You can't even be consistent in the manner which you claim "foreigners" are supposed to be treated. If Indians are "foreigners" why could they not have citizen children just like the other foreigners? Also, Senator Trumbull clarified what he meant by Jurisdiction.

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Funny how you keep missing that Clarification by Senator Trumbull. "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Seems pretty clear to me.

Oh? I didn’t realize 0bama’s parents were illegals. You have proof?

Actually I do. Obama's father was here illegally, but it was unknown at the time because it was only discovered later that he had lied on his temporary visa application. According to the Law in existence at the time, Applicants for Visas were required to affirm that they were not Communists, and that they did not associate with Communists, likewise that they were not Polygamists and that they did not and would not engage in moral turpitude.

Barack Obama Sr. Was a Communist who associated with other Communists, he was also a Polygamist and a purveyor of Moral turpitude. In fact, that is seemingly the reason given for his deportation according to his immigration file. He was a man of low moral character, and would not have been issued a Visa had the State Department known the actual truth about him. Ergo, he was in this Nation illegally. Again, had the truth been known about him he would not have been allowed in the country.

Funny, I keep showing you errors, such as the pages on English law you posted which did not in any way support your point.

It supports my point quite well, you just either refuse or are unable to see it. Let me try again.

If the English law is as you say, "Born within the Kings dominion", What possible reason would there be to mention "parents"? Not only are "parents" mentioned, it is the very first thing the law says. It specifies that the "PARENTS" must be in "Actual Obedience" to the King. I can read this no other way than that the Parents must either already be Loyal subjects of the King, or Resident Aliens who have taken an Oath to the King with intentions of being British Subjects.

You need to read the rest of that section. It clarifies things quite a bit. For example, Bacon says:

"If Aliens come as Enemies in the Realm, and possess themselves of a Town or Fort, and one of them has Issue born here, this Issue is an Alien; for it is not Cælum nor Solum that makes a Subject, but the being born within the Allegiance, and under the Protection of the King. "

"Cælum nor Solum" means Sky and Soil. In other words "place." He is saying that it is not the Place where one is born that makes a subject, but instead it is the act of being born within the Allegiance of the King. Further clues are in subsequent reading of that chapter. For Example, Children born of Alien Parents cannot inherit any property from them, even though they are born IN England. Only Children of Subjects may inherit property. This demonstrates that even the English treated the children of Foreign born differently from that of actual natural born subjects.

Although you sometimes acknowledge error (thank you!), many times you don’t, merely drop it, and then bring it back up months later as if it was never debunked.

If I see that I have made a mistake, I must admit it. However, you are claiming that I have been shown a mistake when I did not see it that way at all. Just as with the discussion about the Page from Bacon's book above, You see it as me having been proven wrong, and I see it as your not having understood it correctly in the first place.

Again, not even the ENGLISH went as far as you want us to do in this nation. No doubt if Foreign Troops landed on our soil and had a child here, you would declare THAT child to be a "natural born citizen." :)

continued on next message...

And this simply means what I have been saying all along – families of diplomats are aliens and remain aliens. They do not become natural born citizens despite being born in the US.

You are not reading it carefully. He is citing a list, of which "aliens" and children of Diplomats are distinctly different components of the list. In any case, when you couple it with what Senator Howard and Reps Bingham and Wilson said, it becomes clear that the Amendment was NEVER INTENDED to patriate the Children of Foreigners who were not immigrants.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa in 1866:

“We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means:

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

But you know what? If you are going to accept Wong Kim Ark as defining citizenship, you can't use any of the Debates on the 14th amendments as Evidence, because Justice Gray said that they cannot be considered. Only what is WRITTEN can be accepted as evidence. I of course disagree with him both in his methodology and his decision. Of COURSE the debates are germane to the meaning. Justice Black in Duncan v Louisiana Disagrees with Justice Gray as well:

Professor Fairman's "history" relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.

. And then the silly bastard does exactly what he says cannot be done. He admits into his consideration the debates in Congress in order to clarify his opinion.

Insults because you disagree? Not you, too!

I am pointing out that anyone who says "you cannot do this" and then in the next sentence does exactly what he says you cannot do, is a silly bastard. It an inconsistency which is an error of logic and reason, and such an obvious one that he should deserve an insult. And that does not even take into account the damage from the fallout of his badly reasoned decision!

