Posted on 04/12/2013 8:22:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
L.A. County Cites 16 ‘Maternity Hotels’ Serving Asian Visitors
LA Times reports the following:
Following a flurry of complaints, Los Angeles County inspectors have cited 16 “maternity hotel” owners for illegally operating boardinghouses in residential zones.No major health or safety issues were found at the hotels, where women from Asia stay to give birth to U.S. citizen babies. But some of the facilities, which were in Rowland Heights or Hacienda Heights, were cited for building and fire code violations, according to a report released Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
“They are motivated by expediency and pragmatism rather than accuracy or principles. “
I think they’re motivated by money and power. The new amnesty is neither pragmatic or expedient....well, except to be in a big hurry to make every invader legal.
When you really study the Lobbyists writing these laws and their various ‘non profits’ it really looks more like money laundering than ‘legislation’.
Deportees Can Come Back Under Draft Immigration Bill
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3008520/posts
That may be the case for those in power, (McCain, Grahm, etc.) but for the run of the mill supporters such as Allahpundit, Ace of Spades, and kooks like Jeff Winston, it's likely just about votes, and the potential to lose them.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrants. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
Rasmussen Reports, April 19, 2011
BUT...the author of this new amnesty, Rubio’s chief of staff, Cesar Conda has called such proposals “offensive.”
Based on what? He doesn't meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement defined by Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Globe (Record):
"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."Obama was born a Brit, thereby owing allegiance to a foreign power at birth.
The DNC has already publicly admitted that British Nationality Act of 1948 governed Obama's status at birth.
US Law overrides foreign law within US Jurisdiction. It doesn't matter what the British Nationality act says unless one happens to be in Britain.
Once again, you demonstrate what a complete FRAUD and TWISTER of both history and the Constitution you are.
When virtually every credible LEGAL EXPERT in American history is unanimous in their statements of what natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility entail, you call that "argumentum ad numerum."
When virtually NO LEGAL EXPERT in all of history supports your BS claims, what exactly do you call that?
Essentially you're saying that if almost every legal expert in history says something, and someone points out the fact of the COMBINED AUTHORITY OF VIRTUALLY EVERY GENUINE LEGAL EXPERT IN HISTORY, that person is making an "argumentum ad numerum."
But YOU can sit here and spout some BS that is genuinely supported by virtually NO real legal expert, in all of history, and why, there's no fallacy there!!
Since the real experts don't support you, you trot out anyone who does (David Ramsay, Samuel Roberts, and Herb Titus) and pretend, no matter HOW weak their "qualifications," that they're better experts than our actual experts.
Since the real experts don't support you, you try and discredit them when they say you're full of BS, or claim they didn't say what they actually said (William Rawle, US v. Wong Kim Ark, etc.)
Since the real experts don't support you, you twist the words of legitimate figures to try and make them SEEM to support you (Minor v. Happersett, John Bingham, Jacob Howard, etc.)
You are both a fraud and an idiot.
A fraud, for making literally dozens of readily documentable fallacious arguments for your wagonload of BS that you want to dump on others, and an idiot for continuing to push the point after fraud upon fraud by you has already been publicly exposed.
No. At least in the area of citizenship jurisdiction, they coexist.
If what you claim were actually true, no one born in the U.S. to foreign citizen parent(s) would acquire the foreign parent's citizenship at birth (if the foreign parent's country's law provided for such).
We also know that what you've claimed isn't true as U.S. Secretaries of State have determined even after the 14th Amendment was ratified that those born in the U.S. to non-citizen fathers were NOT U.S. citizens. Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a non-citizen father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was a non-citizen at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Source: A Digest of the International Law of the United States: Volume 2
The historical evidence clearly indicates that even after the 14th Amendment was ratified, a child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen father was determined to be born subject to a foreign power, did not meet the 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth, and was therefore not a U.S. citizen at birth.
The Supreme Court, in its 6-2 decision that has not been overturned in 115 years went on to say: “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.’”
None of the major conservative legal foundations or law firms and none of the conservative legal scholars who regularly argue originalist/textualist/strict constructionist positions before the US Supreme Court (such as Reagan, Bush 41 or Bush 43 former Solicitor Generals) has represented a Petitioner in an Obama eligibility appeal nor have they submitted any amicus briefs in support of the appellants in any of those “Obama is ineligible” appeals. That includes the Heritage Foundation.
