NY Tribune Jan 31, 1904 
SanFranChron Dec 1, 1900
SanFranChron Jan 27, 1912
Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
“You obviously do not understand the term “redundancy” as it applies to making law and what Meese was talking about.”
That must be why all 9 justices agreed with me and not Meese...
Where was she born, when was she born, and where did she choose to live?
In this case, the parent’s choice of alienage (before the daughter’s birth) clearly affected the descendant.
She was born in AMERICA after the revolution began AND AFTER her father made a formal announcement of his continued allegiance to Great Britain. Thus, even though her father was an English American prior to the revolution, he ceased to be an American after the revolution because of his consent to remain a British Subject and remain loyal to the Crown.
It's really not that complicated, children follow the condition of the father under the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” which was proclaimed to be the 1st LAWS of the United States upon the Declaration. If you can find just ONE example in natural law that says nature can make a child an alien to its parents, please show me & I'll concede & shut up.
When dealing with the citizenship of someone born around the Revolution, dates, locations and following behavior is critical. If you cannot provide them, then you cannot discuss the case.
The US considered 4 July 1776 as the start date for American citizenship, although it sometimes varies with exact location, since some areas (such as NY City) were held at times by British forces. The British consider the date to be 1783. And in other cases, the courts said someone born in the US whose father took them to England had the right to claim US citizenship when they became an adult.
So we need details, and you account doesn’t give them & I cannot find the decision online.
“If you can find just ONE example in natural law that says nature can make a child an alien to its parents, please show me & I’ll concede & shut up.”
According to the court, WKA was a US citizen although born of alien parents who left the USA and never returned. A child who chooses to live in another country than his parents, and to claim citizenship there, is not an alien to his parents, but neither is his citizenship controlled by them.
I asked you to quote actual law, not some warped court opinion
Yes it is critical because it sets precedent as to what the actual doctrine was regarding the difference between American citizenship & British subjectship, they are & have always been 2 distinct things. Do you not realize that children born to American Englishmen were not considered to be “natural born” if born in the US? My guess is not because you haven't studied the history of English law either. By Britain maintaining that US born Englishmen were denizens, a class lower than the natural born, they were able to refuse American Englishmen a voice in Parliament.
It would behoove you to go back & study English history if you really want to understand the implications of WKA & why the court never declared him to be a NBC. WKA..temp & local citizen is to NBC what a denizen is to NBS. There is a distinct difference.
That warped court opinion IS US law...
Why wasn't the Treaty between the US & China never declared to be unconstitutional & thrown out on its keester?
Why weren't any of the alien & sedition acts of Congress ever declared to be unconstitutional?
WHY, because the US Congress has full authority to regulate ALL aliens & ALL their off-spring, regardless of place of birth, thus any children of aliens are citizens by acts of congress, not by nature.
NY Tribune Jan 31, 1904
SanFranChron Dec 1, 1900
SanFranChron Jan 27, 1912
Good post. Some one we know in particular have said that children born to American parents overseas where the children received a foreign birth certificate are natural born citizens. This same person will argue that only a United States jus soli birth is all that’s needed to be a natural born citizen of the U.S.
There seems to major inconsistencies here. If a jus soli is the ONLY consideration for an NBC birth then how can a child born on foreign soil also be a natural born citizen? That’s arguing out both sides of the mouth. What this person fails to take into account is that the foreign country using the same logic that anyone born on their soil is also a natural born citizen? So the US of A and the foreign country BOTH claim natural born citizenship of children of American parents born on foreign soil? How can that be? This poster can claim natural born citizenship of the foreign born child, but DENY the same common law to other countries? A conundrum for liberals and what is really illogical.
Ah yes...do I trust a newspaper or the Supreme Court with legal definitions? Tough call...
Did Meese write that presidential NBC passage in The Heritage guide to the Constitution, or was it the other editors Matthew Spalding or David F. Forte who wrote it?
Or Ms. Rogers, did one of the other 80+ CONtributors below who wrote the natural born citizen passage about who qualifies for president that is written on pg. 190?
It certainly appears that Edwin Meese's name was added to sell the book. This book that was published in 2005 was just another vehicle at an attempt to change the meaning of who is a natural born citizen. It fails.
Is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen means equal in rights but not the same path to citizenship and that was the ruling in WKA.
Excellent!!! And how could it be sensible
or logical any other way, to any informed,
thinking person who cared to learn and
understand the mentality and protection
our Founders bore for this precious nation ???
- - - - -
"To: Regulator
Ed Meese? You mean the guy who wrote this:
““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ”
- - - - - -
Apparently, it was not Edwin Meese who wrote it Rogers as you see there were scores of writers as I posted in #2814. Meese name was on the cover to sell the book, and he was the chairman of the editorial advisory board. The figure head and he did not get into the details of the book.
[T]he third qualification to be president is that one must be a natural born citizen (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may be a member of Congress so long as he held citizenship for the requisite period of time, to be president, one must be a natural born citizen. Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern.[end quote]
Written by James C. Ho who wrote: “Unnatural Born Citizens and Acting Presidents” and was a supporter of Schwarzenegger for president and also for making adopted children born in foreign countries retroactive natural born citizens
So Rogers, you may want to rethink who you misquote from now on & make sure you are citing the correct author. My library is DEEP!
LOL. Ms. Rogers, you fail again.
I must add further that Ho went on to cite English common law & does reference WKA along with a multitude of progressive writers who are for removing the "natural born" requirement and have testified before Congress for the removal of it. So in a few short paragraphs, Ho goes from stating that the founders & framers were dead set against someone born with foreign ties to "oh, but since they were born on US soil, we can overlook that little detail just as Gray did in WKA". If it wasn't such a serious issue it would almost be funny.
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.