Posted on 02/14/2012 3:17:10 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome
Having followed the Obama "natural born" citizenship quandary since its inception, I had always viewed the controversy over Obama's birthplace and other records as a diversion from the real issue: Obama's dual citizenship precluded his constitutional eligibility. My position was also influenced by my desire to elevate discussion on the inextricably related issue of birthright citizenship as a key component in effective immigration reform. Birthright citizenship is the practice of conferring U.S. citizenship to every baby born on U.S. soil, regardless of the nationality, domicile, or legal status of its parents. The practice, seen by many as an illegal immigration magnet, also often results in the dilemma of double allegiance, a "supra-citizen" status held by millions of Americans. Although the State Department rarely enforces its policies discouraging dual citizenship, it does recognize its security clearance implications. And the department confirmed that Obama was born a dual citizen.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obamas_eligibility_diversion.html#ixzz1mLwFXoEP
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sorry, but this is wrong. It resolved other cases by explaining how the naturalization laws work.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]Can you show where Vattel is extensively cited by the SC in citizenship cases?
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
Vattel has been cited in The Venus:
1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
Page 12 U. S. 290
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."
Vattel says,
"Enemies continue such wherever they happen to be. The place of abode is of no account here. It is the political ties which determine the quality. While a man remains a citizen of his own country, he remains the enemy of all those with whom his nation is at war."
So far is the law of nations from considering residence in a foreign country in time of peace as evidence of an intention "always to stay there," even in time of war, that the very contrary is expressed. Vattel says
Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor ...
. It appears to me, that upon principles of public law as well as of the common law, he must if born a British subject, be deemed to adhere to, and retain the national allegiance of his parents, at the time of the treaty. Vattel considers the general doctrine to be, that children generally acquire the national character of their parents (Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219);
Wong Kim Ark ...
Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Miller v. Albright ...
Moreover, American statutory law has consistently recognized the rights of American parents to transmit their citizenship to their children. See Act of Mar. 26, 1790, §1 1 Stat. 103; Act of Jan. 29, 1795, §3, 1 Stat. 415; Act of Apr. 14, 1802, §4, 2 Stat. 155; Act of Feb. 10, 1855, §1, 10 Stat. 604; Rev. Stat. §1993; Act of Mar. 2, 1907, §6, 34 Stat. 1229; Act of May 24, 1934, §1, 48 Stat. 797; Nationality Act of 1940, §201(g), 54 Stat. 1139; Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, §301(a)(7), (b), 66 Stat. 235, 236, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1401; cf., e.g., 1 Oppenheim’s International Law §384 (R. Jennings & A. Watts 9th ed. 1992) (noting that in many States, children born abroad of nationals become nationals); 43 A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law 389 (1953) (Roman citizenship was acquired principally by parentage); Sandifer, A Comparative Study of Laws Relating to Nationality at Birth and to Loss of Nationality, 29 Am. J. Int’l L. 248, 248—261, 278 (1935) (discussing citizenship laws throughout the world and noting the “widespread extent of the rule of jus sanguinis”); E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations 101—102 (J. Chitty trans., 1883) (1758).
I think you will find to your disappointment that the courts will reject that theory.
I would be more sympathetic to the idea if you could show some recent articles (say past 50 years) that showed the widespread acceptance in the legal community of Vattel as a key influence on current US citizen laws. Because that is the issue in a nut shell - Vattel was trotted out only when people started looking for a reason to challenge Obama’s eligibility.
So lets get this straight - I make a barely noticeable change to my name so I can send you messages that would get me banned? Is that the logic here?
So what did the Admin Moderator say when you alerted on me?
You are a true piece of work.
Well of course, when they fail to give sound legal footing to such a rejection, it is a letdown to the rule of law. You should not only be disappointed but angry.
I would be more sympathetic to the idea if you could show some recent articles (say past 50 years) that showed the widespread acceptance in the legal community of Vattel as a key influence on current US citizen laws.