Do you see yourself and your co-NBC’ers in that mirror? Perhaps you should hold on to that newspaper!

Not at all. I see myself and others on my side as playing the role of warning the public of the stupidity of accepting the argument that "anchor babies" are legitimate American citizens. Just as with our attempts to warn everyone that Carter was an Idiot and a fool, Clinton was a liar, a crook and an fool, and that Barack is a Liar, a Crook, an Idiot, a fool, and probably not even an American, it is quite likely that our headstrong public is going to do the stupid thing anyway. The Baby boom generation is Americas stupidest generation, and I shall not be surprised if this is the Generation that ends this nation.

We may not win this battle, but Nature will guarantee that we win the War. Only people with common sense will survive the coming collapse. Legal Sophistry will not be a viable skill in the aftermath.

If you refuse or can't read or understand what you yourself have posted, then this discussion can't go on. I would like to point out several errors you have made, but if you can't get the basics, it's a waste of my time. In regard to the page from Bacon's book you said

It supports my point quite well, you just either refuse or are unable to see it. Let me try again.

[1]If the English law is as you say, "Born within the Kings dominion", What possible reason would there be to mention "parents"? Not only are "parents" mentioned, it is the very first thing the law says. It specifies that the "PARENTS" must be in "Actual Obedience" to the King. I can read this no other way than that the Parents must either already be Loyal subjects of the King, or Resident Aliens who have taken an Oath to the King with intentions of being British Subjects.

You need to read the rest of that section. It clarifies things quite a bit. For example, Bacon says:

[2] "If Aliens come as Enemies in the Realm, and possess themselves of a Town or Fort, and one of them has Issue born here, this Issue is an Alien; for it is not Cælum nor Solum that makes a Subject, but the being born within the Allegiance, and under the Protection of the King. "

Let's take just this piece point by point. For [1] the page you posted gives three examples of those who are NOT natural born:

[A] children of ambassadors; these are universally acknowledged not under allegiance of the country in which they reside, but rather of the home country. Every authority makes this same diplomatic exception.
B. Those whose parents may have been under the King's ligeance at one point, but NOT when the child in question is born. That's why the page says "those being born there now are aliens, those places not being in the actual possession of our King." If the child is born on soil that used to be English, but isn't when the child is born, they aren't natural born English subjects. There is no way I can think of to make this clearer for you - but it is completely obvious from the text you posted. A more up to date example would be Kenya, where Britain relinquished the territory to the independent republic, and children born there would no longer be natural born British subjects from jus soli.
C. Similarly, those born in Scotland before the English and Scottish crowns were joined, were not under the ligeance of England, they were solely under the ligeance of Scotland. It is again, obvious from the text.

Now for 2 - this is the same exception posted multiple times by everyone, and well recognized - the child of occupying military. You posted "If Aliens come as Enemies in the Realm, and possess themselves of a Town or Fort, and one of them has Issue born here, this Issue is an Alien; for it is not Cælum nor Solum that makes a Subject, but the being born within the Allegiance, and under the Protection of the King. " How obvious does it have to be that enemies who are invading are not under the ligeance of the King? Or, for those British soldiers who had children in British-occupied portions of the US? They were not counted as being born on US soil, because the occupied soil was not then American, it was (temporarily!) British.

Bottom line is that these are the usual exceptions, well known to anyone with passing familiarity with the subject. If you can't even acknowledge those, there is not way to discuss because you deny what was basic English common law in England, basic international law as well - that occupying armies do not spawn natural born citizens of the defending nation.

Since this may be my last post, I will make a few other comments: you say "Again, not even the ENGLISH went as far as you want us to do in this nation. No doubt if Foreign Troops landed on our soil and had a child here, you would declare THAT child to be a "natural born citizen." :) " and this where our previous civil conversation starts to take a darker turn. All along I have been speaking not of what I WANT, but of what the law has been held to be and therefore is in current effect. I do not, contrary to your insinuation, want anchor babies. I do not like that at all! But THAT IS THE LAW. Not what I want it to be, not what I can close my eyes and imagine it to be, not what I may work towards in the future, but the law that currently applies.

Finally, I'll quote another of your posts:Barack is a Liar, a Crook, an Idiot, a fool, . And that is the part that you should be shouting from the rooftops, not NBC denial that makes everyone associated look like crackpots.

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.