I am fond of saying things along the lines of this from March of 2009:
A whole cottage industry has sprouted up finding bogus reasons not to accept a document that for every other Hawaiian citizen is proof of birth in Hawaii, and proof of US Citizenship.
Perhaps in recognition of the need to create jobs in the American economy, Barack Obama has spawned yet another cottage industry with his long-form birth certificate. Lucas Smith sent me an email about the latest such enterprise at Mario Apuzzo’s blog (somewhere I try to avoid if at all possible), which is a repackaging of an article from WorldNetDaily (somewhere else I try to avoid if at all possible), Web expert: Obama certificate falls short in authenticity.
Here is where it gets interesting. The WND argument against the long-form birth certificate (LFBC) deals with an objection related to one discussed here regarding the Lucas Smith certificate (POSFKBC): kerning. Only this time the kerning argument targets the typewritten part of the certificate, not the typeset part of the certificate. WND’s crank expert du jur is named Karl Denninger, whose typography resume includes being a Unix system administrator. (I swear I’ve seen this guy’s picture before.)
Denninger claims that the spacing in the typewritten part is not uniform. One would theoretically expect to see uniform letter spacing in a typewritten document (at least for any common typewriter we’d likely encounter), and we’d expect to see kerning (changes in the space between individual letters based on the particular letter combinations) in a computer word processing document. So here’s the example from the WND article, that purports to show one letter overlapping another:
Click to view WorldNetDaily article
In this image, one can clearly see that part of the “a” overlaps part of the “p”.
The first order of business is to determine whether this image is “real.” Since we don’t have a bitmap image of the LFBC, I made one by taking a screen shot of the PDF shown at 100% resolution. The first problem is that this image is zoomed in 1000% and at that resolution, much of what is shown is “made up” by the paint program.
Obama Conspiracy Theories enlargement
In the version I made, you will note that the letters have gray edges where the WND image is solid black. The gray that my program creates makes it a little easier to see where the program is interpolating (making up based on adjacent image elements). When one zooms in this much, much of what one sees is interpolated. One should question, for example, why the letter “K” has extra black at the bottom that you wouldn’t expect to see in real text, typeset or typewritten. The top of the “a” is closed, and you know the original isn’t
I looked further at the White House LFBC, this time using one of the layers in the Adobe Acrobat PDF. (Yes, Virginia, there are layers). These are great because the text is separate from the background. You can look at this layer for yourself. My observation here is that the typewritten section is not very even, to the point of saying that it is “badly spaced.”
Next, we should ask what should a 1961 typewritten document look like. None of the Kapi’olani long forms I have seen are clear enough to be useful. The best I can do is to look at the 1963 Alan certificate, from another facility.
1963 "Alan" certificate, click for entire image
Here we see distinct variability in the horizontal spacing with the “a” in Hawaii touching the “H.” This is caused by the fact that a typewriter types each letter separately, advancing the typewriter carriage after each letter. If the type bar is not perfectly aligned, it will skew left or right or the letters will not line up vertically. So real typewritten text on an old manual typewriter is uneven, just like the LFBC.
The other problem with the WND story is that word processing programs using a typewriter font don’t do kerning, because these are mono-spaced fonts, which by design are evenly spaced.
Here is an example of a real mono-spaced font (Courier New – bold) in Microsoft Word, and you will notice no kerning overlap.
Courier font with bold attribute
So this is just another WND-grade “expert” with a crank analysis.
WND are desperate right now- their Q2 and Q3 profit outlook has been damaged by unforeseen circumstance.
I actually think that the birther movement is in such serious disarray that they will pivot to a new “conspiracy,” and what’s really fascinating is that I don’t think the ones about the death of Osama Bin Laden are going to be sufficient. Tough times to be a birther.
It’s not uncommon for typing characters to overlap.
There’s nothing there.
WND’s analysis is great, they are the most reliabull news on the internet, we should throw in the towel on this, at least it can clean up some brown stuff. WND out did us, we lost, it is most certain that Obama will not be president in 2017.This makes WND even more reliabull, besides my Soro’s checks stopped coming. Now that Trump is out of the picture maybe you can take over the Apprentice. I would like that, It has become my favorite thing not to do (watch Trump’s Apprentice)
Ya think? What was your first clue? The utter morons spewing this crap or the websites where they are known to congregate?
I think the problem with this is that there isn’t a natural pivot so if this happens it will splinter the birther movement (or what remains of it).
“(I swear I’ve seen this guy’s picture before.)”
Doc, here’s where you’ve seen him before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l69Vi5IDc0g
But-but-but. Obama’s father was a British citizen and Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Constitution in Article XII, Section 47, Clause 682 that Emer deVattel’s Law of Nations says that two American citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen.
Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States but Congress and the Courts are afraid to go after Obama because he’s a black Arab.
I learnt all of that from Worldnetdaily.com
OMFG. That is priceless.
(The video, that is)
Speaking of WND – did you see you can make comments at the end of each and every article using your facebook account? Maybe we should ask Mr. Farah why he hasn’t paid up the 10-15K he owes Kapiolani …
J
Farah doesn’t have to anymore because this birth certificate is such an obvious fake. Experts like the Blendtech guy all agree.
I’d just like to say that I don’t think his birtherism detracts from his fine work in determining what will and wont blend… (my favorite is an iPhone).
“this birth certificate is such an obvious fake.”
Quick, call the FBI, call the CIA, call Corsi, the State of Hawaii is issuing forgeries. Thanks Birthers with your revelation now we can remove the usurper. This certainly guarantees that Obama will not be in office in 2017. Thanks to your diligent rant, what a reliabull source you are., a True Patriot! We need to turn the entire State of Hawaii into a prison to hold all those usurper supporters. Great Job Birthers.
> We need to turn the entire State of Hawaii into a prison to hold all those usurper supporters.
The Pest and eFail is already full with posters calling for Hawaii to be expelled from the Union for “participating in the fraud”. Go figure…
One day the birfers’ parallel universe version of the US will consist of a dozen people on a patch of land the size of a doghouse.
Reminds me of the crackpots who claim their congregation of three is the real Catholic church whereas the Roman Catholic church with its 1.5 billion followers is the fraud. And they call themselves Pope, too!
Just wonder when the first birfers will create their own pseudo-government and declare themselves “President”…
The “sooper-sekret” cRAP masters have been trying that garbage in birtherism for the past few years. Quite a few of the gullible have bought into their extremely out there fantasies. In some sense, the fantasty Grand Jury folks of the past few years would fall in that boat as well.
Patrick over at Bad Fiction has reported on both of them quite extensively.
Here’s a search that will bring up several blog entries that include discussing their wacky exploits in terms of birtherism:
http://badfiction.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a00e553b3b3a78833011571529424970b/search?filter.q=cRAP+masters
Isn’t that just another form of organized crime and terrorism?
“(I swear I’ve seen this guy’s picture before.)”
Bizarro World’s Garrison Keillor?
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQf9XCZqaXqueAyXvpcFjnn5PyiCMJ_WaF9KPjmaqFivk9-c8mlXsPzcy4
….a face made for radio….really good radio, but radio nonetheless.
Dr. C.
Just curious as to why you did a screen shot. I simply loaded it into a PDF tool and kept on zooming in. The results are pretty much what’s seen in the first image – almost like a blown up bitmap. I think it’s an accurate representation of that section of the PDF.
It does seem as if the typewriter is all over the map. There are a bunch of “a”‘s that blend into the next “l”, but not consistently. A lot of the “a”‘s seem to blend into (or close to) the next letter.
I wish I had my old Royal manual typewriter to play around with it.
The more I look at the file, the more I think they must have applied some extreme compression to avoid using up too much bandwidth. I’ve got 8.5×11” scanned black and white documents that are more than 1 MB for each page, with mostly white space. They had to do something to get a color document under 400 KB.
I am still trying to figure out why in blue blazes ANYONE would pay attention to the Secret cRAPmasters. I can’t make heads or tails of their ravings.
As others have often said, ODS causes brain damage…
Does anyone remember back in the 90s, some guy declared himself the president of the independent Republic of Texas?
His embassy was a toolshed.
Everything old is new again.
Dr. Conspiracy makes some good points. But so does WND. How is a non-expert in document authentication to know who to believe? It seems to me that if Obama were to have his long-form birth certificate examined by a real expert, that would do a lot to clear up any doubts. Why won’t Obama allow the birth certificate to be examined by a real document authentication expert?
Because the document has already been verified by the issuing body (the Hawai’i DoH) which is better.
If President Obama were giving your concerns even the slightest of his consideration (he’s not), he would probably conclude that ANYbody that still has some doubts to clear up…ain’t ever gonna vote for him …ever.
I’d guess he’s perfectly happy seeing whatever doubters that remain out there spending their money on WND gold sold at 150% of market value…..or Corsi books sold at 50% of cover price. At least that way he knows it’ll never make its way into the coffers of a viable 2012 presidential opponent.
You could use common sense.
