Right. A direct quote is "attempted obfuscation" followed by the classic strawmen you rely on so much.
•You say "so-called common law" - are you denying there is such a thing as common law? If you are, you have a lot of judges and legal scholars to argue with including Justices Scalia and Thomas.
I said "so-called" because of your claim about common law supposably defining "natural born." In law of nations, natural-born is based on natural, universal principles. In England, 'natural-born' is based on statutory, but arbitrary declarations, influenced by the whims of the crown. The latter is what was described in Calvin's Case where the King declared that children of Scots born in England were heretoforward natural-born subjects. The Scots were the ONLY aliens this originally applied to. The principles of citizenship in the U.S. are based on consent of the governed, not obligations demanded of a monarch.
•You appear to be conflating Vattel's Law of Nations with the common law. You have any back up for that legal theory?
Yes, the Minor case where Justice Waite used the term "at common law" to begin his definition of NBC, but the actual definition is, as we ALL know, a verbatim match of law of nations. I'll show this one more time and then we'll check to see if you're honest enough to admit that it matches.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Waite used all three parts that are underlined above. He did not add any other criteria to define NBC, nor did he allow for alternate criteria.
•Minor did not define "natural born," he said there was doubt, and That the case would not resolve that doubt. You do understand what "doubt" means, don't you?
Sorry, but this is an outright falsehood. His criteria for NBC was "never doubted." The part for which there was doubt was about whether persons born without reference to parents were CITIZENS. It does not say there is doubt about them being natural born citizens. If they met the criteria for NBC, there was no doubt that these persons would be citizens. If they weren't NBCs, then there was doubt about their citizenship.
•WKA quoted many people on common law, including those who equated "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen". Ignore it as much as you like, you won't make it disappear.
Sorry, but this is not completely true. The closest anything comes to "equating" NBS and NBC in WKA is from a circuit court decision that referred to Shanks v. Rhodes, which said that persons born in the U.S. could be subjects of Great Britain via a Treaty. The Minor definition overrules this, which is why the Minor citation comes AFTER U.S. v Rhodes and gives the FINAL determination of what it means to be an NBC.
There is no "Minor definition" just "Minor doubt."
There is NO "Minor doubt." The Minor decision was UNANIMOUS. The NBC definition of NBC said it was NEVER doubted. WKA affirmed that Minor was declared a citizen by BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria. If the common law theory was the legal precedent, why would Justice Gray say ANYTHING about the citizenship of Minor's parents ... especially when Minor didn't specifically say Minor was born to citizen parents??? How much "doubt" was Gray showing about the Minor definition and decision? Answer: None.
And there are several sources quoted in WKA, which I have cited repeatedly, which conflict with Vattel's definition. See my post #373.
Post #373 was thoroughly debunked in post #375.
Also note from Gray's quote two distinct groupings: natives or natural-born citizens as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. So, two sets of synonyms. Since he adjudged WKA not an alien/foreigner, it is quite obvious he is in the first set of synonyms: native/natural born. Or do you disagree that alien = foreigner?
You're ignoring inconvenient facts. Natives are defined here as born to citizen parents. Was WKA born to citizen parents?? No. Is WKA a "native" in the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar"??? No. Absolutely not. Is it possible to be a citizen without being a "native or natural-born citizen"?? Yes. Is it possible to naturalize aliens at birth?? Yes. Did the 14th amendment citizenship clause apply to natives or those who were considered aliens?? According to this quote in WKA, it applied to aliens.
The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States, equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
By citing this quote, Gray is putting Wong Kim Ark in the category of strangers and aliens who invoked the jurisdiction of the court. Can an alien become a citizen at birth?? Certainly, but they are NOT natural-born citizens, which explains why WKA was never called a natural-born citizen NOR a native. Gray says in the facts as "agreed by the parties" that Wong Kim Ark "was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States ..." but Gray doesn't specifically apply the term native-born citizen to WKA in the conclusion. It says WKA became a citizen at the time of his birth ... but not that he was born a citizen. Sorry, but there are plenty of distinctions here. Your attempt to make WKA an NBC by comparing synonyms fails.
