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 ...
Of course, we already knew that.
We've already talked about this a bit, although I don't know whether you were in on the conversation.
First of all, that was a state law, not a law for the United States as a whole.
And that state law COMPLETELY AFFIRMED THAT THE CHILDREN BORN IN NEW YORK STATE OF RESIDENT ALIENS WERE BORN CITIZENS OF THE STATE.
Note how New York State law clearly disproves that inane assertion in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark obiter dicta.
Wow. You are really becoming a poster child for Constitution-twister nutjobism.
Obviously you can't tell the difference between the core reasoning of a case, and obiter dicta.
Clue: When a discussion runs for about 50 pages, and cites authority after authority, and is central to the resolution of the case, that's not obiter dicta. That's core reasoning.
Denying that fact is a sure sign of birther-nutjobitis.
Common law was NOT in effect in the U.S.In the general sense of the English common law being adopted at a national level, you're right. It wasn't.
But in regard to the basic definition of "natural born citizen," the terms of definition that we obtained from English and American common law applied, and in regard to the basic rule of citizenship that applied in the United States, Sandford said American common law created that rule, and the Supreme Court did not disagree with that, but stated that the same rule had always applied.
It's even in the passage you JUST QUOTED:
"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.
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."
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.
Once again, you're becoming a poster child for nutjob denialism. Your own passage that you just cited shows clearly that the same rule - which was the rule of English and common law - always applied, continuously, for the 300 years leading up to the decision in US v Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
That being the case, the "asinine" common law "theory" is PROVEN definitively.
But if you don't think so - cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is NOT a U.S. citizen.
And don't tell me again to cite the law that says he is, because I've cited it multiple times already, including in this post. It is the ancient rule of citizenship from both the English and the American common law. The same rule that the US Supreme Court, in the passage above, said applied throughout the entire history of the English Colonies, after the Declaration of Independence, and after the establishment of the Constitution.
Exactly, Jeff.
Take a wild guess why that is...
Hint: look at the date.
I'll take that as an admission that you realize there is no law under which Obama qualifies for birthright U.S. citizenship.
He may have naturalized as a U.S. citizen at some later point, though.
Our basic citizenship law was not a statutory law. It was a COMMON LAW DEFINTION, AND A COMMON LAW RULE.
Cite the statutory law, passed in the early days of our Republic, under which YOU qualify for birthright citizenship. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
Like I say, you're acting like a poster child for birther nutjobbery.
You demand that I cite a statutory law under which Obama qualifies for citizenship, when you can't cite one under which YOU qualify for citizenship.
I cite the actual law, and you simply deny that it exists, when I've spelled it out quite clearly.
You demand I cite a statutory law under which Obama qualifies for citizenship, insisting he doesn't, when you can't cite a statutory law that says he doesn't.
Ah, but every requirement applies to ME. NO requirement at all applies to YOU.
Those are the clear indications of a DENIALIST NUTJOB.
So thank you for announcing to the world that you're a denialist nutjob. Because that's all you've accomplished here.
“Cite the statutory law, passed in the early days of our Republic, under which YOU qualify for birthright citizenship. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.”
It was never doubted that the children of citizens born in the country were natural born citizens. They are so without need of any statute.
“The laws of the United States fall under three classifications: treaties made under the authority of the United States, the law of nations,(Vattel), and the Constitution and statutes of the United States.” John Jay
I see you're helping him out by noting there is no such statute.
So what made such people citizens?
You can say it was "natural law." But there is certainly more than one possible understanding of what "natural law" is.
So there must be some tradition, some accepted rule, that is accepted in the legal circles of the society, that is a LEGAL basis.
That was the common law. And it was put in place, for the most part, because at some point in history a judge sat and made a decision, and that decision was taken as legal precedent.
In fact, the English understanding of natural law, upon which OUR principle of citizenship was based, came from the Bible. England was a Christian nation, and the rulers of that nation adopted the Biblical principle that God had set in place the kingdoms of the world, and one was obliged to be obedient to the lawful governmental authority that God had established.
