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.
Quote:
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the FATHER, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to THE SON ALSO, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's ALLEGIANCE, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, the embassador.
It has always been about the ligeance of the FATHER.
As we can see from Blackstones comment, BECAUSE the FATHER owes no allegiance to the prince he visits, so too his son, [u][b]ALL BECAUSE of the ligeance of the FATHER.
The paragraph opens: "YET THE CHILDREN OF THE KING'S EMBASSADORS BORN ABROAD". Which means the passage applies only to children of the King's ambassadors born abroad. It's simple English.
And your attempt to interpret this more broadly, not recognizing that this applies to children of ambassadors and foreign missions, and ONLY to those children, not to children of ordinary travelers, defies logic and English grammar structure.
It seems also that you have some weird kind of thingy where you think whoever posts the last post wins.
Again... my first post won, Mike. I can repeat myself as often as you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Again you brush aside where you have been shown to be completely WRONG and cherry-pick a convenient aside to hide behind; even in doing that, you have nothing of any worth to offer, but your usual useless bigoted opinion and vexatious ad hominem.
That is perhaps the single most ironic sentence on the City-data forum since the last time you posted it.
Again... as shown by Calvin's Case, by Blackstone's Commentaries, by Justice Gray's decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, by the three judge panel in Ankeny v. Daniels, and finally by the first and second inaugurations of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America, the law is as follows:
Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen.
The status of natural-born citizen/subject has for more than 500 years of Anglo-American common law been defined by a bilateral set of reciprocal obligations; loyalty from the subject in exchange for protection from the sovereign. This relationship is independent of any third party. No barrister, no bureaucrat, no priest, no parent can mediate the ligeance between a subject and his king, or a citizen and his country.
Maybe you should take up marsupial cuisine. Buh-bye.
The paragraph opens: "YET THE CHILDREN OF THE KING'S EMBASSADORS BORN ABROAD". Which means the passage applies only to children of the King's ambassadors born abroad. It's simple English.
And your attempt to interpret this more broadly, not recognizing that this applies to children of ambassadors and foreign missions, and ONLY to those children, not to children of ordinary travelers, defies logic and English grammar structure.
The POINT IS, that it is the allegiance of the FATHER (aka PARENTS) which determines the allegiance of his child...... duh!
The place is merely "observable", but it is the ligeance of the FATHER which is ESSENTIAL.
THAT is the English common law.
Lord Coke - Calvin's case.
Quote:
There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.
Your bigoted political agenda is all you are running on, you have no reasonable nor sound argument in the face of the truth, where in 17th century English law, native-birth was NEVER SUFFICIENT to make a natural born subject ........... NEVER!
It has ALWAYS been about the allegiance of the PARENTS.
Some useful idiots have read "alien parent" and "born in England" and "natural born subject" within the same sentence or paragraph and have INVENTED the LIE that native-birth to alien parents equates to natural born subject, when it quite simply is a LIE!
A reading of Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case will reveal that Lord Coke EMPHASIZED that native-birth did NOT SUFFICE to make a natural born subject.
There is no wiggle room.............. it's a proven FACT!
Again... my first post won, Mike. I can repeat myself as often as you can.
That is perhaps the single most ironic sentence on the City-data forum since the last time you posted it.
Again... as shown by Calvin's Case, by Blackstone's Commentaries, by Justice Gray's decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, by the three judge panel in Ankeny v. Daniels, and finally by the first and second inaugurations of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America, the law is as follows:
Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen.
The status of natural-born citizen/subject has for more than 500 years of Anglo-American common law been defined by a bilateral set of reciprocal obligations; loyalty from the subject in exchange for protection from the sovereign. This relationship is independent of any third party. No barrister, no bureaucrat, no priest, no parent can mediate the ligeance between a subject and his king, or a citizen and his country.
Maybe you should take up marsupial cuisine. Buh-bye.
The POINT IS, that it is the allegiance of the FATHER (aka PARENTS) which determines the allegiance of his child...... duh!
The place is merely "observable", but it is the ligeance of the FATHER which is ESSENTIAL.
THAT is the English common law.
Lord Coke - Calvin's case.
Your bigoted political agenda is all you are running on, you have no reasonable nor sound argument in the face of the truth, where in 17th century English law, native-birth was NEVER SUFFICIENT to make a natural born subject ........... NEVER!
It has ALWAYS been about the allegiance of the PARENTS.
Some useful idiots have read "alien parent" and "born in England" and "natural born subject" within the same sentence or paragraph and have INVENTED the LIE that native-birth to alien parents equates to natural born subject, when it quite simply is a LIE!
A reading of Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case will reveal that Lord Coke EMPHASIZED that native-birth did NOT SUFFICE to make a natural born subject.
There is no wiggle room.............. it's a proven FACT!
The point is that it isn't and wasn't about the allegiance of the parents or of the father. Your evidence, proof, foundation,whatever, doesn't prove your argument, because it's about children of ambassadors. And only about children of ambassadors. Which are the exception in citizenship laws, not the rule.
Again... as shown by Calvin's Case, by Blackstone's Commentaries, by Justice Gray's decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark, by the three judge panel in Ankeny v. Daniels, and finally by the first and second inaugurations of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America, the law is as follows:
Anyone born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or alien army in hostile occupation is a natural born US citizen.
1. You're off topic. We're not talking about Obama, we're talking about Rubio.
2. I do not believe what you posted is contained in any US law. Care to prove that it is?
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.
