“This quote doesn’t say the children born out of the jurisdiction were not citizens at birth.”
Here is the full quote:
“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”
It says that children born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US “becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” But a person “born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized” and that naturalization can only occur by “treaty” or “by authority of Congress”. One of those examples of Congrssional authority is to conferr “citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens”.
Congress can pass an act to declare children born outside the US to citizen parents to be “citizens” but that is in Justice Gray’s opinion a form of naturalization.
CJ Fuller is objecting to the contention that child of aliens can be President but children of citizens cannot.
“This doesn’t say anything about natural-born citizenship.”
It says they are native born citizens. And we know that native born can be President (Luria v. United States).
“And Gray is calling these case outliers”
Here is the entire quote:
“So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.” (citations omitted)
“[F]arthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law” the statutes he is referring to are those that confer “citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens”.
Thanks for agreeing with me. I said that what Fuller was referring to was one of those Acts of Congress.
One of those examples of Congrssional authority is to conferr “citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens”.
Right, and in that Act of Congress as cited by Fuller, the foreign-born children of citizens are "considered as natural-born citizens." This is why Fuller thinks they are eligible for President. This is probably in part because he sees Congress's legislation being declarative of natural law such as in the Law of Nations definition that he quoted, which says, "children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights" and "The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent," and finally, "The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction." In Obama's case, this makes him a British-Kenyan subject and NOT a U.S. citizen.
Congress can pass an act to declare children born outside the US to citizen parents to be “citizens” but that is in Justice Gray’s opinion a form of naturalization.
Under that same principle, Congress can propose a Constitutional amendment to declare children born of resident aliens to be citizens at birth. By the same logic, this TOO is a form of naturalization. It's probably why Gray chose NOT to apply the term natural-born citizen to Wong Kim Ark or to any child born in the U.S. of a resident alien.
CJ Fuller is objecting to the contention that child of aliens can be President but children of citizens cannot.
Because the lower court cited another court that made a declaration of the child of an alien being a natural-born citizen. Gray never says any child of an alien is a natural-born citizen. It's why he AVOIDED giving any direct quotes from the lower court decision, from Look Tin Sing or from Lynch v. Clarke that uses the term, natural-born citizen. If you think this is what Gray said, give me a direct quote that uses this specific language where it is applied to the child of an alien.
It says they are native born citizens. And we know that native born can be President (Luria v. United States).
"Native-born" in Luria refers to the Minor definition of Native which is "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Luria does NOT cite WKA in reference to presidential eligibility NOR to define native nor native-born.
“[F]arthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law” the statutes he is referring to are those that confer “citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens”.
FARTHEST is a superlative. That's why I called these outliers. These decisions go FARTHER than other decisions, but the extreme position is in the last clause of the sentence you quoted. They are EXTREME because they have "have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents." If you look at Lynch v. Clarke, there's no question that it distinctly claims children of aliens born in the U.S. should be considered to be natural-born citizens. Of course, Gray WISELY does NOT include this direct citation because the Lynch decision is NOT based on good law. It was a personal opinion expressed by the judge. Second, Lynch IGNORED a Supreme Court precedent at the time, I believe, Shanks v. Dupont, which said persons born on U.S. soil could be naturally born as FOREIGN citizens. IOW, the Supreme Court contradicted the opinion in Lynch. This is why Gray does NOT stop at this passage, but instead continues 30 pages trying to build a stronger legal foundation for making Ark a citizen. But once Gray cites Minor and gives the definition of natural-born citizen, based on birth in the country to citizen parents, Gray does NOT use NBC again in the decision. Instead he uses a distinct term that he calls "citizenship by birth" and he emphatically asserts that it can apply to children born of RESIDENT ALIENS, a status of which Obama's father never held. Thus, there's a question of whether Obama is even a 14th amendment citizen.