By that understanding, NATURAL LAW meant that if you were born into a kingdom, or under a king, you were a member of that kingdom and obliged to be obedient to that king, as long as he gave directives that didn't violate divine law. Even if he was generally a bad king, you were still obliged to obey legitimate laws.
But you, and the other denialists, deny this natural-law based principle that we inherited in our law from our heritage as English colonies.
And where do we find the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton told us that we should look to the legal language of the country that we derived our legal system from - England, and the English common law.
So when the Constitution says "natural born," the definition of that term, according to Alexander Hamilton (as well as due to the fact that it occurs NO PLACE ELSE) is to be found in the English common law.
That's it. Period. It's not that hard.
The United States is not England, Jeff.
Unlike the states, the United States does not proceed from a prior government. It is a new frame of government.
It is a new government founded on new ideas that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
Such principles are not found in English law. Anywhere.
Citizenship does not equate to natural born citizenship. Obama’s citizenship is dependent upon statute, stipulating to the latest version of his shifting narrative.
Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be changed without changing the meaning of the whole.
False.
Until 1866, birthright U.S. citizenship of eligible persons born in the United States was governed by the states ("Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed." Naturalization Act 1790, 1795).
New York State's citizenship law, as we've seen, denied birthright citizenship to the children of transient aliens, among others. New York State law defined transient aliens as those not domiciled in the state. The state defined domicile as: "the place where one remains, when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose." Read the link I posted to the New York state law. It's very informative.
Clearly, "common law" most certainly did not apply to U.S. citizenship, as you mistakenly believe.
Of course not. But we were English colonies, and we derived our legal system and terminology, as well as our language from our mother country.
We don't speak "American" because there's no such distinct language. We speak ENGLISH.
WHY do we, being Americans, speak the ENGLISH language? Because THAT'S WHO WE GOT OUR LANGUAGE FROM.
That applies equally well to our LEGAL language as to our daily language. The language of the Constitution is the language of English legal terminology.
We didn't get our legal terminology from some Swiss guy who never even USED the term "natural born."
In fact, the term "natural born," like the terms "tort," "felony," and a bunch of others appear NO PLACE ELSE.
You claim the phrase means something other than what it meant in the common law. BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE ELSE.
American lawyers all received training in the ENGLISH COMMON LAW. And for many of them, that was the only training they received.
Both Alexander Hamilton and the Supreme Court have told us to look to the common law for the definition of terms in the Constitution.
So when the Constitution says "NATURAL BORN," it means what it meant in the common law. No more, no less.
Citizenship does not equate to natural born citizenship.
Of course it doesn't. This is another of the idiotic red herrings and straw men that Consitution-twisters throw out there.
There are two kinds of citizens: Natural born ones, and naturalized ones.
Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be changed without changing the meaning of the whole.
"Natural born" means exactly the same thing when applied to "citizen" as it meant when applied to "subject." And the only difference between "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" is the difference between "citizen" and "subject."
Which isn't even that great. The Supreme Court told us they were equivalent terms, except that subjects have allegiance to a king, and citizens have allegiance to the entire body of the people.
The states were colonies. The United States NEVER WAS A COLONY.
A subject is chattel. A subject is beholden to another. A subject is inferior to his monarch.
In the United States ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is ANTITHETICAL to English law.
“Natural born subjects” are defined by Parliament, not ECL.
The United States has not incorporated acts of Parliament!
Stop being ridiculous.
“there could be only one sovereign, Parliament, in the British empire” Blackstone
“there can be no such thing as a fully absolute sovereign” Vattel
YOU'RE the one who denies every significant early authority, the opinions of the United States Supreme Court and every individual Supreme Court Justice who has spoken on the matter in the past 100 years, and every significant authority through United States history, including every significant conservative constitutional organization (e.g., the Heritage Foundation, National Review), and who has no real evidence showing that we ever adopted any definition for "natural born citizen" other than what history and law SAY the definition was.
