Replies

After reading this I am not going to take a lot of stock in Binney’s conclusion for the simple fact that Binney is applying feudal law which was NOT the common law of citizenship adopted by the framers of our Constitution.

Second, the entire thing is applying British Law from British citizenship controversies. Binney is misinterpreting & thus he is misapplying the Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1802. Binney holds that a child born to an alien father in America is citizen and we know that that is feudal doctrine. Citizenship is of election, it is not conferred upon one at birth other than by the tacit consent of the citizen parents.

Virginia, a colony with the deepest ties to Great Britain finalized their change in 1779 under the governorship of Thomas Jefferson.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

And also, had what Binney was implying been the case, Congress would have addressed it immediately and the fact that they didn’t proves that what was in the 1790 Act in regards to those born abroad of citizen parents, that still applied. All the 1802 Act did was remove the term ‘natural born’, it did not repeal the law of nature as applied by Virginia because at that time, naturalization, although the laws were established by Congress, it was the states who implemented them and so for Binney’s interpretation of the 1802 Act to be true, then Virginia’s citizenship laws were unconstitutional and thus there would be case law to the effect and there simply is not.

And third, Binney is hinging everything on Kent’s commentaries and the one thing about James Kent, he held a lot of fondness for British law, law that had long since been discarded, but because of his political influence, he is still the one the rogue judges run to in support of their fictional living constitution as that is what the constitution of the Brits is, a living one that changes with every whim of the present ruling elite. One could say that America is more British today than she was at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

No, there was no defect in US citizenship laws and there is none to this day. The only defect is in the men & women who misinterpret and subsequently misapply the law as Binney did.