And Minor vs. Hapersett very clearly does not give a definition of natural born citizen. Carefully read the text:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
They do not make a determination of NBC at all. And the hypothetical issue they raise is whether or not children born here without reference to the citizenship of the parents are citizens at all. Which they explicitly state they do not need to determine. And all of which predates the 14th Amendment.
The later language in United States vs, Wong Kim Ark is far more explicit and can only be read to conclude that a historical and legal basis for considering children born here to be NBCs exists. That basis was explicitly cited by an actual court last year to conclude that Obama was an NBC. You can think that's wrong all you want, but at present, it trumps a cut-and-paste list from the writings of some lawyer losing every case they bring.
Then you cite Wong Kim Ark, a decision the dealt with citizenship, not NBC?
You think the Founder sacrificed everything so a the son of a British Subject could become POTUS?
The NBC meaning is clear, except to trolls.
citizen and natural born citizen are mutually exclusive.
Not really. WKA cites Minor in saying, "...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." IOW, this is a universal principle for naturally recognizing citizens. Anything outside of this definition is no longer natural, because you have to have some sort of statutory construction to allow others to be citizens at birth. That's why WKA made a point about the parents being permanent residents ... to show that they had more than temporary allegiance to the United States. Such is not so with the child of a visiting scholar.
That basis was explicitly cited by an actual court last year to conclude that Obama was an NBC.
The court you're thinking of intentionally avoided saying that Obama is an NBC. They also contradicted their own argument by admitting that WKA did not pronounce its plaintiff to be an NBC. They claimed WKA gave them guidance, even though that decision didn't come up with the result they wanted to claim. They didn't connect the dots.
|
The later language in United States vs, Wong Kim Ark is far more explicit and can only be read to conclude ... LOL. You should just skip to the movie, because the 1896 version of his book "Conflict of Laws", used by Justice Gray in US v Ark ... pretty much just sucks ass and will be ignored by any SCOTUS Justice in determining the late-18th century meaning of "natural-born Citizen". More tutelage here:  |
Like the other cases, Wong does not explicity say who what a Natural Born Citizen is. It says who a citizen at birth under the 14th amendment is, but never says Wong is one. Furthermore the case did not turn on Wong being an NBC, merely a citizen, so all that verbiage, other than the 14th amendment referances, is so much fluff and dicta.
Where did the term Natural Born Citizen come from? Did the framers make it up on their own?
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. .”
I just did. Did you??? are you capable of deciphering the plain meaning of words???
The text read by any logical literate person who is not an elitist liberal lawyer or an Obamabot, whether or not they stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, says clearly that the first class of citizen is:
"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. ...
The author of these words subsequently refers to another class of children without reference to the citizenship of their parents that some authorities claim should be "citizens" [not natural born citizens, just citizens]. There have been doubts as to the citizenship of this second class, but not "the first".
This understanding is confirmed by American immigration law at the time since the U.S. Government considered this second class not just to be doubtful citizens, but to be actually "aliens and foreigners" -- until their fathers or they themselves were naturalized.
Check your history some time and reread the above again if necessary. I hope this helps. If not, try spending a night in a Holiday Inn Express -- or a week -- or a month -- or longer.