Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
Sorry you don’t like how the US Supreme Court writes rulings.

Thank goodness that mess was from a single source.

I have to wonder, however, why you felt the need to post it en masse. If you point was so easily made, a single reference should have sufficed.

I also note the majority of it came from the discussion pertaining to natural born BRITISH SUBJECTS as the court was tracing the rule of citizenship from the British Crown.

You don't start getting to the applicable part until halfway down.

-------

From your source:

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress.

*******************

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization".
The ONLY type of citizen Congress can create is a naturalized one. [There is no authority to alter the preexisting definition of natural born]

....for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record.
In order to be considered for naturalization, an alien had to register with the local authorities in the county of his residence.

Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization."
Minor children of naturalized citizens were considered to be naturalized at the same time their parents became citizens.

Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress.

Also from your source:In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:
The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

Children born abroad to American parents are natural born citizens

------

Please show me [preferably in 100 words or less] WHERE Wong Kim Ark claimed to be OR was proclaimed to be a Natural born citizen.

Then you can enlighten me as to how Zero is supposed to be 'natural born' citizen when he can't even meet the criteria for a naturalized one!

195 posted on 02/07/2012 6:19:53 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am a ~Person~ as created by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan

Any comments on #182 and 188 by me?


197 posted on 02/07/2012 6:27:52 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies ]

To: MamaTexan

The point made in WKA is that the Founder’s understanding of what NBC meant was determined by how they understood natural born subject - and all agree that NBS included the children of aliens. Thus, by original intent, a NBC includes the child of alien parents.

However, it could be argued that under the rules discussed in WKA, the parents had to be domiciled here legally, and not at the beckoning of a foreign government. Argued thus, then WKA would support the idea that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen. However, I’ve never heard of a birther making that point in court. If they tried it instead of ignoring WKA, they MIGHT have better results.

If I was arguing the appeal of the Georgia decision, I’d point out that Ankeny is based on WKA, and that WKA included domicile and not being here at the request of a foreign government as critical parts of the meaning, and that the Georgia judge was thus misapplying the law.


203 posted on 02/07/2012 7:05:06 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson