This article is being retracted in its entirety. One cannot draw a certain conclusion about the plaintiff’s parents’ citizenship, so the statement of the facts in the case and the government admission leads to no useful information for the controversy at hand.
US v Low Hong
United States v. Low Hong, the United States government admitted that Low Hong was a natural born citizen of the United States.
Low was born in the United States around 1894 of Chinese parents. At that time Chinese persons could not become naturalized citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. We may, therefore, be certain that Low Hong was not born of US Citizen parents.
Low was being held in bureaucratic limbo because of a law regarding the deportation of aliens. The government admitted that Low was a “natural-born citizen of the United States” but that he must still be held in custody until the deportation determination process concluded.
The court said that the law only applied to aliens and as the government had already admitted that Low was a natural-born citizen, he could not be held.
Dr Conspiracy: Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue. The meaning of “natural born citizen” is crystal clear to anyone who can read English. It plainly means a citizen born naturally; i.e., no epidurals, no C-sections, no artficial medical intervention. So of course Low was a natural born citizen-in 1894 they didn’t have any of that. Mrs. Low was lucky if there was a doctor there at all.
Now fast forward to the present. How many of our citizens are natural born today? All too few I would suggest. Unless childbirth practices are seriously reconsidered, we may have no choice but to leave the White House vacant in the future, or maybe convert it into a center for natural childbirth.
I cry like a baby or like Glenn Beck when I think of the fix we are in.
The decision is contrary to standard a naturalized citizen is equal to native-born citizen is all aspects, except only a natural-born citizen is eligible to serve as President of the US. See Craig v. US quoting Schneider v. Rusk.
Low Hong claimed he could not be held in confinement until the Sec of Labor rendered a decision on his deportation under the Chinese Exclusion Act because he was a citizen of the U.S. But precedent established a citizen could be held in confinement until the Sec of Labor made a decision. See United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 24 Sup. Ct. 621, 48 h. Ed. 917; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 26 Sup. Ct. 644, 49 L.
Ed. 1040.
So, Low Hong amended his petition to indicate he was a natural-born citizen under WKA and not merely a citizen of the US. The government did not challenge this assertion.
The Court ruled and the Appeals Court held a natural-born citizen could not be held during the administrative hearing under the Chinese Exclusion Act, but that a citizen could be held until the Sec of Labor made a decision.
2 thumbs down? Did you recently hire clerks from the Ameriocan College of Obstetrics? I am filing a motion for reconsideration. You are abusing my 1st Amendment rights to make fun of idiots.
You’re obviously confused and giving me the vapors.
As per Gordon’s Prescript, the Law of the Land according to our legal eagles Mario Apuzzo and Joe Donofrio, “natural-born” means White.
So despite any rulings by obviously corrupt judges (likely influenced by French clerks), Low Hong couldn’t possibly be a natural-born citizen.
(/snark)
Careful, you may be giving the birthers their next argument against Obama. They’re running out of them, so they could use something new. Sure, it’s completely fictitious and fantastic, but that’s right up their alley.
The interesting thing is that based on their names, I will guess that Apuzzo and Donofrio owe allegiance to a foreign organisation headquartered in Rome, currently headed by a German citizen. I question their status as natural born citizens.
Oh, Obama clearly doesn’t meet my definition of natural born citizen. The problem is I’m not sure anyone in line for the presidency these days does either, since most births in the period from 1940-present were un-natural. Perhaps we ought to simply amend that clause out or interpret it in the light of modern society. Sort of like how freedom of the press applies to electronic media even though they didn’t exist in 1789. Hey, that could work!!!
I think you’ve misread the cases in question. Sing Tuck says that you don’t have a habeas corpus right on the mere suggestion of citizenship, while Low Hong says that if the government admits that you’re a citizen, then the act doesn’t apply to you.
Google Books
Never mind
Alright, Gregory. You win.
So the government admits Low Hung is a citizen. Low Hung amends his complaint and states he’s a Natural-born citizen under WKA and the government admits it.
The Court rules and the Appeals Court affirms Low Hung cannot be confined until a decision is made on his deportation because is not an alien.
From there, Doc makes the case a citizen is a Natural-born citizen regardless of parentage because he is not an alien.
Do you agree with Doc, Gregory?
From there, Doc makes the case a citizen is a Natural-born citizen regardless of parentage because he is not an alien.
Doc makes the case that Low Hong was a natural-born citizen because he was born in the United States, in spite of the fact that neither of his parents were U.S. citzens. As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled:
The averments of the amended petition show that the appellee is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Case closed.
Low Hong files a habeas petition, which the lower court grants, finding that you cannot hold a citizen.
Low Hong did not claim he was a “natural born citizen,” he claimed he was born in San Francisco.
The Government claimed that regardless of his citizenship, they had a valid warrant, so could hold Hong.
It was the FACTS of Hong’s petition that were admitted.
With those FACTS admitted, the court concludes that he is a natural born citizen, basing their decision on WKA:
So, I tend to disagree a little with Doc, that the US admitted he was a natural born citizen. They admitted he was born here. Having admitted he was born here, the court concluded that it was obvious that he was a natural born citizen.
“foreign organisation headquartered in Rome, currently headed by a German citizen”
Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger,AKA Pope Benedict, was an ardent Nazi. And that’s the hypocrisy of the Right: people taken in by Stalin were hounded. Careers were ruined, there were suicides. Zero Mostel was blacklisted.
But those who fell for Hitler were given a pass, like Ford, Lindbergh, and Ratzinger. If those three were fans of Stalin, they never would have advanced. Especially Ford, with his Dearborn Independent.
Okay, I see.
Doc claims Low Hong’s parents aren’t Naturalized citizens because Low Hong was born about 1894 and Chinese Exclusion Act would have prevented his parents from naturalization.
How do we know Low Hong’s parents weren’t born in the U.S., i.e. native-born citizens?
h/t deleted comment at Joy Behar Blog
Sure, let’s assume the court doesn’t mention the salient facts:
The court mentions the place of birth, but conveniently forgets to mention his parents were citizens. Right?
And, of course, the court below, ALSO forgot to mention the crucial facts:
What other salient facts were left out? Does natural born citizenship require the parents to both be made of green-cheese? How do we know that Low Hong’s parents weren’t made of green-cheese?
We may infer this from the fact that the court cited US v Wong immediately following the averments. There would have been no reason to cite Wong if his parents were citizens.
Greg: They admitted he was born here. Having admitted he was born here, the court concluded that it was obvious that he was a natural born citizen.
Correct as usual, King Friday.
Sven: United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 24 Sup. Ct. 621, 48 h. Ed. 917;
Yes, this natural born citizen of the United States was deported, and I don’t know if he ever got back home. Damn birthers.
The distinction is that in United States v. Sing Tuck there was a claim of citizenship by five men of Chinese descent who were detained while trying to enter the U.S. through Canada. Apparently no proof of citizenship was provided and the government made no concession that the men were citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that the men had to go through the process of deportation hearings, but suggested that afterwards they might be entitled to a court hearing on the citizenship issue:
We agree with the circuit court of appeals that a petition for habeas corpus ought not to be entertained unless the court is satisfied that the petitioner can make out at least a prima facie case. A mere allegation of citizenship is not enough. But, before the courts can be called upon, the preliminary sifting process provided by the statutes must be gone through with. Whether after that a further trial may be had we do not decide.
