Yes it says "generally speaking." You understand that does NOT mean ALL children born of aliens??? Tell me you understand that.
Let's break it down for you real sloooow. Blackstone states that those born in England, even of alien parents, are generally natural born subjects (the exceptions listed above, born out of the king's ligeance.) A denizen can't inherit English lands from his parent, because the parent is an alien. The issue of a denizen, (if not a natural born subject) can't inherit English lands
Thanks. You're making my argument FOR me. The part underlined above is the point I was making. The only persons who are natural-born subjects if they are the "issue of a denizen" are those born in the country AFTER denization. The ones born IN THE COUNTRY before denization are still considered aliens. They do NOT have inheritable blood. A natural-born subject is one who has inheritable blood.
Children of aliens born within the ligeance are natural born subjects with all the rights of such, therefore they can inherit.
ONLY the ones born AFTER the denization of an alien. Read it again. The ones born before denization cannot inherit, which means they are NOT natural-born subjects. A denizen BEFORE denization is an alien, therefore the issue of this alien cannot inherit and is NOT a natural-born subject. Here's what Blackstone says about this again:
And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may.#364 you claimed "Right. Our "law" in this area follows English concepts, but natural-born citizen is EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment Funny, nothing in the 14th amendment says that.
No, the Supreme Court said this in WKA in the sentence that you have so much trouble understanding. I can teach you what it means, but I can't fix your intentional stupidity.
Except that Bellei clearly states in the opinion that we follow jus soli.
... in ONE area of law. Elsewhere in the decision it talks about citizenship at birth that does NOT follow jus soli. You're trying to make this mean something much broader than what the decision actually says.
Which is a much clearer statement than the Minor case where the court is very clear that there is doubt and that the case won't resolve the doubt.
Sorry, but there is NO doubt for the persons who are natural-born citizens. That is completely clear in Minor.
If you can't accept the Rogers v. Bellei clear statement that the US follows England in jus soli because the case was not about a citizen born in the US, how hypocritical of you to claim that Minor's statement of doubt is controlling when that case wasn't about citizenship at all, but about suffrage.
Minor was ABOUT citizenship in addition to suffrage. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark and in Ex Parte Lockwood. Selective ignorance does not help you here.
Your "debunking" in #561 consisted of "I like what I think they said in Minor v Happersett better!" in and claiming that Rogers V Bellei only applied to colonial statutes.
Mr. Quote Butcher. You're dropping the CONTEXT again, which I quoted in Post #571 (not #561). Read what the decision says:
These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.Funny, no mention that the Justices thought this only applied to colonial statute.
It was in the previous sentence in the decision (and as I've requoted it). It's why the part YOU quote says "Thus." Are you intentionally ignoring that for some reason??
If this is what you think debunks clear statements by SCOTUS, no wonder you are so confused about the issue.
The only person who is confused is you. You couldn't even get the post number right. We've just seen that you've ignored three specific points that completely debunk your belief in Bellei that is based on an out-of-context citation. That's either rampant stupidity or intentional ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Yes it says "generally speaking." You understand that does NOT mean ALL children born of aliens??? Tell me you understand that.
Since I have repeatedly in several posts listed for you the exceptions, I obviously do understand it, but it appears you do not. The exceptions are well known: children of foreign ministers or ambassadors, occupying military. If you read Blackstone, he goes on to discuss the diplomatic exception,
The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador.This has been explained to you several times. I hope this time does the trick.
The part underlined above is the point I was making. The only persons who are natural-born subjects if they are the "issue of a denizen" are those born in the country AFTER denization. The ones born IN THE COUNTRY before denization are still considered aliens. They do NOT have inheritable blood. A natural-born subject is one who has inheritable blood.
Except that is not what Blackstone, or the common law says. Read Blackstone again for those pieces you want to conveniently overlook:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.If a child is born, in English dominions, to an alien (and the alien is not a foreign minister or ambassador) the child is natural born. If a child is born outside those dominions to an alien, the child is also an alien. If a child is born outside those dominions to an alien that later becomes a denizen, the parent’s later denizenation does not retroactively make the child a subject. You are trying to reinterpret well known and well ligitated issues of English common law.
No, the Supreme Court said this in WKA in the sentence that you have so much trouble understanding. I can teach you what it means, but I can't fix your intentional stupidity.
It only seemed to say that when you butchered the quote to remove the “neither… nor. For your edification once again:
”Except that Bellei clearly states in the opinion that we follow jus soli. “
... in ONE area of law. Elsewhere in the decision it talks about citizenship at birth that does NOT follow jus soli. You're trying to make this mean something much broader than what the decision actually says. .
What they said was pretty clear, without the qualifier you are trying to insert.
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.The decision involves a “modified by statute” case. The general principle is clearly stated.
"If you can't accept the Rogers v. Bellei clear statement that the US follows England in jus soli because the case was not about a citizen born in the US, how hypocritical of you to claim that Minor's statement of doubt is controlling when that case wasn't about citizenship at all, but about suffrage."
Minor was ABOUT citizenship in addition to suffrage. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark and in Ex Parte Lockwood. Selective ignorance does not help you here. .
Funny, the court seemed to think Minor was about suffrage, and denied the validity of an argument based on different types of citizenship. You do read the cases you cite, don’t you?
" Funny, no mention that the Justices thought this only applied to colonial statute.".
It was in the previous sentence in the decision (and as I've requoted it). It's why the part YOU quote says "Thus." Are you intentionally ignoring that for some reason?? .
Happy to post the whole thing, since it does not mean what you claim it does:
So they quote a particular case, then discuss “our law” which makes it clear they are not limiting it to colonial times. Plus if you looked at the case quoted (Weedin v. Chin Bow,) The Chief Justice, delivering the opinion:Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. at 274 U. S. 660. He referred to the cited English statutes, and stated, "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence."Commentary – the court quotes a previous case.
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
Commentary: a general principle is stated, note use of “our law.” Unless the Justice considers himself still a colonial, he does not limit this to pre-Constitutional days.
… [omission of discussion of lack of specificity in the Constitution, attributed to desire to avoid the issue of slavery
omission of the language of the 14th amendment
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
[Commentary No mention of citizen parents in the Constitutional definition! Surprise!]
The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S. Ct. 456, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute;Oh, and the decision was unanimous, which you seem to regard as more binding precedent.
And now, to work. All other replies will have to wait.