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 ...
Clearly, he is wrong.
There was NO "common law," Jeff.
Sorry, but the US Supreme Court cited him approvingly, and agreed with his conclusion. They stated that the same rule had always applied, first in England, then in the Colonies, then in the US both before and AFTER the establishment of the Constitution.
When it comes to your word versus the word of Vice Chancellor Sandford (who made a thorough review of the law running to about 25 tiny-print pages, or more like 50 pages at a larger print size), and the word of the United States Supreme Court, I'm going with the US Supreme Court and Vice Chancellor Sandford.
Your opinion, plus 5 dollars, will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
It never ceases to amaze me the amateur yahoos who get on the internet and post that they know far more about citizenship law than the United States Supreme Court PLUS virtually every legal expert who has ever lived in all of United States history, liberal OR conservative.
Cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
I already did. Now you cite the law - the NATIONAL law - that supports your assertion that someone born under Obama's birth circumstances is NOT a US citizen.
And don't give me the Minor v. Happersett BS, because they never said such people were not citizens, only that it was absolutely certain that people born on US soil with two citizen parents were. They said they weren't even going to consider the other question. They backed their side-comment statement with no authority at all, and if they had, and if it had been what birthers claim (it wasn't) it still would've been overruled by US v. Wong Kim Ark.
See? I knew you were going to trot out Samuel Roberts and claim he was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Wow. You guys have become so predictable.
Inglis v. Trustees Of Sailor's of Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830): The Plaintiff was born in New York during the Revolutionary War. His father was a British subject who never became a U.S. citizen. The Plaintiff's exact date of birth was unknown. During the Revolutionary War, control of New York alternated between U.S. and British forces. The Court ruled that, even if New York was under U.S. control at the time of the Plaintiff's birth, the Plaintiff would still be a British subject by birth, and not a U.S. citizen, because the plaintiff's nationality at birth "followed that of his father".
Ah, yes. The fallacious birther argument based on Inglis again.
In Inglis (1830), the Supreme Court said that Mr. Inglis had been born during the time when Americans were making the election to be US citizens or remain British subjects. They said he had the opportunity to return from England as a young adult and take up his US citizenship, but that by the time he had reached 40-something years old, it was too late for him to do so. He had "ratified" the choice of British citizenship that his parents had made for him.
The case had to do with the division of people into English subjects and United States citizens upon Independence, and has nothing at all to do with the case of children born on the soil of an established country, except that Joseph Story, in a concurring opinion, wrote:
“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that, by 1830, NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.
And gee. HE sure seem to think that the common law (both English and American) was relevant. Doesn't he?
So the fact is, what you claim to be the law is not, and never was. You've bought into a fallacy whose only real credibility comes from the number of people claiming it's true.
It's like if you have a bunch of people standing up and claiming to be experts, saying the moon is made of green cheese. Well golly, it must be true.
This is in fact the "argumentum ad numerum" that DiogenesLamp keeps attributing the combined weight of every real legal authority in history. Well, when virtually every real legal authority in history agrees on a point of law, it's probably true.
When a bunch of yahoos on the internet without any training whatsoever, pushing literally dozens of fallacious arguments agree on something, THAT'S "argumentum ad numerum."
Oh, I do too. And if they or the authors of the Fourteenth had foreseen it, they might have said something about it. But the only person I've read of who ever suggested the possibility was Fuller in his WKA dissent.
if we want to do something about that, then have Congress pass a law stating that US citizenship is denied to children born to parents here on a tourist visa
That's the thing: people accuse you of defending this loophole, when you're just pointing out that the loophole exists. Like you, I wouldn't object to such a law--I'm not promoting the current situation, just acknowledging it.
In case you missed our previous conversation: you should be aware that Rides3 is of the opinion that all the agreed-upon facts in WKA were in fact requiements or limitations on the decision. Rides3 thinks, for example, that the inclusion of "whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent" in the restatement of the question means that WKA only applies to Chinese people, not people from anyplace else.
Really?
That's... extraordinary.
The precedent in a case includes all of its core reasoning, all of the rationale, backed by analysis and authority used to reach the decision.