SCOTUS never ruled on the question of whether the petitioners were in fact U.S. citizens, and as far as I can tell it was never established that they were citizens.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/194/161/case.html
Dr. Conspiracy,
Why all the thumbs up for Scientist. Do you and your followers really understand what he said?
By golly we do and he surely makes more sense than you do. FWTIW
Let’s make this very simple. Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy don’t exist. And the courts are not going to kick Obama out.
The Supreme Court justices don’t live in caves; they all knew before the election that Obama’s father was a Kenyan. If they saw that as disqualifying him they would have intervened before he was nominated or before he was elected or most certainly before he was inagurated. Not only did they not intervene, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath with the other justices watching. If they didn’t intervene before Obama took office, you can bet your life savings that they won’t mix in halfway through his term, when the legal and practical barriers are much higher. You can entertain yourselves speculating over what Supreme Courts of the 19th century thought, but what the 21st century version thinks is quite clear.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Minor instructs that there is no doubt as to who a “natural born Citizen” is. Why was there even a case involving Low Hong?
Mario-What I said is very clear. Let me summarize:
1. Your arguments are nonsense, based on outmoded ideas, clearly superseded by more recent.
2. Your ridiculous and futile attempts to have unelected judges overturn a completely free and fair election validated by Congress don’t speak well for you and are frankly offensive. You had your vote like everybody else and are not entitled to more than that.
3. You owe allegiance to a foreign organization headed by a foreign citizen. Unlike Obama’s “ties” to Kenya, a place he didn’t even visit until well into adulthood, this organization demands constant devotion and obedience in all of your daily acts and thoughts.
4. Despite that, you are qualified to be President (though I can’t imagine anyone voting for you). So is Obama (and 69 million people voted for him).
5. See my post from 6:32 as to the outcome of all these “cases”. They are simply a waste of time as we can all see where the courts stand based on their actions.
Minor does no such thing…. In fact, Minor accepts the possibility that natural born involves children born to aliens but does not see the need to address that issue.
WKA did and now Low Hong.
Geez Mario… Study the law.
What happened to Low Hong? I googled it, but couldn’t find anything.
In mathematics and logic we use the words necessary and sufficient for the conditions that relate to the application of some rule or definition. For example being born in Puerto Rico is a sufficient condition for citizenship in the United States, but is is not a necessary condition (being born in South Carolina works too).
In the same way the Minor decision comments that being born in the United States to citizen parents is a sufficient condition to be a natural born citizen but then says that did not assert that it a necessary one. The Indiana appeals court in Ankeny v Daniels similarly states that being born in the United States is a sufficient condition to be a natural born citizen and then goes on to say that nothing in the decision makes it a necessary condition.
The Minor Court held open the possibility that persons born in the United States of alien parents too might be natural born citizens, something upheld in the arguments in US v Wong. The Indiana court held open the possibility that persons born overseas to citizen parents might also be natural born citizens, but could not make that assertion because the case law is not strong on that point.
I presume they got a good laugh from the joke. I rarely rate comments myself.
Low Hong was allowed to go free, and presumably he lived out the rest of his life in the United States. He could have run for president if he wanted.
It is likely that he was targeted for deportation because of the Immigration Act of 1917, aka the Asiatic Barred Zone Act. Anti-Asian sentiment was running high at the time.
nbc,
Geez nbc, learn how to read.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Are you trying to convince me that the Framers when they said who could be President of the United States were not sure who would qualify for that all powerful position?
Dr. Conspiracy,
I note that you and your followers like to cite the new Indiana state case on the definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is. Too bad that the court did not ask for some real briefing on such a critical issue for our nation rather than just go with the input of a pro se couple neither of whom are lawyers. I do find it strange that the court did not ask for such briefing given that I have seen courts involved with much more less serious legal issues ask the parties to provide the court with additional briefing.
Mario,
As the good doctor suggests, most of us here have a sense of humor.
KAPOW!
Did you hear that, folks? It was the irony meter exploding following Mario’s latest comment.
This is not a “critical matter”. It’s simply a scheme by a few underemployed lawyers to separate the gullible from their shekels.
Let me put it plainly for you:
1. The SCOTUS knows all about this.
2. They swore Obama in.
3. Therefore, it’s a good bet that they do not agree with you.
Don’t they have enough car accidents and slips and falls in your neighborhood to keep you busy?
Not for nothing Mario, but the Indiana court likely did not feel the need to be “briefed” on what is, after all, a clearly defined and simple legal call.
Since the SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Ark, the definition has been very clear: born in the United States makes one a natural born (i.e., native born) citizen.
Here’s a list of those the Framers almost certainly didn’t think would qualify:
Blacks
Women
Native Americans
Here’s a list most of the Framers would have had grave doubts about:
Catholics
Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
Non-property owners
So if you say only those contemplated by the Framers can qualify, let’s be absolutely crystal clear on where you’re heading.
The Court read US v Wong. What else would they need to see? It has citations from all the relevant cases.
Mario Apuzzo: Are you trying to convince me that the Framers when they said who could be President of the United States were not sure who would qualify for that all powerful position?
That’s an interesting question — what the Framers thought about “originalism”, but for the purposes of your question, it is sufficient to say that the Framers understood that “natural born citizen” meant nothing more or less than “born a citizen” analogous to the British common law term “natural born subject”. And three years later they proved that they didn’t mean “born in the country to two citizen parents” when they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 that explicitly declared the children of citizen fathers born overseas “natural born citizens.” If this is not what they intended originally, then they changed their minds. I believe, and the Supreme Court repeatedly agrees, that “natural born citizen” is defined by British common law and the analogous term “natural born subject”.
The Wong decision, however, didn’t deal with children born overseas, and so the Indiana Court lacked source material.
Dr C: I just saw the post about your father. Please accept my condolences. Thank you for all your good work.
Why is there even a case involving Low Hong? Because the government thought that the law allowing them to deport Chinese folks also gave them the right to hold them until it was proven in a court that they were citizens.
They admitted he was born in the United States, which, as this court points out, leaves no doubt that he is a natural born citizen – per Wong Kim Ark.
You are right, there never should have been a Low Hong case, if it weren’t for the overreaching of the Federal Government.
And where would this briefing have come from? You? Donofrio? Taitz? Charles Lincoln III?
I guess you could have saved time and simply forwarded the briefs in Wong Kim Ark. Or, the Eagle Forum amicus brief in Hamdi.
Of course, you assume that the court did not read any of the briefing from any of the other cases. They did, however, cite to Berg, Hollander, Cohen and Wrotnoski. Also, Rhodes.
They seem to have the heart of your argument down pretty well:
What did they miss? The doubts of Happersett? The court picked those up and dispensed with them.
Also, why, if you felt the issue was under briefed, did you not apply to submit an amicus brief in the case? I’m sure you will submit one when this is presented for consideration to the Indiana Supreme Court, right?
It kind of shows us the hubris of Mario to think that at Court of Appeals would need some sort of briefing to understand the issue…I am sure that Mario would feel that he should be the one conducting the briefing…
But that has been the fallicy in Mario’s argument. He somehow thinks that Minor defined what a nautural born citizen is. He always neglects to read the next sentence where the Court says that it will not address the issue. That is why any birther that using Minor always loses the argument.
As usual Greg right on point. However I am sure Mario will not understand your reasoning and logic….
Black Lion,
Of course, would you expect otherwise.
Lupin,
I have said this before and I will say it again. You do really need to leave this legal debate. You are very small among the very big.
Scientist,
How could you forget Caesar.