Why would the state of Hawaii link to something that was a forgery? When did they do this forgery? The State of Hawaii made a copy of what was in their vaults on Monday and the docs were released on Wednesday. Two people watched the copying, both of whom swear that what they handed the attorney on Monday was what they had copied from their files. If the forgets made a paper forgery, they wouldn’t need layers, would they? And if they did a PDF forgery, then there wouldn’t be any felt tipped pens, would there?
Of course, birtherism has always suffered from a lack of common sense.
> You could use common sense.
Or Occam’s Razor. The WND theory would require a whole lot of people participating in a huge conspiracy.
Don’t forget the only point where the entire birther story had an inch of “not totally out of this world” was in the very beginning when their theory was “Obama cleverly tricked everyone by hiding/faking part of his life story”.
That version only required one person, and since there’s a documented history of impostors (in my country, a guy who never studied medicine managed to work as a physician in a hospital for over a year before being caught), it would at least theoretically have been possible to be true.
However when these claims were debunked, they went on the looney train into conspiracy land – because to remain consistent, their version of history required complicity by the entire Hawaiian authorities, all of Congress, the entire Democrat and Republican parties, all courts, the entire military and so forth.
With every debunked claim and every new proof to the contrary, they needed to incorporate more entities as “in on it” and to extend the beginning of the conspiracy farther back in time.
I’d add that in the context of a political campaign, where one’s opponents are determined to dig up all the skeletons, it is inconceivable that Obama, even as a Senator, could have kept anything remotely significant hidden.
Another drop in IQ. If WND knew anything about image compression they wouldn’t have anything to write about.
> I’d add that in the context of a political campaign, where one’s opponents are determined to dig up all the skeletons, it is inconceivable that Obama, even as a Senator, could have kept anything remotely significant hidden.
Precisely, that’s where it becomes inevitable to start delving into conspiracy theories if you wanted to keep the argument “Obama has fooled everyone” consistent. Because your argument means the only explanation (other than rejecting the hypothesis which of course is impossible for the birfers) would be “then the political opponents must be part of a conspiracy”. As they say, “and so it begins”. 😉
It’s like starting with “Earth is flat”. This may induce doubts in some people, but as soon as you say “then how do you get from place A to place B in 30 minutes by plane if they are on opposite ends of the plane if Earth were flat?”, you’d have to include the travel companies and the pilots into a conspiracy – like “they pump sleeping gas into the planes to make the 12 hour travel look like 30 minutes, then adjust your watches”. And it still doesn’t add up.
Actually *my* irony meter exploded when Dr Kate started calling the sane people “flat Earthers”. 😉
The only valid comparison is that these crazy, delusional folks truly live in some BIZARRO WORLD in their mind, where reality there is almost completely OPPOSITE of our real world…
I’d like to see the Bizarro dr k(H)ate – loving egalitarian, staunch defender of the Constitution, rational and objective, champion of free speech, believes in the liberal positions of Secretary Clinton (and her boss), etc.
Doc C. – Mario covered this too, but look at the comments from Bdwilcox. He talks a good game.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5727719073129432988
Oh my! Mario, ParalegalNM and MichaelN all in the same place.
The Bdwilcox comment is a straw man argument. He basically says that software different from what the White House used would not act like the White House software.
Boy, Mario does get a bit prickly when someone starts “poking holes” in his theories, doesn’t he?
I liked this exchange…
paraleaglenm said…
“”By chance, I recognize the type as that of a Standard Underwood. The ‘8’ on the Underwood is unique in that it has a lovely serif.
I typed the ‘kerned’ examples using the Underwood. A better example was the ‘ny’ part of Kenya.
However, there is an explanation for the apparent kerning.
If you are a very fast typist, or can type the ‘ny’ or ‘ty’ in quick succession, the kerning effect is perfectly duplicated on the manual typewriter.
Typists are trained to operate the keys in a steady rhythm, but familiar words or letter combinations can be typed faster, faster than the spring can shift the platen over for the next letter.
Note also the bad capitals, the result of the keystroke missing the top of the Shift key . . . that can’t be duplicated easily in a computer font.””
Puzo1 said…
“”Please forgive me but your explanation sounds a bit hard to believe. How does someone like you, who has been working the Obama eligibility issue, just happen to be someone who by chance recognize letters of a Standard Underwood used in 1961?””
to which paraleaglenm responds with this sample typing from his own Standard Underwood…
http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/debunking-birth-certificate-forgery-claims/
Well doggies, Leonard scores a big point in the flyspeck typography department. I hadn’t noticed the distinctive “8”.
I like Mario’s responses to Bdw.
‘How dare you come to my website and shoot holes into my theories.’
So much for being interested in the truth.
I didn’t think much of Mr. Wilcox’s comments…
It seems like all of the paint thinner that the birthers have been huffing is taking its toll…
I also find it humorous that CDR Kerchner, Ret. feels that he knows enough about this subject to definitively conclude that the LFBC is fake and thus calls for immediate investigations and perp walks……while at the same time not knowing enough about the process to know that the DoH would have had no role in the typing of said document…
“”So the typewriters used by the Hawaiian Health Dept office which prepared the 1961 Nordyke long form BC did not kern letters and likewise the typewriters in 1981 did not kern letters.””
Not sure if this was brought up before, but……
I was checking out Nativeborncitizen when I came across their link to this:
http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
It’s from NBC White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie, who apparently was given access (she said she even got to touch it) to one of the certified copies and took a couple of photos. Not super high-res or anything, but save the first photo, blow it up, and you’ll most definitely see where the embossed seal is.
The following is a transcript (should be short enough to be considered “fair use”):
“well, i was actually given an opportunity to look at this birth certificate today. i felt the raised seal, i saw the names, the date, the place of birth. so mr. trump is saying there’s a lot of revelations thanks to him, but the fact remains as it has with the short-form certificate as it has for years, the president was born in honolulu, hawaii .”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/
As far as I can tell, the PDF scan seems to have some extreme contrast setting applied to make the black text stand out. The photos of the real thing look a lot more like I would expect a good copy of a typed document to appear.
Not often, or ever, Dr Con and I agree . . . but I’ve always warned ‘birthers’ not to concentrate on the certificate, but the father.
As a legal researcher responsible for evidence, I would never waste my time on a highly compressed jpeg or PDF, e.g., . . . my example started at 720 dpi, but WordPress ‘lost’ 75% of the image in ‘crunching’ during the upload.
The son of a British citizen/subject would never be considered a natural born citizen by our framers, and the 14th Amendment and other changes to our laws did not ‘revise’ Article II. A future president must have a U.S. citizen father (if the father didn’t become a U.S. citizen ‘at the time of adoption’).
The citizenship of the wife was not of legal importance for 135 years . . . the maiden nationality of U.S. mothers preserved if marrying alien husbands. From the 1920s, an alien parent as a result of the conondrum of ‘dual nationalty’ (or even triple-nationality if one ascribes to jus solis) requires naturalization law to ‘naturalize’ the child up to the age of majority, when alienages automatically expire.
A U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment or 8 USC 1401 is a ‘statutory born citizen,’ the one U.S. parent’s citizenship enabling the ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ clause.
Obama is destroying our economy . . . you all had better rethink your parameters of the role of the Federal Government in our lives, and the destructive potential of a son of an alien Muslim, Marxist in the Oval Office.
It’s your column and your research, so you can make it sound the way you want it to. Nice you can’t even zoom in good but you base decisions from poor viewing. And you state the outcome of just ONE Font type not kerning, I believe computers have more than One font type. Anyways, your research ALWAYS ends up the way you wish it to. Convenient.
Meaningless labels about a father Obama barely knew. A parental label doesn’t tell us much about a child. By that logic, the son of pacifist Quakers, Richard Nixon, should have presided over an era of unprecedented peace. George W. Bush, the son of a Distinguished Flying Cross recipient, should’ve been a Vietnam war hero. Conservative David Frum, the son of liberal Barbara Frum, should’ve been a Democratic speech writer.
And didn’t Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski have decent, upstanding, law abiding fathers?
Things that make you go hmmm. Ted Kaczynski, Jerome Corsi, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all attended Harvard.
As a lawyer licensed to practice in two different states, I call BS. I don’t think you can find a shred of evidence of a single child BORN here who naturalized, certainly not after WKA, which said that children born here of alien parents were CITIZENS and didn’t have to naturalize!
Justice Taney wrote in his decision in Scott v Sandford:
Hmmm, Stock market way up, Creation of jobs ticking up, Auto industry saved and profitable, stimulus saved us from outright depression, etc. etc.
You people with ODS can keep screeching about the (Republican damaged) economy, but you realize it is improving, and by election day it will be much better. Keep hoping for some sort of economic disaster to hit America (like Rush Limbaugh), it is your only chance of defeating The One in 2012
The Framers established a process to alter their thinking on ANY issue, including Article II, Section 1. That process is the amendment process. For example, the Framers were adamant that US Senators should NOT be directly, popularly elected and yet in 1913, the 17th Amendment was ratified which rendered Article I, Section 3 moot. THAT’S WHAT AMENDMENTS DO, they supplant the thinking of the Framers. The 14th Amendment established two, and only two forms of US citizenship: born and naturalized. What part of “All persons…” in the 14th Amendment don’t you understand?
