Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
It has been claimed by Obama apologists that in relatively recent cases, circuit courts have given their opinion on the term "natural-born citizen" as meaning nothing more than being born in the country. Supposably this would presume that Obama, if it can be legally proven that he was born in the United States, as he claims, is a natural-born citizen in spite of being born of a foreign national father and NOT being born to citizen parents, as the Supreme Court defined NBC in Minor v. Happersett, etc.
One example of such a recent decision is Diaz-Salazar v. the INS (1982), in which it says:
The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But, there's a problem. Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.
In the case at hand, no special circumstances are presented sufficient to bring petitioner's situation within the extreme hardship standard. His children are still of pre-school age and thus less susceptible to the disruption of education and change of language involved in moving to Mexico. There are no unique reasons why petitioner, in comparison with the many other Mexicans in his situation now resident in the United States, will be unable to find employment upon returning to Mexico or why he or any member of his immediate family requires health care available only here. Thus, although we recognize the unhappy prospects which the petitioner faces, we cannot hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at openjurist.org ...
For your information, under the precedent of WKA, Marco Rubio is completely eligible to be President or Vice President. He is probably be on the short list of Republican potential VP candidates. Nobody outside the birther fantasy world believes the definition of nbc is governed by an eighteenth century treatise by a Swiss philosopher. Have fun playing with yourself in birther fantasyland and the adult conservatives will be busy at work getting rid of the monstrosity currently residing in the White House.
Wrong. I've already pointed it out more times than you've expressed an original thought.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
Do you understand?? "Citizenship by birth" defined by the Constitution ... through the 14th amendment. Contrast that with natural-born citizenship.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
When "construing" the 14th amendment, Natural-born citizens are NOT defined in the Constution. This is plain and simple English that even YOU should be able to understand and be honest enough to admit.
Know what "immaterial" means??? UNIMPORTANT.IRRELEVANT.
Sorry, but this footnote from Ankeny claiming the issue is immaterial is undermined not only by judicial incompetence, but by only providing circular logic and personal opinion to support the claim. Read the whole footnote.
For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.
The court pretends that this so-called "dichotomy" only matters if you happen to be the president. That rule isn't there to protect the president. It's there to protect "We the People of the United States." Second, this hillbilly court ignores that the Minor definition, also cited in Wong Kim Ark, was explicitly written to satisfy the meaning of the term "natural-born Citizen" in Article II, Section I. IOW, the dichotomy was NOT immaterial to the Wong Kim Ark case, because the court used the defintion, but as I've shown avoided declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen. The stupidity doesn't stop there.
The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States.
... AND on the basis of whether or not he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States since he was the child of foreign national subjects. The IAC said Minor left open the question of whether child of a U.S. citizen and a foreign national could be a natural born citizen, but as I've shown, this is wrong because Wong Kim Ark immediately closed any imagined loophole. The definition for NBC, according to Wong Kim Ark, is NOT defined by the 14th amendment, which means NO child other than those born to citizen parents can be NBCs. Whatever guidance the hoosier court thought they had was explicitly contradicted by this pronouncement in WKA.
Plus, your Super case also contradicts you. Here is what it says:
No it doesn't. I'll show you why.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.
Context matters. Waite is talking about who could become citizens after the Constitution was adopted. The persons who were born citizens were ONLY those who were born to citizens.
Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.
- - -
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States,"
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 -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Are you following?? This establishes who the original citizens are. Those who could be added by birth were those persons born to the original citizens, which is supported in the next paragraph that cites the language of Art II Sec I.
Plus, your very own "Super Case", Minor versus Happersett, uses at least five or six different terms to describe the same thing: native born, native, natural born, citizen, native women, citizen by birth.
Well, no it doesn't use "native born" and you're ignoring that these terms are controlled specifically in this decision by having citizen parents - specifically for "natives" or "natural-born citizens."
Then, what do the Minor judges call people who are citizens by birth:
It calls them natives or natural born citizens by virtue of being born in the country to citizen parents. What you don't see in the Minor decision is the use of the term "citizenship by birth" that Gray used for 14th amendment citizenship.
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.
Sorry, squeezy, but under this rule, Obama was a natural-born subject, not a natural-born citizen. Obama's father did NOT adhere to the United States. Further, he was kicked out like a dog and Obama should have been sent packing along with him.
Dude, this is just plain stupidity on your part. It's not uncommon at all for the high court to cite congressional debate from any century, such as in this example:
In light of the ratification debates and the history of the Eleventh Amendment, there is no reason to believe the founders intended the Constitution to preserve a more restricted immunity in the United States.
link to Alden v. Maine
Here's another example:
In light of the floor debate and the Report of the Senate Armed Services Committee hereinafter discussed, it is apparent that Congress was fully aware not merely of the many facts and figures presented to it by witnesses who testified before its Committees, but of the current thinking as to the place of women in the Armed Services. In such a case, we cannot ignore Congress' broad authority conferred by the Constitution to raise and support armies when we are urged to declare [p72] unconstitutional its studied choice of one alternative in preference to another for furthering that goal.For your information, under the precedent of WKA, Marco Rubio is completely eligible to be President or Vice President.
link to Rostker v. Goldberg
No, under the precedent of WKA, Rubio is a 14th amendment citizen. Obama is NOT. Neither is a natural-born citizen. The precedent we have is that neither our federal nor our state governments will uphold Art. II Sec. I. This is not something to celebrate, unless you simply don't respect the Constitution.