Mario, I thought so. So my question to kind of follow up on Greg’s point is what do you think you could have said/presented that would have possibly changed the mind of the Court, especially since they cite the Wong ruling and specifically that the Constitution was written in English Common law and not De Vattel or the ruling of Minor. Because if I recall correctly that is your basic argument.
Scientist,
I do not know where you came from. But your trite and corny points really do not add anything of value to this debate.
nbc,
Just keep watching.
Scientist,
It would be most appreciated it if you could make at least one little legal argument.
Dr. Conspiracy,
I see, you are still hiding behind the Devil.
Rickey,
From the comments on this blog, I thought I was the only one with a sense of humor.
Mike,
I suggest you take my advice too.
Black Lion,
I have been telling some of your gang here to learn to read. Now I will tell you the same. Can you kindly tell me where it says in Minor that the court will not address the issue of what a “natural born citizen” is. Please provide the quote so you can defend your honor and dignity among the intelligentsia.
And further, while you are stuggling with my first question, you can also stuggle with another question. Why would the court not address such a simple issue? After all, the Framers made “natural born Citizen” the standard to be eligible to be President. You would think that it would not be some dark, hidden secret as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.
Scientist,
Your red herring and appeal to discrimination is a good try but no cigar.
Let us assume that the Framer’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents (mother and father).
Let us further assume that the United States is populated by people as you described:
Blacks
Women
Native Americans
Catholics
Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
Non-property owners
Would you kindly apply your infinite scientific wisdow and edify me on how any person falling into your categories would be disqualified today from being President under the assumed definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is.
I’ll be waiting.
Dr. Conspiracy,
For your sake I hope you do not honestly believe that you answered my question.
Greg,
But if Low Hong was a “natural born Citizen” it would have been clear as a sunny Spring day that he should not be detained and deported, even to that infamous Federal Government.
Scientist,
I do not believe in my heart that even Dr. Conspiracy thinks that you add anything of value here by your comments. Please leave.
Greg,
Sorry, but the Indiana Supreme Court is out of my jurisdiction. I’ll be sticking to the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia, where our Constitution was drafted and accepted on Monday, August 6, 1787.
He could have presented Gordon’s Precepts. It carries as much weight as Vattel but its definition of natural-born is easier to grasp.
And where the Court rejected just the other day, Berg’s lawsuit.
Will there be any oral arguments in your appeal, with a bit of luck Mario, you may get to represent Happersett as somehow supporting your position. That would be hilarious.
You and Scientist seem to have something in common. However, he gets far better score than you musings….
Facts never lie
“Lupin, I have said this before and I will say it again. You do really need to leave this legal debate. You are very small among the very big.”
Excuse me? You are the one out of his league. You are not a constitutional attorney. That is like my trying to perform ocular surgery, because I dissected a sheep’s eye.
Missing the point as usual. The Indiana Court is relevant in two ways. First of all, it shows that the Courts have indeed ruled on the merits and rejected it, secondly it shows that a Court when faced with the facts, has but to rule in favor of what Wong Kim Ark suggested, namely that anyone born on US soil, with minor exceptions, is a natural born citizen. The Court’s briefing was unnecessary given the well established jurisprudence.
“your trite and corny points really do not add anything of value to this debate.”
Please, stop giving me openers. It’s waaay too tempting. Scientist is engaging in time honored satire, like Swift. Your humor is inadvertent.
OK – kettle, pot. Zing.
They used the term natural born to describe a common law practice of jus soli, where anyone born on US soil, with minor exceptions, was a natural born citizen.
If they intended to use Vattel’s description, they would not have used the term natural born. It’s that simple. The term “natural born” was explained by common law practices not the musings of a Swiss philosopher.
It’s really that simple and rulings before and since have supported this position.
Mario,
James Iredell was one of the original justices of the Supreme Court. He also was a delegate to the North Carolina convention which voted on ratification of the Constitution in the summer of 1788. In the course of debate about the lack of a religious test for office in Article VI, concern was raised that the Pope in Rome might become president. Iredell responded, “No man but a native, and who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen president.” (Debate on the Constitution, July 30, 1788) Iredell, who at the time was compiling and revising the laws of North Carolina, obviously saw no difference between “native” (his word) and “natural born.”
The Framers could not see into the future. Clearly, they never contemplated the possibility that a black man might be elected president, since blacks were not considered to be citizens and did not have the right to vote. They never considered the possibility that a woman might be elected president, since they did not give women the right to vote. While the Constitution does not specifically exclude blacks or women from becoming president, they were de facto disqualified (note that it is actually possible to use “de facto” in a context which makes sense). Yet here we are, 220 years later, and we just had an election in which a black man was elected president and a woman ran for vice-president.
During the debates on the Constitution, concerns were raised that Jews, Pagans, Deists, Mahometans, etc. were eligible to run for public office. Yet the Framers overwhelmingly rejected a religious test. Why? Because they believed that ultimately the voters would be the best arbiters of who is sufficiently qualified for public office. Hamilton wrote that the electoral process guaranteed that only qualified individuals would be elected president:
“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.” (Federalist No. 68)
The electoral process ran its course, and Obama was inaugurated as president. The system worked precisely as Hamilton predicted. You are not going to remove Obama from office. Get used to it. Perhaps you have been dreaming that taking down Obama would bring you fame and glory, but if you are remembered at all it will be as a minor footnote.
“It would be most appreciated it if you could make at least one little legal argument.”
I’d like to see you make one coherent legal argument, outside of DWI. You, Orly, Donofrio, Kreep and the rest are disingenuous at best, and subversive at worst.
Again, Mario appears to be unfamiliar with the history. Natural born citizen or citizen would have been sufficient for Habeas Corpus to be granted, the court just applied WKA to show that even though born to alien parents, Low Hong was a citizen, and because he was born on US soil, a natural born one as well.
It’s all so simple.
The government was less interested in his citizenship status than the color of his skin and argued, based on precedent that a decision for deportation was not reviewable in the courts. They forgot that citizens do have the right to habeas corpus and by admitting that Low Hong was born on US soil, the Court ruled that he was a natural born citizen and could not be deported.
No, he’s hiding behind me. Falwell, Hagee and the rest have revealed me as the anti-Christ, a mantle I proudly wear.
“I thought I was the only one with a sense of humor.”
Surely you jest.
“Mike, I suggest you take my advice too.”
Now, all the irony meters are exploding in a chain reaction. They are close to splitting an atom. Run for your lives. Aieeeeee…
I think I see a mushroom cloud across the Delaware River. Oh wait – that’s just Camden. Campbell’s is releasing steam.
Come on Mario. You claim to be an attorney. It was settled with Wong Kim Ark, and you know it. Let go of it.
Mario, are you trying to play word semantics with me. Let us look at the disputed paragraph again….
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
We know that the founders used the words native citizen, natural born citizen, and citizen interchangably. So it was no secret. And if you looked a English Common law, I believe that they used the terms that way also. In additon regarding the Minor ruling is that the Court does admit that there are doubts on how native or natural born citizens are defined but for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve those doubts. Secondly the Court is making a distinction between natural born citizens and aliens and not plain citizens and natural born citizens.
When you read the section in context you can see what the Court is addressing. And knowing that they used the terms interchangably means what I said earlier. Let us see your verbal tango around that.
The only thing which was “clear” to the government was that Low Hong was of Asian descent. In the wake of the Immigration Act of 1917, all the government cared about was expelling as many Asians from the country as possible.