In 2011, there is no constitutional difference between a “Citizen of the United States at birth” and a “natural born citizen.” That is why all 13 challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility that have reached the Supreme Court of the United States have been denied cert or applications for stays and injunctions.
Do you really think that General John Petraeus would leave the US Army to go to work as Director of Central Intelligence for the son of an “alien Muslim, Marxist?”
Do you really think that Chief Justice John Roberts, an acknowledged expert on the history of the US Constitution would have administered the Oath of Office to someone who was ineligible for the presidency?
Barack Obama wrote a book that became a number one best seller about his father’s birth and life in Kenya and he wrote that book 12 years before he ran for the presidency.
69,456,897 Americans put Barack Hussein Obama II in the White House. Those who think that he is destroying America will have the opportunity to fire him on the first Tuesday in November, 2012. I’m betting that he will be rehired primarily because the Republicans have a penchant for running Bob Doles and John McCains.
And with specific regard to the status of Barack Hussein Obama II: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a “natural born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”–Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny, et, al. v The Governor of Indiana, November 12, 2009.
Hi ParalegalNM. Just want to say I enjoyed your comments over at Mario Apuzzo’s site on kerning and typewriters. Much props to you on that, sir.
Welcome back Leonard! At least we agree on one thing…looking at a pdf is a big waste of time…particularly as it would never be introduced as evidence. The paper copy is evidence. A self authenticating document at that….as for the father…well, that’s still a swing and a miss.
Not even close. The framers most certainly would consider a son of a British citizen/subject born on US soil a natural born citizen, and you really have nothing to support your statement, as has been pointed out endlessly here. The framers used a phase they, as men trained in the common law, fully understood the meaning of. Natural born simply means being born on the soil (not to a diplomat parent). Parentage does not enter the equation. There is NO legal support for such a claim.
More B.S. that has no support in the law. While you are correct, that the citizenship of the wife was of little legal importance for much of the history of our country, that was due to naturalization law. A woman marrying a US citizen was considered to adopt her husband’s citizenship, and was naturalized by US law. It is not part of the common law, but a creature of staute, that has long since been disposed of. There is no “conondrum of ‘dual nationality'” In the borders of the US, the US does not recognize a person’s foreign citizenship. You are an American citizen. End of story. Thus there is no need to naturalize anyone born on US soil (unless their parents are diplomats). Again, there is nothing in US law that gives any doubt that a person born on US soil, is a natural born citizen, irrespective of his parents citizenship. We are primarily a jus soli jurisdiction, with some jus sanguinis added statutorily.
Half right. An Amendment, by definition, changes the Constitution. If the 14th Amendment, in any way changes the defintion of citizen (which arguably it doesn’t but clears up any doubts caused by one particularly bad SCOTUS opinion), it is a change to the Constitutional definition, just as passed an Amendment to alter the meaning of natural born citizen to include anyone naturalized before the age of 18, or disposed of the need for a natural born citizen entirely. As for the “under the jurisdiction thereof” clause, that is almost universally understood to mean simply, not a diplomat, i.e. subject to the laws of the US, which includes everyone in our borders, except diplomats.
Because our economy was so much better before he took office? Sorry, but you political views are entirely irrelevant to the question of eligibility, and the fact that you raise them, along with a meaningless string of ad hominem attacks that don’t even have anything to do with his policies, shows your true motivation. I seem to recall the son of a redneck, wife beating alcoholic did a pretty good job as president, while the Connecticut born son of a former president pretty much blew a surplus, dragged us into a very expensive and unneccesary war and tanked our economy.
Here is some reading for you ‘anti-birthers.’ First, from David Ramsay’s Dissertation of 1789 http://www.scribd.com/doc/36590701/Ramsay-1789-Dissertation-on-Citizenship to the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html , to the Reconstruction Acts (Civil Rights Act and Civil Rights Bill of 1866, and the 14th Amendment) and a careful reading of current statute (8 U.S.C. 1401/1952 INA), the primary and natural determination of citizenship is the nationality inherited from the father.
Follow the law as I describe Obama’s nationalities and eventual U.S. citizenship in http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/
As Dr. Ramsay explains, a citizen has a higher level of autonomy and personal sovereignty than a subject. The belies the modern jurists who claim there is no distinction between ‘citizen’ and ‘subject.’ In addition, the jus solis tradition is one of feudal times when all that issued forth from the soil, the waters, and the womb belonged to the Lord (from the Greek, oikos). http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship
The philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and our Naturalization laws from the 1790 Act onwards recognized individual rights of the citizen in his pursuits, unhindered by an oppressor.
The terrible conflicts of law created by judge Horace Gray have resulted in an epidemic of illegal immigration, and loss of sovereignty in a couple Southwestern states, and a dilution of the polity spreading steadily and inexorably, like a cancer, into the rest of the nation.
Of course, this is not only the result of Wong Kim Ark’s creation of a ‘birthright’ citizenship, but, in my philosophical musings, a punishment by God Almighty for our highest court, under Justice Blackmun, legalizing Abortion . . . and our Federal dollars subsidizing so-called ‘family planning.’
How many children were murdered, sentenced to death, without 5th or 8th Amendment rights? How about the repeated ban on Bill of Attainder? 50 million murders of babies since Roe vs Wade . . . 73 times the number of American soldiers killed in every war since the Revolutionary War.
12 to 30 million illegal Mexicans and their children seem to be making up for the loss . . . and as we continue to violate the laws of God and Nature, our U.S. sovereignty is slipping away like sand in an Hour Glass . . . and now, the son of an alien . . . an alien father who’s culture and economics is diametrically opposed and an overt enemy to the U.S. Constitution has been elected Commander in Chief!
Are you sure what side of the issue you are on? God and Country? Or, Traitors . . .
You are obviously not familar witht he story of Dr. David Ramsay. He lost the first congressional election in South Carolina to William L. Smith in 1788. He contested the election in Congress. He wrote a petition, the dissertation and a personal letter to James Madison (he wanted Madison to support the petition).. He said Smith was not Constitutional eligible because both his parents, British subjects, died before July 4th 1776 and because Smith was in Europe continuously from 1770 to 1783. He could not be a citizen for the required amount of time.
In the trial in the House of Representatives, James Madison makes a famous speech in which he says,
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States
And
“What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign”
Ramsay’s petition was deafed by a vote of 33 to 1. Along with Madison, four other signers of the Constitution voted against Dr. Ramsay.
As the the 1790 naturalization act, during the debate, Representative jackson said the following,
“I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone I, 10. “Naturalization,” says he, “cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King’s legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it.” So that here we find, in the nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject“
So he starts by referencing justice balckstone’s Commentaries and then says that we got are ideas on naturalization from England.
You do know that Ramsey wrote his paper because he was a sore loser and tried to come up with an argument that his opponent was not eligible. He wrote Madison several times and his notion was rejected by Madison on the floor of Congress who made clear the citizenship in the US followed jus soli. Nice Try.
The 1790 Act is irrelevant. The debates made clear they were following English law and you can search all day and not find anyone in such period that would say naturalization applied to any native-born person. That is not what the term meant. Such was the only thing the majority and dissents in Dred Scott agreed upon and was repeated over and over in the 14th Amendment Congress. Even, Madison said such was the case and did every early treatise and dictionary.
No one reading that 14th Amendment or Civil Rights Act debates would think citizenship is inherited from the father as no one stated that. You clearly have not read the debates. And, of course, the supreme court has agreed with me which is what matters. Try this link which has dozens and dozens of statements making clear they were adopting jus soli and any opposite claim is just being dishonest.
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/quotations-from-39th-congress-relevant.html
You do realize that after Wong Kim Ark anyone born on US soil is a citizen and no statute can alter that? Are you not aware that anchor babies are citizens? In fact, they are natural born citizens according to Wong Kim Ark. No court has suggested otherwise. Your attempt to read a different meaning into statute will not change that. if you want to change the law, you first have to be honest to what the current law is.
I presume you mean this section
Well firstly this was a naturalization act, not an act declaring citizenship. Section states that the children OF THE PEOPLE NATURALIZED IN SECTION ONE AND TWO AT THE THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION can become citizens upon his naturalization.
Unless you are suggesting that only children born outside the United States can become NBCs, since that’s the only born citizen defined here.
That’s what a careful reading gets you.
My favorite part of James Madison’s quote in response to Dr. Ramsay as Madison argued that jus soli is the American way: “…it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”
That’s right, a Founder, the primary Framer and the 4th President of the United States all rolled into one said that birth in the nation makes it unnecessary to examine any other method of establishing allegiance. It is obvious that all nine of the current Justices of the US Supreme Court agree with James Madison, as Justice Scalia has stated in open Court.
Not one of the Justices has asked for any of the Obama eligibility appeals to be put on the “discuss list” for Certiorari conferences.
