U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-01-2010, 09:57 PM
 
122 posts, read 93,060 times
Reputation: 19

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
And Wong Kim Ark in 1898 :

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649,654 (1898)
“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, and 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. 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.”



U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898).
Every person born -within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen, within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity. Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 Atl. SCO, 3(!4, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle, Const. U. S. p. 86). See also. Lynch v. Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comni. (9th Ed.): McKay v. Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field, Int Code, 132; Morse, Citizenship, 203).”
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898).
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162"
"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.


U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898).
The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. [p666]

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898).
Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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.


The case of Wong Kim Ark said a lot of stuff in the dicta.
What was the final decision of the Court?

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649, 666, 668, 673, 674 (1898).
"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."

The decision was that he was a citizen.

Like it or not, they did not say that he was a natural born citizen.

 
Old 05-01-2010, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,651,546 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by red red rose View Post
The decision was that he was a citizen.

Like it or not, they did not say that he was a natural born citizen.
They didn't have to. That was already covered repeatedly and in detail in the dicta of the decision.

The decision is explicit that the definition of natural born citizen is any child born on US territory who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or an occupying Army. It is explicit that the source of this definition is British common law, and that it was centuries old and unchanged through the adoption of the Constitution and afterward.

Wong Kim Ark simply and purely eviscerates the Birther "two citizen parents" requirement. And as we have seen in the Ankeny decision, real judges in real courts understand that.
 
Old 05-01-2010, 10:16 PM
 
122 posts, read 93,060 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Not when they do not disagree.

Here's the context of the quotation you deliberately and dishonestly edited:
Minor v. Happersett offers two non-exclusive definitions. And it explicitly refuses to choose between them.

The reason I call them "nonexclusive" is that if the second is true, the first is also still true. The fact that there have never been doubts to the first does not mean that the second is false. So... it does not contradict Ankeny in the slightest.

Your attempt to claim that Minor v. Happersett defined natural born decisions is, well, pretty sleazy as those things go.
Try reading for comprehension.

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.
OK, they said that children born in the country of citizen parents were citizens at birth. They then said that these were “natural born citizens”.


Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
The Court then said that *some* authorities think that children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents are also citizens.


As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Then the court stated that there were doubts that children born to a non-citizen parent were citizens at all, but there was never any doubt that children born to citizen parents were citizens.


For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Now add the sentence after that one in the case.
It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
They didn’t have to solve the doubts about whether or not a child born to a non-citizen was a citizen or not because Ms. Minor (whose citizenship they were determining for the purposes of the case) was born to citizen parents within the jurisdiction and was therefore, without doubt, a citizen. She was a “natural born citizen” according to their definition.


I don't think that you are sleazy, I just think that you have difficulty understanding what you read.

The court had to determine if she was a citizen before they could go on with the case. Because she was born before the ratification of the 14th amendment, the clause of the fourteenth stating "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." did not apply to her.
 
Old 05-01-2010, 10:20 PM
 
122 posts, read 93,060 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
And as we have seen in the Ankeny decision, real judges in real courts understand that.
Take a look at Ankeny, and you will see that the judge admits that Wong Kim Ark did not say that Wong was a natural born citizen.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions...120903.ebb.pdf
14 We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial.

I'm amazed that he said that the Court's decision was immaterial, while he was busy cherry-picking dicta out of the case.

Last edited by red red rose; 05-01-2010 at 10:37 PM.. Reason: added link and quote
 
Old 05-01-2010, 10:38 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,348,352 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by red red rose View Post
The decision was that he was a citizen.

Like it or not, they did not say that he was a natural born citizen.
there you go misrepresenting both cases.

Minor vs Happersett had two definitions for Natural born, and left it to common law to define.

Wong Kim Ark went to further establish that Natural born based on the framers of the Constitution who heavily based their interpretation on English Common Law, where one born within the jurisdiction of the country of their allegiance is recognized as a natural born citizen.

Wong Kim Ark used Happersett to point out that the court didn't go far enough to establish the rules to determine who is Natural Born.

Wong Kim Ark established that he was a Natural born citizen, and his parents citizenship had no BEARING no his.
You forget that by determining Wong by being born on US soil is a US citizen, that by conclusion as defined Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of our Constitution, that any citizen born on US soil is a natural born citizen.

You like every birther, misrepresent, do not understand and heavily edit the rulings, to mean something they DID not mean.


Ankeny - OMG YOU REFERENCE A FREAKING FOOT NOTE??
Did you bother to READ the entire CASE?

Quote:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
The court recognized that Wong Kim Ark didn't concretely define natural born because it was already established and known (by common sense) that born on US Soil = Natural born.
Ankeny made a note of this, despite however YOU omitted the above reference.

and footnote 15?

Quote:
We … note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status.
Something that birthers will and have shown to twist.

Ankeny's case allowed the US Supreme Court to finally give definition to Natural Born. YOU can thank you fellow birther who filed the case for forcing the hand of the US Supreme Court.

Last edited by Arus; 05-01-2010 at 10:54 PM..
 
Old 05-01-2010, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,049 posts, read 2,464,841 times
Reputation: 699
This an example we are having with the Obama worshipers..

It is true..for all persons that triangles have three angles equal to two right angles..but not every one knows this..

It is true for all persons that natural born citizens derive from two US citizen parents ..but not every one knows this..
 
Old 05-01-2010, 10:56 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
This an example we are having with the Obama worshipers..

It is true..for all persons that triangles have three angles equal to two right angles..but not every one knows this..

It is true for all persons that natural born citizens derive from two US citizen parents ..but not every one knows this..
This is not US law. See the 14th amendment.
 
Old 05-01-2010, 10:57 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,348,352 times
Reputation: 1833
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post

It is true for all persons that natural born citizens derive from two US citizen parents ..but not every one knows this..
100% wrong. You've been told this on this site, as well as at Dr. Conspiracy's site. Yet you repeat it.

Since you've been told that you are wrong over and over again by claiming the 2 parent rule, you are now making it up.

Please point out in the Constitution, article and section; where a person's parent's citizenship established their citizenship

Last edited by Arus; 05-01-2010 at 11:06 PM..
 
Old 05-01-2010, 11:43 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,049 posts, read 2,464,841 times
Reputation: 699
The Lord causes Death and Life..1 Samuel 2:6

Eymologies: The natural law is common to all nations.

Aristotle Ethics V: Things to which human beings nature inclines them belong to natural law.

Digest: The things that nature has taught all animals and humans such as the sexual union of male and female, and the upbringing of children belong to natural law.

Natural law results from the nature of human beings..

NATURAL BORN IS NATURAL LAW. A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS BORN WITH NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE.

OBAMA HAS A FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE. HIS FATHER IS NOT WAS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A US CITIZEN.

It is against Natural Law Obama being an illegal President. GODS LAW.

Gratian: The natural law is contained in the law and The Gospel.

He supplied them with instruction and the Law of Life.

The only way you can be a natural born citizen is born from two US citizen parents.


 
Old 05-01-2010, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,049 posts, read 2,464,841 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus View Post
100% wrong. You've been told this on this site, as well as at Dr. Conspiracy's site. Yet you repeat it.

Since you've been told that you are wrong over and over again by claiming the 2 parent rule, you are now making it up.

Please point out in the Constitution, article and section; where a person's parent's citizenship established their citizenship

The truth or rectitude regarding particular conclusions of practical reason is neither the same for all persons nor known in equal measure even by those for whom it is the same.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top