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.
The US recognizes both Jus sanguinis (not sanguanis) and jus soli, to establish natural born citizensip.
Yes it did. The 14th amendment reaffirmed that. Did you know that women weren't considered citizens at all, despite being born to citizen parents and/or born on US Soil?
Wrong. This is Article I, Section II of the US Constitution:
There is no mention of either jus soli or jus sanguinis.
As I have said.
"Natural" is by blood, "born" is by where. (See Arus' Crypt of the Unborn)
Article II, Section I, Clause 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or just a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Last edited by Nonarchist; 03-31-2013 at 10:05 PM..
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
We don't even know if Gray was speaking of the US "Constitution" for starters, ....
This comment may well mean that the English rule for English subjects prevailed even though the US Constitution existed, which was the case, where children born to English parents in US and other foreign countries were natural born subjects of England.
Whatsmore, Gray made the point, the "aliens, while residing in", which excluded those non-resident aliens.
More to the point.
The aliens who as Justice Horace Gray described "were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign"were in fact subjects, so that their children would be "born under the ligeance of a subject".
Lord Coke in his report of Calvin's case, expressly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject, so Chief Justice Gray could not possibly have meant alien parents + native-birth = natural born subject, especially when he went to the trouble to speak of the allegiance qualities the aliens must possess for their children to be natural born subjects, then Gray spoke of alien PARENTS who were not subjects, in which case their children were not natural born subject.
In both instances Gray made it clear that it was either the alien parents' allegiance as a subject or lack of allegiance which determined the subject status of the alien's children; it is clear that Justice Gray must have read this from Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case.....
Quote:
And it is to be observed, that it isnec coelum, nec solum,neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.
and this.....
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;
So as anyone can see that when Chief Justice Gray said the aliens "were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign" and "therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject", he was saying that those aliens were subjects, then their children could be "born under the ligeance of a subject" and THAT is what made their children natural born subjects.
It was always all about the allegiance of the PARENTS, first and foremost.
That's why Chief Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark decision, found an "in" for Wong by basing the decision of the court on the "single question" as follows......
Quote:
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and
any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.
Rev.Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 7, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224.
Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States, and that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom. The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion,namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed.
Now it is so obvious that had Chief Justice Horace Gray believed for one moment that Wong qualified as an Article II "natural born Citizen", then he would have clearly said so............... but he didn't, obviously because he saw Wong a "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and NOT "the natural born child of a citizen", and unlike the English, the US did not and does not embrace friendly alien visitors as subjects/citizens, aliens must apply and be awarded US naturalized citizenship via due processes, i.e. to be consistent with the English rule, for a US native-born person to be a natural born citizen, that person must be "born under the ligeance" of US citizen parents.
I have already proven this to be that case on umpteen occasions, which you have not been able to refute, and reason being, you can't refute the truth.
There are two types of born US citizens as regonized by the Wong Kim Ark court, where Justice Horace Gray, in the decision of the court cited to Horace Binney's recognition of the two types, being "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and "the natural born child of a citizen".
Hence we can see that it was accepted by the Wong Kim Ark court, that the word "natural" was tied to parents and not place.
Your trumped-up reliance on this quote from Justice Horace Gray, does nothing to define a US Constitution Article II, "natural born Citizen" at all.
You use it to fool and mislead the naive and gullible, but it is useless in the face of the true facts.
Keep squirming Frank.
Last edited by MichaelNo; 03-31-2013 at 11:34 PM..
They never renounced their natural Italian citizenship?
It depends on who you mean by "they."
If by "they" you mean my grandparents, yes. When they naturalized.
But they did not naturalize until after my parents were born. So if by "they" you mean my parents, they were born US citizens and never naturalized. No naturalization, no renunciation required. But they were also born to Italian citizner parents, so under Italian law, that citizenship passed jus sanguinis to them.
So I meet even the bogus birther "born on US soil to two citizen parents" for NBC status... and am still an Italian citizen under Italian law. It passes one more generation.
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.
