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 ...
squeezy, there are NO assumptions. I've given direct citations so that people of limited reading ability like yourself can see what is being said. NOTHING has been ignored. I've explained several times why Gray cited what he cited and how it applied to the different concepts of natural-born citizen (outside the constitution) and HIS concept of citizenship by birth (inside the constitution). The only person making an assumption is YOU in trying to connect dots that Gray NEVER connected. You try to draw a picture of a watermelon while gray drew pictures of apples and oranges.
It's all that natural born citizen stuff they talked about in the case, that went back to 1608. How do I know this???
They didn't go back to 1608 to talk about natural born citizenship. This is YOU imagining something to be there that just isn't there.
(2) The Wong Kim Ark judges said it:
Said what??? The term "natural-born citizen is NOWHERE inside of that passage.
Second, this is talking about the 14th amendment and the court has said in two other places that it does NOT say who natural-born citizens are and that it excludes children born in the country to citizens.
Third, the closest this comes to NBC is when it says "AS MUCH a citizen as the natural-born CHILD OF a citizen." IOW, this still makes a distinction between alien-born and natural-born. Guess what?? An apple is AS MUCH a piece of fruit as is a banana, but a banana is NOT an apple. Under the same analogy, Obama would be a fruit.
Back to this passage: while English statutory law (as cited from Coke's Case) turned Scots into Brits, it didn't specifically turn Kenyans, Hawaiians or Indonesians into Brits. To do that, the aliens had to have what is called "actual obedience" to the crown. Otherwise, they could apply to be legal inhabitants, also called "denizens." Under the denizenship, the children of denizens are NOT natural-born subjects, but instead are just denizens.
(3)Another court said the same thing:
Again, NOTHING here says ANYTHING about natural born citizenship. All is says is that the 14th amendment incorporated common law to make persons born in the country to be citizens. It does NOT say they are natural-born citizens. It's pretty ridiculous for you to comaplain about "assumptions" when that's all you have.
(4) Vattle Birthers tried YOUR silly nonsense and court and LOST:
Wrong. This doesn't cite the SCOTUS. This was what the Hoosier Hillbilly's said in the Ankeny case: "The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;" Well, I AM citing that authority and proving how ignorant and/or willfully stupid this court was.
(5) The HILLBILLY Court, as you call them, also read the 14th Amendment and NBC as the same thing:
No, what you cited only says that under the NBC clause and the 14th amendment that new citizens may be born or naturalized. It doesn't say ALL persons born in the U.S. are natural-born citizens. And in fact, the Hillbillies clearly contradict themselves in a span of ONE sentence.
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Did you catch this?? The Indiana Appeal Court says that in Minor, the court observed that the Constitution (yes, Virgina, the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution) does NOT say who natural-born citizens are. IOW, there's NO way they can claim ANY guidance that persons born in the country are natural-born citizens UNLESS they were born to citizen parents. This court is guilty of what it accused of the plaintiffs: making "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions."
Game. Set. Match.
Except that the Supreme Court says otherwise; that natural-born citizens are only those persons born in the country to citizen parents. Yes, some people are ignorant of the rulings that say this, but the precedent would certainly stand up to specific scrutiny.
There are ONLY 2 types of citizens, Natural born and Naturalized.
Well, no this is false. There are persons who can be citizens at birth who are NOT natural-born citizens. These are persons born under U.S. Code that fit a variety of circumstances. Born anywhere to an unwed mother; born with residency requirements, etc. All you're doing is trying to stretch natural-born citizen to mean something much broader than it actually means. If you have to consider different circumstances such as residency or whether a mother is wed, if the parents were here legally, etc., then you've taken this type of birth citizenship out of the realm of being "natural."
In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Did you catch this?? The Indiana Appeal Court says that in Minor, the court observed that the Constitution (yes, Virgina, the 14th amendment is part of the Constitution) does NOT say who natural-born citizens are.
Yes, I caught it, you MONKEY. YOU did not "catch it." They were talking about the time BEFORE the 14th Amendment.
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. 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.
