Posted on 06/21/2020 7:04:09 AM PDT by Salman
SILVER SPRING, Md. (AP) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the State Department must recognize that the daughter of a gay couple in Maryland has been a U.S. citizen since her birth in Canada via a surrogate last year.
U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang rejected the State Department’s position that the child was born out of wedlock because one of her married parents is not her biological parent.
The girl’s parents, Roee Kiviti and Adiel Kiviti, sued after the State Department denied her application for a U.S. passport. The couple argued that their equal protection rights were violated by a State Department policy requiring that both parents be biologically related to a child in order to consider that the child was born in wedlock.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Wong Kim Ark was the subject of an 1898 SCOTUS ruling involving citizenship. The court held that Wong Kim Ark was a CITIZEN (not a natural born one) by virtue of the 14th amendment, noting that his Chinese citizen parents were lawfully resident within the US at the time of his birth, and completely self supporting.
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. It did not exist at the time that Article II was ratified in 1787. The 14th amendment does NOT refer to, or alter the meaning of Article II in ANY way, whatever one thinks that the framers meant for Article II to accomplish.
Any country in the world is able to enforce it’s citizenship laws for or against any citizen subject to their jurisdiction. The only available option for a protesting country is either diplomacy or war. (see the War of 1812, which prompted the SCOTUS Venus case of 1814)
Our Immigration and Naturalization Act which makes a person born to ANY US citizen ANYWHERE in the world a US citizen too. Most every other nation in the world has similar statutes.
Our overlords have decided that this is not an issue worth examining by adjudication. Constitutionalists know that the NBC requirement is designed to protect the office of POTUS from undue foreign influence, and it is worth observing.
Anyone born here of foreign parents inherit the foreign nationality of their parent(s).Divided citizenship, loyalties and allegiances were PRECISELY what the founders were excluding.
They are not NATURALLY Americans.
Before independence, children were natural born subjects, and after independence, they were natural born citizens. "Born" underlined to give it the same, exact emphasis that John Jay gave to it.
Chidren qualified under the 14th Amendment or Federal law become U.S. citizens at birth.
One may view Birther Scorecard here.
Zero cases won, hundreds lost. None survived long enough to get to trial.
As a matter of fact, the US DID grant Michaelis’s daughter US citizenship (not natural born) at her birth by virtue of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
My point is, that in the absence of a negotiated Status of Forces Agreement with the Japanese government, there would have been NOTHING to prevent Japan from bestowing Japanese citizenship upon her as well.
Prayers for those poor children.
How many people living here when the Constitution was drafted do you think had at least one foreign born parent?
When the constitution was ratified in 1787, every citizen of the USA had been born a British subject. NONE of the first seven US presidents was a natural born citizen. Martin van Buren, born in 1782, was the first. The other seven were waived by virtue of the “grandfather” clause in Article II, Section I, clause 5. To wit:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Makes it pretty clear to me.
I have NO DOUBT whatsoever, that the reason for the natural born citizen requirement was to minimize the possibility of undue foreign influence upon the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father who might owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
There was expressed fear of the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces becoming a foreign prince. At the time expressed, it had not been determined that the President would also be the Commander-in-Chief.
The SCOTUS, members of the founding generation, quoted in it’s 1814 Venus Merchantman decision the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatels Law of Nations that defined a natural born citizen as having two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation to define an NBC for purposes of that decision.
I take it you are unfamiliar with what the Law of Nations is.
law of nations. See INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
The "Law of Nations" is the old fashioned term for the modern term "International Law." It applies to relations between nations, but not to the domestic affairs of any single nation. United States citizenhip is determined unilaterally by the United States, not an international court in Belgium. Vattel, his book, and international law have nothing whatever to do with the determination of U.S. citizenship.
They believed that the citizenship of the child followed that of the father.
The original thirteen states all explicitly adopted so much of the English common law as did not conflict with the U.S. Constitution, either in their state constitution or by statute law.
The United States followed English common law, not the writings a Swiss guy who wrote a book on international law in French.
As for SCOTUS "quoted in it’s 1814 Venus Merchantman decision the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatels Law of Nations," I believe you refer not to the opinion of the majority written by Washington, J., but a dissenting opinion at 12 U.S. 289. There, the discussion was explicitly of international law and not U.S. citizenship law.
On the one hand we have a quote from Vatel in a decision only tangentially related to NBC, and on the other we have the clear reliance on English common law by the founders and their actual practices regarding citizenship.
I'll go with the common law precedent.
They believed that the citizenship of the child followed that of the father. I believe that only an Article V constitutional amendment can redefine that meaning.