Once the lower court ruled that Hong should be released because he was a citizen, the government appealed, arguing that the law required that the deportation proceedings continue, Hong’s citizenship notwithstanding. The Court of Appeals disagreed, pointing out that the law applied only to aliens, and that Hong was a natural born citizen of the United States.
nbc,
I beg to differ with your self-serving characterization of there existing “well established jurisprudence” to support your position. If what you say is correct, why has Congress stuggled (although unsuccessfully) for so many years to amend the “natural born Citizen” clause?
nbc,
Missing the point as usual, Professor. I guess there will never be another case after Berg.
Nah, I’m good. I make a point of not listening to bad advice.
“Scientist, I do not believe in my heart that even Dr. Conspiracy thinks that you add anything of value here by your comments. Please leave.”
Thanks, Mario. I just spit coffee all over my computer.
“I’ll be sticking to the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia”
You have DWI cases heard here?
I appreciate nay understand your denial, it’s part of the recovery process. Of course there will be cases ‘after Berg’ and Berg’s 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling will guide the courts in how to quickly resolve such lawsuits.
Standing, standing, standing…
You may find out soon what this means. Are you not in the same Circuit 😉
Amend in what way?
You are now confusing two different issues. A clever but in the end self-defeating maneuver to avoid the obvious. Let me explain. The Courts, Congress all have come to understand that citizenship in the US is primarily established by birth on US soil, native or natural born are those children, regardless of the nationality of their parents, who are born on US soil. There are minor exceptions and none apply to President Obama so let’s ignore them for the moment as I do not want to make this too complex for the average Joe/Jane to follow.
Congress has struggled with how to deal with cases such as a child born to one or more US citizens abroad, a child born to foreign serving military and so on. In addition, some in Congress have lamented that the 14th Amendment, which merely formalized the Constitutional Rights of the people regarding citizenship, also applied to children born to aliens.
Anti-immigration sentiments, which run counter to the sentiments in the early days of the Republic have caused some to want to revoke the 14th Amendment and explicitly insist on limiting birthright citizenship, others, incorrectly, believe that a mere law is sufficient to do so.
As to the natural born citizen clause, there are some who insist that the Presidency should be open to any and all citizen, not just those born with citizenship.
None of these have anything to do with the fact that the meaning of natural born has been well established. Just read some of the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment, or the arguments submitted for the US government in Wong Kim Ark, which were all rejected by the Court and mirror largely your own claims. That you want to re-argue Wong Kim Ark is ironic.
I for one just wanted to state that I really appreciate that Mario posts here regularly.
Even though I disagree with his positions, he is one of the more professional “leaders” of the Birther movement (I know, that is not saying much) and I think it is a big plus to this site that he is willing to come here and state his case and views regularly.
Would I ever want to hear from Orly or her strange cast of characters here? …no… I think that whole lot is way too crazy and impossible to take seriously.
Berg – no – he’s just a serial conspiracy nut and abuser of filing frivolous clap-trap.
D’Onofrio – probably not. Although he is able to write well, I seriously wonder if he’s not just going all Andy Kaufman and pulling another one of his “Jet Schiso” stunts.
Kreep – yes – he at least seems to have a better grasp of how to file and act in court. It would be fun and I think he is probably capable of debating on Mario’s level here.
But other than he and Mario, I can’t think of anyone else in the whole “birther” movement who can provide valuable dialog that would contribute to this site.
Good point
misha,
You hang out here but your ignorance of our laws is astounding. DWI is a state issue. If it gets to the Federal level on a constitutional issue it would go from the State Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“You hang out here but your ignorance of our laws is astounding. DWI is a state issue.”
I was being ironic.
Mario, you act as if I am making up the case. You are a lawyer, look up the case. It’s not hard to find. It has a citation. It has been published. The government thought that Low Hong was not entitled to Habeas even if he was a citizen. I quoted that bit above.
Also, you do realize you can file amicus briefs in other jurisdictions, right?
nbc,
As is par for the course with you, you attempt to confuse the issue by arguing other points that do not address the issue at hand. Try this out.
After H.J. Res. 88 failed to make it out of committee, Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in February 25, 2004, the Natural Born Citizen Act, a bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in Article II of the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-2128. This bill provided as follows:
“A BILL
To define the term natural born Citizen’’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Natural Born Citizen Act’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’’.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress finds and declares that the term natural born Citizen’’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 [sic] of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States–
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress . . .”
Paragraph (1) repeats the same language that we find in the Fourteenth Amendment.
This attempt at amending the “natural born Citizen” clause shows that there are members of Congress who understand that just being a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Congress also tried such changes with S. 2678 (2008); H. J. RES. 15 (2005); H. J. RES. 104 (2004); H. J. RES. 47 (2001), and approx. 25 other times since the 1870s.
If a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen” was the same as an Article II “natural born citizen,” why would members of Congress see a need for this bill?
Hence, it can be seen that just being born in the United States and being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
It is also noteworthy to examine the Natural Born Citizen Act Summary that accompanied the bill which states in pertinent part: “The bill is intended to clarify the term and end uncertainty about the eligibility requirements to run for the Office of the Presidency. The definition of this term is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. Congress should be the institution that defines this term, not the courts.” http://www.jcics.org/natural%20born%20summary%20(word).doc. The same information was expressed by Senator Nickles of February 25, 2004 when he addressed the Senate on the bill and which statements are contained in the Congressional Record. Sen. Nickles, in his speech when introducing the S. 2128, announced that: “There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an election to be challenged and the courts to decide what natural born’ means.” Sen. Inhofe referred to the repealed Naturalization Act of 1790 and used it to argue that in the absence of any judicial interpretation, Congress has the authority to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Among other things, the bill provided that “any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Senator recognized that simply being born in the United States and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof does not necessarily make on an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The bill did not advance and met the same fate as other similar Congressional proposals to amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.
What is important to note is that this “natural born Citizen” issue as it pertains to children born in the United States existed in Congress as far back as February 2004 and has yet to be resolved. What is also important to note is that this bill would have directly impacted Obama’s eligibility to run for President of the United States. Whether or not this bill if enacted into law would have been Consitutional is another question.
Totally nonsense. It merely codifies what the Courts had already established. The myth of the 14th Amendment citizen should be laid to rest. Most of the NBC issues in Congress surround children born abroad to US citizens (in the Vattel sense, one or two) as well as the removing the status of citizenship and natural born status from children born on US soil to (undocumented) aliens.
You have a habit a claiming something implies something it does not necessarily imply. The proposed legislation included:
“(2) any person born outside the United States–
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress . . .”
This is not a provision that will find great support in history. So why would you think they were questioning the born in the US part of the definition, the definition found in every legal dictionary and text in our history, rather than just clarifying the second point? Can you site any congressman who questioned the eligiblity of those born in the US rather than trying to clarify cases like McCain? Then why did they need to pass a resolution for McCain and not even feel the need to discuss Obama?
From the NBC-act summary
Sorry Mario..
[Blockquote]where our Constitution was drafted and accepted on Monday, August 6, 1787[/blockquote]
About a decade before the first time that Vattel’s book was translated into “natural born” for the first time.
Just so we have it concretely fixed in our minds, the lawyers in attendance when the Constitution was drafted would have known that “natural born” had a set use. Like “treason.” Vattel used a new term, “indigenes,” (which, as Lupin points out, doesn’t mean BOTH parents are citizens). His view of citizenship would have made the children of non-citizens into, not citizens of any stripe but, habitues.
