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.
If that were true, what of all the native citizens who weren't born of citizen parents? Do they have to get naturalized at some point? Why, no, they don't. And yet, once again, that stumbling block you can't get past. Only two kinds of citizens, those born with citizenship, and those who acquire citizenship through naturalization. Which this citation completely supports.
You seem to have a problem with adjectives acting as qualifiers. (Native Citizens)
The point is that BECAUSE an alien father had no local ligeance or obedience, he was therefore not a subject, then in that case, his native-born child could not be a subject, BECAUSE the child was "not born under the ligeance of a subject".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank
You fail again. The "subject" mentioned in that phrase is the child, not the child's father.
You wish!
Here it is again.....
Coke speaks of a local ligeance of a subject.....
Quote:
Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part.
Coke goes on to describe a situation where a friendly alien visitor has local ligeance and is thus a subject (it took no birth of children for this to be so).....
Quote:
And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection:
Coke goes on further to speak of the local obedience (which is another word used for ligeance) of the alien-born subject, stating that the ligeance/obedience, although weak and uncertain (obviously in contrast to high ligeance) is strong enough to make a "natural subject".
Quote:
This word ligeance is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. Sometime it is called the obedience or obeysance of the subject to the King,
Coke then speaks of the local ligeance and obedience of the visiting, adult, alien, subject, who had his ligeance and obedience and was established to be a subject BEFORE any hypothetical child was born to him. (contrary to your (desperate to preserve your precious lie) preposterous assertion that the child's birth made the alien a subject, which has been exposed for the lie that it is)
Coke then speaks of the adult alien visitor's ligeance in terms of it's strength, not any child's ligeance.
Then Coke concludes, based on the strength of the adult alien visitor's ligeance and obedience, that if he had a native-born child, that child would be a natural born subject.
Quote:
which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:
Coke then goes on to give a CONTRASTING hypothetical example of when hostile adult alien visitors who are not subjects, with no ligeance, have native-born children in the realm, that those children cannot be subjects of any type, even though they were born on the king's soil and under the kings "meridian" (aka zenith, height) BECAUSE they were "not born under the ligeance of a subject".
Coke speaks of the ligeance and obedience that "MAKE the subject born", NOT that the subject born makes or establishes the particular ligeance, i.e. the ligeance is the CAUSE of the child being a natural born subject.
Therefore without the ligeance or obedience of the parent, then the child cannot be a subject at all, "for that" (AKA BECAUSE) "he was not born under the ligeance of a subject"
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.
Frank, this following excerpt from Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case is all that is needed to smack you down with the truth, that being, that NOWHERE in the 17th century English law was it held or ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, and for a native-born child to be a natural born subject, the child MUST be born to subject parents.
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;
Keep squirming Frank.
Last edited by MichaelNo; 04-09-2013 at 06:05 PM..
So the definition of natural born citizen provided by the Wong Kim Ark decision holds precedence regardless of Justice Gray's decision to call him one or not.
What definition of natural born citizen did the Wong Kim Ark provide?
Again... wishes have nothing to do with it. We have won over 200 court cases and inaugurated Obama as President twice not because of what people wished, but because of what is objectively true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Coke speaks of a local ligeance of a subject.....
One half of a binary reciprocal obligation between subject and King. No third party involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Coke goes on to describe a situation where a friendly alien visitor has local ligeance and is thus a subject (it took no birth of children for this to be so).....
One half of a binary reciprocal obligation between subject and King. No third party involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Coke goes on further to speak of the local obedience (which is another word used for ligeance) of the alien-born subject, stating that the ligeance/obedience, although weak and uncertain (obviously in contrast to high ligeance) is strong enough to make a "natural subject".
One half of a binary reciprocal obligation between subject and King. No third party involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Coke then speaks of the local ligeance and obedience of the visiting, adult, alien, subject, who had his ligeance and obedience and was established to be a subject BEFORE any hypothetical child was born to him. (contrary to your (desperate to preserve your precious lie) preposterous assertion that the child's birth made the alien a subject, which has been exposed for the lie that it is)
Ignoring that what you call here my "preposterous assertion" is merely your incompetent failure to understand my rather simple and completely different argument, again you are describing one half of a binary reciprocal obligation between subject and King. No third party involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Coke then speaks of the adult alien visitor's ligeance in terms of it's strength, not any child's ligeance.
