Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
The Immigration and Naturalization Service:
“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”
Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):
“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
Interpretation 324.2:
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
(Excerpt) Read more at uscis.gov ...
ping
He has a citizen mother. Even if WKA doesn't cover children of temporary residents (and it's debatable whether it does or not), he's covered.
Again, you or I might not like it. I personally wish he hadn't gotten elected, but I am doubtful whether we would be any better off under Slow Joe Biden or not. Maybe we would.
But what you and I prefer doesn't change what US law is. And people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it or rewriting it based on the whim of the day. That's a tactic of some liberals who like to say we have a "living" Constitution.
Is that all you have? False accusations?
Apparently so. Because your claims regarding the Constitution and the law certainly haven’t panned out, have they?
But you needn’t even bother. I’m used to the false accusations by now.
You know, when I started out thinking about this whole thing, and posting about it, I actually thought the main reaction to someone doing some genuine, level-headed research to find out what the Founding Fathers really said, and to find out what the law actually was, and then honestly reporting that, would be thanks.
You see, I was under the idea that others were like I was. Conservative... which meant, honoring the Constitution. Respecting the Founding Fathers. Regarding the document they wrote as sacred in our national history, and not rewritable at my whim or anybody else’s.
So I don’t think it even occurred to me that others who claimed to be conservatives would want to misrepresent our Constitution, misrepresent our laws, twist our history, and then viciously attack anyone who didn’t particularly like them doing that to our Constitution, our laws, and our history.
Boy, was THAT ever a misguided notion.
I am far less naive now.
You really hand me a laugh.
The holding of the United State Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.Get that? A permanent domicil and residence
Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the United States, was always in the country on a temporary basis, and his "Application to Extend Time of Temporary Stay" is public, WKA does not apply to BHO II.
WKA does not apply to BHO II
In Post 422 you say:
I actually think that IF both of Obama's parents had been in that situation, here on temporary student visas, then there would be at least some argument in favor of that.Not a chance? He's not covered by WKA or statute, I'd say that's a good chance.But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.
In 434 you continue your now obvious quest of legitimizing Obama, saying:
Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.I point out to you in 440 that your claim is not supported by law and then show you the law governing citizenship:
8 USC § 1401The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
None of those situations apply.
In post 442 you say, "He has a citizen mother. Even if WKA doesn't cover children of temporary residents (and it's debatable whether it does or not), he's covered."
There's nothing to debate. WKA covering temporary residents is not the law. It would be de novo. Your claim "he's covered" is wishful thinking.
What makes this so hilarious is your incessant accusations toward others when your accusations apply to you!
Here's a few:
"people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it" (442)The actual facts and truth have been placed before you and what is your reaction? Bluster and ad hominem comments:I don't know about your politics, but your BEHAVIOR is not that of a conservative. Because conservatives CONSERVE the Constitution that our Founders gave us. They don't misrepresent it and attempt to rewrite it according to whatever they want it to say. (you to me @ 353. I ignored your ad hominem comments.)
That's not a conservative approach. A conservative approach respects the Constitution and accurately understands what it means. (274. You wear this one out by the way)
Once again, you display that people who are intent on twisting the Constitution don't care about the facts, don't care about the truth, and are perfectly ready to try and demonize those of us who put forth the actual facts and truth. (245)
But what you and I prefer doesn't change what US law is. And people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it or rewriting it based on the whim of the day. That's a tactic of some liberals who like to say we have a "living" Constitution. (you to me @ 442)What is truly laughable is that now you claim I "viciously attack" you.
Jeff it is you who is doesn't care about the facts, doesn't care about the truth, and routinely and demonize those of us who put forth the actual facts and truth or those you disagree with. I suggest you consider examining your behavior.
All this twisting and reaching just to make Obama a citizen! I expect you will insist that he is a "natural born citizen"
It's truly laughable the lengths you go to in your quest.
In Ankeny v. Daniels, it was the only Supreme Court case for which there was any legal precedence in defining NBC. That court claimed that the question was left open for others, but by footnote, they admitted there was no actual legal precedence to support this idea
For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
This would be a lot more meaningful if the judge could come up with more than a simple denial. He gives no reasoning for making this statement, so the comment is not compelling, especially when we have unanimous support from the Supreme Court itself in Luria v. United States.
And: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin
AGain, this is nothing more than a denial with no legal foundation to support it. The court doesn't cite anything to show why it disagrees.
And: Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Yes, it is true that those born within the United States are natural-born citizens .... those born within the United States to citizen parents. As for anyone else, the Supreme Court has said, "No."