It does NOT, contrary to the claims of Constitution-twisters, include side comments unbacked by any authority, and completely irrelevant to the outcome of the case... such as any side comment made by the Minor court regarding the children of non-citizen parents - since Virginia Minor didn't fit into that category and no comment by the Court on the status of children of alien parentage was even relevant to her, or her case.
But when the argument has been made for a child of Chinese parents, it applies equally to a child of Norwegian or Liberian or Russian or Kenyan parents, unless there's some good reason for it not to. Because the two situations are identical in their legal situation and implications.
Of course I know that YOU know that. I'm just repeating it for the benefit of anyone who may have fallen into the Constitution-twisters' web.
HA! He's calling it "Ancient"! It's about as "Ancient" as Calvin's case meaning 1608. (about 180 years before the US Constitution.) It was cobbled together by Lord Coke as a means of addressing issues with the Unification of Scotland and England.
English Law said that land could not be inherited from non-subjects. (and it continued to do so till 1870. So much for the "children of foreign parents are the same as the children of Subject parents" theory.) "Calvin" was born after James I ascended to the the throne and united Scotland with England, but "Calvin" was born to Scottish Parents and so it was argued that he couldn't inherit land because of that law.
Knowing that this would throw a severe kink into the plan to unite the Kingdom, (The Scots would not accept this.) Lord Coke got a bunch of Judges together to agree to make up some bullsh*t and claim it was "the common law." Just as today, Politics trumped the truth and the existing law of the time.
Prior to Lord Coke and Calvin's case, it was Roman law as far back as the eye can see, and we ALL know what was the Roman (and Greek) law; The Parents must be citizens.
So Jeff is trying to snow us into accepting his claim that this was a well established and "Ancient" aspect of English Common law, when in fact it was only as far back as King James I. It was younger than our US Constitution is today.
Do you make your living as a clown?
Actually, the idea of natural born citizenship seems to go back even before Calvin's Case. But 1607 is quite old enough.
I referred to it as "ancient" because that's exactly the same adjective used to describe it by the United States Supreme Court in 1898:
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there was any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
And:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: 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. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.
So once again, you reveal yourself as being an idiot. I would think it would get old after a while, but you don't seem to have lost the taste for it.
Knowing that this would throw a severe kink into the plan to unite the Kingdom, (The Scots would not accept this.) Lord Coke got a bunch of Judges together to agree to make up some bullsh*t and claim it was "the common law." Just as today, Politics trumped the truth and the existing law of the time.
Yes, yes, we know. Lord Coke and all the high judges of the country of England were all just a bunch of Obot hacks:
"The two cases were adjourned to the Exchequer Chamber to be heard by all the King's Bench and Common Pleas justices as well as the Lord Chancellor and barons of the Exchequer. In June 1608, fourteen justices assembled for arguments in the case. Coke reports that 'the five judges of the King's Bench, who adjourned this case into the Exchequer Chamber, rather adjourned it for weight than difficulty.'"
Unlike our legal system, the English legal system had two courts. They felt the case was important, so they combined the high justices of both courts into a sort of truly-Supreme-Court.
Really, do you never tire of posting idiotic stuff that only reveals you as a nutjob?
Prior to Lord Coke and Calvin's case, it was Roman law as far back as the eye can see, and we ALL know what was the Roman (and Greek) law; The Parents must be citizens.
So yeah, let's make yet another idiotic argument here: that a legal precedent that had been in place, and been THE LAW for 180 years, just wasn't old enough.
We need to go back to the ROMANS, and the GREEKS, who weren't even English.
Good heavens.
Once again, you show that there's simply NO length you won't go to in order to fling your BS. Precedent that's 180 years old isn't old enough for you. You claim that the precedent was overruled by some previous policy of more than 1000 years earlier.
The English precedent that we inherited from our ENGLISH Colonies isn't American enough for you. You claim that we got our policy from the Swiss, which we had virtually nothing to do with, or from the ROMANS, or the GREEKS, who were thousands of miles and thousands of years away.
And your evidence to prove this is... BUPKIS.
Except that you REALLY, REALLY WANT it to be true.
You're like a little 4 year old who, told he can't have the 5-pound Hershey's bar at the grocery store, begs and whines and pleads incessantly. I'll bet you did that as a kid, didn't you? I'd almost be willing to bet that your mother gave in to your little begging and tantrums as well.