All nice and dandy, but one individuals misunderstanding of the nature of citizenship does not change the meaning of the phrase, “natural born citizen,” a term, you’ll note, that does not even appear in the entire text. The founders used a well defined term, “natural born” and unlike the term treason, they did not further define it in the Constitution. That leaves us with the common law definition of “natural born” meaning born on the soil.
All of this is relevant how? Oh yeah…it’s not. Moving right along.
There is no conflict of law, and the rest of your rant is equally irrelevant. I’ll remind you, there was no such thing as an “illegal immigrant” at the time of the founding, so there is no way any of this even has anything to do with the definition of the term. It’s just a zenophobic/racist rant.
Wow….just wow. First off, Wong Kim Ark did not create ‘birthright” citizenship. It has been the law of the land since our founding, slightly complicated by the instution of slavery. Secondly, I really don’t care about your theocratic whinings. The beauty of the 1st Amendment is you can say whatever you want, you can practice whatever religion you want, but I can equally call you a nutter, and say I don’t care in the least what you think about your “God Almight,” and he certainly has no place in our government.
None actually….you see it’s not a “child” until it is born. You have no Constitutional rights prior to birth. The only rights given prior to birht are those given statutorily….and btw, what exactly does any of this have to do with the definition of natural born citizen…Oh, yeah, absolutely nothing. It just shows that your motivations are not rooted in an understanding of the law, but simply driven by pushing a particular world view.
yea…but birthers aren’t really racist….
The “laws of God and Nature” have no place in our courts….check out that 1st Amendment thing in that Constitution thingy you claim to you’re trying to defend…I think it’s pretty clear yo is the real “overt enemy to the U.S. Constitution.”
And you’ll note what else you said “elected Commander in Chief.” Please note the world “elected.” And what exactly does anything about the father President Obama barely knew have to do with anything. Like most of your irrational rant, nothing. All you have done is show that you are not motivated by anything in the law, but rather trying to protect your world view, and trying to build a body of pseudo law around it to excuse your bigotry. You care nothing about the Constitution or our Nation’s laws. Your only interest is to try to hoist your theocratic world view on the rest of the country.
I think it is very clear who is actually on the side of our country. I’m not nearly arrogant enough to claim that I can say that God is picking sides here, or that any particular side is doing a rather good job of living up to what I believe is “God’s work.” As for traitors…I guess I’m far more charitable than you are. I rather say you are misguided, and actually believe that by gutting the Constitution, you are actually defending it, rather than intentionally acting as an American Taliban to turn us into a fundamentalist theocracy.
If there was traitors here, wouldn’t it be the people challenging the legitimacy of the commander in chief in time of war with theories long ago rejected by our courts and for which there is not a shred of evidence where the views of the founding fathers?
You don’t know what you are talking about.
I am on the side of America and the Constitution, therefore of course, I am opposed to your position.
Statutes are created by legislation; they are superior to common law created by a judge.
Of course, the Obama Care legislation, 2700 pages, was not debated or read, but passed on the power of Pelosi and Reed’s control of congress . . . plus BRIBES.
The 1790, 1795, and subsequent naturalization acts are not only clearly jus sanguinis, but that concept specifically superseded colonial reliance on British law.
Yet, you prefer to accept the judicial tyranny of a few stupid judges, whose decisions are not valid if they conflict with the constitution and legislative history . . . and therefore a president of Muslim and Marxist philosophy, born of an alien father.
The U.S. citizenship of his mother was conferred by statute, or Positive Law . . . not contributing anything to Natural Born Citizen status. He was born out of wedlock, if one dismisses the father’s lie to authorities that he performed a verbal divorce of Kezia, with no Apostilles of Divorce as proof . . .
Prior to statutory protections of maiden citizenships of U.S. women who foolishly married alien husbands, her citizenship automatically converted to the husband. That was the law for the first 135 years of the United States. Prior to those laws, if an immigrant woman married a U.S. husband, she automatically became a U.S. citizen. See Perkins vs Elg.
The Test of the validity of Jus Sanguinis, and the disasterous results of judiciary interference in that law by declaring Jus Solis, is rampant illegal immigration, and a president born of an alien father whose heritage and philosophy is Antipathetic to the U.S. Constitution . . . It is Barack Hussen Obama who is the Traitor . . . and you who blindly support him.
I prefer the term “seditionists” (with due credit to Bill Bowman who first used the term to describe Birthers like Sharon Rondeau). “Traitors” implies that they may have had one iota of success. They have not.
> The U.S. citizenship of his mother was conferred by statute, or Positive Law . . . not contributing anything to Natural Born Citizen status.
The type of citizenship of the mother plays no role, no matter whose NBC/citizenship definition you follow. There is no “children of natural born citizens are better than children of naturalized citizens”.
> He was born out of wedlock
The marital status of the parents plays no role, no matter whose NBC/citizenship definition you follow. There is no “children born in wedlock are better than children born out of wedlock”.
> rampant illegal immigration
During the times of the Founders, there was no “illegal” immigration. You keep wanting to have the cake and eat it. You want us to live some things as the Founders did but others not. Inconsequential.
> a president born of an alien father whose heritage and philosophy is Antipathetic to the U.S. Constitution
The “philosophy” or the “heritage” of the father plays no role in the US Constitution in this universe (after all, had Obama Sr. naturalized one day before the President’s birth, you’d really be stuck without anything to complain about, right? And how would naturalizing remove his father’s “heritage and philosophy”? Riddle me that, birther!). What parallel Bizarro World are you talking about again?
That may be but only for children born ouitside the United States.
Also from the Congressional Debates on the 1790 Naturalization Act:
“Mr. Burke – The case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III.“
They model the 1790 Naturalization Act on English Laws.
Wow, more nonsense. The Constitution is not the common law and an interpretation of the Constitution supercedes any statute. If you don’t know that, you shouldn’t do legal research.
You simply don’t understand naturalization statutes. They didn’t supersede British law, they said they were copying British law. English naturalization statutes were also jus sanguinis as they were meant for the foreign born as the native born were already subjects. Same think in this country as we said we were copying them. Duh. . Please show any court that has ever said otherwise. Oh, you don’t want to cite judges. Well show any legal authority that said anyone born on US soil had to be naturalized.
The people who have written our modern statutes knew what Wong Kim Ark said and you have to realize such statutes accordingly were written to only apply to the foreign born.
The fact is that I can cite case law, scholars, legislative history all day supporting my position. What can you cite. I’ve seen nothing so far.
True, but when a term has been enshrined in the Constitution, legislation cannot be used to change the meaning of the term, thus changeing the Constitution by legislation…and it is quite immaterial, in that nothing has even been done to change the core definition of natural born citizen to be a person born on US soil. It may have been expanded to include those like McCain born over seas, and that is a question that has not been resolved by the courts. But there is no question that you cannot take away by legislation that what is granted by the Constitution.
Irrelevant.
They grant citizenship to those born overseas. Are you imlying you have to be born overseas to be a natural born citizen? The 1790 and 1795 acts are irrelevant. They are naturalization acts. They are part of Congress’ Constitutional power to pass acts on naturalization. This has nothing to do with those born citizens. By the Constitution, we are jus soli. Congress has expaneded, by legislation, to include some aspects of jus sanguinis. Congress, by legislation, cannot strip away Constitutional rights, and the 1790 and 95 acts did not even attempt to do so. It was an attempt to broaden the grant of citizenship.
See the difference is that I accept the WHOLE Constitution, and wish to defend the ENTIRE document….not just those that are convenient to me while I go on my crusade to build a fundamentalist theocracy where only people like me are permitted to hold office. I have no interest in building the American version of Iran in the US. The Constitution gives those “few stuipd judges” the power to interpret the Constitution. The founders, in their great wisdom gave them this role. You see, in our system of checks and balances, they are a co-equal branch of government with the other two. Their power is checked by the abilty to re-write legislation to comply with the Constitution, or through Amendment. However, you have provided no evidence that the decision in question convlicts with either the Constitution, or any legislative history (and legislative history hardly is a trump on much of anything….just ask Scalia). And as much as you hate it. President Obama is still President. You can stomp your feet all you want and pretend his father that he never really knew means something in this equation, but the reality is, it doesn’t matter, and more of “We the People” voted for him, than any man in our country’s history.
The President’s citizenship is conferred by birthright. He is born on the soil. Neither of his parents were diplomats. It is not the product of any statute. End of story. He is a natrual born citizen.
All irrelevant. Granting a woman citizenship if she married a US Citizen husband is “naturalization.” It has nothing to do with the fact that President Obama’s citizenhip.
No…it is just bigoted ramblings, and no test at all. You seem to forget that at the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was no such thing as an illegal alien. We had open borders. So how could any of this be a test of anything? Sorry, Barack Hussein Obama is the President. End of story. I support the duly elected and sworn President of the United States, to the same extent I did for every other President before him. I blindly follow no one. Do I know if you are a traitor? You are at least misguidedly working to undermine our lawful goverment. To what extent you genuinely are working to destroy the system of government that has operated reasonably well for over 2 centuries, I do not know. That is between you and your god.