A later Supreme Court ruling than Minor v Happersett, US v. Wong Kim Ark implicitly cited as stare decisis on Article II, Section 1 eligibility.
No, the Supreme Court has only cited Minor as stare decisis and NOT Wong Kim Ark on Art. II eligibility in Luria v. United States. No other Supreme Court decision has said otherwise. None.
You've been shown U.S. citizenship law. None of the cases apply to Obama, as he and the DNC have already publicly stated that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) Obama's citizenship status. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling also doesn't apply to Obama as his father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
But historically legally, there is no case here, WHATSOEVER.
If Obama were born before 1866, you might possibly be correct (would depend on the respective state law at the time - not all states granted citizenship at birth to a child born there to an alien father) but such isn't the case. There is in fact a very strong case here as Obama fails to meet any of federal law criteria to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
That's simply not true. Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.
Based on what? There is no federal law that states such.
Legally speaking, it doesn't matter one whit what they "admitted." They could have stated that he was born in Moscow, a citizen of the USSR, and unless it was actually true, it wouldn't matter one bit.
It actually IS true that Obama's status at birth was governed (exact quote) by the British Nationality Act of 1948 via his father. Read the Act. There is no wiggle room.
As for dual citizenship, again, legally speaking it doesn't matter. 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, WHILE serving as President. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.
Wow. Did you really just say that? How is it that you don't know that they were all eligible via the grandfather clause: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Whether another country grants a person citizenship or not is irrelevant.
It is QUITE relevant. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement, defined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record is "not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Obama owed allegiance to the UK at birth via the fact that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his citizenship status at birth.
There is no provision for someone to "lose" their natural born US citizenship simply because another nation said they were born a citizen of that nation as well.
There is a very real question of whether Obama is even a U.S. citizen at all. He FAILS to meet any of the criteria of U.S. citizenship law, and the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to him.
The United States is ruled by United States law
You've already seen that U.S. citizenship law doesn't apply to Obama. He fails to meet the criteria.
Continuing to make unconstitutional claims...
Questioning Obama's citizenship status is QUITE Constitutional. Show me where in the Constitution Obama qualifies for U.S.citizenship.
Not true.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull defined the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in the Congressional Record as: "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."
Cite the law that states such.
Tread lightly.
“Your true purpose is showing.” = “vicious attack”
“Wrap yourself in “conservatism” and “protecting the Constitution” all you want.
You really hand me a laugh.”
He cares less about the Constitution than I care about used cat litter. This has been established. I noted to him that while he is frittering his & everyone else’s time away w his long, repetitious, often-demonstrably-inaccurate posts, Obama is in actual fact shredding the Constitution. The poster in question has nothing to say on the subject.
I.e.: this poster believes that informed, patriotic conservatives who disagree w his highly liberal interpretation of the Constitution pose a threat. Otoh, Obama actually acting in grossly unconstitutional ways elicits (from JW) not a peep.
The guy is a fraud. I’ve said it before & I stand by the determination. Anybody who cared even minimally about the Constitution would be up in arms about what Obama is doing to it. The poster’s motivation is known only to himself, but preserving & protecting the Constitution is no part of it.
H.R. 140Note the specific language of the bill. They know that not only is Obama NOT a natural born citizen, he's not even a U.S. citizen at all and they're amending federal citizenship law to make those born under Obama's circumstances, citizens.SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013’.SEC. 2.
CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
(1) by inserting ‘(a) IN GENERAL- ’ before ‘The following’;
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is--
‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
‘(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
‘(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).’.
(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Note also that the law would NOT be retroactive. Obama would still not meet citizenship law requirements at the time of his birth.
In Purpura v. Obama, Mario Apuzzo argued that a natural born citizen required two citizen parents, that the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark only deal with "citizens of the United States" and not NBCs and that Minor v. Happersett provides binding precedent for the definition of NBC. And he included all the birth certificate and Sheriff Arpaio stuff.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88210044/Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Objection-to-Obama-Nominating-Petition-Filed-in-NJ-on-5-Apr-2012
Judge Masin decided that,
"The second objection involves the meaning of the Constitutional phrase, “natural born Citizen.” Discussion and consideration of this issue is of course relevant only on the understanding that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue has been the subject of litigation concerning Mr. Obama’s candidacy in several jurisdictions. No court,federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obamais not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 inAnkeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.’”Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position. In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born” and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . every child born in England of alien parents wasa 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. 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 position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860).
