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.
Is there any particular reason you believe the person who was Primarily responsible for the drafting and passage of the legislation (source: U.S. Senate's own history website) would not have greater knowledge of the intent and meaning than another legislator merely opining on the subject?
If so, the law wasn't changed as even after that, U.S. Secretaries of State were determining those born in the U.S. to non-citizen fathers (e.g., Hausding and Greisser) to NOT be born citizens.
Actually, they were simply determining if Hausding and Greisser could invoke American citizenship when, in fact, they were living in a foreign country as citizens of that foreign country, weren't interested in living in the United States, weren't interested in anything except avoiding their obligations as citizens of that foreign country.
Therefore you actually are asserting that unless your parents are Chinese, you cannot be a birthright citizen in the United States.
The fact is that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has NO bearing on Obama's presidential eligibility whatsoever. Obama doesn't meet the limiting conditions specifically set forth in Gray's ruling. Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. There are public documents attesting to that fact.
Is there any particular reason you believe the person who was Primarily responsible for the drafting and passage of the legislation (source: U.S. Senate's own history website) would not have greater knowledge of the intent and meaning than another legislator merely opining on the subject?
He can only have greater knowledge of the intent and meaning of what he wrote, not the intent and meaning of the majority who ended up passing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
If so, the law wasn't changed as even after that, U.S. Secretaries of State were determining those born in the U.S. to non-citizen fathers (e.g., Hausding and Greisser) to NOT be born citizens.
Of course the law changed. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was superseded by the 1870 Civil Rights Act, and the definition of citizen found in the 1866 act was removed.
And again... an administrative act by the Department of State does not change the Constitution, and does not create law.
One's parents' names, place(s) of birth, and citizenship status are all required on the U.S. passport application. If it weren't relevant, it wouldn't be required.
The fact is that the Wong Kim Ark ruling has NO bearing on Obama's presidential eligibility whatsoever.
More than a dozen subsequent court decisions say you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama doesn't meet the limiting conditions specifically set forth in Gray's ruling.
More than a dozen subsequent court decisions say you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
And Justice Gray said that has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations
"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."
What makes this part of the description irrelevant, but makes permanent domicile relevant?
I never said it was irrelevant. I merely restated what Gray himself said:
Quote:
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 partieswere 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.
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 partieswere 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.
So... you agree that nobody whose parents are not Chinese can be a US citizen at birth?
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.
