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.
"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."
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Digest of the International Law of the United States
In very recent history at the time of the WKA ruling, too. ...which is why Gray may have specifically limited the applicability of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, in part, to only those whose parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of one's birth. Gray may not have wanted to be overturned by the VERY easy citing of cases which directly contradict the passage upon which you and others so ignorantly want to hang your hats.
Question asked and answered, HD, question asked and answered:
"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" United States v. Wong Kim Ark
"have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States"
Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was always only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa, with NO intention whatsoever of immigrating or becoming a U.S. citizen.
Then why is Obama the President of the United States?
Our public education system is a good place to start... The biased and ignorant MSM is also at fault. For example, how many people believe that being a U.S. citizen is enough to be eligible for POTUS? We see that assertion frequently when people say ignorant things like, "It doesn't matter where Obama was born. His mother was a U.S. citizen, so he is, too."
And they were wrong. Once the Wong Kim Ark decision corrected them they stopped making that mistake.
No, they weren't. They were 100% correct according to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, both of which required one to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. at birth in order to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
Quote:
No, Gray did not. Gray explicitly declared domicile to be irrelevant.
False.
"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" United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Let's see--there have been 201 birther cases brought to court. And hmmm--there have been 201 birther cases dismissed.
Dismissed being the operative word. Why are so many afraid of an actual trial? If Obama were actually legit, he'd have no problem making it through a trial that examines all the evidence.
No, it was the tone of the reference he made of President Obama. " bam bam ". Regardless of how you may feel about the current Adminsteration , respect is in order for the Pres. And the office.
No, it was the tone of the reference he made of President Obama. " bam bam ". Regardless of how you may feel about the current Adminsteration , respect is in order for the Pres. And the office.
Respect? Like the respect Obama showed for the Benghazi murder victims?
Dismissed being the operative word. Why are so many afraid of an actual trial? If Obama were actually legit, he'd have no problem making it through a trial that examines all the evidence.
What are you all so afraid of, the truth?
Riiiight, all those judges are terrified, hiding under their benches when they see birthers coming.
They were dismissed because they lacked merit, just like every one of your posts here. Judges are not going to waste the court's time and resources on idiotic quixotic quests when there are REAL cases to be heard. Don't you think if there was even a drop of merit in any of these cases you would have found at least one judge by now who would listen to you? They're ALL telling you these "cases" are ridiculous. How many more have to tell you that before you hear it?
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.
