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.
You are picking a choosing your battles here and you can't just take one ruling and ignore the all the other rulings both past and present.
The Constitution clearly defines that there are 2 types of citizens through Article 2 and the 14th Amendment:
Natural Born (as defined in Article 2, all persons born in the 14th Amendment)
Naturalized (as defined in Article 4 and the 14th Amendment)
Natural born and naturalized are CITIZENS as a group.
Wong Kim Ark established that by being born on US Soil, he is a citizen. By virtue of the 14th Amendment, he is a natural born citizen
Court rulings since before the adoption of the 14th show that simply born in the US you are afforded natural born citizenship as based on English Common Law (where much of the Constitution was based on)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegience of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this case, and so far I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial, and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does itself constitution citizenship. ... The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle.
It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father's domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. His mother was temporarily there--without any actual change of residence, either on her part or that of his father. It is argued that, at common law, a natural born subject was one whose birth was within the allegiance of the king. (Bac. Ab. tit. Alien, A. Com. Dig. A. and B. 7 to 18. Bl. Com. 336, 74.) The cases of children of ambassadors, born abroad, and of children born on English seas were considered exceptions. Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, defines a native born citizen to be a person born within, and an alien one born out of, the jurisdiction of the United States. (2 Kent's Com. 37-50.) In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if [401] law, would seem to be decisive of the present question. But, admitting the plaintiff to be an alien, the cases already cited show that the terms "heirs or assigns," in the 9th article of the treaty, is not to be confined to the immediate descendants, but is to be extended indefinitely till the title comes to a citizen.
Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (Non-Whites) (1862)
Quote:
We have natural born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, § 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; in fact, the mass of our citizens; for all others are exceptions, specially provided for by law. As they becanle citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation. For we have no law (as the French have) to decitizenise a citizen, who has become such either by the natural process of birth, or by the legal process of adoption. And in this connection the Constitution says not one word, and furnishes not one hint, in relation to the color or to the ancestral race of the " natural born citizen." Whatever may have been said, in the opinions of judges and lawyers, and in State statutes, about negroes, mulattoes, and persons of color, the Constitution is wholly silent upon that subject. The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. ...
....
As far as I know, Mr. Secretary, you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than "the accident of birth"—the fact that we happened to be born in the United States. And our Constitution, in speaking of natural lorn citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the '' natural born'' right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.
That nativity furnishes the rule, both of duty and of right, as between the individual and the government, is a historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted that it is needless to prove it by authority. Nevertheless, for the satisfaction of those who may have doubts upon the subject, I note a few books which, I think, cannot fail to remove all such doubts—Kent's Com., vol. 2, part 4, sec. 25; Bl. Com., book 1, ch. 10, p. 365; 7 Co. Rep., Calvin's case; 4 Tenn. Rep., p. 300; Doe v. Jones, 3 Pet. Rep., p. 246; Shanks v. Dupont; and see a very learned treatise, attributed to Mr. Binney, in 2 Am. Law Reporter, 193.
In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection; and these are correlative obligations, the one the price of the other, and they constitute the all sufficient bond of union between the individual and his country, and the country he is born in is, prima facie, his country. In most countries the old law was broadly laid down that this natural connection between the individual and his native country was perpetual; at least, that the tie was indissoluble by the act of the subject alone.—(See Bl. Com. supra; 3 Pet. Rep. supra.) [13]"In the United States it is too late now to deny the political rights and obligations conferred and imposed by nativity for our laws do not pretend to create or enact them, but do assume and recognize them as things known to all men, because pre-existent and natural; and therefore things of which the laws must take cognizance. Acting out this guiding thought, our Constitution does no more than grant to Congress (rather than to any other department) the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." And our ]aws made in pursuance thereof indue the made citizen with all the rights and obligations of the natural citizen. And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born, that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow-citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10, 1855, 10 Statutes, 604, provides that "persons," (not white persons,) '' persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States."
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any woman who might law-[14] fully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen."
But for that act, children of our citizens who happen to be born at London, Paris, or Rome, while their parents are there on a private visit of pleasure or business, might be brought to the native home of their parents, only to find that they themselves were aliens in their fathers' country, incapable of inheriting their fathers' land, and with no right to demand the protection of their fathers' government.
That is the law of birth at the common law of England, clear and unqualified; and now, both in England and America, modified only by statutes, made from time to time, to meet emergencies as they arise.
I have said that, prima facie, every person in this country is born a citizen; and that he who denies it in individual cases assumes the burden of stating the exception to the general rule, and proving the fact which works the disfranchisement: There are but a few exceptions commonly made and urged as disqualifying facts. I lay no stress upon the small and admitted class of the natural born composed of the children of foreign ministers and the like ...."
