Posted on 03/03/2016 8:35:22 AM PST by Ray76
You don't seem to understand that congress only has the power of naturalization. See: ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4
The Congress shall have Power To....establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Perhaps that is why they called it a "Naturalization Act".
Okay. It is my understanding that US Citizenship was created by the Declaration of Independence, which represented the will of the 13 colonies to Separate from Britain and form a Confederacy of United States. The time at which US Citizenship was created was July 4, 1776, when the representatives of the 13 colonies approved the Declaration of Independence.
My evidence that this is the act which created US Citizenship and proof of the time at which it was created is contained in this and other statements made by the Supreme Court in the case of "Inglis v Trustees of Sailor's snug harbor." (1830)
.
If John Inglis, according to the first supposition under this point, was born before 4 July, 1776, he is an alien unless his remaining in New York during the war changed his character and made him an American citizen. It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the acknowledgement of their independence.
And there are other court cases that acknowledge that US Citizenship began on July 4, 1776, and was a consequence of the Declaration of Independence from England.
So is this sufficient evidence to convince you that US Citizenship was created by Independence and began July 4, 1776, or do I need to go look up some other cases to demonstrate this?
I suppose that you can convince yourself of anything. Convincing anyone else is another question.
The Congress has done nothing with citizenship by birth, excepting providing and codifying the missing definitions from the Constitution. They have been doing so since the 1st Congress in 1790. Whom you would suggest should do that?
Incoherent.
and can’t even produce an America BC like Obama did.
*************
Why would you think he could produce and American BC?
He can’t because he wasn’t birthed here.
Natural law is irrelevant. It has no weight under the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.
Your point is silly. Natural law is the foundation of this nation. No nation can stand if it keeps violating natural law.
While i'm on the subject, here is a video for you to watch which I have pointed out to others. I just now received several comments thanking me for pointing them to this video, and now I will point it out to you.
And yes, it's about "natural law", though that is not necessarily apparent at first.
The only equation is this:
Born on US soil = NBC.
Frankly, because of racism (with the word being used in a genuine and legitimate sense). This is what the 14th amendment was correcting. It didn't create a new citizenship for the slaves and their children - it affirmed what already should have been theirs by birthright, but was withheld from them because of prejudice regarding their status in servitude.
If this is true, why weren't the children of Indians citizens?
Because the Indian nations were considered sovereign entities (which is why we made *treaties* with them), and thus, they and their children (if born on reservations) were not subject to the allegiance of the sovereign power of the people of the United States.
If this is true, why weren't the children of British Loyalists citizens?
If they were born on parts of the colonies under rebel control after July 4, 1776, then they WERE considered NBCs.
No, the foundation of this nation is the Constitution. It is supreme because all laws, all treaties, all government branches derive their authority from the Constitution.
If you do not agree that the Constitution is supreme and superior to all other laws, books, treaties, essays, or opinions, then that is where we disagree.
Learned that in 9th grade Civics.
Not true. There were black citizens who's children became citizens and voted. Yes, racism existed, but the children of black citizens were still acknowledged to be citizens.
This is what the 14th amendment was correcting. It didn't create a new citizenship for the slaves and their children - it affirmed what already should have been theirs by birthright, but was withheld from them because of prejudice regarding their status in servitude.
But somehow left out the Indians.
Because the Indian nations were considered sovereign entities
So was Britain and France, but for some reason their children became citizens. Why didn't the Indian nations?
they and their children (if born on reservations) were not subject to the allegiance of the sovereign power of the people of the United States.
Their children were not made citizens no matter where they were born in the United States. If they were born in New York City, they still weren't citizens.
If they were born on parts of the colonies under rebel control after July 4, 1776, then they WERE considered NBCs.
No they weren't. Not by us, and not by the British either. The Children of British Loyalists remained English Subjects though they were born after July 4, 1776 on land under American control. Many British loyalist families left after the war and went to Canada where they remained British Subjects.
If the Constitution is Supreme, then by what argument was British law not also Supreme?
If Natural Law is not the base foundation of human rights, then why aren't we still British? Obviously the British asserted that their law was the Supreme law of the land too.
The founders did not believe this. Instead, they believed that "the laws of nature and of nature's God" entitled them to overthrow British law and declare Independence. (1776)
If their argument is valid, than it also trumps other Man-Made law such as the Articles of Confederation (1781) or the US Constitution. (1788)
To assert the Constitution outweighs the laws of nature makes of us an illegitimate nation.
Unless your father was not a citizen, as in the case of slaves. (Till 1868)
Unless your father was not a citizens, as in the case of Indians.(Till 1924)
Unless your father was not a citizen, as in the case of the Children of British Loyalists born here after July 4, 1776. (Indefinitely.)
You're failing to make a distinction between free blacks and black slaves.
But somehow left out the Indians.
Because they were considered sovereign nations at that time.
So was Britain and France, but for some reason their children became citizens. Why didn't the Indian nations?
Because being born on an Indian reservation was equivalent (at that time) to being born on foreign soil. If the children of Brits or Frenchman were born on US soil (and their parents were not diplomats, etc.), then yes, they were considered NBCs.
Their children were not made citizens no matter where they were born in the United States. If they were born in New York City, they still weren't citizens.
Frankly, this only existed because of contradictory rulings by the Court. In Elk vs. Wilkins, a "special exemption" was more or less made for Indians (representing a new doctrine), while in Wong Kim Ark, the opposite conclusion was drawn by the Court regarding a Chinese. We should note also that the Court's reasoning regarding the Indians was that they were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States, which would put them more or less in the same class as the children of illegal aliens today, who also are exceptions to the jus soli doctrine on the basis of their not being born here to parents "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." However, the issue of the Indians seems to fall under a special case, and does not overturn the broad and long-standing reliance on jus soli as the basis of NBC. Relying on the Indians can't save Ted Cruz from this.
No they weren't. Not by us, and not by the British either. The Children of British Loyalists remained English Subjects though they were born after July 4, 1776 on land under American control. Many British loyalist families left after the war and went to Canada where they remained British Subjects.
You're confounding what *we* considered citizens and what the British Crown did. ALL Americans born before the revolution were considered British citizens. The children of Loyalists were considered as American citizens by the USA, and as British citizens by the British crown. See the Sailor's Snug Harbour case for precedent.
That distinction was made by my usage of the word "citizen."
Because they were considered sovereign nations at that time.
Just exactly like the British and the French, but with the difference that Indian Children didn't become citizens even if born in US Cities.
Because being born on an Indian reservation was equivalent (at that time) to being born on foreign soil.
It didn't make any difference where they were born. They could have been born in the Lincoln Bedroom at the WhiteHouse, and still would not have been US Citizens.
You're confounding what *we* considered citizens and what the British Crown did. ALL Americans born before the revolution were considered British citizens.
We did not regard them as citizens. Here is an excerpt from a letter by James Monroe written to the State Department.
A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since.
I will also point out Ambassador Armstrong's determination that James McClure was not a US Citizen even though he was born in South Carolina. Ambassador Armstrong's decision was backed up by the Madison Administration for over a year.
It is the term used to describe a body of thought prevalent in the later half of the 18th century, and early half of the 19th century. In the case of the United States, it is not esoteric or ambiguous, the writers of natural law are identified by the founders and even mentioned prominently in the debates regarding the US Constitution.
"Natural law" was a thing, back in the late 18th century, and it's tenets were identifiable by the founders citing their sources of it.
Now I will ask you a simple question. Where did the word "citizen" come from?
Sort of like the terms "Male" and "Female." Till we have a legal definition, we will never know exactly what those words mean. :)
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.