One half of a binary reciprocal obligation between subject and King. No third party involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Then Coke concludes, based on the strength of the adult alien visitor's ligeance and obedience, that if he had a native-born child, that child would be a natural born subject.
Wrong. And you were doing so well... pity.
The natural born subjection of the child is also one half of a binary reciprocal obligation between subject and King. No third party involved.
Coke cites it here specifically to reinforce the operative principle of ligeance as a binary, reciprocal obligation... strong enough to create permanent ligeance in the case of the child of alien (any alien), and therefore also strong enough to create local ligeance on the part of an alien adult. It is a simple, declarative English sentence, the word "for" being synonymous with "because."
Like the apocryphal Australian toilet bowl, you are getting Coke's argument exactly backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Coke then goes on to give a CONTRASTING example of when hostile adult alien visitors have native-born children in the realm, that those children cannot be subjects of any type, even though they were born on the king's soil and under the kings "meridian" (aka zenith, height) BECAUSE they were "not born under the ligeance of a subject".
One of the two ancient exceptions to the natural born subjection of children of aliens on British soil; alien armies in hostile occupation. Since the child is not born under the protection of the king (being in a portion of the realm under the control of alien invaders and out of his influence), it was not born under the ligeance of a subject, "subject" here again referring to the child and no one else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Coke speaks of the ligeance and obedience that "MAKE the subject born", NOT that the subject born makes or establishes the particular ligeance, i.e. the ligeance is the CAUSE of the child being a natural born subject.
Again, you are proving that the "subject" discussed there is the child, not its parent. The parent, already being foreign born, can never become subject born under any circumstances. Only an unborn child can aspire to that status, and it will fall to them (or not) depending entirely on whether or not they are born (from the King's perspective) under the ligeance of the King and (from his own perspective) under the ligeance of a subject. Two halves of the binary, reciprocal relationship.
This has nothing to do with the parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
Therefore without the ligeance or obedience of the parent, then the child cannot be a subject at all, "for that" (AKA BECAUSE) "he was not born under the ligeance of a subject"
The parent has nothing to do with it. The child's ligeance is between them and the king, no third party involvement is possible.
What definition of natural born citizen did the Wong Kim Ark provide?
Again:
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.
That definition is found several places in the decision, most explicitly here:
Quote:
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.
Your problem is not explication. Your problem is contradiction. Other participants in those same debates were equally explicit, yet contradicted the single argument you have cherry picked.
For some examples:
And finally, Senator Trumbull again, speaking a few years later after the debates were settled and the laws passed and implemented:
Trumbull's opinion appears to have... evolved.
Trumbull's opinion hadn't changed.
If you were to post the whole article instead of editing out the parts that don't suit your lie, one would see that Trumbull was merely reporting what he had read, not what he believed.
As usual, your reading comprehension fails you... fractally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelNo
If you were to post the whole article instead of editing out the parts that don't suit your lie, one would see that Trumbull was merely reporting what he had read, not what he believed.
Not even close, Mike. He was reading an authority to support what he had just said he believed.
Here's the entire page, and it proves that, as usual, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
For those having trouble reading the fine print.
Quote:
Subsequently to the enactment of the (1866) civil rights act the fourteenth constitutional amendment was adopted. That amendment in its first clause is but a copy of the civil rights act, declaring that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign jurisdiction are citizens of the United States. This had been previously declared by act of congress, and it was so without any act of Congress. Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country, citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and in order to be President of the United States a person must be a native-born citizen.
It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate into the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he was born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I will read a single sentence, in support of which numerous authorities are quoted of judicial decisions in this country, which is in these words; I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note274:
“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 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’s Com., third edition, 1: Calvin’s Case 7, Coke 1: 1 Black. Com., 386; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sand. Ch. Rep., 139.)
Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-09-2013 at 10:42 PM..
Italy's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs contradicts you.
Quote:
Italian citizenship is acquired automatically by law in some cases.
...Who can apply for Italian citizenship?
descendents of Italian citizens (up to the second degree)
As usual, you didn't read the info. Same mistake you made on the passport application form. That's why your knowledge level is so low, HD. Given such, I have no idea why anyone would listen to or believe anything you say.
Minor v. Happersett does not define either native or natural born citizens in that way.
More lack of knowledge coming from HD. No surprise there.
Quote:
"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
It is a request so dumb that only you could make it.
Translation: There is NOTHING HD can cite. There is NOTHING to support the assertion.
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.
Given such, I have no idea why anyone would listen to or believe anything you say. 
