Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 04-05-2013, 02:18 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,565 posts, read 44,283,634 times
Reputation: 13521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
US v. Wong Kim Ark does apply to Obama. More than dozen courts have said so.
Gray himself says it doesn't:
Quote:
"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."
There's no getting around that. Gray himself limited the applicability of his ruling.

 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:20 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,565 posts, read 44,283,634 times
Reputation: 13521
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Those doubts were resolved 115 years ago.
Only in regards to children of aliens permanently domiciled in the U.S. As to those who don't meet that requirement, including Obama, that has not yet been resolved.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,014,220 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Only in regards to children of aliens permanently domiciled in the U.S. As to those who don't meet that requirement, including Obama, that has not yet been resolved.
Nope. They were resolved for everybody.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,014,220 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Gray himself says it doesn't:
Wrong.

Here's (again) is Gray's definition.

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.
No mention of domicile, permanent or otherwise.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:30 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,565 posts, read 44,283,634 times
Reputation: 13521
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
A birth certificate does not a citizen make. I've already cited cases of those born in the U.S. who even after the 14th Amendment was ratified were determined by the U.S. Secretaries of State to NOT be U.S. citizens.

No go, HD. Proven defeatable by our own government's actions.

What else have you got?
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:33 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,565 posts, read 44,283,634 times
Reputation: 13521
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Nope. They were resolved for everybody.
Read the ruling again, HD. It's pretty specific:
Quote:
"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."
There's no getting around that. Gray himself limited the applicability of his ruling.

Any derivatives of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling will also NOT apply to Obama as his father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 02:36 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,565 posts, read 44,283,634 times
Reputation: 13521
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Wrong.

Here's (again) is Gray's definition.
Self-admitted non-binding obiter dicta as Gray himself limited the applicability of his ruling to the single question on the agreed upon facts presented in the case.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,014,220 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Read the ruling again, HD. It's pretty specific:There's no getting around that. Gray himself limited the applicability of his ruling.
More than a dozen courts have had no trouble "getting around that." Of course, that's because the "permanent domicile" of Wong's parents is no more relevant to the ruling than the fact that they were Chinese.


And you still don't know what domicile means. How does somebody actually spend weeks, months, years being deliberately ignorant? You are a goddamned prodigy of nature.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,014,220 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
A birth certificate does not a citizen make.
The State Department says it does.

First Time Applicants

Quote:
When applying for a U.S. passport in person, evidence of U.S. citizenship must be submitted with Form DS-11. All documentation submitted as citizenship evidence will be returned to you. These documents will be delivered with your newly issued U.S. passport or in a separate mailing.

Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):
Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
Naturalization Certificate
Certificate of Citizenship
*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.

Beginning April 1, 2011, all birth certificates must also include the full names of the applicant's parent(s). For more information, please see New Requirement for all U.S. Birth Certificates.
 
Old 04-05-2013, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,014,220 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Self-admitted non-binding obiter dicta as Gray himself limited the applicability of his ruling to the single question on the agreed upon facts presented in the case.
And in order to reach a decision on that question he had to define natural-born citizen as ratio decidendi, not obiter dicta.

Here again is that definition.

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.
Nope. Still no mention of domicile.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top