[16]
"It is an error to suppose that citizenship is ever hereditary. It never "passes by descent." It is as original in the child as it was in his parents. It is always either born with him or given to him directly by law.
In discussing this subject it is a misleading error to fail to mark the natural and characteristic distinction between political rights and political powers. The former belong to all citizens alike, and cohere in the very name and nature of citizenship. The latter (participation in the powers of government by voting and exercising office) does not belong to all citizens alike, nor to any citizen, merely in virtue of citizenship. His power always depends upon extraneous facts and superadded qualifications; which facts and qualifications are common to both citizens and aliens.
In referring to the authorities commonly adduced by those who deny the citizenship of colored people, I do not pretend to cite them all, but a few only of such as I believe to be most usually relied upon. And I will not trouble you with a detailed examination of the reasoning employed in each case, for I have already stated my own views of the principles and laws involved in the question; and where they conflict with the arguments upon which the contrary opinion is founded I still adhere to my own. ...
Attorney General Edward , Opinion on Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents (1862)
Quote:
In my letter to you of the 6th ult., concerning the case of Mrs. Preto and her daughter, I had occasion to express the opinion that the daughter of an unnaturalized Spanish father, and of a native-born American mother, born in this country, but afterwards removed with her parents to Spain, where her father died, was a native-born American citizen, fully entitled to the protection of her country. The question now presented is of somewhat broader scope, but I do not think that the variant fact which it involves, viz: that both the parents are unnaturalized aliens, at all distinguishes it, in principle, from the question then considered. I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship. I might sustain this opinion by a reference to the well settled principle of the common law of England on this subject; to the writings of many of the earlier and later commentators on our Constitution and laws; to the familiar practice and usage of the country in the exercise of the ordinary rights and duties of citizenship; to the liberal policy of our Government in extending and recognizing [329] these rights, and enforcing these duties; and, lastly, to the dicta and decisions of many of our national and State judicial tribunals. But all this has been well done by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford, in the case of Lynch vs. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. Rep., 583,) and I forbear. I refer to his opinion for a full and clear statement of the principle, and of the reasons and authorities in its support.
Of course you will understand that I do not affirm the rule in such exceptional cases as the birth of the children of foreign ambassadors and the like.
United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
Quote:
The Act of Congress confers citizenship. Who are citizens, and what are their rights? The Constitution uses the words "citizen" and '"natural-born citizens;" but neither that instrument nor any Act of Congress has attempted to deûne their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject. . . . "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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent Com. 1 ; Calven's Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 4 Black. Com. 366 ; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 139.
The common law has made no distinction on account of race or color. None is now made in England, nor in any other Christian country of Europe.
The fourth of the Articles of Confederation declared that the " free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the United States," &c. On the 25th of June, 1778, when these Articles were under consideration by the Congress, South Carolina moved to amend this fourth Article by inserting after the word " free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word " white." Two States voted for the amendment and eight against it. The vote of one was divided. Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 575. When the Constitution was adopted, free men of color were clothed with the franchise of voting in at least five States, and were a part of the people whose sanction breathed into it the breath of life. Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 573 ; State \. Manuel, 2 Dev. & Batt. 24, 25.
"'Citizens' under our Constitution and laws means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress." 1 Kent Com. 292, note.
We find no warrant for the opinion 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.
Rawle's View of the Constitution of the United States (page 86)
Quote:
Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents arecitizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
Re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawyer 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905 (Fed. Cir. (Ca.) 1884)
Quote:
After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added, that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. In illustration of this general understanding, he mentions the fact, that when at an election an inquiry is made whether the person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country the answer is received as conclusive that he is a citizen; that no one inquires further; no one asks whether his [582] parents were citizens or foreigners; it is enough that he was born here whatever was the status of his parents. He shows also that legislative expositions on the subject speak but one language, and he cites to that effect not only the laws of the United States, but the statutes of a great number of the States, and establishes conclusively that there is on this subject a concurrence of legislative declaration with judicial opinion, and that both accord with the general understanding of the profession and of the public.
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (U.S. 1884)
Quote:
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;' and 'the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1 ; art. 1, sect. 8. ... 'This section [Amendment XIV., s. 1] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, cither individually, as by proceedings under the Naturalization Acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
"Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
There are far more cases, over a 100 that have said over and over again:
two types of citizens: Natural born (born here) or naturalized.
Nonsense. You simply keep running away from the simple fact that Vattel never mentions natural born citizenship once.
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.
