Wong Kim Ark case - US Supreme Court Held there are Two Types of Born US Citizens (enemies, illegal)
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.
In the majority decision of the US Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, the court cited favorably to a prior US Supreme Court case, i.e. the Minor v Happersett case where it was held that the 14th Amendment, as a part of the US Constitution "does not say who shall be natural born citizens", but the 14th Amendment does say who shall be born US citizens.
Ergo: a born US citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.
The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case also recognized unsolved doubts if native-birth on US soil was sufficient to make a US citizen at all.
This was also cited favorably by the US Supreme Court in the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case.
The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Minor v Happersett case, also favorably cited by the majority decision of the Wong Kim Ark case, held that a natural born citizen was a person who was not only native-born on US soil, but also born to US citizen parents.
The majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark also favorably cited cited Horace Binney's recognition of two types of born US citizens.
One being "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and the other being "the natural born child of a citizen".
In essence the US Supreme Court has consistently held that native-birth on US soil does not suffice to make a natural born citizen of the US, but does in most cases suffice to make a born US citizen, and further the court held that the term "natural born" is exclusively peculiar to US citizen parents.
The US Supreme Court has never held or ruled that native-birth on US soil was sufficient to make a natural born citizen of the US.
WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett
Argued: February 9, 1875 --- Decided: March 29, 1875
Quote:
"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."
UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK.
169 U.S. 649 United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18) Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 Decided: March 28, 1898
Quote:
"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."
The notion that native-birth on US soil is sufficient to make a person a natural born citizen of the US has no foundation or precedent in either English law (which many say is what the US law is based on) nor US Supreme Court decisions or holdings.
I see that your other thread on this subject was locked. Probably accidentally. No doubt the Moderators will breath a sigh of relief that you did not take offense at the locking, and gamely started a new thread on the same subject.
I believe that you and Mr. Wong Kim Ark are related?
In the majority decision of the US Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, the court cited favorably to a prior US Supreme Court case, i.e. the Minor v Happersett case where it was held that the 14th Amendment, as a part of the US Constitution "does not say who shall be natural born citizens", but the 14th Amendment does say who shall be born US citizens.
Ergo: a born US citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.
Again, Michael shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Wong Kim Ark explains the exceptions to US Citizenship in quote below:
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.
In the majority decision of the US Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, the court cited favorably to a prior US Supreme Court case, i.e. the Minor v Happersett case where it was held that the 14th Amendment, as a part of the US Constitution "does not say who shall be natural born citizens", but the 14th Amendment does say who shall be born US citizens.
Ergo: a born US citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.
Again, Michael shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Wong Kim Ark explains the exceptions to US Citizenship in quote below:
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."
I know precisely what I am talking about, you simply don't want to accept the truth or you have a comprehension problem. This quote you posted completely agrees with what I have pointed-out about the US Supreme Court decisions and holdings that native-birth has never been accepted as sufficient to make a natural born citizen.
The conclusion in the first paragraph of what you quoted, is based on the preceeding facts, which are merely a re-wording of the English law which simply and clearly held that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject and that native-born children to non-subject parents "are no subjects", because they would be"not born under the ligeance of a subject".
It doesn't change it's meaning because it's re-worded.
To the English, "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"were in fact subjects by local ligeance.
Basically the parents of a "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."were not subjects, according to the English law, which was being referred to in the quote you posted.
Because they were not subjects, their native-born children could not be subjects.
It doesn't matter if they were butchers, bakers or candle-stick makers, the point is that those classes of people were NOT SUBJECTS.
What you quoted was a re-wording of this, taken verbatim from the benchmark English law case known as Calvin's case.
Quote:
"Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. 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."
"This word ligeance is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. Sometime it is called the obedience or obeysance of the subject to the King,"
"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.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered;"
The "same rule" was that the English required a subject father to make a native-born child a natural born subject and that native birth was rejected as sufficient to make a natural born subject, and for this "same rule" to continue to prevail in the US, then a native-born child in US would need to be born to a US citizen father to be a US atural born citizen.
The US didn't and still doesn't embrace aliens as citizens/subjects like the English did, in US they must naturalize by due process to become citizens, renounce all other allegiances and swear an oath of allegiance to the US.
This is where you get mixed up.
The facts contained in my opening post remain true.
.
Last edited by MichaelNo; 05-22-2013 at 12:55 PM..
In the majority decision of the US Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, the court cited favorably to a prior US Supreme Court case, i.e. the Minor v Happersett case where it was held that the 14th Amendment, as a part of the US Constitution "does not say who shall be natural born citizens", but the 14th Amendment does say who shall be born US citizens.
Ergo: a born US citizen is not necessarily a natural born citizen.
It doesn't mater if I was born a US citizen or a natural born citizen, I hold all rights and priviledges afforded by the US Constitution to either. ALL.
I'll let all those that believe there is or should be a difference to fight amonst themselves.
It doesn't mater if I was born a US citizen or a natural born citizen, I hold all rights and priviledges afforded by the US Constitution to either. ALL.
I'll let all those that believe there is or should be a difference to fight amonst themselves.
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.