Your premise is flawed. NBC is a Constitutional term that is separate from "current U.S. citizen laws." You do understand that right?? The SCOTUS said, "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."" Statutory law cannot change that which is defined outside of our Constitution. And you err in your thinking, because the legal precedent in Minor is not attributed to Vattel, but it is "the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar." Current laws and current legal cases won't change this. It would require a Constitutional amendment.
Vattel was trotted out only when people started looking for a reason to challenge Obama’s eligibility.
It is what it is. The SCOTUS said this was the nomenclature of which the framers were familiar. If that excludes Obama, so be it. Vattel is simply recognized as an authority, and his definition is very succinct. But we don't need it thanks to the Minor definition. Nothing trumps that.
Statutory law cannot change that which is defined in our Constitution. What's defined outside the Constitution is going to be a subject of disagreement, and all sorts of evidence enter into the debate.
“What part of “NEITHER neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America” do you NOT understand??? “
I understand it fine. You do not. They objected to McCain because he was born in Panama, and Obama because his father was a Kenyan. They did not claim Obama was born outside the USA. As usual, you have no clue about the court case.
“Minor didn’t leave anything open.”
Hmmm...”For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Of course, you misread the entire case, so you don’t understand that.
“Except that the ONLY NBC definition WKA recognized is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It clearly said NBCs are NOT defined by the 14th amendment.”
As always, you are wrong. But we’ve gone thru it before, and you still do not understand. There are not crayons big enough to draw the picture for you.
If anyone else is still reading this thread, and wants to know why edge is wrong, let me know.
“Wrong. Virginia Minor argued a right to vote on the basis of being a 14th amendment citizen. The SCOTUS unaninimously rejected this argument because they said NBCs are excluded from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.”
No, no, no. Minor ruled that being a citizen does NOT give you an automatic right to vote. They ruled, ““A provision in a State constitution which confines the right of voting to “male citizens of the United States,” is no violation of the Federal Constitution. In such a State women have no right to vote.”
What Minor wrote was:
“There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.”
It does not distinguish between a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen, but says that women were entirely capable of being citizens prior to the 14th, as well as after.
But you will never understand that, because you are not a sane person. You are delusional, and no one can cure you.
It's right here in plain English. It doesn't single out McCain, so try being honest this time Rogers. We'll deal with the rest of your arugment after you admit what this really says.
"neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .”
The Wong Kim Ark used this principle to avoid using the NBC term for Wong Kim Ark. Instead they opted for a secondary term called "citizenship by birth" that they said was defined BY the Constitution.
But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
Justice Gray said that the "subject" clause means the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment only applies to resident aliens.
The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
"As to President Obama's status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President's alleged refusal to disclose publicly an "official birth certificate; that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”...
...The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs' argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there's a very clear distinction between a "citizen of the United States" and a "natural born Citizen", and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President." - Emphasis mine
I know you have trouble reading sentences, let alone paragraphs, so feel free to get someone to read it to you.
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
Let’s go thru that:
It says there is a principle “citizenship by birth within the country”. It says the exceptions to that rule are:
“the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”.
It says their discussion has shown that those exceptions were driven “by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America” - referring to the common law NBS, and the US NBC.
It says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is intended “to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words” those exceptions discussed, that were true in the colonies as NBS, and in the US prior to the 14th as NBC.
Thus you have A & B, where the set of all A is identical to the set of all B, thus A = B. Or in this case, A = B = C:
“citizenship by birth within the country”, excepting “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” and “children of members of the Indian tribes”, and that was true in the colonies under NBS, true after the Constitution under NBC, and true under the 14th by intent of the writers in saying “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
Thus the US Supreme Court has already argued that the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment cover the exact same thing - citizenship by birth.
Yes, I know they contradicted themselves here. It's time for you to admit that you understand this. They claim the plaintiffs made a "different legal argument" but the part I quoted proves otherwise. Read it again and be honest this time.
neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .” Appellants‟ Appendix at 11-12, 16-18.
They quoted it directly from the Appelants. "Neither" includes both Obama and McCain. Here's the definition of "neither," since you don't seem to understand plain English:
not either, as of persons or things specified (usually followed by nor ): Neither John nor Betty is at home.
