Court: Obama Must Be ‘Constitutionally’ Eligible. Judge Denies President's Motion To Dismiss Georgia Ballot Challenge (government, federal)
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.
I'm really stumped as to how any of you can think that a foreign citizen is a natural born U.S. citizen.
We have no choice. If they are born on US soil and they are not the children of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation, then that is the law; they are natural born US citizen.
The definition of natural born citizen offered in the Wong Kim Ark decision does not even mention domicile.
Apparently, you haven't read the decision. It extensively discusses parents' domicile in the U.S. as a prerequisite for aliens'/foreign citizens' U.S.-born children to be considered U.S. citizens. Several prior court decisions are cited.
Quote:
Virgina Minor's citizenship was never even an issue before the court.
And yet the SCOTUS decision specifically discussed it and specifically stated that Minor's case proceeded on such.
We have no choice. If they are born on US soil and they are not the children of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation, then that is the law; they are natural born US citizen.
Cite the law. You've never cited the law that states such.
We have no choice. If they are born on US soil and they are not the children of foreign diplomats or alien armies in hostile occupation, then that is the law; they are natural born US citizen.
That makes no sense when you take into account why the provision was even put in the Constitution to begin with. If they were afraid that foreigner would become citizens and then become POTUS, what makes you think that they would allow the CHILDREN (if born on US soil) weren't a threat also? This would be too damn easy to exploit if that were the truth. Any foreigner who wanted to usurp the office of POTUS would just have to birth a child on US soil, raise them to usurp the power of the US while remaining loyal to whatever country their parents came from. I couldn't for the life of me see any reason at all that the founders would allow that. That's why the parents being citizens is so damn important.
I'm really stumped as to how any of you can think that a foreign citizen is a natural born U.S. citizen
You are stumped because you insist upon relying on selective quotations.
The paragraph in full:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Now let me parse the above for you so that perhaps you can at last grasp its meaning;
The Constitution does not...say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
In short the Court recognized that their is no doubt that those born of citizens are native or natural born, yet recognizes that their are other authorities who include under the definition of natural born children born in this country regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Most importantly, the Court clearly states that it found no need to decide which definition of natural born was correct.
As a result in no way can Minor v. Happersett () 100 U.S. 1 be held as precedent for determining the definition of natural born citizen. For you can only rely on United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18) which did rule on the question regarding citizenship upon birth.
A child born in the United States, of parents 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, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
Cite the law. You've never cited the law that states such.
OMFG... where have you been for the last three years?
This is the definition of natural born citizen as offered by 500+ years of Anglo-American common law; established explicitly in Calvin's Case in 1608; expounded on in Blackstone's Commentaries in 1765–1769; recounted in United States v. Rhodes in 1866; and settled as precedent in US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.
To whit:
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.
...
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State.
Apparently, you haven't read the decision. It extensively discusses parents' domicile in the U.S. as a prerequisite for aliens'/foreign citizens' U.S.-born children to be considered U.S. citizens. Several prior court decisions are cited.
Of course it discusses it. It also discusses that his parents were Chinese. These were among the basic facts of the case. Certainly you would not pretend that the decisison applies only to Chinese because that was one of the facts of the case.
Or would you?
When time came for the court to define natural born citizen they completely left it out. Domicile never even got mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And yet the SCOTUS decision specifically discussed it and specifically stated that Minor's case proceeded on such.
You really need to get a handle on the difference between dicta and ratio decidendi.
Minor cannot set precedent for an issue that was never even in front of the court.
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.
