Posted on 08/13/2020 5:52:25 AM PDT by Lower55
Uh, not really, M v.H took place in 1874, and was superseded by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Prove it, don't say it.
I ain't wasting any more time wrestling in the mud with you idiots............
I'll even help you out...
Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions
You even have it in your reply..."At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
TWO parents, both citizens.
No, that is just losing birther blather. You need to truncate what was stated by the Court, rip it out of context, and ignore all else that was said, and make believe Wong Kim Ark does not exist, to reach your bogus result.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.
There was no question that Virginia Minor was born a citizen. It was a jointly stipulated fact. If a child is born in the United States to two illegal aliens in a detention center, both awaiting deportation, the child is nevertheless born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, and pursuant to the Constitution is born a citizen of the United States. No citizen parent is required. The child born in the United States, of alien parents, is born a United States citizen.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 300
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY8 FAM 301
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP8 FAM 301.1
(U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)
(Office of Origin: CA/PPT/S/A)* FAM 301.1-1 (U) INTRODUCTION
(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018). . .
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th 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 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.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
Your bogus birther blather, and sundry other bogus birth blather, was litigated to death in the Obama era.
A losing record of futility of 0-226.
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%2520CASE%2520LIST.pdf
The BIRTHER SCORECARD list all the cases, the result, and the result of any appeal. ALL cases were dismissed on pre-trial motions to dismiss. NONE even survived to a trial.
And there we have it. A circular argument wherein laws passed by Congress, performed through a power delegated to it through the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 The Congress shall have Power . . .To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization), gives light to the ruse that everyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
Congress only has the power to grant citizenship to aliens and foreigners.
How ignorant you are! You didn't think that through, did you.
You cite laws that grant citizenship. A natural born citizen needs no such grant of citizenship as it is inherent at birth and is inalienable.
TWO parents, both ALIENS. Their child is an alien at birth and is also, at birth, granted U.S. citizenship under USC 8 and is thereafter considered as a citizen entitled to all rights and protection under the law as a natural born citizen.
However, that citizen cannot ever, by the very laws you cite, be considered a natural born citizen as Congress can only, Constitutionally, pass laws (rules) that govern aliens and foreigners.
Furthermore, the citizenship of an alien under the jurisdiction of USC 8, can be revoked. A natural born citizen has to renounce their citizenship, an action taken by the individual and not by the government.
Your bogus birther blather, and sundry other bogus birth blather, was litigated to death in the Obama era.
Oh, and your ignorant blather is so much better?
You're so ignorant you don't even recognize that you're making the natural born citizen even easier to understand.
Your beloved Ho Train is not a natural born citizen. She is a USC 8 citizen who was granted citizenship through Congressional legislation.
I will give you a plus 1 for that response. Thanks Philman!
It’s just more of the typical birther “law”. Which is kind of like Sovereign Citizen “law”. They are both nonsense because it’s complete misreading of what the law says.
Allow me to extend my remarks...
...and is thereafter considered as a citizen entitled to all rights and protection under the law as a natural born citizen with the exception of holding the office of POTUS and VPOTUS.
Please enlighten everyone as to what the law says.
Which "law" specifically, are you talking about?
My pleasure.
Consider the state of the child at birth.
The child is born and for a split second its status as an alien is inherent until further action is taken.
The very moment after that split second, their birth citizenship is granted via USC 8 with no naturalization process being necessary like it would be with an adult or child immigrating, thus changing its status from what it was previously.
Presto Chango! One alien child converted into a U.S citizen simply because they were born on U.S soil and because of existing legislation.
You state...
Your bogus birther blather, and sundry other bogus birth blather, was litigated to death in the Obama era.
How could the issue be "litigated to death" when, as you state...
ALL cases were dismissed on pre-trial motions to dismiss. NONE even survived to a trial.
SO if all cases were dismissed on pre-trial motions and no cases survived to trial then how could the issue be "litigated to death"?
Were no decisions rendered at all...ever?
careful now...lest you fall into a trap
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.
Zero evidence is provided for this garbage. This rates as fish wrap. This article by The Paraclete was garbage a decade ago and it is still garbage.
WHY would anyone even cite crap about Justia when PDF copies of the official U.S. Reports are available at the Library of Congress. Unlike Justia, those do not come with the standard Justia disclaimer for dimwits:
Minor v. Happersett at Justia
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Would you like a link to Minor v. Happersett?
No, I provided a link to the U.S. Reports copy at the Library of Congress with my #11. I even went further than a link to the opinion, and linked to specific pages for my specific quotes.
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
I also have a full copy of the Record of Transcript for Minor v. Happersett and quoted from the Agreed Statement of the two parties to the case.