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated
We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children ofambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution.[Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at462].
The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Arkeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen. Time does not allow for the fullest discussion of the case law addressing these issues, but suffice it to say that the status of “natural born Citizen” for Mr. Obama has not been denied by any court or administrative agency that has addressed the merits of the issue. This is not the place to write a law review article on the full analysis of the subject, but there is no legal authority that has been cited or otherwise provided that supports a contrary position. The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr.Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin
It was this decison by Judge Masin that the New Jersey Court of Appeals called "thorough and thoughtful".
The New Jersey Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105509744/NJ-Supreme-Court-Appeal-Denied
BTW, Mario Apuzzo help Brook Paige file a ballot challenge in Vermont. In the challenge, Paige conceded that Obama was born in Hawaii but was not a NBC because of the reasons that Mario used in New Jersey. The Vermont court ruled as follows:
"While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase – “The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”- has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decisions have adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), examines the historical basis at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
Although not a case deciding eligibility for president, the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), discussed the common law of citizenship extensively. Justice Gray, writing for the court, held:
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.
Id. at 658. While the term used in Wong Kim Ark in relation to the English common law is “natural-born subject,” there is no apparent distinction between it and “natural born citizen.”
Mr. Paige has tendered a scholarly article authored by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey (see below). Mr. Apuzzo argues that originalist thinking as to the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” was consistent with an intent on the part of the authors of the constitution to adopt jus sanguinus citizenship model rather than the jus soli model of the English common law. There has been academic controversy over aspects of the meaning of the expression ”natural born citizen,” particularity with respect to individuals born to American parents outside the United States. Hollander v. McCain, 566 F.Supp.2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 2008). This controversy attended the candidacies of at least George Romney and John McCain. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113533939/VT-Paige-v-Obama-Et-Al-DeCISION-Vt-Super-Ct-Nov-2012
The case of Paige v.Onama is sceduled for oral arguments before the Vermont Supreme Court on April 23rd.
On another subject, Obama was born under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarron-Walters Act).
Section 301(a)(1) - a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:
and
Section 305 - ... A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30th, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
“No, the Supreme Court has only cited Minor as stare decisis and NOT Wong Kim Ark on Art. II eligibility in Luria v. United States. No other Supreme Court decision has said otherwise. None.”
Wong Kim Ark has been cited successfully in Article II section 1 rulings, such as in Ankeny. Minor v. Happersett has been cited unsuccessfully in Article II, Section 1 rulings such as in Allen v. Obama:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
No court has ever ruled that Minor v. Happersett has applicability to natural born citizenship or presidential eligibility.
This relies extensively on U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. and Justice Gray limited the applicability of the ruling by stating "the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion."
We already know Obama doesn't meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement as defined by the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman in the Congressional Record. So the most of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't apply.
Section 305 - ... A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30th, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf
Now this is interesting in that this law declares that those born in the U.S. must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. in order to be considered citizens. But that same requirement is missing for those born in the states of Hawaii and Alaska. There is no "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement for birthright citizenship in those two states at all.
Hmmm...
It shouldn't have been though because Gray makes it clear that the ruling is limited to the agreed upon facts of the case, including permanently domiciled parents.
No judge or justice has concurred with your interpretation over the last 115 years.
“In Ankeny v. Daniels, it was the only Supreme Court case for which there was any legal precedence in defining NBC. That court claimed that the question was left open for others, but by footnote, they admitted there was no actual legal precedence to support this idea.”
Has anyone brought Gray's limiting statement ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to their attention?
Cite where a judge has discussed that even though Gray tells us that the effect of the ruling is limited to the question presented to the court and the agreed upon facts, that they have the authority to ignore the limitations Gray specifically sets.
I have not read every brief/opinion/order to know which ones discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in US v Wong Kim Ark.
If you haven’t read the complete “Natural Born Citizen” section in Ankeny v Daniels, you should. It seems to have made sense to subsequent judges looking into this issue since it keeps being cited over and over.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf. [the discussion begins on page ten of the court’s opinion]
I have no knowledge of any lawsuit that has focused on “permanent domicile” as a prerequisite for the child born in the US of alien parents.
However the holding in US v.Wong Kim Ark also notes: [An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and TEMPORARY, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
“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.’
“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.’”
Since Wong Kim Ark’s parents returned to China, never to return to the US, the permanence of their domiciliary status was open to question. The reason that Wong Kim Ark was originally barred from reentry into the United States is because he had gone to China to visit his parents.
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.