Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At the time of this case, the 1878 Revised Statutes (RS) of the United States were considered positive law of the US, and Title XXV, Section 1992 of the RS stated this concerning citizenship, which is the same wording as found in the 1866 Civil Right Act:
If the Wong Kim Ark decision shredded this law, then why do we find the same “not subject to any foreign power” clause in Title 8, Section 1 of the 1926, 1928, and 1934 United States Code, which followed up the Revised Statutes?
Do you even understand the blog comment you are cutting and pasting? It doesn't appear so.
Don't penalize the children. They didn't ask to be born. Under the proposed law children born and raised here would have no rights or legal status in the US.
And why place of birth? If life and personhood begins at conception then surely citizenship should be based on place conceived.
That's what I think. To me it makes much more sense that the child is a citizen of his/her mother's country. Those who support birthright citizenship seem to think being a citizen of another country is punishments akin to torture. There's nothing wrong with being a citizen of another country. Millions of people throughout the world are quite happy with that.
It's just not "very compelling" when someone can read to determine otherwise...
Reading is one thing, fully understanding case law is another. Gray specifically points to Lord Coke in Calvins case and points out "aliens in amity" from it, Gray then goes on to quote the Schooner Exchange (The Exchange) in which it discusses an alien arriving without license.
Quote:
This perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns, and this common interest impelling them to mutual intercourse, and an interchange of good offices with each other, have given rise to a class of cases in which every sovereign is understood to wave the exercise of a part of that complete exclusive territorial jurisdiction, which has been stated to be the attribute of every nation. .... If he enters that territory with the knowledge and license of its sovereign, that license, although containing no stipulation exempting his person from arrest, is universally understood to imply such stipulation.
Why has the whole civilized world concurred in this construction? The answer cannot be mistaken. A foreign sovereign is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction incompatible with his dignity, and the dignity of his nation, and it is to avoid this subjection [SIZE=-1] [11 U.S. 116, 138] [/SIZE] that the license has been obtained. The character to whom it is given, and the object for which it is granted, equally require that it should be construed to impart full security to the person who has obtained it. This security, however, need not be expressed; it is implied from the circumstances of the case.
Should one sovereign enter the territory of another, without the consent of that other, expressed or implied, it would present a question which does not appear to be perfectly settled, a decision of which, is not necessary to any conclusion to which the Court may come in the cause under consideration. If he did not thereby expose himself to the territorial jurisdiction of the sovereign, whose dominions he had entered, it would seem to be because all sovereigns impliedly engage not to avail themselves of a power over their equal, which a romantic confidence in their magnanimity has placed in their hands.
Gray never called Wong a ‘natural’ born citizen in his ruling.
Irrelevant red herring. Not even sure why you find that a meaningful distinction in this thread. This is not an Obama birther thread. It is a birthright citizenship thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC
In fact he makes a distinction between a child born of two citizens and one born here of aliens, which is what Wong was.
” as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Where is the distinction? Seriously?
It is between the children of aliens and the children of citizens... and says their status is identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC
Nowhere in the ruling does this give license for a foriegn born or a ‘anchor baby’ to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.
Alas... I'm not. US Citizenship law recognizes only two effective classes of citizen. Natural-born and naturalized. There is no third class of citizen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