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”
It's true, women born within the jurisdiction of the United States have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since. Not only that, but little boys and girls born within the jurisdiction of the United States, even born to illegal aliens, are considered citizens of the United States. Nothing in Minor says otherwise. No question of citizenship was before the Court in Minor, and no question of citizenship was decided in Minor.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html
8 FAM 300
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
8 FAM 301
(U) U.S. CITIZENSHIP
8 FAM 301.1
(U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
- - - - - - - - - -
Regardless, Lockwood is the holy grail of cases which stand in support of Minor on the definition of federal citizenship because the Supreme Court stated the words, “this court held” in relation to Minor’s definition of federal citizenship. And Lockwood is the only case which appears to have been tampered with at sites other than Justia.
You "forgot" to add a case citation and link to your birther blather about Lockwood. On original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court denied Belva Lockwood's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. It is not a case about citizenship or presidential eligibility. No question of citizenship was at issue in either Minor or Lockwood.
The issue was whether Lockwood's unquestioned citizenship included some right to practise law in the state courts. Such was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States. Petition denied.
Not only was Belva Lockwood a known citizen at the time of the 1894 opinion rejecting her Petition for Writ of Mandamus, she ran for President of the United States ten years earlier in 1884, as the nominee of the Equal Rights Party, and she received several thousand votes. She wittily described Republicans as "the Stag Party."
On March 3, 1879, Belva Lockwood had become the first woman admitted to practice law before the United States Supreme Court. The oath was administered by Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite.
As for Belva Lockwood's Petitition for a Writ of Mandamus, to order the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practice before that court, it is not relevant to the issue of citizenship or presidential eligibility, much less the gold standard on those issues.
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep154/usrep154116/usrep154116.pdf
116 OCTOBER TERM, 1893.Opinion of the Court.
In re LOCKWOOD, Petitioner.
ORIGINAL.
No number. Submitted April 24, 1894. Decided May 26, 1894.
It is for the Supreme Court of the State of Virginia to construe the statute of that State which provides that “ any person duly authorized and practising as counsel or attorney at law in any State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, may practise as such in the courts of this State,” and to determine whether the word “person,” as therein used, is confined to males, and whether women are admitted to practise law in that Commonwealth.The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Joseph Christian for the petitioner.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an application by Belva A. Lockwood for leave to file a petition for a mandamus requiring the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to admit her to practise law in that court. Mrs. Lockwood has been for many years a member of the bar of this court and of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and also, she avers, of the bars of several States of the Union. Her complaint is that she recently applied to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia to be admitted to the practice of law in that court, and the court denied her application, notwithstanding it is provided by a statute of that State that “any person duly authorized and practising as counsel or attorney at law in any State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, may practise as such in the courts of this State.” Code Va. 1887, § 3192; and she alleges that the only reason for the rejection of her application was that she is a woman. It appears that no record was made of the refusal complained of, but she presents a certificate of the clerk of that court to the effect that the application was made and rejected, though “no order was made at the time.” Nothing is stated in the papers before us as to the residence of the petitioner, whether in the District of Columbia or in some other State than the State of Virginia. Our interposition seems to be invoked upon the ground that petitioner has been1 denied a privilege or immunity belonging to her as a citizen of the United States, and enjoyed by the women of Virginia, in contravention of the second section of Article IV of the Constitution and of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Miner v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word “citizen” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the Federal Constitution.
In Bradwell v. The State, 16 Wall. 130, it was held that the right to practise law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States; that the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practise law in the courts of a State is one of those powers that was not transferred for its protection to the Federal government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license.
Section 3192 of the Code of Virginia quoted in this application is one of twelve sections constituting chap. 154 of that Code, entitled, “Of Attorneys-at-Law Generally.” Section 3193 reads: “Every such person shall produce, before each court in which he intends to practise, satisfactory evidence of his being so licensed or authorized, and take an oath that he will honestly demean himself in the practice of the law, and to the best of his ability execute his office of attorney-at- law; and also, when he is licensed in this State, take the oath of fidelity to the Commonwealth.”
It was for the Supreme Court of Appeals to construe the statute of Virginia in question, and to determine whether the word “person” as therein used is confined to males, and whether women are admitted to practise law in that Commonwealth.
Leave denied.
SO if all cases were dismissed on pre-trial motions and no cases survived to trial then how could the issue be "litigated to death"?Were no decisions rendered at all...ever?
Decisions were rendered. 226 of them. Pre-trial motions are litigated. Check the Michael Flynn case which has never proceeded to trial. Cases may be litigated for years before trial. Reasons for dismissal may include failure to state a case, or lack of standing or a court's lack of jurisdiction.
Consider the state of the child at birth.The child is born and for a split second its status as an alien is inherent until further action is taken.
Consider the actual law, not make believe bullshit.
Every child born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a citizen of the United States. There is no split second involved.
The article we're commenting on supposedly cites some case law. That's the context of this discussion. Naturally, being a birther article, it's gets it all completely wrong.
That's called an EPIC FAIL!
BTW...no selective editing.
d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
Also from your link...
c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)
See, I know that your FAM 8 is nothing more than USC 8 rewritten.
Want a good laugh? Foreign Affairs Manual: 8 FAM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
FOREIGN Affiars
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
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.