It never ceases to amaze me as to how on paper many birthers can be quite lucid for very brief periods and then, as if at the flick of a switch, suddenly turn into raving bigots with an articulation style and logic pattern indicative of some mutant form of Tourrette’s minus the profanity.
Welcome back paraleaglenm
Here’s what the 14th Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…
NOT all men. Mom’s citizenship comes from the Constitution. Remember that thing? Supreme law of the land?
Or, are you arguing that women are not persons?
Anyway, it was clear to James Madison (guy who wrote the Constitution) that the thing that mattered most was place of birth. The children of aliens were citizens. It has always been thus. Julia Lynch is a good example. Born here of alien parents, and the judge said that it was universally understood that she was a citizen, universally understood that she was a natural born citizen!
And a woman!
Unsurprisingly, your analysis, in addition to being legally deficient, is historically flawed as well. There was no law preventing immigration until long after the Civil War, so there could be no illegal immigration.
Despite this, there were concerns about the flood of Chinese immigrants. So much so that that was the reason many people voted against the 14th Amendment – it would make the children of those Chinese immigrants into citizens. (And eligible for the Presidency!)
Anyway, the simple fact is that Obama is the President, confirmed by Congress. Everyone knew that Obama’s dad was Kenyan – he wrote a friggin’ book about it. Despite this common knowledge, 67 million people voted for him. That’s more people than have ever voted for a President in the history of the United States.
If you are convinced of your correctness, Paralegal, publish a legal article on the subject. With footnotes. The legal community is unanimous in its judgment that you are 100% incorrect, and there is no way that posting in comments here is going to change that!
Which statute was that?
Paraleagalnm: Why was Barack Obama nominated by the Democratic party, placed on 50 state ballots plus Washington D.C., and certified as President if he was ineligible? The facts of his father’s heritage and citizenship status at the time of his birth have been a matter of public record since long before the election. If they truly were a disqualifying condition, he would not have been nominated much less elected.
If you want to argue legislative supremacy, then you cannot deny the supremacy of Congress to determine presidential eligibility under the 20th Amendment. Yet you have asked a few stupid judges (as you called them) to exercise judicial tyranny (as you called it) to overturn the will of the voters, the Electoral College and Congress.
I nominate you for Hypocrite of the Century, and even though there are still 89 years to go you are a solid favorite.
No . . . my solution is for congress to debate the 14th Amendment, its legislative history, and revise 8 USC 1401(a) to define ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to be a unique modifier of ‘persons born in the United States coming directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act ‘not subject to any foreign power.’
That would essentially void Wong Kim Ark’s definition of citizenship at birth, and all cases that followed Ark.
This is too important an issue to leave to nine lawyers in black robes . . . after all, they screwed it up in the first place in 1869, through 1982’s Plyer v Doe.
If you hate my opinion, but want to know the law, read my wordpress blogs, specifically A Timeline of Barack Obama’s Nationalities and Citizenship, and Barack Hussein Obama–A Natural Born British Subject.
The court would overturn such a “definition” (or what they call on Looney Tunes a Daffynition). Anyway, it’s a myth to say that anyone in the US is “subject to a foreiign power”. No foreign country has any jurisdiction over anyone on US soil, regardless of their citizenship. For example France has no jurisdiction over Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He will be tried in a US court and if convicted serve time in a US jail. The only effect his citizenship would have is that he would be liable to deportation after he served his time, rather than being released onto the streets of New York.
Let me guess. Obama born To obama, subject to the 1948 nationality act. kenya became independant when Obama II was 2, lost British citizenship, gained Kenyan dual citizenship. Obama II Lost kenyan citizenship when he was 23 as Kenyan constitution dows not alow dual citizenship after that age and he lost it as he never renounced US citizenship.
Guess what? WE KNOW. It was on Barack Obamas fight the smears website in 2008 and nobody raised a peep. Do you think for 1 second Obama would have left that on his website if he thought it would cause him problems down the line? The guy taught constitutional law for goodness sake. He knows this stuff.
Guess what, people have known that his Dad was not a naturalized citizen since his book came out 16 years ago. No-one thought it was a problem. No-one seriously still does. Get over it.
Those born on US soil were ALWAYS citizens regardless of their parent’s citizenship, going back to colonial times and the early days of the republic, barring those who were excluded for racial reasons (slaves, free blacks from Dred Scott until reconstruction and Chinese pre-Wong). Take the case of Patrick and Mary O’Leary who arrive on the docks of New York in 1810. Mary is pregnant and gives birth 10 minutes after landing. That child was a natural born citizen even though the parents were irish citizens.
If you wish to dispute this, cite me a case where someone born on US soil was ever naturalized (other than a few children of diplomats). No one has ever been able to cite such a case.
So you think Congress debating a 100 year old Amendment, whose definition hasn’t been questioned in for most of that century, and trying to redefine its meaning through legislation will survive a Supreme Court challenge? Yeah….good solution.
No, it would be rightfully shot down by the Court. The Amendment has a clear meaning on its face. You don’t need to go any further. You don’t get to change the meaning of the Constitution through legislation.
You mean those people that the Constitution puts in charge of resolving disputes under the Constitution? Funny how you guys are so eager to destroy the checks and balances in our Constitution to “defend” it.
Wow…a paralegal that not only has spent a single day in law school but doesn’t even have a bachelor’s degree feels qualified to determine what is the law better than the Supreme Court. It would be funny it it wasn’t so insanely arrogant.
No thank you. I will continue to look where my law school taught me to find the law. In the statutes and case law, and not the mad ramblings of a sometime paralegal.
It would also void our Constitution as passed since it clearly recognizes two kinds of citizens: natural-born and natural-ized.
The 14th did not create citizenship, it merely clarified the Constitution’s meaning.
It is also too important to leave to a Congress that can change that definition after every election. No, your solution is weak, the only real solution is a Constituitonal amendment that defines natural born or that completely rewrites the Presidential eligiblity clause.
Why don’t you get started on that, and keep us informed of your progress.
Just curious…
Why is it only too important for SCOTUS when YOU lose?
Why is it that they only “screwed up” when YOU lose?
Hmmmmmmmm?
Do you really have no understanding of Constituional law at all? Do you really think Congress can overturn Wong Kim Ark? And Congress did debate the subject in 1866. Did you not look at the link I provided to you where everyone who spoke on the the issue in the 39th Congress said they were adopting birthright citizenship. Not one person said jus sanguinis was relevant. Have you actually not done any research on this at all? Again, try reading what such Congress said:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/quotations-from-39th-congress-relevant.html
No honest person could read these citations and take your position.
I see you wrote on your blog:
You don’t cite any authority for that, and it rather runs counter too pretty much everything I’ve read. Consider this one:
That rings true to me.
Clap Clap Clap…
There is so much confusion about native and natural which are, for most practical purposed quite similar. Which is why the two terms were used quite interchangeably
Oh boys . . . take a look at my debunking forgery site now.
http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/debunking-birth-certificate-forgery-claims/
You are in for a big surprise!
Dual nationality only began when statutes preserved the nationality of the mother/wife, or when jus solis principles conflicted with jus sanguinis.
Jus solis was a feudal concept in which all issue, from soil, seed, water, or womb belonged to the Lord and the King.
Yet, England created a law in 1772 that assured English allegiance by ‘descent.’
The jus solis model is best suited to a totalitarian sovereignty; allegiance is for life, only revocable by act of treason. Judicial adoption of jus solis principles for granting citizenship at birth, created conflicts with children having the nationality of an alien parent as well as U.S. birthright.
“And this maxim of the law [jus solis] proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”
Later, this problem of jus solis in a foreign sovereignty not under the King’s dominion is solved, “[I]t was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III st. 2, that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England . . . The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.” The Laws of England: In Four Books,’ p 232, William Blackstone.
The United States parted ways with English jus solis. In 1789, the year the Constituition was ratified, Rep. Ramsay, also a doctor, submitted a dissertation arguing for the adoption of jus sanguinis, which you can read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/36590701/Ramsay-1789-Dissertation-on-Citizenship .
Less than a year later, and only ten months after the much analyzed Case of Mr. Smith (May, 1789) in which Dr. Ramsay testified, the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act was passed, relying solely on jus sanguinis, as all of our naturalization laws have since. http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
Yet, jurists kept stuck on jus solis English principles, even though U.S. legislated acts voided the following of that foreign statute. These jurists were too well read in Blackstone, and classically trained in English law, to the extent they refused to accept the letter of the law of the 1790 Act, et seq.
Now all you got to do is convince Chief Justice John Roberts that he has been a doodyhead and is wrong, wrong, wrong, before he swears President Obama in again for his second term.
Good Luck.
BTW-
A dear friend of mine is a Muslim who fled Iran during the revolution. I’ve gotten to know many of his family members here in the U.S., and listen to stories of his longing for friends and family still in Iran.
Maybe if you actually went out in the real world and actually met a real Muslim, you wouldn’t think they are all the boogyman. It’s OK to grow up.
