Keep the Monsters Away
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign up
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Posted on 01/10/2012 10:51:44 AM PST by Obama Exposer
Ankeny is all but worthless except for OBots to cite the case on the Internet. That sorrily written opinion concluded by citing the liberal, Carter appointed judge who wrote "nauseating dictum" from an illegal immigrant lawyer who said that the illegal immigrant's children were US natural born citizens (The deportation case made an unsupported statement).
Do 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 have there been doubts?
For the purposes of that case was it necessary to solve these doubts?
I didn’t follow this at all so wasn’t even familiar with the case. Hence my lack of knowledge.
Cindie
Standing ovation, and thank you very much for your succinctly stated view.
Here is what I have posted elsewhere in my attempts to help well-meaning but "tough-minded" FReepers realize that not only is Minor not binding law on the point, it does not define NBC.
The choice is:
A. Minor defines natural born citizenship as belonging to only those born in the U.S. of two citizen parents, or
B. Minor defines a particular class of citizens as natural born citizens but does not exclude the possibility of other classes.
Suppose we are talking about Irish Setters (born in the U.S. of citizen parents), you might say “these were four-legged animals” (“these were…natural-born citizens”).
Does that mean you believe no other four-legged creatures (citizens) can be classified as four-legged animals (natural-born citizens)? Certainly not.
Would it have been more helpful had the court said, if that is what was intended, that “these were the natural born citizens”? Certainly, it reasonably excludes other possibilities.
Would this have been even more helpful: “these and these alone were natural born citizens”? Most certainly, it expressly excludes all other possibilities.
sorry about the double farwell, better twice than not at all!
Yes, oddly enough, you’re still here.
Nope, the case says that there is a class of citizen, the natural born citizen, that nobody doubts or contests their citizenship. These natural born citizens are persons born within the jurisdiction to 2 citizen parents. There are other people that have debatable or sometimes argued citizenship, but they don’t matter in minor v heppersett, because in this case the woman has NBC status.
No way around it.
You are either deliberately misleading in your analysis and reading of the case, or lacking the mental capacity to comment on it objectively.
The money quote from Minor:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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, 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
Page 88 U. S. 168
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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
what do you go by over at the fogbow?
Yes. Are these natural-born citizens? No, because they are only natural-born when the parents are citizens.
As to this class have there been doubts?
100 percent yes. If the parents were citizens, there would be no doubts. When the parents are NOT citizens, then the doubts must be resolved through non-natural means, such as statutory law or Constitutional amendment.
For the purposes of that case was it necessary to solve these doubts?
Absolutely not. Virginia Minor fit the courts definition of citizenship with no doubt ... the ONLY one that was characterized as "natural-born citizens."
Are you starting to understand yet?? These questions do NOT help your defiant position.
This would ALMOST make sense if not for a couple of things.
A. Minor distinguished natural-born citizens from aliens or foreigners who can only be citizens through naturalization.
B. Minor explains a few paragraphs later how the children of aliens become citizens AFTER the father naturalizes.
C. This means the characterization of natural-born citizens is exclusive to one class of citizens ... because there are no doubts that must be resolved.
D. It makes no sense for the court to define natural-born citizens unless it is specifically setting them apart from those persons whose citizenship is dependent on statutory or Constitutional means. And the court is clearly setting this class of citizens apart. Notice how deliberate the court is in rejecting the 14th amendment in terms of conferring citizenship for those persons who have it naturally (through birth in the country to citizen parents):
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.
- - -
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.
I've asked this question a few times. Why did the court emphasize citizenship of the parents. This emphasis is affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Why bring it up since the 14th amendment doesn't require citizen parents??? Why does the court give a narrower definition of citizenship than is needed to resolve the voting question?? Justice Gray emphasized this citizenship when he gave the holding in Wong Kim Ark:
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, ...Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that
Let it go, Edge, I gave you the final word between us on this issue earlier today and you have already exercised that grant.
Other readers will note by Edge asking whether a FReeper on this thread could read, that she or he does indeed have an edge, and they may conclude that edge is rude and audacious. I concluded several weeks ago after exchanging at length and challenging Edge’s views that there was more, there was a lack of intellectual honesty and that it was fruitless to continue. That statement is not intended to be derogatory or malicious; it is just a personal opinion,
frog, it’s not your place to “give” anyone else on this site the so-called “final word” on an issue. You do understand how that comes across as extremely arrogant and hypocritical??
Second, I asked el sordo if he could read because he responded to my previous post by trying to minimize the facts as only an “interpretation.” Thus, the challenge to him is to read the actual case and answer a question that has a very simple answer. If what I said was only an “interpretation” then it must mean there’s another way to look at the cited material, yet the question was immediately dodged.
Third, the only lack of intellectual honesty is when you avoid a very detailed response to your post with a baseless accusation in regard to intellectual honesty. I back up EVERYTHING I post. And, I responded to your previous post with several points. Try addressing those points rather than give unsolicited personal opinions about me. If you value intellectual honesty, show that you have some.
So you’ll be getting a court to agree with you any day now, I expect.
Let us know how that goes.
Why do you keep dodging the question?? Which class of citizenship did the Minor court characterize as natural-born?? It has nothing to do with me getting a court to agree with me. Read the Minor decision and report what it says.
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.