Let's see - several SCOTUS cases mention this (Rogers v Bellei, WKA, Ankeny) the State Dept agrees,
Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.several early legal scholars mention it, (Rawle, St. George Tucker) but somehow it escapes you. Wonder why?
In law of nations, natural-born is based on natural, universal principles.
They are obviously NOT universal principles, since England did not subscribe to these principles. Law of Nations is based on Vattel's ideas, which are not everyone's ideas. (An example: "Hence is deduced the establishment of natural society among men. The general law of that society is, that each individual should do for the others every thing which their necessities require, and which he can perform without neglecting the duty that he owes to himself" or "ince the object of the natural society established between all mankind is — that they should lend each other mutual assistance, in order to attain perfection themselves, and to render their condition as perfect as possible, — and since nations, considered as so many free persons living together in a state of nature, are bound to cultivate human society with each other, — the object of the great society established by nature between all nations is also the interchange of mutual assistance for their own improvement, and that of their condition. "
Lots more, but the point is that the US follows Vattel in some things (adherence to treaties, etc.) but not in all.
In England, 'natural-born' is based on statutory, but arbitrary declarations, influenced by the whims of the crown. The latter is what was described in Calvin's Case where the King declared that children of Scots born in England were heretoforward natural-born subjects. The Scots were the ONLY aliens this originally applied to.
How many errors can we find? (Reading comprehension is your friend)
The principles of citizenship in the U.S. are based on consent of the governed, not obligations demanded of a monarch.
And just where you do see "obligations demanded of a monarch" in natural born citizenship? Ridiculous. If you find your citizenship such an obligation, no one will prevent you from renouncing it.
"You appear to be conflating Vattel's Law of Nations with the common law. You have any back up for that legal theory?"
Yes, the Minor case where Justice Waite used the term "at common law" to begin his definition of NBC, but the actual definition is, as we ALL know, a verbatim match of law of nations. I'll show this one more time and then we'll check to see if you're honest enough to admit that it matches.
Strawman. It matches (and I've never claimed otherwise) but it is still not the common law definition. Now, are you honest enough to admit that? How about all the quotes I've given referencing common law "natural born" as born in country or jus soli? You want to ignore those?
Sorry, but this is an outright falsehood. His criteria for NBC was "never doubted." The part for which there was doubt was about whether persons born without reference to parents were CITIZENS. It does not say there is doubt about them being natural born citizens. If they met the criteria for NBC, there was no doubt that these persons would be citizens. If they weren't NBCs, then there was doubt about their citizenship.
Which, by your own standards, would make no sense. Minor clearly acknowledges that anyone born on American soil (usual diplomatic exceptions) is a citizen by the 14th amendment. So you are claiming that Justice Waite didn't understand that the 14th amendment removes any doubt re: born on the soil = citizen?
"WKA quoted many people on common law, including those who equated "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen". Ignore it as much as you like, you won't make it disappear."
Sorry, but this is not completely true.
Sorry but you statement is not true, while mine is. Some relevant quotes (again!)
"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.
This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors,
"And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives,
"There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.Justice Gray also refernces Calvin's Case, which you appear to have misunderstood in multiple respects. Also
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth."I could go on, but clearly there are several quotes in WKA which reference English common law, and that the US follows this interpretation of "natural born." I won't even say "good try" on this one, as it is so obviously a false argument on your part.
There is NO "Minor doubt." The Minor decision was UNANIMOUS. The NBC definition of NBC said it was NEVER doubted.
Strawman (or reading comprehension problems, or both.) The Minor decision on Virginia Minor's right to vote or not was unanimous, but there was no decision made on "natural born." The court gave one circumstance where a citizen was natural born, but did not exclude other circumstances (composition fallacy on your part). The court was clear: there was doubt, and this case would not resolve the doubt.
Is WKA a "native" in the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar"???
Yes. The Framers wrote much of the Constitution in light of common law, and they were intimately familiar with common law.
Did the 14th amendment citizenship clause apply to natives or those who were considered aliens?? According to this quote in WKA, it applied to aliens. The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States, equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
A charming overreach on your part. This quote comes from YICK WO V. HOPKINS, where the case was about laws which affected aliens who were legal residents of the US. Good try.