When it says "neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible" because "neither" were born in the U.S., that argument means the plaintiffs do NOT believe Obama was born in the U.S. We'll move on as soon as you admit that you understand this. There's no need to suffer your intentional stupidity on this. You have the ability to be honest. It's time for you to show it.
How odd that the very next day after you made some exchanges with Brown Deer and me on that thread about Santorum and his statement about women in the military, someone using almost your exact name sent Brown Deer and me very nasty freepmails, with the subject line of the very thread upon which we were all discussing.
Okay..... Just one of those mysterious coincidences life often gives us!
Mods are often asleep at the wheel.
(courtesy ping to Brown Deer)
“When it says “neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible” because “neither” were born in the U.S.,”
Actually, they said “born naturally” - which they thought applied to Obama since his father was not a US citizen.
Are you capable of reading even ONE sentence and understanding it?
Let me repeat my self:
“I make a barely noticeable change to my name so I can send you messages that would get me banned?”
Have you ever considered that someone was trying to get me banned by hoping no one would notice that it was not really me sending the freepmail?
Sorry, but this is an outright lie. There's NOTHING in the Supreme Court that says this. It says the opposite:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.""
The 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. That is the opposite of what you claimed. The exclusions to the subject clause of the 14th amendment are irrelevant. NBCs are excluded from the birth clause, not by the subject clause. That's what Gray meant when he said the Supreme Court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment." The children of foreign states were excluded from the birth clause in accordance to Elk v. Wilkins and the children of citizens were exclude in accordance to the unaninmous Minor decision. Your alphabet pals sentence is a complete farce. Did you just learn that in your elementary school class??
26. Barrack Obama has not certified, or presented certification, containing information that can be verified, that he was born naturally within the legislative, executive, and judicial borders of an Article IV State of the 50 United States of America.
29. Without being born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America, Barack Obama is not eligible to hold the Article II Office of President of the 50 United States of America.
39. John McCain has not certified, or presented certification, containing information that can be verified, that he was born naturally within the legislative, executive, and judicial borders of an Article IV State of the 50 United States of America.
Here's how the plaintiffs defined "natural born"
12. To be “natural born” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the person seeking such recognition must have exited his mother’s womb, or otherwise been removed therefrom, within the judicial or territorial power of any one of the 50 States of the United States of America and there will be no exceptions regarding this Complaint.
20. Article II requires that each person seeking the office of President of the 50 United States of America be “natural born” in one of the 50 States and have celebrated his or her completion of 35 years on Earth, and found living in one of the 50 States for a period of 14 years. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
You wrote:
"That's what Gray meant when he said the Supreme Court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.""
Here is the ACTUAL quote, you pathetic liar:
"That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court,..."
What he wrote was that the Supreme Court did NOT agree with what followed. You chop off half the sentence to make it mean something the full sentence contradicts. You are a damned liar.
And since I've pointed it out to you before, you cannot even pretend you were confused. You are simply a liar. And I see no value in debating someone who knows he is lying, and continues to do so.
"As to President Obama's status, the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President's alleged refusal to disclose publicly an "official birth certificate; that is satisfactory to [the birthers].”...
...The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs' argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there's a very clear distinction between a "citizen of the United States" and a "natural born Citizen", and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
I think it was just a strange coincidence arranged by a mysterious universe.
Wrong again rogers. These same justices in Slaughterhouse also voted together UNANIMOUSLY in Minor. They didn't know during Slaughterhouse that there would be other exclusions to the 14th amendment apart from the ones they considered in the subject clause, but there's a reason for that. The exclusion in Minor is based on the birth clause. There wasn't any reason for them to consider the birth exclusion when they ruled on Slaughterhouse. Gray is simply pointing out that the Slaughterhouse decision is NOT comprehensive in terms of exclusions to the 14th amendment. You really need to learn English ... and I'm here to help you. And it's time you quit resorting to the stupid "you lie" comment. Expect better from yourself. That you don't understand what that sentence means is made manifest by my explanation of it.
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.