So, despite the 400 year history of the phrase “natural born” the Founders decided that no one would care if they used the exact same phrase to mean what Vattel called “indigenes.” And, instead of adopting all of Vattel, they only adopted a small part of his work.
Oh, and they didn’t take a single second to write any of this down.
Contrast this with their treatment of the word “treason.” This word, too, had a long common law history. But, the Founders didn’t like that history. So, they changed it. In the Constitution. In English. There is no question, now, that thinking ill of your government is not treason.
Why, Mario, were the Founders so smart in dealing with treason, but so astoundingly DUMB. When it came to “natural born?”
How dumb were they? So dumb that before we reached 1800 lawyers were explaining that natural born citizen meant the same thing as natural born subject.
As far as I can tell, the extent of the evidence you and this Indiana couple can marshall for your view of the Founders’ original intentions are a translation of Vattel that came out a decade after the Constitution was drafted and a basketful of wishful thinking, and a healthy helping of a suspension of disbelief.
[Blockquote]where our Constitution was drafted and accepted on Monday, August 6, 1787[/blockquote]
About a decade before the first time that Vattel’s book was translated into “natural born” for the first time.
Just so we have it concretely fixed in our minds, the lawyers in attendance when the Constitution was drafted would have known that “natural born” had a set use. Like “treason.” Vattel used a new term, “indigenes,” (which, as Lupin points out, doesn’t mean BOTH parents are citizens). His view of citizenship would have made the children of non-citizens into, not citizens of any stripe but, habitues.
So, despite the 400 year history of the phrase “natural born” the Founders decided that no one would care if they used the exact same phrase to mean what Vattel called “indigenes.” And, instead of adopting all of Vattel, they only adopted a small part of his work.
Oh, and they didn’t take a single second to write any of this down.
Contrast this with their treatment of the word “treason.” This word, too, had a long common law history. But, the Founders didn’t like that history. So, they changed it. In the Constitution. In English. There is no question, now, that thinking ill of your government is not treason.
Why, Mario, were the Founders so smart in dealing with treason, but so astoundingly DUMB. When it came to “natural born?”
How dumb were they? So dumb that before we reached 1800 lawyers were explaining that natural born citizen meant the same thing as natural born subject.
As far as I can tell, the extent of the evidence you and this Indiana couple can marshall for your view of the Founders’ original intentions are a translation of Vattel that came out a decade after the Constitution was drafted and a basketful of wishful thinking, and a healthy helping of a suspension of disbelief.
(If this posts more than once, I apologize, I’m on my blackberry.)
nbc,
You are the only one who merits a sorry. Why do you not stick to the issue.
ballantine,
You suffer from the same disease as nbc. Why do you not address the issue? I am not interested in the McCain situation and my comment has nothing to do with it.
I thought the point pretty clear. You claim the introduction of this amendment meant there was doubt about eligibility of person born in the US. This is obviously not necessarily the case as the amendment adds a second part that is not generally included in the definition of “natural born” in law books or dictionaries. The most obvious implication would be that they were clarifying the latter part, not the former, which is the definition that is in pretty much every legal authority in our history.
Haha, you’re a funny bloke Mario. But let’s not fool ourselves, I am addressing the issue, namely that the NBC act is not meant to replace the 14th Amendment definitions extending NBC to anyone born on US soil but rather to areas which have been left undefined such as extending NBC to children born abroad.
You’re misreading the act, much as you see Minor v Happersett as supporting your POV
Why do you not read what you post? The bill proposed above was to clarify that children of citizens, born abroad, are natural born citizens and to make children adopted before age 18 into citizens.
Did you not notice that there the authors of that bill didn’t see a need to discuss, even for a second, the situation of children born here. Why don’t you read the summary that you posted?
You seem constitutionally unable to discuss anything without distorting its meaning! Why is that, Mario?
Exactly, Mario may not see this obvious flaw in his ‘reasoning’ but I am glad that others who can look at this issue from a non-Vattel constrained position, come to a reasonable conclusion like you have.
It’s all a matter of reading comprehension and a bit of logic.
Agreed…Although I think Mario is confused with his reading of relevant case law, I do give him credit for actually believing what he writes and will give a fairly coherent argument to support his point of view. Like I said Mario is 100% wrong because his argument folds like a cheap suit because of WKA, but it is good to debate with him…
I disagree — because Mario frequently resorts to ad hominem and insults directed at those who disagree with him. Today alone he has responded to posters by calling them diseased, ignorant, and telling them to leave. There’s little room for meaningful dialog with such a person.
I’ve heard Kreep interviewed on the radio and I found him to be very courteous and articulate — I was impressed that he was able to clearly articulate the argument against him as well as the argument he was making. I find his politics abhorrent — but in my view he is the only minimally capable lawyer in the birther movement. He also seems to be the only one capable of drafting a direct and coherent pleading or legal brief.
Yes, Mario does seem to be resorting to insults more and more in some of his posts lately and I think we all agree that is never helpful to good discourse.
But to be fair, I think he’s feeling frustrated, picked on, mocked and ganged-up on and is just lashing out in return.
Yes, when someone sounds like a broken record or just totally wrong, it is easy to fall into mocking them or insulting them out of frustration. And you have to admit that Mario has definitely received a lot of mocking from various posters here.
I’m not saying that is right. I’m just being fair and pointing out that there’s a lot of tit-for-tat insulting going on right now and Mario is both recipient of such as well as dishing it out.
His birther movement and his lawsuit arguments have not been doing so well – neither here nor in any court of law, so he’s obviously not in a “happy place” on all this right now and so, I’m not condoning his lashing out at others, but just stating that it makes sense. I also understand why others are laughing at him or his theories in return.
All I’m saying is that even though some of the back & forth has gotten a bit hostile or childish as of late, I still find it within reasonable bounds of human nature and reaction, considering the circumstances and I don’t think the dialog has crossed beyond the pale of still being valuable.
Mario: I’ve been away all day and Rickey (12:20) made many of my points. No the founding fathers didn’t specifically exclude women or blacks, but only because they were so obviously excluded from consideration by the standards of the time as to not be worth mentioning. Just as our laws usually don’t specifically say they apply only to humans, since that is assumed (though a growing number of animal rights activists are questioning that).
So, you wish to say that the Framers would never have contemplated someone born in the US with only 1 citizen parent being President. My response is 2-fold. First, that is not clear. Some of them might have and some of them might not have. But let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that it were so. So what? Society changes and a female or black President, which would have been unimaginable, is now quite imaginable indeed. And if you wish to say that they were specifically dealt with by the 14th and 19th amendment, I respond, no. The 14th made former slaves citizens and the 19th gave women the vote. Neither specifically said they could run for President. So here we have 2 classes of people whom the Framers would never have considered “Presidentiable”, but who even you (I hope) believe are eligible.
So you are allowing women and blacks in even though the Framers would never have imagined them as President, yet on someone with 1 non-citizen parent where the Framers were at best split, that is a no go according to you. And that is completely illogical.
As for legal arguments, I am not a lawyer and many here (not you) have made legal arguments that completely demolish your case. I deal in the empirical and testable. And my hypothesis, which I made well before the election is that all your cases will go exactly nowhere. And so far, that hypothesis has not been falsified. I don’t expect it will going forward.
And you know, if this were some moot court exercise in a law school, I would have no issue with it. But you and your friends are occupying the time of real judges and real courts and I have big problems with that.
