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.
This is proof positive that the US Supreme Court in both the Minor and the Wong Kim Ark cases, recognized two types of born citizens of the US, and furthermore that the term "natural born" was understood by the court as being tied to PARENTS and not place.
It asserts that " 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."
Now... would you assert that English subjects, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, are not within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign? Because unless you do, this statement by Justice Gray is actually asserting that everybody, subjects and aliens alike, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, are within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign. And "everybody" includes children at the moment of their nativity.
At the instant of their birth, an infant born in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, was within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign. This is true no matter who the parents are. And it is that instant... the moment of birth... that determined whether or not the individual in question was merely a temporary subject like their alien parents, or a permanent, natural-born subject for all time.
Anytime the "Crown of England" conquered or colonized, it immediately attempted to SUBJECT the indigenous to the Crown. The Crown attempted this on the North American continent.
The British have always been a grasping lot.
Monarchists tend to autocracy, a lot like Islam, convert or die.
In North America, the commoners escaped the British grasp by defining Natural Born CITIZENS as jus soli AND jus sanguinis at the cut off date (or commencement) which was the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
From the INS. This passage shows that native and natural born are separate:
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3)provides:
“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…”
I have asked you twice to show us that. This post will constitute the third time I have asked.
What exactly is the "difference" they recognize? How exactly do they treat one differently from the other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier
Three times in the official INS Interpretation, native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration.
Not true. Three times on that web page native-born and natural-born are given identical treatment. One is never mentioned separately from the other, and one is never treated differently from the other.
So again... What exactly is the "difference" they recognize?
From the INS. This passage shows that native and natural born are separate:
Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3)provides:
“The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…”
Actually... that passage shows they are the same. It treats them identically.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-01-2013 at 10:05 AM..
People have been known to gasp when the British grasp!
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.