Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
Informed Consent, go look at Attus Black's comments in post #248. He's at least quoting from the opinion where precedence is cited. That's what I'm talking about when I ask you to reference Justice Grays' arguments...do you see the difference from what you've been posting?
|
Sure, and I read that Gray stated this, as well:
"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."
Quote:
|
...Is there any glimmer of understanding in your eyes?
|
You can opine and throw as many temper tantrums as you like.
Where Gray's obiter dicta
loses any supposed "everyone born in the U.S. is a born citizen" assertion is when he
misrepresents actual history in this passage:
"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."
Even a very brief examination of
actual history reveals the truth that "the same rule" was
NOT in force in the United States afterwards [after the Declaration of Independence].
Four examples just off the top of my head (there are quite likely many more)...
Two U.S. Secretary of State citizenship rulings that those born in the U.S. to an alien father are
NOT U.S. citizens:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/30903314-post391.html
Federal nationality law which states that one must
NOT be "subject to any foreign power" in order to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth:
Civil Rights Acts of 1866
Just one state law in effect
prior to federal nationality law which states that the children of transient aliens (those born to parents who have no established permanent domicile in the U.S.) are
NOT born state citizens and therefore
NOT born U.S. citizens:
The political code of the State of New York - New York (State). Commissioners of the Code, David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, Alexander Warfield Bradford, New York (State). - Google Books
Furthermore, we
KNOW the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS decision was decided upon the facts agreed upon by the parties (specifically including
parents who had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of their child's U.S. birth) because Gray SPECIFICALLY states so:
"the decision of the court UPON the facts agreed by the parties"
You, or anyone else, simply
CANNOT wiggle out of that, djmilf.