Although I can see why this one might scare you:
http://tinyurl.com/3oxeuo7
> http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
You know, the funniest thing is that if I read this with the mind and IQ of a birther, I would take
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”
and claim that *no person born on US soil* can be an NBC since that definition does not include them (and does not say “shall *also* be …”). You know, the typical “necessary vs. sufficient” impairment all birthers have?
Next, I would like to quote:
“The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years”
So how come birthers claim “under the jurisdiction” means “having sole allegiance”, given that the persons referenced in this sentence definitely have foreign allegiance because *they are not US citizens yet*?
Dude, everything you link to undermines your birfer points so thoroughly, it’s no wonder birfers usually don’t reference their wild claims.
Dr. Ramsay lost! You’re quoting a LOSER! Not surprising, since the “jus soli is feudalism” argument was part of the brief in WKA, again, from the LOSING side! Your arguments have been tested, paralegal, and found wanting!
This reliance on REJECTED arguments might explain birthers 0-76 record!
The supposed link between jus soli and totalitarianism is absurd, unless you consider jus soil countries like the US, Canada and Brazil to be totalitarian. The list of jus soli countries covers much of the New World as well as some in the Old World.
But the truth is that virtually every country today has a mix of both soli and sanguinis citizenship, extending citizenship both to those born in the country and to the descendants of citizens born abroad. There is nothing particularly unique about US citizenship laws. Even the granting of birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented aliens is shared with Canada. The only difference is that in Canada that could be changed by Parliament (something even the current Conservative government shows little desire to do).
But here is the most important point. The American Revolution was not about citizenship laws. Rather, it was about the rights of the people to choose their leaders and govern their affairs. Even the leaders of the Revolution were content to be British subjects, had they been granted those rights. So, the American people have an absolute right to choose a President free from the interference of busybody paralegals.
Actually, they wrote such a law in 1350. So, you’re 400 years off.
You know, there are books about the law of citizenship. You could read them.
One more thing. Of the 200 or so countries in the world, as far as I am aware, there is not a single one in which a child born in the country of a citizen mother would not be a full citizen at birth and would not be eligible for any office upon reaching adulthood, assuming they made that country their home. That is the reality in the 21st century, which is the century I live in. You can, if you wish, pretend you live in the 18th (or more precisely your fantasy version thereof), but I will take a pass on that, thank you very much.
Why is Leonard Daneman not posting under his normal handle?
Sorry paraleaglenm. Your arguments make no sense. All you can cite is a paper by a sore loser whose argument was rejected by Madison himself. Can you show anyone that cited Ramsey’s paper ever. Why do you not cite the actual legal scholars of the period like Tucker, Kent, Story, Dane, Rawle, Swift, Binney, Duer, Burrell, Bouvier, Townsend and on and on. Oh, they all say the United States adopted jus soli. Gee, every scholar of the period says you are wrong. Why not cite some early case law like McCreery’s Lessee v. Somerville, Garder v. Ward, Ainslie v. Martin, State v. Manuel, Leake v. Gilchrist, Barzizas v. Hopkins, Ludlam v. Ludlam, Tobin v. Walkinshaw, Commonwealth v. Alger and Hutchinson, Jackson v. Sanders, State v. Claiborne. Of course, these don’t count either as they also say you are wrong. To you, all that counts is a self-serving opinion by a non-lawyer that was rejected by Congress and the father of Constitution. Great argument.
Seriously, I still don’t understand your 1790 Act argument. Do you not understand that England adopted numerous jus sanguinis statutes giving children of subjects born oversees the status of natural born subjects. Of course, such didn’ t change the application of jus soli for the native born. Similarly, Congress said they were copying England and adopted a jus sanguinis statute giving children of citizens born oversees the status of natural born citizens just like England. Why would such statute change application of jus soli to the native born in the United States if it didn’t in England? Of course, no one suggested it did but you. Naturalization statutes have to be jus sanguinis as they, by definition, apply only to the foreign born and hence cannot be jus soli. Duh. Do you see any mention of the native born in any naturalization statute in the United States or England. No. you are simply mixing apples and orange. The fact is you can provide no actual legal authority from the period saying jus soli wasn’t the law for the native born.
Since, you obviously don’t want to look up what “naturalization” means, i thought I would help you:
“The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 417
“It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.” Justice Curtis, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)
“But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” Justice Swayne, United states v. Rhodes (1866)
” I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress ; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they arc made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868)
NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America…… ALIEN, persons. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, who has not since been naturalized under their constitution and laws. To this there are some exceptions, as this children of the ministers of the United States in foreign courts. See Citizen, Inhabitant. Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
Naturalization. That process by which an alien becomes a citizen….An alien is one who is born in a foreign country. Analysis of Civil Government, By Calvin Townsend, pg. 325 (1869)
NATURALIZATION. [Lat. naturalizatio.] The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native or natural-born subject or citizen.* Co. Litt. 129 a. 1 Bl. Com. 374. 2 Kent’s Com. 64—67…..Alien: In american Law. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 81,737 (1851)
I’m just curious why he keeps bringing up naturalization law as Obama was born on US soil and wouldn’t be naturalized
It’s called obfuscation.
It’s the tactic of needlessly complicating a simple concept, in concert with huge amounts of extraneous verbiage, proclaimed in stentorian tones with obtuse and dramatic gesticulations, in order to attempt to divert attention away from the reasonable and well substantiated conclusion which you find distasteful, but cannot honestly refute.
Naturalization is the removal of alienage by positive law, i.e., naturalization law.
A child of two U.S. citizen parents of legal residency has NO alienage; that child does not require natural-ization law and is therefore a natural born citizen. See dica obiter in Minor vs Happersett.
It is that simple folks . . . jus solis always introduces conflicts for it is an un-natural system of inherited rights, i.e., it only represents action a condition created by the state, not the natural parents.
And the same is true if 1 or 0 parents are citizens. Never has a child born in the US (except for a few children of diplomats) ever been naturalized, whether 0, 1 or 2 parents were citizens. I challenge you to show me case where that happened.
Please. There will be conflicts as long as there are nations. If a US-naturalized Polish woman marries a US-naturalized Greek man, their children will be US/Polish/Greek citizens since neither Greece, nor Poland give a flying fig about the naturalization of their former citizens. And they’re both jus sanguinis nations.
Now, if that Polish woman had Irish parents, and the Greek man had Italian parents, the child would be a US/Polish/Greek citizen with nearly automatic Italian or Irish citizenship upon request.
Tell us how having jus sanguinis makes these situations any less conflicted?
Legal scholars have known about these conflicts forever. They discussed them in Lynch v. Clarke.
And, Lynch goes on to note that the rule of jus sangunis creates just as many conflicts. “The other rule is more liable to the charge of injustice, viz: claiming as American citizens those born in other countries of American parents.”
You are paralegal, right? Don’t people that hire you ask you to provide legal authority to support assertions? You wouldn’t last very long as a paralegal around here as you cannot cite any authority to support your silly assertions. No one cares about your own personal definition of “naturalization” as I have pointed out such definition was not the definition in England or America in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Yes, the Minor language is dicta and in the next line the court expressly declines to address the issue of children of aliens under the common law. Again, if you are a paralegal who is supposed to know something about the law, you would know one cannot cite Minor on the issue of children of aliens since such court didn’t address such subject. Of course, such language is nevertheless dicta. We, however, have pointed out over and over again that Wong Kim Ark’s definition of natural born citizenship is not dicta and hence is binding precedent. I suggest you spend some time reviewing old posts here on the subject and learn something.
Have no idea what this is supposed to mean. All historical legal authority says jus soli was the historical rule. No one cares if you think it created an “un-natural system of rights.” Do you really think that is a legal argument? What is clear is you can cite no early authority to support your position and no court will care about your personal opinions.
No one born here needs naturalization law Leonard. This has been pointed out to you before. There are only two types of citizens natural born or naturalized. You do not need to be naturalized if born in the US
Minor v Happersett also observed that it did not need to address the status of a child born to two alien parents and thus in US v Wong Kim Ark, the Court had to address this issue and found that such a child is indeed also natural born.
Bummer
I just wonder why anyone would post on a blog full of lawyers that alienage had anything to do with the citizenship or residency of the parents when the Supreme Court and every significant legal authority in the 18th and 19th century said it related solely to place of birth subject to the common law exceptions. Do these people think that just making stuff up and posting it is going to do anything other than have us mock their ignorance.
Gee . . . the judiciary never gets anything wrong (can you say 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals?) . . . it is either jus solis or jus sanguinis . . . relying on both creates dual nationality and conflicts . . . read my Blackstone cite.
The 1790 Act is specifically jus sanguinis, yet judges found a way to insert jus solis . . . therefor the conflicts of law and dual nationality.
You might have a point if we were discussing a recent decision that has the potential to be reversed, rather than 100 year old precident, that remains good law. Is there a reason why you even wasted our time with this abjectly rediculous comment?
Says who? You? Balderdash. A nation is free to mix and match as they please, and guess what, the US does.