I also have BIG problems with those who claim to “defend the Constitution” yet ignored the many violations of the previous Administration. Where were you when torture was being carried out in violation of the 5th and 8th amendments as well as US and International law? Let me repeat, where were you Mario?
Now as for me going away, sorry.
Oh, one last thing, I have said that the fact that Chief Justice Roberts swore Obama in indicates that he and his colleagues consider him eligible. So chew on that ….
ballantine,
You have got to be kidding me.
“As to the natural born citizen clause, there are some who insist that the Presidency should be open to any and all citizen, not just those born with citizenship.”
The most recent attempt led by Sen Hatch in 2005 was to do just that, with a requirement for citizenship for a length of time (20 years I think). Although it was seen as a way to enable Schwarzenegger to run (before he became a liberal Republican) it made sense.
Let’s review the history of the clause. The US was a young, fragile republic in a sea of monarchies. The founders feared that the people, used to living under a king, would demand one. Some were afraid they would crown George Washington. He squelched that and retired after 2 terms. Others were afraid they would recruit a dispossessed European prince. Hence the NBC clause.
But today the US is a mature democracy in a sea of republics and European princes are few and far between.
The fact is that every other country opens its highest office to all citizens. Any citizen can be Prime Minister of Britain, Canada or Australia. And France, where the President is considerably more powerful than his US counterpart-he can dissolve parliament and call new elections, which the US President can’t do with Congress-it is open to any citizen 23 or older who has completed his military obligation (which France no longer has). So, Sen Hatch was on the right path, even if his motives were suspect.
each Constitutional clause must have an independent effect.
“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them, or they have no operation at all.
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”
Marbury v. Madison
In other words, a citizen of the U.S. in light of the 14th amendment must have an independent effect from the natural born citizen in light of Article II, Sec I Clause 5
All Presidents must be given the status of Natural Born Citizens by the Constitution clause, anybody else should be given the status of Citizens by the 14th Amendment if they qualify as one.
Very simple.
The intellectual honesty here is in a sorry state of affairs.
It is so similar to the pro global warming community. You guys do not share notes, do you?
You dare to talk about intellectual honesty?
You claim to defend the Constitution yet are silent on its trampling by Administration that tortured in defiance of the Constitution and US and International law. If you believe torture is A-OK, then at least have the courage to say so. If you believe that it is an offense against human dignity, then how can you get your panties in an uproar over whay passports someone’s father held, yet be silent on torture?
And not another word from the likes of you on who should or should not be here and who does and does not add to the discussion until you answer this once and for all. Right here, right now.
I hope you were not referring to my honesty, because I agree with your interpretation. 🙂
I agree. As noted before, I have changed my position. I owe an apology to DrC.
Kissinger and Albright had the highest level clearance, but could not become president while Bush could.
Mario: where you, Donofrio and the rest of your coterie during the 8 years of Bush and Cheney?
I posted this before: I personally know someone of Arabic descent, who was railroaded when Gonzalez decided the Constitution was a nuisance.
Andrew Bonar Law, Prime Minister in the early 1920s (I forget what date) was born in New Brunswick, now a part of Canada.
I believe that Ballantine, like I, are very serious in trying to explain your confusions to you
Now that’s funny coming from a guy who is trying to argue that Minor shows that Vattel is the guiding principle, or that the NBC act somehow supports your ill-founded claims about 14th amendment citizens.
As to Global Warming there is almost infinitely more evidence to support the facts of global warming than there is to support your musings.
And there is no such thing as ‘pro global warming community’ as global warming is a fact but few believe that it is a positive development.
You’re a funny dude Mario, but way in over your head.
You’re not making much sense. The 14th Amendment merely repeated that which was already Constitutionally accepted. Which is why the concepts of natural born and native born are so similar and why the concept of 14th amendment citizen is so vacuous.
PS: In other words, a citizen of the U.S. in light of the 14th amendment must have an independent effect from the natural born citizen in light of Article II, Sec I Clause 5
Yes, it freed slaves for instance by reminding that they are citizens too, even though the Courts had managed to undermine such a self evident statement. Hence the need for a constitutional amendment.
Better study the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment a bit further.
Scientist,
First, on your point about the passport of someone’s father, my Obama objection is not based on my personal view. Rather, it is based on history, the Constitution, case law, commentators, the citizenship and immigration laws of our nation, and the need to protect our nation not only from without but also from within.
Second, on “torture,” I have not studied the issue. I believe the subject matter is quite complex. There are probably so many different variables that apply to a full understanding of the subject.
We must first come to an agreement on how we define “torture” and how we will punish a person for engaging in such conduct in a given situation. Then we will have to fully understand the factual scenario to which we are asked to apply our definition. Then we will have to apply our definition to that factual complex. Finally, we must come to a conclusion on whether torture was applied or not. If we conclude that someone has tortured another, we must then punish that person to that degree which is comparable to the seriousness of the act committed. In meeting out any punishment, we must weigh all aggravating and mitigating factors which we will also have to define in advance.
I wish that I could be more definite at this time. But as you can see, just asking me to answer your question on torture without any of this information is not possible for me.
nbc,
You are my Super Hero.
Which all point to Obama being a natural born citizen by virtue of being born on US soil.
Weird..
You can be my Super Mario, although what happened to your sidekick my friend.
Hugs and kisses.
It doesn’t matter if the 14th amendment was enacted to make the slaves citizens or make the obots birthers . That’s irrelevant.
I just tried to point out that you do not become an nbc based on the 14th amendment alone because the clause and the amendement must be mutually exclusive. If you can be President according to the 14th amendment, then the nbc clause must have no purpose.
“You have got to be kidding me.”
Substance free response, as we’ve come to expect when you have nothing else to say.
You are right, you don’t become eligible for president by the 14th amendment, but that doesn’t mean the clause and the amendment are mutually exclusive. I suggest you read up on the history of the amendment and read Wong Kim Ark carefully as they both make clear that they stand for the same english common law rule basing citizenship at birht upon the locality of birth. The 14th amendment was necessary to put the original meaning back into place after the preversion of the original constitution by the Dred Scott decision. No one who spoke in that congress thought they were changing the law or the constitution that was in place other than to remove any implications of Dred Scott.
I am glad that you are on the side of me and not Mario who argues that the 14th Amendment somehow creates a different sort of citizen. What the 14th amendment has done is to clarify the rights of citizens and describe who are citizens. Of course not all citizens are natural born, only those born on US soil. I still fail to see any argument here other than perhaps a pretty simplistic understanding of Constitutional law.
You do understand the concept of amendments, do you not?
PS: There is no clause which defines what is a natural born citizen. In fact, the natural born citizen clause is in reference to being a President. The 14th helps understand who qualifies as citizen and helps understand how to interpret natural born in this context.
They are not mutually exclusive. One explains the eligibility requirement of the Presidency, the other how the eligibility requirement is met.
The intellectually honest truth, Mario, is that you win in your own head, on your own blog, and in your own paid advertisements, but that’s it for you. When you bring these arguments to a real court with a real judge, you have the same success rate as Orly Taitz.
Did it occur to you to simply look up “natural born citizen” in Black’s Law Dictionary, like a competent lawyer would? No need to make a federal case of it.
They remind me of Judicial Watch, the group which decided to represent Paula Jones ostensibly out of concern over the issue of sexual harassment. Of course, Judicial Watch had never before become involved in a sexual harassment case, and to my knowledge has never become involved in another sexual harassment case.