That's U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
The reality is that Gray himself explicitly limited the effect of the ruling:
"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."Question asked and answered.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to Obama. His father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent whose country asserts citizenship jurisdiction in the same manner. Legally, they are not U.S. citizens. They do not meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement defined in the Congressional Globe (Record).
“But we will not assume the exclusive right of saying what the law and usage is. Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested Judges. None is more so than Vattel.” Jefferson
And here is more examples of your blatant LYING. You keep saying "every credible LEGAL EXPERT" which is a bald faced lie! Virtually all the ones you quote simply parrot Rawle, or secondary iterations of him. All of these so-called "experts" boil down to "Well Rawle said..."
Once Again, you don't comprehend that NUMBERS do not equal TRUTH.
Furthermore, I would say that because YOU are a F***ING IDIOT, you need to stop using the term "Fallacious" because you have no understanding of what that word means.
Since the real experts don't support you, you twist the words of legitimate figures to try and make them SEEM to support you (Minor v. Happersett, John Bingham, Jacob Howard, etc.)
And this is where I wish you could be made to SHUT UP YOUR F***ING LYING!!!!
John Bingham said:
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, [nc - prior to the 14th Amendment] that 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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.
I directly quote EXACTLY what Bingham said, with No ambiguity to it whatsoever, and you assert i'm twisting his words? You are the one that knowingly and intentionally cut out his quote just before he specifically said "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". It's not that you didn't see it, it's that you willfully, and with intent to deceive, removed it from his statement.
Again, YOU are the intellectually dishonest liar that haunts this forum. Bingham, Howard, Trubull and Wilson explicitly stated that citizenship would not be given to aliens or temporary sojourners. You are the one that keeps trying to suggest that these men were idiots, and supported Birth tourism and Anchor babies, when all four of them explicitly stated that these were exceptions.
I had not seen that quote before. Thanks.
Presidents James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur had Irish-born fathers (as did Andrew Jackson) and Mitt Romney’s father was born in Chihuahua, Mexico. Many Mormons had fled the United States for Mexico where they could practice polygamy without interference from the US government. I would hardly call becoming an expatriate, “allegiance.”
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, [nc - prior to the 14th Amendment] that 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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.
John Bingham had said several years earlier: (1862)
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens."
What is Bingham saying in your opinion?
James Buchanan’s father emigrated to the U.S. from Ireland in 1783. When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787 (and ratified in 1788), it conferred citizenship upon everyone living in the States. Therefore James Buchanan’s father was a citizen of the United States when James Buchanan was born in 1791. So, James Buchanan was a natural born citizen.
Chester Arthur routinely lied about his family background in a successful attempt to hide the fact that his father was not naturalized at the time of his birth.
More on that, here:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, allowing anyone who was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President rendered Andrew Jackson eligible.
...and Mitt Romney’s father was born in Chihuahua, Mexico.
The Mexican constitution of 1857, in effect at the time of George Romney’s birth in Mexico, provided only that those born of Mexican parents were Mexican citizens. So George Romney was never a Mexican citizen.
Congressman Bingham is stating his opinion that parents must not owe allegiance to a foreign government in order for their offspring to be considered natural born citizens. It would have strengthened his argument if that position was codified in statute at some point in time.
I would further say that Congressman Bingham and six justices of the Supreme Court were in disagreement on that point, along with the vast majority of judges, be they local, state or federal who have ruled on the issue since 1898. Two Justices on the Wong Court obviously agreed with Congressman Bingham.
The Supreme Court ruled that simply being in the United States as an alien when one’s child is born is good enough to confer allegiance for the purposes of US citizenship at birth as long as the alien is under the jurisdiction of the US at the time of the child’s birth.
And of course, Barack Obama has a parent born in Kansas and the courts have ruled on numerous occasions that he qualifies as a natural born citizen while no court and no action of Congress or any state has ruled that he does not qualify as a natural born citizen.
I see. So simply being “foreign born” as a parent is not always enough to disqualify an offspring from being considered natural born under Article II, Section 1.