Nobody outside the birther fantasy world believes the definition of nbc is governed by an eighteenth century treatise by a Swiss philosopher.
Nobody except for a long list of Supreme Court justices including Marshall, Miller, Gray, Waite, etc. Yes, we understand that voters are ignornant, apathetic, contemptful and often plain stupid, but that's no excuse for ignoring the plain and clear language of the Supreme Court: all children born in the country to parents who were it citizens. These are the natives, or natural born citizens.
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Second, the JUDGES on the HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, went to law school, were real lawyers and real judges, not pretend lawyers/Gurus on the Internet. When the Vattle Birthers tried using YOUR legal theory, and said in their lawsuit:
[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship. . .
The HILLBILLIES said:
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority [Wong Kim Ark] in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true. . .
Then the HILLBILLIES said that the 14th Amendment and the NBC stuff in the Constitution WERE the same:
The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions[14th Amendment and natural born citizen] in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
The HILLBILLIES also said:
14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitutions Article II language is immaterial.
SOOO, for me, I believe the HILLBILLIES, not YOU. If you ever find a legal case that backs up what you say, which I am betting you can't, then let me know. I don't trust YOUR way of looking at cases. YOU get stuff backwards, YOU don't think the 14th Amendment applies to people born here in the U. S. to citizen parents, LIKE ME, and pretty much all you do is read sentences in some weird way to make them say weird stuff, while YOU ignore the important stuff in cases that contradicts you. I do not think you could read a "See Spot run!" book and get it right.
The last thing you should be doing is giving conservatives here legal advice about Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal. I hope, on a human level, that you eventually break free of the cult.
Sorry, but the precedent is that people can born in the United States and NOT be natural-born citizens. Is that really what you're going with?? I've shown you where that was taken from.
All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown.
If that's your precedent, it means that Obama is a natural-born subject. Which means he should have been deported. So you agree with me. My work is done. I guess that makes you a "vattle birther" now. Congratulations.
Here is another example of you doing it again, and remember I have already busted you out on this before. Here is what you tried to sneak past people:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ---all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
Do you understand?? "Citizenship by birth" defined by the Constitution ... through the 14th amendment. Contrast that with natural-born citizenship.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
When "construing" the 14th amendment, Natural-born citizens are NOT defined in the Constution. This is plain and simple English that even YOU should be able to understand and be honest enough to admit.
That stuff in italics is what you said. Here is the sneaky and underhanded misrepresentation you tried to put over. AGAIN. In that case the Court was discussing a history of citizenship in the country, which YOU left out the CONTEXT of. Remember this little sentence in that decision:"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States BEFORE the adoption of the amendment. I am going to do it in a easy way by just putting in the DATES of the stuff the court was talking about:
In 1789 "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
In 1868 The 14th Amendment is passed.
In 1898 when the Wong Kim Ark case was done. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
You are trying to trick people into believing the Judges are talking about those two comments as both being said at the SAME POINT IN TIME, when it is clear if you look at the case, that they are talking about TWO POINTS IN TIME, one BEFORE the 14th Amendment when the Constitution DIDN'T say, and the other point AFTER the 14th Amendment, when now the Constitution, thru the 14th Amendment DID say.
You should just be ASHAMED of yourself for doing this kind of tricky stuff and YOU should apologize to everybody here for this kind of UNDERHANDED and LYING stuff!!!
I have already caught YOU doing this exact same thing before, taking something from page 655 of the case, when it is talking about the earlier history of citizenship, BEFORE the 14th Amendment, going back to England in 1608, and then taking part from page 702, when the Judges are talking about AFTER the 14th Amendment:
Which, here is the FULL context of the second part:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
I think you are being very DISHONEST on purpose to people here. It is NOT HARD to understand BEFORE and AFTER the 14th Amendment.
So There!!!
The courts are as correct about this issue as they were about Roe v. Wade.
Smartest thing you've ever said. It expresses your ignorance in the most succinct manner possible.
Are you trying to outdumb yourself??
It's hard to be dumber than willfully ignorant.
Yes. Whenever YOU say something, I admit that I am just as lost as I can be trying to understand it. The words YOU use look like English, but they don’t seem to make any sense at all. I have the same problem with this homeless guy in the church parking lot, who talks to his shopping cart. I can’t make heads or tails of what he talks about, either.
And that alone should tell you how absolutely stupid was the decision, yet here you are, telling us all that it makes perfect sense.
The 14th amendment itself is of dubious legality. Far from being a consensus of free states, it was passed with Federal Armies occupying Southern States with intimidation and threats of dire consequences to those states which refused. Passing it was in fact, a requirement for them to be relieved of the occupation troops. The congress did in fact, have a gun pointed at their head when they made them do it.
