Replies

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.

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.

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.