AFTER the 14th Amendment, then it was IN THE CONSTITUTION.
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.
What part of BEFORE and AFTER the 14th Amendment are YOU not getting??? Here is logically what you are doing:
Take a sentence, from a history of flight, before the Wright Brothers: Try as they might, men were unable to take to the air in flying machines. Now, take a sentence from a modern day travel magazine: Women frequently fly on airplanes and enjoy the experience. Combine them like a Vattle Birther, and you get: Men can’t fly on airplanes, but Women can. Pretty dumb, huh??? Sadly, pretty typical of Vattle Birther logic. Stuff taken out of context and just glommed together.
You may not like the 14th amendment, but it will continue to be enforced, short of a constitutional amendment. That is real life and real law, not some fantasy about it being “dubious”. If you wish to change anything about the 14th Amendment, I suggest you help organize movement to amend it. That will be much more effective than what you doing now.
squeezy, that's NOT what the Hillbillies said. They said "written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that" ... whether it was six years or 60 years after the 14th amendment, it is still part of the Constitution. The court in Minor said that Virginia Minnor argued she was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but they rejected this argument because NBC, which she fit, is NOT defined by the Constitution and under the definition they used, it's clearly NOT defined by the 14th amendment. Compare"
Justice Waite: "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"
14th Amendment: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
HINT: These are NOT the same definitions. The conclusion stands. The Constitution, specially the 14th amendment, does NOT define natural born citizen, just as Ankeny unwittingly admitted.
What part of BEFORE and AFTER the 14th Amendment are YOU not getting???
The parts where Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark says that children born in the country to citizen parents are EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment and the part in Minor where Waite says women did NOT need the 14th amendment to confer their citizenship. You're trying to create a time element that somehow changes the term natural-born citizen into being defined by the 14th amendment, but there's absolutely NO passage in Minor or Wong Kim Ark that says this. NONE.
The dissent was responding to a claim that was cited in a lower court ruling and was entered as an objection in the appeal to the Supreme Court. The majority punted this issue altogether, but still upheld the precedent set in Minor v. Happersett for how NBC is actually defined. The real complaint in the dissent was that the U.S. could not arbitrarily break the treaty with China that did not allow its subjects to become citizens of the U.S. Gray went around this by building the case of "fundamental rule citizenship by birth" through English common law as setting an international precedent strong enough so that the U.S. Constitution, via the 14th amendment, would trump an international treaty. This ignores of course, that the Constitution places itself and treaties on the same level under the supremacy clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
Let me try to put this on YOUR reading level:
See the Constitution!
1789!
Read! Read! Read!
No defining of Citizens.
No! No! No!
Oh, 1868!
Look! Look! Look!
A Amendment!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Number 14!
Count! Count! Count!
All persons born here are citizens!
Citizens! Citizens! Citizens!
Yes, defining of Citizens!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
See Edge919 Run!
Run! Edge919! Run!
Run! Run! Run!
Pretend! Pretend! Pretend!
If you ever decide to quit pretending this isn’t making sense to you, and pretending you don’t get it, let me know!
Your meltdown simply proves you've lost it. The Supreme Court is clear: NBC = all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Under what authority could Roberts arbitrarily NOT swear Obama into office??? You need to engage your brain before you post something so stupid. We still have a system of law we adhere to in this country.
There has never been a case in the past century that used Minor as precedent when defining nbc. And yet WKA has been cited continuously for the past 110 years as precedent for the definition of nbc. I even showed you a case from the 2008 election which employs WKA as legal precedent for defining nbc, and completely ignores Minor.
You have one last chance, cite me a case from the last 100 years, any case, state or federal court, immigration court to SCOTUS, that uses the citizenship dicta language of Minor as precedent for the definition of nbc.
You are the one who seems very prone to posting before engaging your brain.
It most certainly did. Under the precedent in Minor, the court was UNABLE to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. I realize that legal dicta is a difficult concept for you to understand, there was only one issue before the court in Minor and the US citizenship of Virginia Minor was never an issue before SCOTUS.
I realize that English is not your first language, but the issue in Minor INCLUDED her citizenship. There's no way around that. Read the case and learn.
