Birther brigade going after Rubio now (soldier, state, England, Army)

[Nonarchist]

American Exceptionalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...e_of_feudalism


"It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance... No such ideas obtain here; at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... and have none to govern but themselves... Chisholm v. Georgia, Dallas" Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 2, Pages 471, 472 (1793)"

In the U.S., the Government is the subject.

Sovereign Citizen

[MichaelNo]

Originally Posted by Frank

Originally Posted by Frank

But he wasn't talking about the parents there. He was talking about the people being born.
You fail again.

You so desperately wish, you are full of it, so here again is the quote you rely on from WKA to deceive and spread the lies.

This quote shows how wrong you are again.....i.e. the "aliens" referred to were the parents.

The children of those aliens, were natural born subjects, BECAUSE they were "born under the ligeance of a subject".

The "alien" had to have local ligeance and thus by being a subject through local ligeance, his child was a natural born subject, by being born under the ligeance of the parents.

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.

Keep squirming Frank.

[MichaelNo]

Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier

You will see that the official recognition by the federal government is that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. When you visit the suggested link to the Immigration and Naturalization service, it brings you to “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

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…”

Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides:

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

Three times in this official INS Interpretation, native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example from Interpretation 324.2(b), the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status. Adding these official Interpretations of the INS, published at the official “.gov” site, to the Supreme Court’s opinion from Minor v. Happersett, the true Constitutional definition of a natural-born citizen, as one born in the country to citizen parents, is further reinforced.

So true.

Important to also note that the Wong Kim Ark court in it's decision cited favorably and without opposition to Horace Binney's recognition of two types of born US citizens. i.e. "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and "the natural born child of a citizen".

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.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier

You will see that the official recognition by the federal government is that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated.

You completely failed to answer the question. The text you quote from the INS site makes no effective distinction whatsoever. It treats native born and natural born as if they are exactly the same.

So, try again. Think.

What exactly is the "difference" they recognize? How exactly do they treat one differently from the other?

I'll wait for your answer.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by MichaelNo

Important to also note that the Wong Kim Ark court in it's decision cited favorably and without opposition to Horace Binney's recognition of two types of born US citizens. i.e. "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and "the natural born child of a citizen".

This is, again, a lie. Horace Binney recognized only a single kind of born citizenship, and asserted that it was the same regardless of whether the children were born to citizens or aliens.

Again... as proved by Lord Coke, Sir Blackstone, Justice Gray and the three judge panel in Ankeny, the liegeace that creates natural born subjection/citizenship at birth is a binary, reciprocal relationship. No third person mediates that relationship between the individual and the government.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by MichaelNo

This quote shows how wrong you are again.....i.e. the "aliens" referred to were the parents.

The children of those aliens, were natural born subjects, BECAUSE they were "born under the ligeance of a subject".

The "alien" had to have local ligeance and thus by being a subject through local ligeance, his child was a natural born subject, by being born under the ligeance of the parents.

It is a conceptual step so small that one can only wonder at the deep prejudice that cripples your capacity to take it.

The word you depend upon and capitalize above ("BECAUSE") does not exist in the definition of natural born subject compelled by Calvin's case, It does not exist in the definition of natural born citizen/subject established by Wong Kim Ark. It does not exist in the definition offered in Ankeny. It is fabrication, an invention, an innovation completely unknown to the common law.

Again... the citation from WKA is as follows:

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.

It does not say that the children of aliens are natural born citizens BECAUSE they are children of subjects. Wong Kim Ark is sterile of any such concept. It even still explicitly calls them children "of alien parents." Why would it call them aliens if, as you insist, they are not aliens at all but instead subjects?

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.

Horace Binney tells us this explicitly applies in the US too when he says that "The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts." This is not a qualified statement. It is the unequivocal assertion that under US law citizenship does not descend from parent to child, period. His absolute term "never" brooks no quibble, and means that this must be true for citizen parents as well as alien parents. The citizen child of citizen parents, if born here, did not gain that citizenship from their parents... just as the children of aliens could not. Remember... unlike the temporary liegeance that Coke characterized as making and alien in England a "temporary subject," there is no such thing in the US as a "temporary citizen." Your entire argument depends upon that fact. And along with both you and Binney I agree that citizenship cannot conceivably "descend" from somebody who does not have it.

If, as Binney clearly asserts, citizenship "never descends in the legal sense" then citizenship at birth must have another source... it must arise by operation of some other principle. And again as Binney asserts, the operative principle is "the same" for children of aliens as it is for children of citizens. He even tells us what mechanisms are possible, and (of course) they are the same two and only two mechanisms recognized by the Constitution itself; birth or naturalization. Or as he puts it, "It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute."

"Personally by statute" rules out any blanket grant of naturalization. When US Code asserts that a class of person is a citizen by birth, that does not give citizenship personally. Citizenship can be given "personally by statute" only by an individual act of naturalization. And as we all know (it is after all the reason we have this argument)... a naturalized citizen is not "as much a citizen" as a natural born citizen. There is an actual effective difference between them. Naturalized citizens are ineligible for the US Presidency. In all other respects the rights and obligations of citizenship are the same... but not that one.

So when Binney concludes that "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." he has stated unequivocally that the children of an alien is eligible for the Presidency. If they were not, then his statement would be false. They would not be "as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen."

Under more than 500 years of Anglo-American common law, the principle of jus soli natural-born citizenship at birth has persisted without change. Coke said so, Blackstone said so, Justice Gray said so, Judges Dreyer, Crone and May said so... and the American electorate has said so.

Twice.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Are we England? Are we subject to a monarch?

The irony of this remark has to be noted.

You've gone to great lengths, extraordinary lengths, to arguing that British law takes precedence over a child born in the United States to an American mother. Then, when it doesn't suit you, you remark, "Are we England?" to pooh-pooh the parts of British law that you don't like.

American law doesn't depend on British law. But American law, like British law, is founded on common law. It is up to the American judiciary to spell out the common laws it relies upon, and sometimes that will mean reference to British law, and the common law that provides the legal underpinnings.

[Old Army Soldier]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

It treats native born and natural born as if they are exactly the same.

No it doesn't. Three times in the official INS Interpretation, native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example from Interpretation 324.2(b), the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status. After the 14th Amendment became law, and especially after the 1898 SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark case, there was a divergence, a delineation of the two terms between native v. natural born. Duel citizenship is a modern day creation, and the 14th Amendment that was created by man (not natural), made it necessary for judiciary and government to delineate the two terms. It's that simple

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by Old Army Soldier

No it doesn't. Three times in the official INS Interpretation, native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example from Interpretation 324.2(b), the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status.

Write them a letter, and ask them to tell you the difference between native-born and natural born citizenship.

[Old Army Soldier]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Write them a letter, and ask them to tell you the difference between native-born and natural born citizenship.

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…”