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.
There is no federal law or SCOTUS decision which states such. The U.S. State Dept even explictly warns in a 2012 publication that such is NOT necessarily true for Constitutional purposes.
Nor state otherwise. That settles it. Yours is just a personal opinion.
The very odd thing about that, Arus, is that given all that verbal meandering, Gray had a golden opportunity to rule Wong Kim Ark a "natural born citizen."
That's frankly stupid... such a ruling would have been both pointless and gratuitous. And yet both the dissenting Justice Fuller and the government attorney George Collins still understood that Gray had actually done exactly that.
Justice Fuller complained that:
Quote:
"I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
George Collins argued before the court that:
Quote:
“For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance aud dignity of citizenship by birth? If so, then verily there has been a most degenerate departure from the patriotic ideals of our forefathers; and surely in that case American citizenship is not worth having.”
Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got. 23 subsequent courts get it. I get it.
US law actually never refers to foreigners, since US jurisdiction does not extend to them unless they are on US soil. And of course, foreigners on US soil are not called foreigners. They are called aliens... the term exclusively used in the US code in reference to foreigners.
That's frankly stupid... such a ruling would have been both pointless and gratuitous. And yet both the dissenting Justice Fuller and the government attorney George Collins still understood that Gray had actually done exactly that.
Justice Fuller complained that:George Collins argued before the court that:
Justice Fuller got it. Attorney Collins got. 23 subsequent courts get it. I get it.
Now you're making even more stuff up. What the hell are YOU smoking?
Irish citizenship law at the time of Kennedy's birth. It is not my fault that none of the sources you referenced bothered to familiarize themselves with it.
Nor state otherwise. That settles it. Yours is just a personal opinion.
No, not my opinion. I've cited U.S. Secretaries' of State actions, and two SCOTUS references (there's more).
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Digest of the International Law of the United States
Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage
Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
That's frankly stupid... such a ruling would have been both pointless and gratuitous.
False.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States toa father who was a native-born U.S. citizen, and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage
Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage.
You only think it would have been "stupid" because your opinion differs from SCOTUS.
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.