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
The question was whether the right to vote is a right of citizenship. Such a question cannot be answered unless the issue of citizenship is resolved. Wishing it away doesn't explain why the court in Minor spent half the decision elaborating over her citizenship ... and why it was cited more than 20 years later in WKA - specifically in regard to a definition of natural-born citizenship - and specifically in AFFIRMING that Virginia Minor was a citizen DUE to being born in the country to citizen parents.
There has never been a case in the past century that used Minor as precedent when defining nbc.
We just saw one in Ankeny v. Daniels, except that they contradicted themselves. But that aside. Under their guidance, Rubio is NOT a natural-born citizen. The only way he can be is by arbitrarily explaining away Ankeny's contradiction:
Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.
Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Ankeny claims the question of being born to alien parents was left open, but in the footnote, they said that Minor contemplated scenarios where BOTH parents are aliens. We know that the definition of NBC in Minor was limited to citizen parents. This means they are acknowledging that those persons born to alien parents are NOT NBC. In a monumental faux pas, Ankeny admits this in their own footnote (much like the footnote that admits Wong Kim Ark was not a natural-born citizen). Of course, the same principle that excludes children born to two alien parents ALSO excludes children born to ONE alien, non-immigrant parent.
Further, Ankeny quotes "Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor" ... except that this case does NOT help their argument. The actual majority opinion in that case said, "And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father." Inglis was born in the U.S. but was found to be a natural-born SUBJECT. Under this guidance and the guidance from Minor and a comprehensive reading of WKA, neither Obama NOR Rubio would be natural-born citizens.
You earlier made it sound like Roberts could have refused Obama access to the office by not swearing him in. It's not under the authority of a court justice to unilaterally decide someone is not eligible for office and then attempt to bar them from office. Whether Roberts understands that Obama is Constitutionally deficient may be something he could put aside for the historical opportunity of swearing in a president, even one for which he knows shouldn't be occupying the office. NOTE that the swearing in ceremony was botched and repeated in private. Further, if Roberts understands there's no well-defined mechanism for preventing ineligible electees from office, then he may have only taken an expedient course.
Wow, your latest effort at convoluted birther bs is reaching a new low on this thread
What the Vattel "natural born" crowd seems not to realize is correct or not, "thems the rules." So when one of the Vattel crowd says that 0bama should have been deported with his father, they may be expressing a common wish of all of us, but not what the law has been held to be. So my question to you - do you recognize what the law is? Or are you assuming it is always what we want it to be?
Oh, and where do they say this? Because it sure isn't in Minor v Happersett where they say there is doubt and this case won't resolve that doubt.
They say there is doubt about persons being born in the country, without reference to the citizen parents, being CITIZENS. It does not says there is doubt about them being “natural-born citizens.” One class of citizens has doubt, but the first class of citizens — natural born citizens — does not. Since V. Minor met the definition of NBC, there was no need to resolve doubts. BUT, the thing you need to understand is that the court does NOT suggest that the doubts about the second class of persons can be resolved. Of course, looking at Wong Kim Ark, the only way to resolve the doubt was to see if the parents satisfied the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Had they been citizens, then their child would have been a natural-born citizen. He wasn’t.
You are still striking out in your bogus arguments,it now obvious that if you think Ankeny used Minor as precedent to rule Obama a nbc,you have lost the argument once again. Are you ready to admit that there zero cases that use Minor as precedent in defining nbc? It appears you have as much difficulty understanding the concept of precedence as you have with legal dicta.
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.. Then look at WKA
it is well to bear in mind the often quoted words of Chief Justice Marshall:Minor v. Happersett was about whether the 14th amendment meant women could vote. It was not about who was a citizen by birth. Justice Gray, after citing numerous cases,(many of which speak of birth within the country to alien parents as "natural born") comes to his point:"It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.
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...later in the case he says
The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.Got that? The Fourtheenth Amendment conferred no authority to restrict the effect of birth, or change the Constitutional mention of two categories: born and naturalized. The amendment "affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory" - jus soli.
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.