Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
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 ....
Free Republic is a Pro Life site. Just in case you didn’t know.
Absolutely not! No law or Amendment was passed in 1973 which made it legal to kill unborn human beings. A Supreme Court, heavily laden with the consequences of the Roosevelt/Truman era, violated the principles of American Law and Declared "ex cathedra" that states could not stop such killing. They had absolutely no legal basis for their ruling and it was nothing more than a raw dictatorial exercise of Power. They even granted "standing" (something which seemingly cannot be obtained regarding Obama even for individuals ACTUALLY injured) AFTER the child was already born! (When it was too late for any court remedy.) It stands today as the prime example of an illegal act perpetrated by the court, and likewise demonstrates why the court's decisions should no longer be automatically regarded as legitimate.
In my opinion, those in favor should have been impeached, (hanged?) and their decision overturned by the Senate. Unfortunately it was in the hands of Gutless/Immoral Democrats.
Abortion is no more legal than slavery, and for the same reason. It is contrary to nature and the dignity of human civilization.
Dude, I don’t have time to bring you up to speed. Suffice it to say you have missed most of the conversation.
Changing the subject when you can’t answer - a slick politician trick.
You think I didn’t know? You think there are people on this site who don’t know and don’t agree? You think I didn’t already answer this one? (I do, I don’t think so, and yes I did.)
The “natural born” crowd is trying to change the subject when called on their statements. That’s what politicians do when they don’t want to answer questions. I am not participating in that sort of thing.
This thread is about whether 0bama should have legally been deported.
The keep coming back to a composition fallacy - if the circumstances applied to one person, that those must apply to all.
Watch out for a truncated quote that Edge likes to use, omitting the “neither...nor” which reverses the meaning.
The “natural born” crowd is trying to change the subject when called on their statements. That’s what politicians do when they don’t want to answer questions. I am not participating in that sort of thing.
This thread is about whether 0bama should have legally been deported.
It is a sub discussion of the overall discussion, which is about whether the man is in fact legitimate in serving as President.
You say that you are Pro-Life and that life begins at conception. I'm fine with that. I just want to know how you can argue a right to life at conception but you see citizenship as a consequence of birth. It is a puzzling dichotomy.
This line of discussion is it not just a good troll test, it is a means by which ideas can be tried by fire to see which one burns up. As the two ideas are philosophically incompatible, one will at some point have to chose which philosophy will dominate one's thinking. That of inherent rights, or that of conferred rights.
The Pro-Life philosophy is one of inherent rights, not "granted" rights.
The judge accepted a claim at face value that the children in question were “natural-born citizens,” but they were not treated as natural-born citizens. IOW, the judicial “actions” speak louder than the plaintiff’s words. Had this been Barak Sr. suing to extend his temporary visa because of an alleged hardship through his family, the judge would have denied it with the assumption that Barak Sr. would take SAD and Barry back to Kenya, with no reservations expressed. It makes sense that Mrs. Obama filed for divorce when she did, to make sure she didn’t go down with the ship.
Wrong. The courts have consistently held (I looked back from current to the 1970’s and 80’s) that the citizenship of the child did not affect deportation of the parent. The children, as ydoucare pointed out, are free to stay in the United States. So yes, they were treated as natural born citizens. The fact that most families will want to stay together and thus the children will stay with the parent is not relevant to the law.
I give you an analogous case: A woman born in the US, whose parents were also born in the US, marries a foreigner who overstays his student visa. He gets deported. She has the choice to go with him, or to stay in the US without him. She is obviously natural born by your definition, but has the same situation as the children we’re discussing.
And we are discussing the law, whatever some on this thread may want to make it about instead.
Go ask Justice Scalia, or Justices Roberts, Thomas, or Alito - if they saw it your way they would accept one of the "natural born" cases. Or for that matter, the Founding Fathers such as James Madison.
These are two different issues. If you float this theory publicly, people will be looking for your tinfoil hat. I am not a lawyer, but I know the law is often imperfect, confusing, even contradictory. But much better than no law at all. And we are discussing what the law is here, not what we wish it would be.
Ummmm, did you not read the OP?? This was already covered in the footnote in the second decision I cited.
"It is believed to be detrimental to the purposes of the program and to the national interests of the countries concerned to apply a lenient policy in the adjudication of waivers including cases where marriage occurring in the United States, or the birth of a child or children, is used to support the contention that the exchange alien's departure from this country would cause personal hardship."The children, as ydoucare pointed out, are free to stay in the United States.
ydoucare made an anecdotal claim without any evidence to back it up. I showed in the OP that the majority opinion (despite liberal whining in the dissent) expressed an expectation for the so-called natural-born citizen children to move to Mexico. They aren't "free" to do anything. They would have to rely on a 3rd party (as ydoucare mentioned earlier) to to provide legal representation or sponsorship/guardianship in order to stake a claim to U.S. residency.
The fact that most families will want to stay together and thus the children will stay with the parent is not relevant to the law.
Natural-born citizenship isn't based on law, nor is it defined by law (which was established via Minor and Wong Kim Ark). All this does is admit that the natural condition is controlled and determined by the citizenship of the parents and where they can legally reside. This idea of being "free" to do what they want is more dependent on 3rd parties and the maturity of the child, as Ydoucare wrote earlier, "This is very common for children over ten years of age." Guess what?? Obama wasn't over 10 years of age when his father was denied his extension and was ordered back to Kenya. Even by ydoucare's own anecdotal standards, Obama goes to Kenya.
I give you an analogous case: A woman born in the US, whose parents were also born in the US, marries a foreigner who overstays his student visa. He gets deported. She has the choice to go with him, or to stay in the US without him. She is obviously natural born by your definition, but has the same situation as the children we’re discussing.
