Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

Supreme.vlex ^ | U.S. Supreme Court

[Red Steel]

I post this case since there appears to be a scrubbing of certain facts in this case at Justia.com and likely certain search engines are playing games. For Internet and FR posterity.

[Red Steel]

I posted this SCOTUS case for use as a resource and for the reason I said in post # 1.

[Crim]

marked

[thecodont]

You are a hero and are thinking ahead.

[freedomwarrior998]

"Scrubbing of facts"...

[patlin]

Thanks & bookmarked.

I'm in the middle of extended research pertaining to the 1859 Buchanan Admin Official OP regarding exclusive allegiance. I am up to year 1959 & the US Govt Admin/DOJ, various law reviews, including Harvard & US federal courts are still citing that official US Admin OP. That small find I came across has turned out to be more significant than I thought. That Official Admin/DOJ OP was used by Congress when drafting the 14th & the Expatriation Act. I also now have in my possession 2 other US Govt Admin/DOJ OPs from the 20th century citing that exact Buchanan/Black 1859 OP.

I believe this 1859 OP is the reason the US State Dept keeps warnings on their site regarding dual citizenship and how is is not codified in the law, it is merely recognized(overlooked, wink, wink) as existing. But it is not law, therefore dual citizens at birth are not natural born citizens for A2S1C5 Constitutional purposes. They may be recognized as citizens "if" they choose to be, but they are not obligated. With the current resident in the White House, these American hating enemy intruders have the perfect set up to create real havoc. Time is ticking and we have to fix our ignored citizenship laws or kiss our freedom goodbye. Nothing gets fixed until citizenship is and there is no amount of tweaking to the federal budget that will stop us from going bankrupt until it is done. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year are being redistributed to these American hating scum bags whether born here or not, whether here legally or illegally.

[mia]

Why is this being scrubbed? Why is this relevant?

[mia]

Thank you for your post. This explains a lot.

[Red Steel]

Kawakita v. US shows us he is a US citizen by virtue of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision (wrongly decided) and the 14th Amendment. That Kawakita is a duel citizen via Japanese parentage law and for being a native born because of birth on US soil. That his duel citizenship causes competing and conflicts because he was subjected to claims by two countries.

"A person with dual nationality may be subjected to taxes by both states of which he is a national. He is not entitled to protection by one of the two states of which he is a national while in the territorial jurisdiction of the other. Either state not at war with the other may insist on military service when the person is present within its territory."

And since the Wong Kim Ark decision, native born and natural born citizens have diverged in meaning. As it is apparent by this case someone can be born on US soil and not be a natural born citizen.

This Supreme Court case hurts Barack Obama chances of being Constitutionally eligible if he is ever adjudicated on the merits, which has not happened.

[jcsjcm]

Here are some very important statements that I pulled out if you felt this court case was too difficult or long to read!

As we have said, dual citizenship presupposes rights of citizenship in each country. It could not exist if the assertion of rights or the assumption of liabilities of one were deemed inconsistent with the maintenance of the other. For example, when one has a dual citizenship, it is not necessarily inconsistent with his citizenship in one nation to use a passport proclaiming his citizenship in the other. See 3 Hackworth, supra, p. 353. Hence the use by petitioner of a Japanese passport on his trip to China, his use of the Koseki entry to obtain work at the Oeyama camp, the bowing to the Emperor, and his acceptance of labor draft papers from the Japanese government might reasonably mean no more than acceptance of some of the incidents of Japanese citizenship made possible by his dual citizenship.

One who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting. The nature of those claims has recently been stated as follows:

"A person with dual nationality may be subjected to taxes by both states of which he is a national. He is not entitled to protection by one of the two states of which he is a national while in the territorial jurisdiction of the other. Either state not at war with the other may insist on military service when the person is present within its territory. In time

[Page 343 U.S. 717, 734]

of war if he supports neither belligerent, both may be aggrieved. If he supports one belligerent, the other may be aggrieved. One state may be suspicious of his loyalty to it and subject him to the disabilities of an enemy alien, including sequestration of his property, while the other holds his conduct treasonable." Orfield, The Legal Effects of Dual Nationality, 17 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 427, 429.

Dual nationality, however, is the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries. See 3 Hackworth, supra, pp. 352 et seq. One who becomes a citizen of this country by reason of birth retains it, even though by the law of another country he is also a citizen of it. He can under certain circumstances be deprived of his American citizenship through the operation of a treaty or an act of Congress; he can also lose it by voluntary action. See Perkins v. Elg, supra, p. 329. But American citizenship, until lost, carries obligations of allegiance as well as privileges and benefits. For one who has a dual status the obligations of American citizenship may at times be difficult to discharge. An American who has a dual nationality may find himself in a foreign country when it wages war on us. The very fact that he must make a livelihood there may indirectly help the enemy nation. In these days of total war manpower becomes critical and everyone who can be placed in a productive position increases the strength of the enemy to wage war. Of course, a person caught in that predicament can resolve the conflict of duty by openly electing one nationality or the other and becoming either an alien enemy of the country where he resides or a national of it alone. Yet, so far as the existing law of this country is concerned, he need not make that choice but can continue his dual citizenship. It has been stated in an administrative ruling of the State Department that a person with a dual citizenship who lives abroad in the other country claiming him

