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

To: DoodleDawg
i know, let me say the exact same thing to 5 different people, none of which are reading the responses to the others.

please refer to #98

Apparently not, since you seem to have a considerable percentage of posters who disagree with you.

a 'considerable percentage' being 6 or so? many of which are from Texas or Missouri

dems don't hold the lock on astro turf

126 posted on 06/11/2014 12:28:27 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: sten
please refer to #98

Two of those pre-date the 14th Amendment.

In the Happersett case you left out a sentence: "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." So the Court is neither confirming or denying that children born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents are not natural-born citizens. You can deny it all you want but Justice Waite is not saying you are correct.

In the Wong Kim Ark decision, Justice Gray gives multiple examples where natural born citizen is defined as one born in a country, even of alien parents. Examples being:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

"British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown. "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.""Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality."

"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."

128 posted on 06/11/2014 12:59:37 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | 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