Because that's the other part of it. When the facts don't match what you want them to be, you throw a little tantrum. You accuse others of being "liars." "Obots." "Paid." "Shills."
So Jeff is trying to snow us into accepting his claim that this was a well established and "Ancient" aspect of English Common law, when in fact it was only as far back as King James I. It was younger than our US Constitution is today.
More than 4 centuries is ancient enough for me. It was ancient enough for the US Supreme Court to call it "ancient," and I put more credence into their words than I do the words of some clown on the internet.
US Supreme Court Wheaton v. Peters - 33 U.S. 591 (1834)
It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The federal government is composed of twenty-four sovereign and independent states, each of which may have its local usages, customs, and common law. There is no principle which pervades the union and has the authority of law that is not embodied in the Constitution or laws of the union. The common law could be made a part of our system by legislative adoption. When a common law right is asserted, we look to the state in which the controversy originated.When the ancestors of the citizens of the United States emigrated to this country, they brought with them, to a limited extent, the English common law as part of their heritage. No one will contend that the common law, as it existed in England, has ever been in force in all its provisions in any state in this Union. It was adopted only so far as its principles were suited to the condition of the colonies, and from this circumstance we see what is the common law in one state is not so considered in another. The judicial decisions, the usages and customs of the respective states, must determine how far the common law has been introduced and sanctioned in each.
Lynch v Clarke was a New York STATE case. It's decision was subsequently overturned by the State Legislature of New York.
The Fact that the state legislature could and DID overturn Lynch v Clarke demonstrates that the theory underpinning Lynch v Clarke was incorrect.
The fact that a State legislature could pass a law prohibiting citizenship for transient aliens also overturns YOUR theory.
But a Previous Supreme court said the exact opposite. Face it Jeff, Wong Kim Ark was a political ruling, not a legal ruling. (Just like Calvin's case.) The Gray court wanted to rebuke the Tanney court. The majority was Mostly Northerners and Republicans, while the dissenters were Democrats. Figure it out.
To rule otherwise would be a rebuke to their party's efforts to win equality for other races, and an affirmation of the worst aspects of the Democrats racism. The law denying Wong's parents citizenship was a racist law in the first place.
The Court wanted the ruling they gave, and they sought out any support in law they could find for it.
It never ceases to amaze me the amateur yahoos who get on the internet and post that they know far more about citizenship law than the United States Supreme Court PLUS virtually every legal expert who has ever lived in all of United States history, liberal OR conservative.
It never ceases to amaze me how many yahoos get on the internet and are so stupid as to believe that court rulings must follow law.
Ever hear of Wickard v Filburn? Kelo v New London? Roe v Wade? Obamacare?
The actual law has nothing to do with it. Judges often like to legislate from the bench, while pretending the law says what they want.
The fact that we actually KNOW that the same rule hasn't always applied proves their statement false.
New York State law denying citizenship to the children of transient aliens:
Political Code - State of New York
There was no "common law." It has been quite easy to prove that there wasn't.
Now, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
The Fact that the state legislature could and DID overturn Lynch v Clarke demonstrates that the theory underpinning Lynch v Clarke was incorrect.
The fact that a State legislature could pass a law prohibiting citizenship for transient aliens also overturns YOUR theory.
"Also?" Aren't you stretching the point a bit?
Julia Lynch was arguably the child of "transient" aliens, and she was found by Vice Chancellor to be a United States citizen. A New York State law, at some point prior to 1860 or so, said:
The citizens of the state are:
1. All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls;
2. All persons born out of this state, who are citizens of the United States, and resident within this state.
Did you get what they just said?
EVERYBODY born in the State of New York, and residing there, was a citizen of that State, except for the children of TRANSIENT aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls.
So according to New York law, the children of RESIDENT aliens, born in that State, were born CITIZENS of that State.
I've said repeatedly that there's a case to be made that children of tourist aliens are, or should not be, not natural born citizens of the United States.
The fact that the State of New York (which is only a State situation, as you reminded me of the court case case Lynch v. Clarke) excluded children of TRANSIENT aliens, and INCLUDED children of NON-TRANSIENT aliens, in STATE citizenship, doesn't make your case.
In fact, it argues against it. The State of New York absolutely accepted the children born in New York of resident aliens, who were not themselves citizens of either New York or the United States, as being BORN citizens of the State of New York.
