Couple of comments:
B) Only in your imagination did WKA confirm that NBC = two citizen parents. Ankeny got it right. You will be hearing a lot of Ankeny as all these case proceed.
D) Obama’s father was a legal resident alien at the time of his birth. His mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Once you are born a citizen, nothing your parents do can take away your citizenship. Once a citizen, Obama’s citizenship exists completely independent of his parents.
E)The Treaty of 1783 did not ban dual-citizenship. It dealt with how how untangle the mess caused as the population separated themselves into Americans or Englishmen. Nowhere does it specifically ban dual citizenship. It merely states that a British subject and his heirs who own property in America were afforded the same property rights by law that native citizens enjoyed.
Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor revolves around the citizenship of a child that was born in NY City to a English subject. The court specifically ruled that if he was born in NYC in that period after the declaration of independence and before the British occupied NYC, then he was a natural born citizen American citizen regardless of his fathers citizenship. If he was born before or after that period he was British because he was not born on American soil.
This is false. He was on a student visa and not a resident alien.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
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 [p680] 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 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.
D) A resident alien is defined as having permanent residence and domicil. Barak Sr. was NEVER a permanent resident. His mother's citizenship is irrelevant in terms of the 14th amendment, since the WKA recognized the object of the 14th was to grant citizenship to the "colored race" and:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
Notice the repeated use of the domicil criteria, which means permanent residence. The 14th does not include citizenship of the parents as a criteria, so Stanley Ann's citizenship is NOT the determing factor, but what her intention was for permanent residence. At the time Obama was born, she planned to move to Kenya with Obama's father, at least that's what her friend claimed. We know she moved out of the United States, so she NEVER had any intention of having permanent domicil. Natural-born citizenship is NOT citizenship by default for expatriates who only retain U.S. citizenship out of convenience rather than true allegiance.
E) Wong Kim Ark cited this passage, which is based on an interpretation of Shanks v. Dupont:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
This passage was from U.S. v Rhodes, a circuit or district court case, but it was citing Shanks v. Dupont, that said:
The treaty of peace of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British crown. All those, who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof. In the language of the seventh article, it was a firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic majesty and the said states, "and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other." Who were then subjects or citizens, was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her, and were claimed by her as subjects, the treaty deemed them such. If they were originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty deemed them citizens. Such, I think, is the natural, and indeed almost necessary meaning of the treaty; it would otherwise follow, that there would continue a double allegiance of many persons; an inconvenience which must have been foreseen, and would cause the most injurious effects to both nations.
Story says that the necessary menaing of the Treaty of 1783 is that you are EITHER a British subject or you are a U.S. citizen depending on the allegiance of the parents, because double allegiance would cause injurious effects to both nations. IOW, you can't be both. U.S. v Rhodes said in 1866 that this principle was as valid SINCE the Revolution as before. Obama's papa stayed a British-Kenyan citizen. Under these rulings, Obama is British at birth. As for his mother, the court said citizenship related to married women is based on the law of nations, not on public law:
The incapacities of femes covert, provided by the common law, apply to their civil rights, and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.
The law of nations says citizenship naturally follows the status of the father, so under four different SCOTUS legal precedents, Obama is NOT a natural-born citizen and he is NOT a 14th amendment citizen ... even if born in Abraham Lincoln's lap in the Lincoln Memorial.
Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor follows the law of nations principle. The reason it makes John Inglis a U.S. citizen in the short window after the DoI is because his father's citizenship was briefly guided by public law which made New York citizens out of those person's whose intention was to permanently reside in N.Y. When the law was subverted by British occupation, then his father's citizenship was due to British law. No such law acted upon Barak Sr.'s citizenship, thus Obama is still subject to his father's citizenship.
B: In at least three cases the supreme court defined “natural born citizen as born on US soil with both parents US citizens.
D: Student visa does not equal legal resident alien.
E: Being a dual citizen is not illegal. Being president and dual citizen is a no-no.
Ankeny didn't get anything right. It is such a stupid case that people lose IQ points just citing it.
D) Obama’s father was a legal resident alien at the time of his birth.
Obama's father was an undiscovered illegal at the time of his birth. Barack Obama sr. lied on his visa application. Had he told the truth, he would have been denied entry into the country.
His mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth.
Which means that his citizenship is dependent on the CABLE act, and the Women's citizenship act of 1934, making him a citizen by statute, the same as Aldo Mario Bellei. Look up the case, and see what the Supreme Court said about "statutory" citizens. Aldo Mario Bellei was not a "natural born citizen" and neither is Barack Obama; And for the same reason.
Once you are born a citizen, nothing your parents do can take away your citizenship. Once a citizen, Obama’s citizenship exists completely independent of his parents.
Aldo Mario Bellei lost his citizenship because he failed to meet residency requirements. He was a citizen by statute. (Incidentally, the same statute that made Obama a citizen.)A citizen by statute is not the same thing as a "natural born citizen".
E)The Treaty of 1783 did not ban dual-citizenship. It dealt with how how untangle the mess caused as the population separated themselves into Americans or Englishmen. Nowhere does it specifically ban dual citizenship. It merely states that a British subject and his heirs who own property in America were afforded the same property rights by law that native citizens enjoyed.
I haven't spent any time looking at the Treaty, but i'll take edge919's opinion of it over yours any day of the week. One cannot amass such a large collection of WRONG without it being a sort of consistency.
Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor revolves around the citizenship of a child that was born in NY City to a English subject. The court specifically ruled that if he was born in NYC in that period after the declaration of independence and before the British occupied NYC, then he was a natural born citizen American citizen regardless of his fathers citizenship. If he was born before or after that period he was British because he was not born on American soil.
The period in question was prior to the creation of the Federal Government. As a result, it applies the law in existence at that time. In fact, it applies the law of that particular colony/state which existed at that time. (In the case of New York, we know the answer was the Default English Common law, because the State of New York changed created their first citizenship law in 1845; Specifically EXCLUDING the children of transient aliens.)
After the U.S. Constitution was created, it was possible for someone to be a citizen of a state, but not a federal citizen, as the plight of James McClure illustrates.