Realing on just sanguinis creates dual nationality. And there is no conflict. A nation of which you are a citizen has no obligation to recognzie any other citizenship while you are within its borders.
I haven’t seen any quote by Blackstone or anyone else that helps you here.
See you have it back @ss backwards. We are a jus soli nation. The 1790 Act is a NATURALIZATION ACT for those born abroad. It has NOTHING to do citizenship of those born on US soil. It is not that judges are finding a way to insert jus soli into the 1790 Naturalization Act. The 1790 Act was introducing an element of jus sanguinis into our jus soli citizenship. For the love of god, if you took the time to read the darn thing and spent 2 seconds thinking about it, this would be readily obvious.
There is a very good reason why paralegals aren’t permitted to practice law….they aren’t qualified to do it. You’re probably best off focusing on your photography and leave the law to those trained to practice law.
The ignorance and arrogance of these delusional birthers goes hand in hand.
How pathetic.
Still don’t understand what argument you are trying to make. The 1790 Act was jus sanguinis with respect to foreign born persons just like English statutes. Do you really not realize that such statutes meant nothing to persons born in England and America. Do you not see that such statutes say nothing about persons born in the United States. Really, this is getting silly. You clearly don’t understand the difference between natural born and naturalized citizens or subjects. Please explain how England maintained jus soli for its native born when they adopted nearly identical statutes as the 1790 Act. Do you really not understand that the natural born needed no naturalization?
You still obviously not looked up what “naturalization” or “alien” meant in such period. As with most birthers, you simply ignore my citations from the Supreme Court and early scholars as you don’t want to know the truth. Since you don’t seem to know what “alien” means, I thought I would help you a bit:
“But to return to the subject of alienage—an alien, according to the notion commonly received as law, is one born in a strange country and in a foreign society, to which he is presumed to have a natural and a necessary allegiance.” James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, Vol. II, pg. 291 (1896)
“An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power. ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“An alien is one who is born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, subject to some foreign government, and who has never been naturalized under the constitution or laws of the United States, or any of them. There must be a union of birth abroad and subjection to some other power, as one may be born abroad and still be a citizen of the United States.” John Houston Merrill, Charles Frederic Williams, Thomas Johnson Michie, David Shephard Garland, The American and English encyclopedia of law, Volume 1, pg. 456 (1887)
“As distinguished from a subject or citizen, an alien is a person born in another or foreign country, or out of the allegiance or jurisdiction of the government as to which his status is to be determined. 2 Kent’s Com. 40; Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 456; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583; S. C, 3 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 236.” William Wait, Edward Cookingham, A treatise upon some of the general principles of the law, pg 459 (1879)
“An alien, by the definition of the common law, is a person born out of the jurisdiction and allegiance of this country, excepting only the children of public ministers abroad, whose wives are American women. ” Theophilus Parsons, The law of contracts
pg. 344, (1857)
“An alien, is one born in a strange country.” John Elihu Hall, The American Law journal, pg 56 (1817)
“Alien: In american Law. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.” Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 81 (1871)
“An alien is one who is born in a foreign country.” Analysis of Civil Government, By Calvin Townsend, pg. 325 (1869)
“ALIEN, persons. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, who has not since been naturalized under their constitution and laws. To this there are some exceptions, as this children of the ministers of the United States in foreign courts. See Citizen, Inhabitant.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
Dual nationality is created by people moving froom one place to another and choosing to procreate wherever they happen to be, which they have always done. Your supposed problem (which really isn’t a problem since there are both benefits and drawbacks to dual nationality) results from the simple fact that different nations have different laws. I suppose we could have a UN conference and get every country to agree to uniform citizenship laws. Good luck with that. You would be the first to demand the US not sign such a deal.
Really? Can you name me a single country today that is purely one or the other???
And, of course, in 1787, it was jus sanguinis that would produce dual nationality as the two most important countries in the world at such time, England and France, followed jus soli. Hence, our claim to citizenship to anyone born in those countries would create conflict. England had jus sanguinis for persons born in the United States to British subject, however, they never claimed the allegiance of such persons unless they went back to England. There was no conflict as England understood jus soli to be the rule of both countries.
The dual nationality thing is just a canard anyway since the 1790 Act itself implicitly recognized it would be creating dual citizenship for children of citizens born oversees as such children would most likely be citizens of the country or their birth and recognized that we would naturalize persons from foreign countries like England and Prussia which held the allegiance of their native born to be perpetual. Everyone understood this. Is it really the case that birthers have done no research and don’t understand any of this?
If you are worried about conflicts, paralegal, you’ll have to have the United States conquer the world or have us join the new One World Government. If we adopt jus sanguinis, it conflicts with other nations when our children are born abroad. It conflicts when children are born here from parents whose countries don’t care about naturalization (Greece or Poland for example).
And if a nation is pure jus soli, a pure jus sanguinis system risks stateless children.
If there are other nations with their own citizenship laws and people who move around, you will have conflicts. Period. We have always dealt with such problems by ignoring them. They aren’t that big a deal, just a fact of life! Spiro Agnew was no less American because Greek claimed he was a citizen.
No you just get everything wrong Lenny. Naturalization law has nothing to do with those born inside the country.
Wrong. Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Kansas, making her natural born.
I really pity whomever you do research for, if that’s actually what you do for a living. Your research is so sloppy and so inaccurate that the average legal secretary would laugh hysterically and tell her boss that he’d better get a new law clerk.
That’s just totally sloppy research… Geez and he refers to himself as paralegal? Makes sense if you think about it.
The act shows how the Framers believed that the children born abroad would not be considered citizens under the Constitution and thus they provided for their citizenship. While initially the act stated ‘natural born’ that was removed as it was apparently not clear if Congress could use statute to declare people natural born…
If the Founders had believed that the rule was jus sanguinis, they would never felt the need to take care of children born abroad…
QED
“Citizenship is established by the laws of each individual country. Those laws are generally classified into two types: jus soli, in which citizenship is based on the place of birth, and jus sanguinis, in which citizenship is based on the citizenship of one (or both) parents.” Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Cal 1991), affirmed , Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 985 F. 2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)
England applied both principles in order to protect inherited rights to its subjects if outside British dominions.
In 1772, as noted by Blackstone, England protected those on commercial ventures, accompanied by their wives, by making subjects by descent equal to those born within the dominion.
Even today, Great Britain has two classifications, those citizens by descent, and those otherwise than by descent. Obama, under the 1948 British Nationality Act was a citizen by descent, except his father failed to assume his role as father. The child was not supported, nor registered with the British Sec of State as required.
In the American colonies, only jus solis applied because they were confined in jurisdiction within state borders.
When the colonies became free states in the union, the federal government, under Article I, Sec 8, adopted jus sanguinis as the standard principle, as evident in the 1790 Act, et seq.
Observe, that when the judiciary, without subject matter jurisdiction on naturalization law by the Plenary Powers Doctrine (see Chirac vs. Chirac as cited, then conveniently ignored in Wong Kim Ark), assumed Art III power over naturalization law and introduced the jus solis principles of English law, long superseded and without authority or value as precedent, this introduced conflicts of law . . . jus solis and jus sanguinis cannot exist together simultaneously within a nations’ borders.
You have tried to isolate jus sanguinis in the Acts (1790, et seq) to those born overseas, etc., but the minor children of aliens in Sec 3 of the 1795 Act includes those born on U.S. soil during the five year waiting period.
You disagree, of course. But what of the children who were born on U.S. soil to aliens who then violated the conditions required for naturalization, or changed their mind? Were they citizens by soil? Or, were they the alien nationality of the father until he succeeded in naturalization?
Conflict of law is introduced.
Perkins vs Elg is a pertinent case. She was born of two naturalized parents who then revoked their oath and returned to Norway . . . but she returned to the U.S. and her readmission as a natural born citizen was due to being born of citizens, not being born on U.S. soil.
.
This is pretty much just gibberish. You can repeat the same claims over and over, but you still won’t look up what “naturalization” meant during such period. You can claim the 1795 Act applied to native born children, but, of course, you can find no authority saying so because there is none. Yes, native born children were citizens before their parents in some cases as anchor babies are today.
“And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).
I think you should read Wong Kim Ark. The court cites authority after authority from the early republic showing we had always had jus soli. He could have cited dozens more. Are you not aware of this mountain of authority or do you just ignore it. I don’t get the conflict of law comment. Nations have always defined ctizienship differently and hence there will always be conflict of law. The United States has never cared what foreign countires did as it defined citizenship how it wanted.
Now you are just making stuff up. The court didn’t say the status of the parents mattered. It simply said she was a citizen due to her birth in the United States citing Wong Kim Ark. The court didn’t say she was nautral born but acknowledged the court below did. The court below found here natural born because of jus soli. Try actually reading the case as nothing in it remotely supports your claim.
It’s hard to believe this strange, sad birther is a real paralegal. But then, there are a handful of birther lawyers who are reality impaired. I guess every profession has it’s lunatic fringe.
When is the last time you read ‘Elg’? She was a natural born citizen because she was born after, not before, her father’s naturalization. Note also that her mother was automatically/derivatively naturalized upon that of the father, as were the existing children.