So the law you refer to shows that the State of New York never required citizen parents, as long as the parents were simply resident, in order for a child born there to be a citizen of the State.
Similarly, the United States never required citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least as long as the parents were resident in the United States, and possibly even if they weren't.
No, they didn't.
I agree with you that the Supreme Court has not made the right decision in every case. Some of the cases you named are excellent examples of that. I can certainly agree with you on more than one of those cases.
Legally speaking, though, their word is the law.
And in this particular case, I've read quite enough by now to know that their ruling IS in line with our history, Constitution and law, and YOU are absolutely, categorically, totally, completely, full of ****.
No need, you provide all the entertainment we can stand.
Actually, the idea of natural born citizenship seems to go back even before Calvin's Case.
If this is true, why did "Calvin" need to bring his case? Why would it need 14 judges to decide it? Seems like the first peasant that came along could explain it. If Only Peasant Jeff had come along, it could have saved everybody a lot of trouble when he explained to them what the "common" law was.
"Your Honors, the Law's quite simple, it is." (Pictured below, Peasant Jeff explaining the law to the Judges)
.
.
But 1607 is quite old enough.
What have you got older than 1608? Show it.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
I'm not farting with the rest of your message. You write too much crap.
Sorry, but whether the common law included the case of TRANSIENT aliens or not, both Sandford and the US Supreme Court absolutely contradict you and say you're a fool.
As I said before, I'm going with those Justices over you.
But it's not just them. It's virtually every other significant legal authority in all of US history as well.
Now, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
I already did. Now YOU cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is NOT a U.S. citizen.
If this is true, why did "Calvin" need to bring his case? Why would it need 14 judges to decide it?
Because Calvin wasn't born a citizen of ENGLAND, and the question was whether he, having been born in SCOTLAND since the King of Scotland also became the King of England as well, would thereby be eligible to inherit land not only in SCOTLAND, where he HAD been born, but also in ENGLAND, which was a separate county where he had NOT been born.
The Court concluded he could inherit land in England as well as in Scotland.
Julia Lynch was arguably the child of "transient" aliens, and she was found by Vice Chancellor to be a United States citizen. A New York State law, at some point prior to 1860 or so, said:
The specifics of the case are immaterial to the point. The New York Legislature passed a law in violation of the Premise upon which Lynch v Clarke was based. The Court said English Common law applied, the Legislature said "no it didn't."
So according to New York law, the children of RESIDENT aliens, born in that State, were born CITIZENS of that State.
I've said repeatedly that there's a case to be made that children of tourist aliens are, or should not be, not natural born citizens of the United States.
Now you are starting to get it. Slaves were permanent residents without citizenship. Wong Kim Ark's parents made their home here but could not become citizens because of the Treaty the US had with China.
So the law you refer to shows that the State of New York never required citizen parents, as long as the parents were simply resident, in order for a child born there to be a citizen of the State.
Permanently resident. An immigrant, more or less.
Different states had different requirements. Some were easier than others. They had control over whom would be a citizen of their own states, but the status of being a "natural citizen" of the United States (i.e. Federal citizen) was not subject to state laws. (except in terms of who was grandfathered in.) It was based on Natural law, as was our own independence. The argument for US Independence was completely contrary to common law, or the Law of England. It's only basis for legitimacy was "natural law". Under Common law it was forbidden.
The Court concluded he could inherit land in England as well as in Scotland.
But none of that is being contested. The point being contested is YOUR CLAIM that the common law had ALWAYS recognized subjectship by place of birth.
Why does such a simple rule require 14 judges to figure it out?
States generally tended to adopt the English common law, and then change whatever parts of it they liked.
You're obfuscating. The case was not about the principle of birth on the soil of the country, which was already established, but about whether a person born in another country which had the same King as England should be treated as an alien for the purposes of inheriting an estate in England, or not.
No, they do not.
The passage to which you refer:
"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.At least one law which proves definitively that the same rule was NOT in force in the U.S. under the Constitution:III. 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."
Note how New York State law clearly disproves that inane assertion in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark obiter dicta.
Common law was NOT in effect in the U.S.
Again, I'm asking, with the asinine "common law" theory disproved definitively, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
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.