[Page 343 U.S. 717, 735]

as a national owes an allegiance to it which is paramount to the allegiance he owes the United States.[Footnote 8] That is a far cry from a ruling that a citizen in that position owes no allegiance to the United States. Of course, an American citizen who is also a Japanese national living in Japan has obligations to Japan necessitated by his residence there. There might conceivably be cases where the mere nonperformance of the acts complained of would be a breach of Japanese law. He may have employment which requires him to perform certain acts. The compulsion may come from the fact that he is drafted for the job or that his conduct is demanded by the laws of Japan. He may be coerced by his employer or supervisor or by the force of circumstances to do things which he has no desire or heart to do. That was one of petitioner's defenses in this case. Such acts - if done voluntarily and willfully - might be treasonable. But if done under the compulsion of the job or the law or some other influence, those acts would not rise to the gravity of that offense. The trial judge recognized the distinction in his charge when he instructed the jury to acquit petitioner if he did not do the acts willingly or voluntarily "but so acted only because performance of the duties of his employment required him to do so or because of other coercion or compulsion." In short, petitioner was held accountable by the jury only for performing acts of hostility toward this country which he was not required by Japan to perform.

If he can retain that freedom and still remain an American citizen, there is not even a minimum of allegiance which he owes to the United States while he resides in the enemy country. That conclusion is hostile to the concept of citizenship as we know it, and it must be rejected. One who wants that freedom can get it by

[Page 343 U.S. 717, 736]

renouncing his American citizenship. He cannot turn it into a fair-weather citizenship, retaining it for possible contingent benefits but meanwhile playing the part of the traitor. An American citizen owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside.

Circumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship. An American with a dual nationality who is charged with playing the role of the traitor may defend by showing that force or coercion compelled such conduct. The jury rejected that version of the facts which petitioner tendered. He is therefore forced to maintain that, being a national and a resident of Japan, he owed no allegiance to the United States even though he was an American citizen. That proposition we reject.

[bushpilot1]

Pls remove me from your ping list..never asked to be on it..nor did you ask me.

[brityank]

Bookmark Bump.

[Talisker]

"A person with dual nationality may be subjected to taxes by both states of which he is a national. He is not entitled to protection by one of the two states of which he is a national while in the territorial jurisdiction of the other." And since the Wong Kim Ark decision, native born and natural born citizens have diverged in meaning. As it is apparent by this case someone can be born on US soil and not be a natural born citizen.

The divergence you note was applied in Wong Kim Ark, but dervies from the fallout from the Slaughterhouse Cases, where the Supreme Court decided to allow individual corporate administrative jurisdiction to be associated with a Constitutional Amendment (14th) rather than striking down the Amendment for inapplicability to natural rights.

The difference between native born, and natural born, therefore, was determined to be the difference between (federal) administrative privilege, and (negative) natural right, respectively.

[mad_as_he$$]

Thank you for the entire case file.

[Maelstrom]

Why is this being scrubbed? Why is this relevant?

It applies directly to the Interloper in Washington D.C. That is why it is relevant. The answer to why it is being scrubbed is because he is, and is surrounded by, traitors to this nation, seeking to control access to information that can be used against them.

[phockthis]

sfl

[jcsjcm]

Sorry bushpilot1 and anyone else that I pinged to this thread. I don’t have a ping list and yes I should have asked first, I just assumed that some of you would be very interested in this thread. It was 2:00 am in the morning when I found it and I was fascinated by it’s content! I will not assume again!

[omegadawn]

This is relevant because in many ways it does apply to obama.
While it true that a parent can not give away a child citizenship. The child as a adult still has certain paths to follow to retain his citizenship if he been declared a foreign citizen.
If as an adult obama was traveling on a foreign passport and he went to an American college as a foreign student ( it appears he did). If would appear that he has accepted the foreign nation as his own. this would validate his acceptance of the foreign citizenship . If obama did not reestablised his American citizenship(naturalization) at some later date he is a foreign national. This may be the reason that all his school records are surpressed. They would prove that he was a “foreign” student and not an American student when he went to college.

[CodeToad]

This is not even a remotely important case concerning Obama. You forgot the one reason our founding fathers ensured children born here are citizens: The King of England. He would proclaim all born here are British subjects and subject to his rule. In no way can a foreign nation grant citizenship that then can affect a US citizen. That is simply something the US citizen cannot control and cannot be held accountable for and under the law is NOT held accountable.

Those warning about dual citizenship by the US State department are for naturalize citizens, not natural born citizens. The reason the State Department warns about dual citizenships concerning naturalized citizens is that they cannot protect a person from that foreign nation’s laws, specifically regarding military conscripture, taxes, and liabilities if we ever go to war with that nation. They do not give that warning as to say the person will not have the full protection and privileges of a naturalized citizen.

Even the court agreed that, “Dual nationality, however, is the unavoidable consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries.”

The case stated, which repeating the case as posted is really absurd and shows a complete lack of personal maturity and restraint by the OP, was about a guy that renounced his US citizenship, participated with our enemy during a war, then wanted after the war to keep his US citizenship without consequences.

[CodeToad]

“. The child as a adult still has certain paths to follow to retain his citizenship if he been declared a foreign citizen.
“

Where did you ge that crap from? Show the legal or regulatory reference for that. It doesn’t exist. Where do you guys get this stuff from? You make sh*t up and proclaim it to be true.

I have two siblings that are dual citizen British and Spanish by the fact they were born in those countries while dad was in the military there. Both are US natural born citizens and have nothing to do to keep it. One even served in the military under Top Secret/NOFORN clearances as I have. Neither has “certain paths to follow to retain his citizenship”.

Do you guys ever get out of the house? Have you ever traveled or served in the military? Lived overseas? Or so much as read anything but a comic book?