Replies

The part you needed to make bold is that “Were it not for the 14th Amendment” because that is the key point.

At least you are being logically consistent here, realizing (unlike some others pushing this theory) that you need to argue against the common view of ‘birthright citizenship’ as extending to everyone born in the USA. (Yes, there are exceptions but they are narrow - diplomats and invading armies - and according to latest SCOTUS rulings dont even exclude children of illegal aliens.)

However the case of Obama - born in Honolulu to a foreign father and US citizen mother - is a case where Obama could live his entire life in the US yet not be a citizen. As long as we are doing the original intent thing, consider that the original intent of the 14th was to end such possibilities. He has a stronger case for sure than Wong Kim Ark did in 1898 (who was born in San Fransisco to Chinese national parents) and SCOTUS gave Wong Kim Ark birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Howard quote is a part of the story, but only a part. His quote doesnt contradicate Wong Kim Ark directly.

I have gone through this a few times with others recently, and my bottom line point remains: To pursue this legal theory, you end having to argue that SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark was wrong. maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, but it becomes a theoretic exercise to propose that a SCOTUS ruling that has held for over 100 years be overturned.

Under *current law* as *currently* interpreted by the Federal courts, Barack Obama if born in the USA is a US citizen at birth. (Actually he is a US citizen in any case under the 1986 INA 301 grandfathering in cases of people born with one parent a US citizen.)

and my bottom line point remains: To pursue this legal theory, you end having to argue that SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark was wrong.

That is the position our liberal counterparts would prefer us to take, as the battlefield is groomed against such an affront, but that is not so. Even you concluded in your own statement Howard's "quote doesnt contradicate Wong Kim Ark directly" --- though I would say the opposite, that the decision in Wong Kim Ark does not contradict Howard's statement directly.

Therefore, it is a natural perception that the purpose of the ruling in Wong Kim Ark was simply to officiate the status of "citizenship", but not specifically "natural born citizenship", to a child born on U.S. soil. Whereas everyone can agree with that statement, you would be hard pressed to argue against it by concluding the intent of The Court in this ruling was to define, or redefine, or even clarify the term "natural born citizen". Why? Simply because The Court *can't* do that. The Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench; only Congress is granted the ability to define a "uniform rule of naturalization" by Article I of the Constitution. Congress sets the bar for citizenship, not the Supreme Court. That's an easy debate to win. The Court simply drew upon historic definitions of citizenship in its many forms to decide the question posed before it.

The question posed before The Court in Wong Kim Ark correlates nicely with this premise :

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

Especially so given the statements by congressman at the time of the 14th Amendment, including its authors, setting a distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" as allowed for by the 14th Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark was settled : "For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative." Ergo, Wong Kim Ark was "a citizen" at the time of his birth and nothing more or less.

Mr. Obama, presumably though not proved to have been, born on U.S. soil would a be "a citizen, nothing more or less. The overwhelming preponderance of historical context, however, precludes Mr. Obama from being considered a "natural born citizen". I have no desire to prove Mr. Obama is less than a citizen. Even though his mother was too young at the time of his birth to legally convey citizenship to him as provided by the laws in Hawaii at the time. Still, she was an American and I respect that. I'll let others battle that if they desire ... I have no dog in that hunt. I will not, however, toss the Constitution aside and willingly elevate him to a status to which he is not entitled, an act the Framers themselves warned us inheritors of this nation against and implemented protections to deny.