There is zero proof that Chester A, Arthur ever lied about his father being foreign born. William Arthur was a well known minister in Vermont, He preached with a strong Irish brogue and the issue raised concerning Chester’s eligibility was whether he had been born in Canada or not. Fairfield, Vermont, Chester’s home town is about 15 miles from the Canadian border and the Arthur’s had lived in Canada prior to emigrating to the US.
Finally, the lie that Arthur is famous for is about his age. He took off a year for some bizarre reason.
William Arthur did become a naturalized citizen when Chester was 14 years old,
Correct. Naturalized U.S. citizen parents may very well have been foreign born. If they naturalized before the birth of their child in the U.S., that child is a natural born citizen.
There is zero proof that Chester A, Arthur ever lied about his father being foreign born.
He didn't lie about his father being born, he lied about when his father was born, and when his father came to the U.S. Documented in the link I posted.
Besides lying repeatedly to try to obfuscate his family background, Chester Arthur burned his personal papers shortly before his death instead of donating them them to the Library of Congress, as do most U.S. Presidents or their heirs.
"During his lifetime, my father would never let anyone see them—not even me. When they finally came into my possession, I was amazed that there were so few. At my father's funeral in Albany, or rather at the interment of his ashes which took place several months after his death [July 17,1934], I enquired of all the cousins there assembled—the nieces and nephews of my grandfather, as to what had happened to the bulk of the papers. Charles E. McElroy, the son of Mary Arthur McElroy who was my grandfather's First Lady, tells me that the day before he died, my grandfather caused to be burned three large garbage cans, each at least four feet high, full of papers which I am sure would have thrown much light on history.Source:So wrote Chester A. Arthur III to Dr. Thomas P. Martin, then Acting Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, on April 15, 1938."
YES, you're twisting his words, because you strip them of the CONTEXT in which he spoke those words.
The question is: What did they mean by those words, "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," and did those words include people simply because they were non-US-citizens of Norway, or France, or China.
On the surface, the words themselves certainly suggest that resident aliens, living here and participating in US society, would be excluded by the phrase "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."
But that idea is NOT supported by anything else EVER said in the course of the entire debates.
EVER.
In fact, it is CONTRADICTED by clear statements in the Senate debates on the 14th Amendment, in which it was CLEARLY stated that the only people born on US soil who were not born United States citizens were "the children of ambassadors."
And Senator Jacob Howard was in the room when that statement was made. If he believed what you claim, then why did he make no objection to that statement whatsoever?
As far as the House goes, Representative James Falconer Wilson, after bringing up the Civil Rights Act bill on March 1, 1866, immediately points out what the rule of citizenship is in the United States:
Blackstone says:
"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the Crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens are such as are born out of it." -- Sharswood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.
The principle laid down here applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."
The English law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects; nor does it do so in regard to naturalization. This law bound the colonies before the Revolution; and was not changed afterward.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone -- natural-born and naturalized citizens. It speaks of "natural-born" citizens, and also provides for the establishment of "a uniform rule of naturalization" by Congress.
So Wilson, introducing the bill in the HOUSE, AGREES WITH EVERYBODY ELSE THAT WE DERIVED OUR BASIC RULE ON NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP DIRECTLY FROM THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.
So why don't you quote WILSON, making that statement?
I'll tell you why. Because YOU are the liar and fraud that you accuse accurate expositors of history and the Constitution of being. That's why.
Wilson is speaking here of whether black people can be citizens of the United States. That is the entire context of his speech, and it's the entire context of both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. Ensuring that the rights of citizenship were not denied to BLACK AMERICANS was the entire PURPOSE of both.
The purpose never had anything whatsoever to do with changing the status, in any way, of children born in the United States to non-citizen parents.
Wilson then says something, IN THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSING WHETHER BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE CITIZENS OR NOT, that I'm sure you'll love, because you can pretend it's a REQUIREMENT rather than a most-convincing-argument:
No one can doubt that an alien African could be naturalized under this part of the act of 1802, who was residing in the United States prior to the 29th day of January, 1795. Well, if Africans naturalized under this law should have had children born to them, will any person say that such children would be less citizens than their parents? The parents being citizens of the United States by naturalization, would it not follow that children born to them would be citizens by birth? I apprehend that it will not be claimed by anyone that the children of naturalized citizens of the United States do not partake of the citizenship of their parents.