This is yet another poor analogy (you seem to have a knack for inventing them). It's not the same situation, because the wife has control over her choices, particularly in regards to which citizenship she chooses for herself upon getting married. She's not dependent on third-party representation and the example is out of the realm of natural citizenship (unlike in the case of children) because it is upon marriage, based entirely on her own election.
Dude, I have read the entire thread and I can see why you don’t want to address the points I bring up. It seems that every time another poster shows the fallacies in your arguments, you just try to hijack the thread in another direction or use nonsense in your reply, such as your first reply to me.
Do you understand the distinction between expectations of what a reasonable family might do, and what the law says they must do?
Natural-born citizenship isn't based on law,
Wrong. It was originally based on English common law.
Obama wasn't over 10 years of age when his father was denied his extension and was ordered back to Kenya. Even by ydoucare's own anecdotal standards, Obama goes to Kenya.
Once again, yes or no, do you understand the difference between a family's voluntary decisions as to whether the child stays or goes, or what the law mandates?
That's it for me for most of the day, and possibly for this thread - it's gotten very wierd with bizarre theories that the law doesn't matter.
You have a unique interpretation of the Minor v. Happersett case. The sole issue before the court in Minor was whether the 14th Amendment granted females sufferage through it's equal protection clause and privileges and immunities clause. The only holding of the court denied females sufferage pursuant to the 14th Amendment. Any language in the opinion regarding citizenship was strictly dicta and has zero precedential value. Frankly, Wong Kim Ark is the case that has been followed by all courts in citizenship cases rather than Minor. In the last century, Minor has never been cited in any type of citizenship case, natural born citizen or not, whereas there are thousands of cases which cite WKA and it's language regarding natural born citizenship. Why does not a single court cite Minor when ruling on natural born citizenship, but consistently cite WKA.
A more recent case that has a good discussion of nbc is Rogers v. Bellei (1971).
Do you understand the difference between the government forcing you to leave the country and it being a decision of the family to stay or leave, no matter how old the child.
Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Absolutely, but the distinction that you want it to mean is rendered moot because the judge in question denied the use of the children as a hardship claim to avoid deportation. The judge isn't expressing a casual observation about what a so-called "reasonable family" might do. He's saying the kids can't be claimed as a hardship. They can be moved to Mexico. If the judge was legally concerned about the claim of "natural-born citizenship" then he would feel bound to honor the hardship claim. It's what the dissenting judge claimed.
Wrong. It was originally based on English common law.
Wrong. It is based on natural law, matching verbatim with the definition used by Vattel. Justice Gray talked about "at common law" when citing this definition, but he didn't say anything specifically about English common law. On a side-by-side comparison, the nomenclature he used is from Vattel. The parts in red from Minor match the parts that are underlined in Vattel.
Minor: " ...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 ..."
Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Minor says NBCs are distinguished from foreigners and aliens. Vattel says, " if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country, ..." thus, Justice Waite includes a distinction that follows Vattel.
You're shooting your own argument in the foot. The "family" does NOT have a choice about staying or leaving when a deportation order is being enforced. The choice is about leaving or taking legal action to stay (such as through a 3rd party), which YOU already acknowledged:
"I have prepared, filed documents and represented dozens of natural born citizen children in guardianship/conservatorship proceedings in state court to allow them to stay in the U.S. with 3rd parties (usually family or friends) when their illegal alien parents are being deported."
Why would anyone have to prepare or file any documents if they have a simple choice to stay??
Generally, there's nothing "unique" about being correct. The text speaks for itself: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These were the native or natural born citizens.
The sole issue before the court in Minor was whether the 14th Amendment granted females sufferage through it's equal protection clause and privileges and immunities clause.
Sorry, but this is wrong. Minor argued she was a 14th amendment citizen and because of that citizenship, she claimed a right to vote. Her citizenship argument and the rejection of that argument is stated explicitly throughout the decision and the syllabus, as well as being acknowledged in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Read and learn:
From the syllabus: "2. In that sense, women, 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 to the Constitution as since."
Waite sums up Minor's citizenship argument, based on language from the 14th amendment: "The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States ..."
Waite rejects the argument for not only Minor, but women as a class of persons: "There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position.
Waite reiterates that V. Minor's citizenship was NOT due to the 14th amendment: "In this respect men have never had an advantage over women. The same laws precisely apply to both. The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her."
Justice Gray notes that the Minor decision excluded children born of citizen parents from the 14th amendment: "...all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court ..."
Justice Gray notes that V. Minor's citizenship is due to citizen parents: "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, ....
The last quote from Gray is significant because Justice Waite never explicitly said that Virginia Minor was born of citizen parents. IOW, Gray had no reason to mention this point unless it was pertinent to the decision. And it was pertinent as it provided a definition and a term that Gray could not use for Wong Kim Ark. Ark was NOT a natural-born citizen.
You mentioned Rogers v. Bellei, but this has a lot of mixed verbiage between natural-born and native-born, such as this reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and it of course, ignores that Minor v. Happersett gave a specific definition of NBC.
"Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:
"[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . .
Thus, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167 (1875), the Court said:
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization."
Yes, the court said this in Minor, but for some strange reason they omitted the part that said this was in addition to: "Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen." Those who were added by birth were those who were born to the original citizens. Anyone not born to citizens had to be naturalized. It's not until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment that one can be born in the country and be considered a citizen without being born to citizen parents, except where already occurring in certain states, but this is not the same as natural born citizenship because the Court in Minor unanimously told us so.
Justice Gray notes that the Minor decision excluded children born of citizen parents from the 14th amendment: "...all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court ..."The unadulterated version from WKA:
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court...Kinda changes things, doesn't it?
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.