In reality, Judicial Watch’s objective was to take down Bill Clinton, and the objective of Mario & Co. is to take down Obama.
For our 25,000th comment, this one is rather a disappointment.
Ah, you are a follower of crank science as well as crank legal theories.
I always wonder why people do the things they do, and this helps a lot.
And what is your citation for “independent” effect?
*sigh* Really Mario. I spent time defending your antics on here just hours ago and then you post something like this; which comes off like nothing but immature, bitter sniping, with nothing substantive behind it.
In what way do you think anybody is being dishonest intellectually? Just because they disagree with you? Really?? You are capable of more mature dialog than you are demonstrating today.
I realize that some are teasing and egging you on, but the fact that you’ve let it get to you this much means you need to maybe take a break and enjoy something you like in life and come back when you are in a better mood.
That’s the danger of a heavily moderated blog. One never gets the sense of how their ideas sound to the general public. It generates a false sense of entitlement to respect.
Nevertheless, the insults are disappointing from a professional.
I fully agree based on the Barnett transcripts.
When did you start investigating the law on Obama’s eligibility, Mario? Did your investigation arise because of Obama’s nomination/election? Is it possible that it colored your interpretation of the history, Constitution, case law, commentators, etc.?
I mean, I can point to 50 or 60 law review articles written since Wong Kim Ark, all saying the same thing – natural born means born here and might also mean born abroad to citizen parents. For more than 100 years, there hasn’t been a single scholar that said natural born means two citizen parents.
Even the Eagle Forum, when they trotted out their best arguments for why Hamdi wasn’t a citizen wasn’t willing to give credence to the two-parent rule.
Where were you, Mario, when Hamdi was before the Supreme Court? Where was the Apuzzo amicus brief in that case?
Best case scenario, Mario, is that you’re being a zealous advocate, that you don’t personally believe this horse manure, but have to say so for the benefit of a paying client. On the other hand, if you really believe it, well, that’s just sad. There’s a greater likelihood of the Easter Bunny coming and stealing a kiss from my dear wife than your misinterpretation of Vattel being the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
Greg,
The Easter Bunny might just kiss your wife. A fly once kissed mine.
brygenon,
That sounds just about right for you. That is probably all that your little mind can handle, looking something up in a dictionary.
You really have to get out and do more with yourself. How do you expect to be a champion?
Dr. Conspiracy,
It sounds like you do not believe all the talk about global warming.
G,
My comment was not directed at those who disagree with me. Rather, it was directed at those who are not intellectually honest. If the shoe does not fit you, what is your problem. Anyway, do not fret. Soon I will be going to bed.
P.S. I bet no one ever misspelled your name.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Do you really believe that your blog deserves respect when I see nothing but rubber stamping?
Funny to talk about intellectual honesty… You are a riot Mario. Have you thought about taking up a stand up comedian tour?
It does not surprise me that once again Mario misinterprets the clear comments of someone. It’s par for the course
Poor Mario, he spent all this effort to come up with another ‘novel’ ‘theory’ about congress and NBC only to be show wrong in 10 seconds.
Have you considered outsourcing your legal research to improve effectiveness?
The blog deserves infinitely more respect than you do my dear Super Mario. Now be a good chap and run another round…
One other option – Andy Kaufman.
That would be hilarious. In a Punk’d kind of way.
In fact, Mario, it would be so funny, that, were I you, I would be thinking of ways to make it an Andy Kaufman even if it hadn’t started out that way.
Maybe reveal that Kerchner was just you in drag? And you and Dr. C. are the same person? And Orly Taitz is Sasha Baron Cohen? A twenty-grand fine is peanuts compared to the millions the film will bring in. And to have pulled the world’s greatest prank.
Well…it would be pretty sweet.
Mario,
Really, you definitely are defensive and raw today. What is my problem? Nothing, I wish you could see I’m actually trying to be helpful and supportive of you here, even though I disagree with many of your positions.
The reason for my *sigh* is that your statement of accusing others of “intellectual dishonesty” came across like a simple childish lashing out, as opposed to any meaningful argument, as there was no direct reference whatsoever to in what way anyone was fitting the bill of being such.
Heck, you are a lawyer and I’ve been reading these posts (and yours here) for months. I know you are capable of making an argument and substantiating it, so all I ask is that you state clearly what exactly you think others were saying that was “intellectually dishonest”. Because in all honesty, it came across like a blind retort in anger with no context.
Trust me, I did not take it as directed towards myself, as I have not weighed in on much of the thread of what you’ve been arguing back and forth here.
But as an avid reader of this site, listening to the back-and-forth, I read it and remain clueless as to where you were going with that statement or who you were accusing of such – particularly in light of the fact that you then follow it up by going off on some unrelated tangent about global warming, which I hadn’t seen even brought up in this thread. Therefore, I question that your post even had a point, other than to lash out in general, meaningless frustration.
…Although I guess it does tell us that you are a climate change denier as well. Not that this is the forum intended for such topics, but for those of us with science backgrounds, I’m sure we’d be happy to debate you on that issue anytime as well.
PS – Ha ha! You are right, it is hard to misspell “G”. (Obviously my real name is not “G”…but it is a nickname I’ve had for at least 25 years, so I use it when I post on sites, as it is very quick to type 1 character). I’m glad to see that despite everything today, you’re able to retain your sense of humor! Have a good night and I hope you get some good rest.
Wow Greg, you may have hit the nail on its head…
Freaky
Wow, I think that is an unfair characterization of this blog. It deserves respect because it allows mostly unmoderated commentary on fairly focused topics and usually contains a fair amount of scholarly discussion, often backed up by supporting references.
Obviously, due to the nature of the blog itself, most of those attracted to this site view the “birther” related issues as matter of conspiracy theory.
Unlike most “birther” sites, which heavily moderate to prevent contrary opinions from appearing, this site does not exist in a protected bubble. Numerous “birthers” have come here and posted, but many do not stay ver long, because they haven’t been able to defend their arguments when challenged or disproved.
Just because a majority of people here are in agreement and reach the same conclusions, which contrast with yours, does not equate to “rubber stamping”.
Wow, Greg, Brilliant! LMAO! The whole Kaufman/Punk’d take…oh yes, that would indeed make one hilarious surreal movie.
Thanks for giving me a huge laugh to end my week! 😉
nbc,
Did you say chap? Is that a Freudian slip? Oh, the irony!
nbc,
You are taking on a haughty air in your old age.
In my own opinion, based on the way he writes, Mario doesn’t believe in the correctness of what he argues.
Maybe he is motivated by money, or by a misguided desire for limelight, or as Gordon’s Precepts make it clear, he just believe it is impossible for a black man (one whom he believes to be an interloper) to be President.
Reading Mario’s posts here was useful, once. After his numerous statements have been thoroughly debunked and refuted, reading them again and again, is a waste of time.
Just my 2 cents, of course.
Let me reiterate again that I don’t believe for a minute that Mario is sincere.
If this was a criminal case with a man’s life or freedom at stake, I would expect, in fact, cheer, the efforts by the defense attorney to argue the indefensible, no matter how absurd.
(It’s up to the Judge to decide what’s admissible etc.)
So I’d applaud Mario’s efforts in such a context.
But all of us with some court experience can surely guess that Mario is using the very same approach here (being a litigator it probably comes to him naturally), when what is required instead is a scholarly and well-reasoned argument.
I think Mario is intelligent and probably an effective litigator; this is why, looking at the “intellectual footprints” he leaves here (or his pleadings), I don’t believe that he himself believes in the correctness of his arguments.