This, of course, is exactly the kind of statement that birthers like you habitually have and will continue to pull out of the context of all other writings, in order to claim that two citizen parents are REQUIRED to make a natural born citizen.
You will cherry-pick one ambiguous statement that seems to imply what you want to "prove," while ignoring ten clear statements that absolutely refute it, and then claim the one ambiguous statement is "proof" of their position.
But -- just as in Minor v Happersett -- the speaker here MAKES NO SUCH CONDITION. In fact, the example is very similar to the statement in Minor v Happersett. He is making an example of the fact that it simply cannot be rationally disputed by ANYBODY that if two people were to come from Africa, be naturalized as US citizens, and then have children here, those children would obviously be citizens as well.
He is creating an absurdity: It would be absurd for the US-born children of US citizens not to be citizens themselves.
And we know that it's an absurdity he's creating by his statements that come both before and after this statement.
For example, he has just stated explicitly:
"All persons born within [the] jurisdiction are natural-born subjects... This law bound the colonies before the Revolution; and was not changed afterward."
He has also noted that the law divides "the people" into exactly TWO classes: "aliens and natural-born subjects."
Like Bingham, he also uses the phrases "citizens by birth" and "natural born citizens" in a way that is SYNONYMOUS.
He then makes the point that black people can certainly be citizens, even under the existing law.
He quotes Hugh Legare, Attorney General of the United States, in an 1843 opinion clarifying that a free black person born in the United States is born a citizen.
He quotes Chancellor Kent: "Citizens, under our Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress."
He quotes Secretary of State Marcy:
On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows:
"Although in general it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expediency of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth."
Wilson then goes on to directly quote William Rawle's statement on citizenship:
It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for such 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 it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States:
"Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." -- Rawle on the Constitution, p. 80.
So James Falconer Wilson explicitly stated on the floor of the House of Representatives that the children born in the United States of alien parents were themselves natural born citizens, and "entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
And where was Representative John Bingham (who elsewhere EQUATES "born a citizen" with "natural born citizen") at that moment? HE WAS RIGHT THERE IN THE CHAMBER WHEN WILSON MADE THE STATEMENT. We know this because he spoke just before Representative Wilson did.
And did he object, in the slightest?
NO, HE DID NOT.
So clearly, when Bingham said "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," he wasn't talking about non-citizens here on US soil. If he had been, then surely, just like Jacob Howard failing to make any objection at all over in the Senate, he would have objected when others stated with absolute clarity that the children born here of alien parents were themselves natural born citizens.
You said:
You are the one that knowingly and intentionally cut out his quote just before he specifically said "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". It's not that you didn't see it, it's that you willfully, and with intent to deceive, removed it from his statement.
I gave no intent to deceive whatsoever. The other part of his statement had already been liberally promoted by you and other birthers. I was simply supplying the part that YOU, with apparent intent to deceive, HAD YOURSELF LEFT OUT.
Again, YOU are the intellectually dishonest liar that haunts this forum. Bingham, Howard, Trubull and Wilson explicitly stated that citizenship would not be given to aliens or temporary sojourners.
I assume you meant to say "THE CHILDREN OF aliens or temporary sojourners."
In which case, my reply is:
BULL****.
We've seen here you have have cherry-picked and twisted the words of Bingham, Howard, and Wilson. Wilson explicitly stated that the children born here of alien parents were themselves NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, so Wilson ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS YOU AND REVEALS YOU AS A LIAR.
We've seen that both Bingham and Howard were present when others explicitly stated in Congress that the children born here of alien parents were natural born citizens (in the case of Bingham), and that the only exception was children born to foreign ambassadors (Howard). And neither made the slightest objection to that statement.
Elsewhere we've seen how you have similarly twisted the words of Senator Trumbull, just as you've cherry-picked and twisted every quote you could get your hands on in the desperate pursuit of propagandizing your bogus claim.
It doesn't matter how large you make the type in accusing others of being "liars." It is clear from the historical record and the dozens of fallacious arguments you've made here that the liar is you.
I think you will be interested in post 139.
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.
