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.
Exactly. A U.S. citizen does not have diplomatic immunity in the U.S. Note that BOTH the U.S. AND the Irish governments objected when Ireland wished to bestow even honorary citizenship on JFK because of the international legal problems that would cause.
Not to mention, political.
But, Obama did win the Nobel Peace Prize because of his birth.
Exactly my point. Slavery wouldn't be possible if the U.S. did in fact observe and practice English common law in regards to birthright citizenship. If English common law had actually been practiced in the U.S. as you so erroneously claim , everyone born in the U.S. including the children of slaves would be U.S. citizens. It's quite clear that such was NOT the case. Both with slaves AND freemen. The U.S. clearly DIDN'T observe English common law in regards to birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship didn't even exist at the federal level until 1866, at which time one was required to be born in the U.S. and not subject to any foreign power in order to be a U.S. citizen at birth.
The parent has nothing to do with it. The child's ligeance is between them and the king, no third party involvement is possible.
You. Fail. Fractally.
You wish.
Quote:
There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king................
Like I said Frank, this one statement from Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case completely demolishes your silly lie.
Nowhere in the English law was it ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.
In fact Lord Coke expressly rejected native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject when he said .....
Quote:
Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;for HE owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:
And it is to be observed, that it isnec coelum, nec solum,neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.
It's always been about the ligeance of the parents, that's why Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark DECISION ruled that Wong was a "citizen of US" and NOT a natural born citizen, and that's why he favorably cited to Horace Binney's TWO types of born citizens recognition and the Minor court DECISION where it was held that under a "common law" which the Framers of the US Constitution were familiar with, natural born citizen of US was one born in US to US citizens and that there was merit in doubts as to whether a native-born child of an alien (i.e."born within the jurisdiction") was a citizen (not a natural born) at all.
For the English rule to apply in the US, then for a native-born child to be a natural born citizen of the US, the child would have to be "born under the ligeance of" US citizen parents.
Keep squirming Frank, there is more amusement yet to come from you.
Obama's father was a British citizen in Hawaii. So was Obama at the time of his birth. Being in Hawaii does not eradicate foreign citizenship. Obama was indeed subject to the U.K.'s jurisdiction when he was born in Hawaii as he was born a British citizen. The DNC publicly admitted that to be true.
Slavery wouldn't be possible if the U.S. did in fact observe and practice English common law in regards to birthright citizenship.
Don't be stupid. England also practiced slavery until 1833. It was accommodated within the common law under the legal fiction that slaves were property, not persons. Lyman Trumbull already explained that to you. Weren't you paying attention?
Yes. He was one of many, many British citizens in Hawaii and elsewhere in the US who, while present on our soil, are under the exclusive and absoluter jurisdiction of the United States.
Quote:
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.
England also practiced slavery until 1833. It was accommodated within the common law under the legal fiction that slaves were property, not persons.
Those born in the U.S. to alien fathers even AFTER the 14th Amendment were determined by Secretaries of State according to law to NOT be U.S. citizens, except for certain cases involving those of Chinese descent whose parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S.
English common law in the U.S.? NOT in regards to citizenship.
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.
, everyone born in the U.S. including the children of slaves would be U.S. citizens. It's quite clear that such was NOT the case. Both with slaves AND freemen. The U.S. clearly DIDN'T observe English common law in regards to birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship didn't even exist at the federal level until 1866, at which time one was required to be born in the U.S. and not subject to any foreign power in order to be a U.S. citizen at birth.