If they really believed that they did a terrible job enacting it in our constitution and laws.
In fact, there are countless examples of them rejecting that notion.
You're certainly right about having to amend the Constitution to change it.
Henry Brockholst Livingston was an American Revolutionary War officer, a justice of the New York Court of Appeals and eventually an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He wrote the opinion for the majority and incorporated that paragraph from Vatel’s treatise in it.
“I’ll go with the common law precedent.”
Since the Vatel quote was incorporated in the decision, that quote is now A PART of US common law jurisprudence.Common law being a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. From the Supreme court, no less.
Hell, Plyer vs Doe, the case wherein a FOOTNOTE written by Justice Brennan is how we got BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP from illegal aliens!!!!
Oops. Sent my reply to myself.
“I’ll go with the common law precedent.”
Since the Vatel quote was incorporated in the decision, that quote is now A PART of US common law jurisprudence.Common law being a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. From the Supreme court, no less.
Hell, Plyer vs Doe, is the case wherein a FOOTNOTE written by Justice Brennan is how we got BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP for illegal aliens!!!!
Pure total and complete unadulterated BS.... Natural born citizenship as once adhered to and taught was by definition, born to both US citizen parents on US soil.
This is simply false.
Why else would the US Senate need ‘resolve’ https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text joke is on you ... bunch of scribes.
The real question is, since when is U.S. citizenship determined by Senate proclamation?
The Senate issued a non-binding resolution regarding John McCain because it was not an issue the government wanted to thrash out in court.
Military bases overseas are not U.S. territory. Being born on a military base overseas is irrelevant to acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth. The Senate resolution avoided the actual legal issue surrounding McCain's claim to being a natural born citizen.
The 14th amendment states all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
The Act of May 24, 1934 provided,
"SEC. 1993. Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as presented by the Bureau of Naturalization.”
Congress screwed up in 1934. McCain was born in 1936.
The 1937 Federal law applicable to birth in Panama declared:
Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
Congress fixed the problem in 1937.
The problem, as pointed out in a law review article by Professor Gabriel Chin, was that McCain was born outside the territory of the United States, but (according to the McCain book) within the jurisdiction of the United States, in the Canal Zone. The statute as written in 1934 only covered those born outside the territory and jurisdiction. The treaty in effect gave the United States authority to exert jurisdiction within the Canal Zone as if it were the sovereign, but Panama remained the actual sovereign.
From 1934 to 1937, there was a hole in the law. A fix granted citizenship to those affected retroactively. Nobody wanted to take on the legal question if McCain could be born an alien and be retroactively become a natural born citizen by Federal law.
So, they passed a Senate Resolution and made believe. Certainly, nobody wanted to take responsibility for making John McCain ineligible by congressional error in 1934. And McCain's autobiography claimed he was born in the Naval Hospital on Coco Solo air base, a hospital that had not yet been built in 1936. He may well have been born just off base in the hospital in Colon, Panama. McCain never produced his birth certificate.
Common law was germane prior to the US having its own body of written law but we're certainly well past that.
Common law was the basis for birthright citizenship until it was made explicit by the 14th.
So a couple adopted a baby born in Canada.
No. One of the men was the actual father of the child. I don't believe the child is adopted.
https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2018/title-8/chapter-12/subchapter-iii/part-i/sec-1401/
I erred at my #20. They are arguing this is the applicable law.
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
Now the metaphysical and legal question becomes was the child born of parents both of whom were citizens? Who donated the egg? Or is the married partner of the father considered, by law, to be the mother? (Geez, I don't want to go there.) Generally, when one member of a married couple has a child, the other member of the couple is considered to be the parent. Does the law assume a dude was the mother?
“Common law was the basis for birthright citizenship until it was made explicit by the 14th.”
Not for children born on US soil to parents both of whom were illegal aliens.
Since there wasn't any such thing as an illegal immigrant until after the Civil War I'm not seeing the relevance of your claim.
Total bs, but the state department likely won’t appeal allowing this crap to stand...
That’s exactly how I thought it worked. I am foreign born. My father was on gov’t assignment in Spain. He met and married my mother in Spain. I was born there. The only reason I was born a US citizen was because my father was a us govt employee. I have a state dept form that reads ‘US citizen born abroad’.
My grandfather's grandfather was born in 1780 but was neither a US citizen nor a British subject. But it didn't matter to him since he never set foot in the United States.
Wouldn’t you have been a US citizen at birth because your father was a US citizen, regardless of where you were born?
Hi.
Judge:. The 14th Amendment says what I say it says.
Didn’t Mark Levin write a book about judicial tyranny?
5.56mm
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.