The 14th amendment, has consequently been the source of much federal mischief. It has allowed the courts to force their own personal ideology upon the states, and justified many excesses of federal power. It is the cause of Prayer being banned in schools, Intolerance of religion on public property, abortion, and many other things it was never intended to do, but was twisted into doing by the very courts you wish to worship as infallible.
No doubt you would have felt the same way regarding the "Volksgerichtshof." They would have ruled that Kristalnacht was perfectly in accordance with German law. All hail the idiot courts!
From the Constitution, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
All fine and good, but it does not however, command them to be correct.
The Supreme Court is given authority to decide cases by the Constitution. You think the Founders meant a particular thing by "natural born". The Supreme Court has not agreed with you. however much you think them wrong, they have the Constitutional authority.
Your argument can be summed up as "Might makes right." I disagree.
Your opinion. Not shared by many, including the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei.
Truth is not decided by consensus. It doesn't matter if the entire planet believes something, that WILL NOT make it true. It bothers me not at all to declare the Supreme court wrong when the facts show that they are. For example, do you believe the Supreme Court is correct about Roe v Wade?
The right to life is inherent in the existence of an unborn child. However, many who agree on the right to life also know the right to citizenship is legislated by each country.
Citizenship and legal "person" status are virtually the same thing.
Do you believe Roe v Wade was a correct decision?
Do you believe Roe v Wade was a correct decision?
Do you believe Roe v Wade is a correct decision?
No. Do YOU believe we are a nation of laws???
Sorry, but this is pathetic and desperate nonsense. You cited a passage out of context that was NOT controlling in ANY sense. I cited the original passage and the case that IT was citing and gave a link. That you resort to nonsen about monkeys and bananas only speaks to your lack of intellect and maturity.
In 1898 when the Wong Kim Ark case was done. . .citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
That's exactly what I've already told you. "Citizenship by birth" is NOT natural born citizen. The former is defined ONLY by the 14th Amendment, which is what those passages say. You're making my argument for me.
I have already caught YOU doing this exact same thing before, taking something from page 655 of the case, when it is talking about the earlier history of citizenship, BEFORE the 14th Amendment, going back to England in 1608, and then taking part from page 702, when the Judges are talking about AFTER the 14th Amendment:
You're not being honest. When the judges are talking about "after" the 14th amendment, they are NOT talking about natural-born citizenship any longer. They already defined that and STOPPED talking about it. It's why they CHANGED the terminology to "citizenship by birth." It's NOT the same thing.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth . . . What do you think the ancient and fundamental rule is??? It's all that natural born citizen stuff they talked about in the case, that went back to 1608. How do I know this???
(1) I can READ.
(2) The Wong Kim Ark judges said it: "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth 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 all 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. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
(3)Another court said the same thing:
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy., 118 ; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy., 353 ; 21 Fed. Rep., 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch., 583. In the latter case it was held that Julia Lynch, who was born in New York in 1849, of alien parents during a temporary sojourn by them in that city; and returned with them the same year to their native country, where she resided until her death, was an American citizen. The vice-chancellor, after an exhaustive examination of the law, declared that every citizen born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States was a citizen thereof, without reference to the situation of his parents. This, of course, does not include the children born in the United States of parents engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, whose residence, in contemplation of public law, is a part of their own country. THE RULE OF COMMON LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND. The fourteenth amendment declares : persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside.’
(4) Vattle Birthers tried YOUR silly nonsense and court and LOST:
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23.
(5) The HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, also read the 14th Amendment and NBC as the same thing:
The United States Supreme Court has read these two provisions in tandem and held that “[t]hus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
(6) The Vattle Birthers themselves said:
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
Which means even the Vattle Birthers themselves admit MOST PEOPLE DON'T READ IT THE WAY US VATTLE BIRTHERS DO
Sooo, I don't really care about YOU having an opinion, because it is a free country. BUT, I do care when you try to convince other conservatives that Mark Rubio and Bobby Jindal are not eligible and then don't bother to tell people here that your opinion has lost in court, and is not the view of MOST people.
"No."
Great. An admission that the Supreme court makes mistakes and will sometimes decide the law incorrectly.
Do YOU believe we are a nation of laws???
Yes, and they are not served when we tolerate a false meaning or application of them. It serves the forces of chaos. (the left.)
“Yes, and they are not served when we tolerate a false meaning or application of them.”
Sooo, do you think you have the right to perform a citizens arrest on an Abortion doctor??? (Because you already said you don’t think abortion is legal in the U.S.)
Do you think you have to respect, and obey, laws with which you disagree???
If NO, what other laws do you think you do not have to respect and obey???
I now understand that there are birthers who are now claiming that even though Rubio was born in Florida, he is not a nbc. If that is the case, all they are doing is helping reelect Obama. These crazy theories need to be addressed and put to rest now, so as to not cause problems in next year's election. Will you support the Republican ticket next year if Rubio is on 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.