Sheesh . . .
Now, read this and decide if citizenship at birth is jus solis, or jus sanguins.
The rules’ of interpreting the constitution in light of intent and the laws in force at the time of writing is sufficient. John Jay’s suggestion to G. Washington is very valuable insight into the intent of Article II.
Those (judges) arguing for jus solis rely on English practices and the rules governing a natural born subject, even going so far as to blur and ignore the distinctions between a feudal monarchy and a free republic, i.e., subject and citizen.
Those arguing jus sanguinis emphasize the distinction and say English law was superseded under rules of jurisprudence and precedent, once the U.S. legislature passed the 1790 Act. This argument is supported by case law deciding English law was no longer in force.
Some argue that if jus sanguinis was the principle governing citizenship at birth, then why include the born overseas’ to U.S. parents provision? Yet, you look at the rest of the statute and there is nothing in the law relying on born in the U.S.’ as the primary foundational rule, rather a reliance on the political allegiance of the father, e.g., Vattel’s the citizenship and rights of the child follow that of the father.
The 14th Amendment sets up citizenship as persons born or naturalized in the United States, adding AND under the jurisdiction thereof’ with the verbal equals’ sign ARE citizens.’
The 14th Amendment was codified into Nationality and Naturalization law as, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Those arguing jus solis say subject to the jurisdiction’ means not the child of a diplomat or occupying or active duty foreign soldier.
Those arguing jus sanguinis refer to the immediately preceding legislated act to the 14th Amendment, which read, “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
The operation in the logical construction modifying those born in the United States’ is both not subject to ANY foreign power,’ and under the jurisdiction thereof.’
One can only reason that both phrases are not only coincidental, but equal in meaning. Instead of borrowing from a traditional ‘given’ in common law that children of diplomats or occupying military are not honored with citizenship at birth, the originalists,’ or strict constructionists’ rely on something much more contiguous . . . indeed, the 14th Amendment was proposed only a few weeks after passage of the 1866 Acts.
A child born with dual nationality created by jus solis, e.g., one alien father and born on U.S. soil, is eligible for either citizenship until reaching the age of decision. Naturalization law dealienages’ the child at birth for an initial determination of jurisdiction,’ but then must address Naturalization law again upon choosing the land of birth or his father’s allegiance.
This happened to Barack Hussein Obama. Starting at the age of 14, his adoptive father’s Indonesian citizenship remained in force and would have been the sole and dominant citizenship upon reaching the age of 23, if not for Obama living 5 years continuously’ and uninterrupted by residency in Indonesia. Yes, he would have lost U.S. citizenship entirely.
However, under jus sanguinis, the allegiance of the father was inherited until such time as the father violated his legal parental obligations . . . and then, by law, it wasn’t Hawaiian birth, but the nationality of the mother that provided a national identity for the child. The soil makes no claim . . . only the inheritance from the legal parent.
Elg quoted the part of Stienkaulers case which stated in part “Stienkauler is a NATIVE BORN CITIZEN. He can… become president.”
At no point was the nationality of either parent brought up in Stienkauler, at least in the part that Elg quoted. And according to Steinhauler, which Elg agreed with as they quoted it, all you needed to be president was to be native born.
There is nothing in Elg that says natural born citizenship requires citizen parents. That her parents were naturalized US citizens is among the facts of the case, but this fact is not stated as a requirement for her being a natural born citizen.
The trick the birthers play with this is to equate “subject to” with “subjects of.” The potential for confusion may be why the 14th Amendment uses different language. An alien in the United States is subject to the laws of the United States unless they are excluded by law or treaty, such as in the case of ambassadors and Indians not taxes, even if they are “subjects of” some other country.
Now, read this and decide if citizenship at birth is jus solis, or jus sanguins.The rules’ of interpreting the constitution in light of intent and the laws in force at the time of writing is sufficient. John Jay’s suggestion to G. Washington is very valuable insight into the intent of Article II.Those (judges) arguing for jus solis rely on English practices and the rules governing a natural born subject, even going so far as to blur and ignore the distinctions between a feudal monarchy and a free republic, i.e., subject and citizen.Those arguing jus sanguinis emphasize the distinction and say English law was superseded under rules of jurisprudence and precedent, once the U.S. legislature passed the 1790 Act. This argument is supported by case law deciding English law was no longer in force.Some argue that if jus sanguinis was the principle governing citizenship at birth, then why include the born overseas’ to U.S. parents provision? Yet, you look at the rest of the statute and there is nothing in the law relying on born in the U.S.’ as the primary foundational rule, rather a reliance on the political allegiance of the father, e.g., Vattel’s the citizenship and rights of the child follow that of the father.The 14th Amendment sets up citizenship as persons born or naturalized in the United States, adding AND under the jurisdiction thereof’ with the verbal equals’ sign ARE citizens.’The 14th Amendment was codified into Nationality and Naturalization law as, “The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”Those arguing jus solis say subject to the jurisdiction’ means not the child of a diplomat or occupying or active duty foreign soldier.Those arguing jus sanguinis refer to the immediately preceding legislated act to the 14th Amendment, which read, “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”The operation in the logical construction modifying those born in the United States’ is both not subject to ANY foreign power,’ and under the jurisdiction thereof.’One can only reason that both phrases are not only coincidental, but equal in meaning. Instead of borrowing from a traditional ‘given’ in common law that children of diplomats or occupying military are not honored with citizenship at birth, the originalists,’ or strict constructionists’ rely on something much more contiguous . . . indeed, the 14th Amendment was proposed only a few weeks after passage of the 1866 Acts.A child born with dual nationality created by jus solis, e.g., one alien father and born on U.S. soil, is eligible for either citizenship until reaching the age of decision. Naturalization law dealienages’ the child at birth for an initial determination of jurisdiction,’ but then must address Naturalization law again upon choosing the land of birth or his father’s allegiance. This happened to Barack Hussein Obama. Starting at the age of 14, his adoptive father’s Indonesian citizenship remained in force and would have been the sole and dominant citizenship upon reaching the age of 23, if not for Obama living 5 years continuously’ and uninterrupted by residency in Indonesia. Yes, he would have lost U.S. citizenship entirely.However, under jus sanguinis, the allegiance of the father was inherited until such time as the father violated his legal parental obligations . . . and then, by law, it wasn’t Hawaiian birth, but the nationality of the mother that provided a national identity for the child. The soil makes no claim . . . only the inheritance from the legal parent.
You obviously have not read or understood Elg. Show us where it says parentage matters. It does not. It cimply cites Wong Kim Ark and speaks of birth in the United States. Not going to fool anyone by making stuff up.
“On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States — the Court adverted to the “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668.”
No where says parentage is relevant, does it. Children of aliens are citizens if born here. What does that mean. The only mention of natural born was:
“The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants.”
No mention of parentage. Only says the court below found her to be naturl born. The court below:
“The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States.”
No mention of parentage as being relevant anywhere. Sorry, you should actually read the case.
You say people who argue jus sanguinis However, no authority of any significance argued jus sanguinis in the early republic or after Wong Kim Ark. All the early case law and scholarship was jus soli and you have not cited authority to the contrary. John Jay didn’t define natural born and hence it is silly to cite. Try reading the Convention itself where the only thing they discussed with respect to eligiblity was place of birth.
Again, it is clear you have not read the debates to the Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment as no one who did would think they didn’t adopt jus soli. You cite the Civil Rights Act but fail to mention that it was stated over and over in such debates that they intended to make native born children of aliens citizens. One of the reasons President Johnson vetoed the Act was that it would make chldren of chinese aliens citizens. You should read the replies to Johnson’s veto:
“Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity. That is the common law, that is the law of the civilized world, that he would is born in a country, and not made a slave at the moment of birth by any municipal law, becomes, by virtue of his birth, a citizen…” Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1776 (1866).
“This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)(House reply to Johnson’s veto).
“And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).
More quotes from the Civil Rights Act debate:
“Blackstone says ‘The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.’ The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).
“It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or nor. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866)
“As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary….What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).
“As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone … Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision – of course they made none – for the naturalization of natural born citizens…. Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration….” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).
“Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born…The bill [the Civil Rights Act] proposes two things: 1. To declare who shall be citizens of the United States, and declares that all shall be citizens without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, who are, have been, or shall be born within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States…” Mr. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).
I could go on all day if you want. And, of course, the only judicial interpretation of the Civil Rights Act said it was jus soli. No one suggested dual citizenship was a disqualifier either as the quotes people cherry pick to argue such were talking about indians who were deemed to owe allegaince to a foreign nation although born in the United States. By my count 7 members of such Congress said jus soli was the universal rule so why would they think dual citizenshp was an issue except for such indians. Again, one has to read the debates. Fortunately, Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation is in accordance with the clear intent. Senator Edmunds, a member of the judiciary committee of the 39th Congress, wrote Justice Gray saying he got the decision right. Learning anything yet?
Repasted paraleaglenm’s last post by mistake two posts up so ignore.