Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Blackstone, 1765:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
I think I’ll trust his opinion of British law instead of yours...
“’Wheresoever’ does indeed mean anywhere, including Virginia.”
Guess “all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth” is too tough for you to understand.
And I guess Blackstone was just some Obamabot who didn’t know squat about British law.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, Mr Rogers, the House of Commons Journal is NOT wrong. Children born in England to foreign parents were denizens, NOT natural born subjects.
Rides3, or Blackstone?
Rides3, or Blackstone?
Who should I trust to know British law in the 1700s...gee, this is a tough choice!
I'm not posting my opinion. I'm posting the ACTUAL English law:
"To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise."
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=8318
You are posting ONE SENTENCE, with NO CONTEXT.
And then saying your interpretation of that one sentence outweighs Blackstone.
You are an idiot.
You've demonstrated you can cherry pick one small part and ignore the rest of the speech he made to Congress, where he explained what he meant. Like this part
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.and also from Trumbull
The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens,”So those who only owe "a sort of allegiance," such as a foreign minister temporarily residing in the US, were excluded. He specifically included others:
And quoting something off a blog doesn't mean much, especially when that blog doesn't back up what they say. Try Blackstone instead:Mr. Trumbull: “I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?”
Mr. Cowan: “I think not.”
Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”
Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”
Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it....The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such...The blog you are quoting appears to misunderstand Blackstone, who later said
by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.So to educate the author of the blog you are quoting, those born in Great Britain, unless children of foreign ministers, were natural born subjects. Those born outside of Britain of British fathers were natural born subjects.
Trust the House of Commons Journal:
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=8318#sec1363
...which I've already posted numerous times. Why believe whatever Blackstone decides to say about it when we have access to the ACTUAL English law?
That's what's great about the internet. It gives us access directly to the source so that blowhards can be exposed for what they are.
“Why believe whatever Blackstone decides to say about it when we have access to the ACTUAL English law?”
Because, you idiot, you have ONE SENTENCE and NO context. And that one sentence is the name of a bill:
“Bills sent up to the Lords by Mr. Vice-chamberlain to his Majesty”
Thus:
Judgments.
L. 1. B. For Registring of Judgments that may impeach Purchasers or Farmers of Lands.
Aliens Children.
L. 1. B. To place the Children, born within this Realm, of foreign Parents, in Degree for the first Birth or Descent only, as Aliens made Denizens, and not otherwise.
Liberties of the Commons.
L. 1. B. To confirm to the Commons their Freedoms and Liberties.
Horse Stealing, &c.
L. 1. B. To prevent and avoid the common Stealing of Horses, &c.
That is NOT the actual bill. You don’t know if it was passed, or what was in the bill. Yet to your birther brain, reading the title of a bill “sent up to the Lords by Mr. Vice-chamberlain to his Majesty” means you know more about English law than Blackstone did.
I repeat: You are an idiot.
I'm posting the ACTUAL English law EXACTLY as it is stated in the House of Commons Journal.
You are an idiot.
Better to direct that comment to the House of Commons. It's their Journal... their published archive of English law.
So let's see... Mr Rogers thinks the House of Commons are idiots because they published an archive of ACTUAL English law and now ayone who bothers to look into it can discover the truth... Children born in England to foreign parents were actually denizens, NOT natural born subjects.
in 1604 Commons debated a measure to pin down the status of English born progeny of aliens, granting those "of 'the first birth or descent only,' and born within the realm the limited position of a denizen." The House rejected the bill on its third reading.
“I’m posting the ACTUAL English law EXACTLY as it is stated in the House of Commons Journal. “
No. You are posting the title of a bill, with no idea of what was in the bill - and then calling Blackstone a “blowhard”.
That will get you far in court....
Thank you.
Sorry, I'm not wrong.
Three other sources:
Charles Viner's Abridgment of Law. 1741 and 1756
Timothy Cunningham's Law Dictionary. 1764 and 1783
Giles Jacob's New Law Dictionary. 1729, 1762, 1772, and 1782
I'll save you time and trouble... all three reiterate the English law declaring that English-born children of alien parents were denizens, NOT natural born subjects.
Why do I doubt you?
Care to post something besides the names of books, or a list of bills? You have a track record of taking things grossly out of context.
Gumdrop, there is a difference between citizen and “natural born citizen.” That is the issue. Neither of the examples you cited could ever be natral born citizens.
One must be born in USA to citizen parents. Period. Governor Bill Richardson could be elected a state governor but his mother was a Mexican citizen who flew to Los Angeles from Mexico City to give birth to him. Richardson’s Dad was a US citizen residing in Mexico at the time. He was a banker. So Richardson is a statutory citizen, but not natural born and not eligible.
Given the inaccuracy of what you’ve posted already, I’m reluctant to accept these say what you think Blackstone, regarded as THE authority on British common law contradicts this, and we now know that the 1604 “law” you cited never passed. Give Quotes or links please, or did you just get these off some blog?
Why do I doubt you?
Hell if I know. You don't want to give up your belief system no matter how wrong it turns out to be because change is hard for you?
Do yourself a favor and research the three other sources I just listed. All three reiterate the English law declaring that English-born children of alien parents were denizens, NOT natural born subjects.
The LOC might be a good place to start, or perhaps a university research library.
Completely incorrect. Research the three other sources I listed.
In other words, you CAN’T cite them. You can only list them, and promise me they support your beliefs.
And that they show Blackstone is a blowhard who didn’t know squat about English law.
I think I’ll stick with the US Supreme Court & Blackstone over a guy who posts a single sentence from a reference he didn’t understand and claims it means Blackstone is an idiot.
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.