And you're telling ME to "stop being ridiculous?"
You're an idiot. You deny every early authority of any note at all who ever spoke on the subject, and every authority of any real note who has spoken on it since then.
How does it feel to be a Constitutional and historical and legal idiot? Because, by your behavior and your position, that's what you are.
The states were colonies. The United States NEVER WAS A COLONY.
Of course not.
But when the United States was formed, there had to be some principle or law for determining who was a citizen. So what was it? Lewis Sandford explained it, and the US Supreme Court approvingly quoted his decision and agreed with it. I will give you his explanation in a moment.
A subject is chattel. A subject is beholden to another. A subject is inferior to his monarch.
Somewhat true, but not entirely - as illustrated by the fact that the first complaint some made when the Constitution was adopted was that our failure to adopt the common law wholesale would deprive us of a lot of the RIGHTS that we had previously ENJOYED as SUBJECTS of England.
That complaint led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Nonetheless, you do have a point. "Subject" implies "subjection." That's why we changed the term for a member of OUR society from "subject" to "citizen."
In the United States ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is ANTITHETICAL to English law.
Again, that's why we changed the term for a member of our new nation from "subject" to "citizen."
But again, terms in the Constitution come from the common law. Do you know where the following terms, found in our Constitution, come from?
Impeachment.
Felonies.
Treason.
Bribery.
Indictment.
Cases in equity.
Bankruptcy.
Attainder.
Writ of habeas corpus?
They don't come from some Swiss guy. They don't come from the Romans, or the Greeks. They don't come from "international law."
They come from the English common law, and were found NO PLACE ELSE.
Likewise, when the Constitution says "natural born," that's a term from the English common law, and it is found NO PLACE ELSE.
“Natural born subjects” are defined by Parliament, not ECL. The United States has not incorporated acts of Parliament!
No. Natural born subjects were defined by the common law. Parliament may have passed a few statutes from time to time saying such things as that children born abroad to English subjects were to be regarded as natural born subjects, but that was an addition to the basic rule of the common law.
Now I'm going to educate you as to how we got OUR rule of citizenship. Lewis Sandford, who was quoted approvingly by the US Supreme Court, who agreed with his general position and decision, has explained it very well. So I will let you read it, from his words.
The states parted with their control of the matter [the determination of who is a citizen] to the federal government. Therefore, there must have been a national principle or rule of law, co-eval with the existence of the Union, governing the subject. And the question whether Julia Lynch was or was not a citizen, must be determined by the national unwritten law.
It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States. Those states were the constituent parts of the United States, and when the union was formed, and further state regulation on the point terminated, it follows, in the absence of a declaration to the contrary, that the principle which prevailed and was the law on such point in all the states, became immediately the governing principle and rule of law thereon in the nation formed by such union. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws, it might have been difficult to ascertain which of the conflicting state rules was to become, or did become, the national principle. And if such diversity had existed, it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. The entire silence of the constitution in regard to it, furnishes a strong confirmation, not only that the existing law of the states was entirely uniform, but that there was no intention to abrogate or change it. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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 theo office of President," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...
Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
“Natural born CITIZEN” is not in ECL or acts of Parliament.
By the way - chill with the insults.
Where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and
commentators, who by years of labor, research and experience, have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat.
Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is.
The Paquete Habana
Okay. But YOU'RE the only who has been ridiculous. Pretty much all of our history, and all of our law, is against your claim.
And it's not even close. This is why cases making the claims that you've made here get summarily dismissed. We're up to, what now? 10 different court cases, from all over the country, where judges have entertained the natural born citizen allegations and tossed those making them out on their ears? It's because it's not even close. It's a myth, what you and others are claiming here. And it's a myth that has zero chance of success in any court of law, and only serves to make conservatives look bad, and possibly create problems for decent potential candidates in the future, who are in fact eligible, like Ted Cruz.
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.