As I wrote above, Mario’s motivations are in doubt. I honestly don’t know if this is pure meretriciousness on his part, or if there is a racist/xenophobic agenda buried underneath. (I’ve seen well-educated rational people believe completely idiotic things when it comes to race/alienness.)
I’m not competent to discuss the minutiae of your citizenship laws, but it is crystal clear that this is not a matter for the courts — and never will be, no matter what this act says, or how this ruling is interpreted.
Obama is, and will remain President, until 2012.
So why is Mario doing this?
What if he is using this suit to try (in my opinion, in vain) to have some of the Klan’s Precepts somehow introduced into your legal system?
As I said, I think it’s a doomed attempt anyway, but I could envision a scenario where Mario is what French Intelligence folks call a “submarine” used by the Klan, or like-minded folks, to get some of their beliefs into the legal system.
Of course, Mario would never admit to this, but at least it would explain why someone as smart as he likely is does what he does, with no hope of victory.
There is famous French attorney, in fact, who also likes to take those kind of cases, and has, in fact, been accused at various times of being a front for more shadowy groups, usually on the far left of the political spectrum. Who knows?
His name is Jacques Verges and I think he was once profiled on 60 Minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Verg%C3%A8s
The point here is not to win, but to subtly change the legal systems or the legal views.
I’m sad (but not surprised) to read Mario’s comments on global warming.
Global warming is a fact that is not in dispute today, except from some lunatics. What is very much being disputed are the causes of it, especially our civilization’s role and impact into the phenomenon.
Interestingly, a 15-nation poll was conducted in 2006 by Pew Global and found that all industrial nations accept and worry about global warming: Japan (93%), India (85%), Spain (85%), France (85%), UK (67%), Germany (64%), Russia (65%).
The US and China, the two largest producers of greenhouse gases, come at 61% for China and 53% for the US, a rather dismal figure, likely due to rubbishy propaganda.
There’s the link:
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/252.pdf
Mario writes:
“Rather, it [his objection to Obama] is based on history, the Constitution, case law, commentators, the citizenship and immigration laws of our nation, and the need to protect our nation not only from without but also from within.”
All noble concerns which coincidentally happened to stir your soul for the first time only when a black man was elected President, and not at any time during the previous 8 years of Constitutional abuse.
You’re a bit like a cop who sees ten women of color being raped and does and says nothing, but jumps in fury at a perpetrator who’s sneaked a lascivious glance at a white woman.
I think the views expresses here, while much more informed, mirror the opinions of the general public (except for the states of the former Confederacy).
Mario, I have never considered your comments rubber stamps (nor John nor mrlqban, nor Sven. Nor anybody else for that matter). I don’t know how closely you read comments here, but I find most folks feel free to disagree and point out my mistakes.
If you feel lonely bring a friend.
I don’t believe ALL the talk about anything. But anyone who has visited a glacier recently knows about global warming first hand. I saw this in the Andes in 2007.
Mario: “Second, on “torture,” I have not studied the issue. I believe the subject matter is quite complex. There are probably so many different variables that apply to a full understanding of the subject”
If you are truly a “defender of the Constitution and the law” as you proclaim yourself, then you have an obligation to study it. The torture and illegal detention began 8 years ago. That should be enough time for you to have formulated an opinion. If your opinion were that Bush/Cheney were justified in their actions and you offered a real defense, that would at least show you had a functioning mind. But to have devoted no time or thought to it in 8 years shows that as Gertrude Stein said, “There is no there there.”
While the question of motivation is intriguing, for me it is a perilous activity exposing my own prejudices and wishful thinking. The regional and cultural differences between Mr. Apuzzo and me prevent me from understanding any nuance in his beligerance and my lack of legal training prevents me from understanding how litigator’s think.
Mario Apuzzo has an impossible task, and that needs be kept in mind.
The Kobiashi Maru is not about winning.
Actually, these two pro se litigants made up a much better (read: less frivolous) case than Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo. They did not claim the black man in the white house was an illegal immigrant from Kenya who had to be taken out in handcuffs. They based their case on an obscure Indiana law on electors and sitting senators and on the ineligibility of both Obama and McCain – stating Obama was not NBC because his father was not a citizen and saying nothing particularly about McCain.
Which explains why the court’s judgement (three judges) actually went beyond standing and for the first time addressed the merits. Only, the judgement was not what the birfers hoped for. Oops. Double and triple oops when both the Indiana and the US Supreme Court will let this judgement stand.
Global warming doesn’t make much sense if you believe the world is only 6000 years old.
G,
I guess I was right in bringing up global warming on this site. I am not surprised by your calling me “a climate change denier.” That almost sounds like calling someone a birther. I think the same DNA is at work. If the shoe fits, wear it.
“The Easter Bunny might just kiss your wife. A fly once kissed mine.”
Actually, my wife and I get kisses from our cat.
“It sounds like you do not believe all the talk about global warming.”
What about gobal air conditioning? It’s a major scandal, especially in Iraq.
“I bet no one ever misspelled your name.”
I did: “gee”. I’ll never let it happen again.
You betcha.
misha,
You never fail to amaze me. You are the only person on this site to misspell G’s name. Dr. Conspiracy will have to make up one of his awards for you.
I am sure that you wear your badge of denial with honor too?
First you deny that President Obama is a NBC, in spite of the facts. Now you seem to deny the fact of Global Warming.
You’re Super, Mario…
Mario’s impossible task is of Mario’s own invention. It’s not like some poor soul about to be executed begged Mario to take on his last-ditch appeal.
In my years as a kookologist I’ve noted strong commonalities among different kinds of cranks. Mario and his fellow birthers exhibit much the same underlying behavior as the scientific cranks that Martin Gardner described in Fads and Fallacies in the name of Science. It’s not their errors that leads them to kookery — everyone makes mistakes — it’s their self-righteous and childish refusal to take correction.
Mario’s response to his Court defeat is classic: he says that the Court did not decide the real Kerchner v. Obama case. Of course reality is the opposite. Mario did great in the Birfistan echo chamber. He lost the real suite in the real Court with the real judge.
Well, I would have to say it is not just “lunatics” that are on the wrong side of this issue. Sadly, many people have a very poor understanding of science.
That includes many media folks and a whole host of others who often bungle either comprehending or communicating the issues of what global warming or global climate change means, including its possible causes and impacts.
When you combine that with the fact that weather and climate are comprised of very complex patterns of interrelationships and dynamics, the totality of which is not fully understood and which we can only model to limited extent – it is therefore easy to see where people can become confused or misled on the topic.
Not to mention that there are many various business interests that always prefer the “status quo” and see any attempts to address real problems as too costly to them.
Like ostriches with their heads in the sand, these are the groups that are usually behind trying to take advantage of the “gray” areas and wish to manipulate public opinion and restrict action. Many of the so-called “scientists” that have argued against climate change work for such interests.
Like many of this issues today, which are really driven by profit protection, it becomes easy to then co-opt, persuade and manipulate those of various ideological persuasions to adopt a similar position on the issue.
Mario,
You are correct of course that there are likely correlations between how people align with and view certain issues. Not a one-to-one correlation of course, but definite overlaps can be generally inferred.
However, I would argue that a Venn Diagram between “birthers” and “climate change deniers” would be much tighter than the other way around.
If I incorrectly impugned you with the term “denier”, I apologize. Maybe you are merely a skeptic. A skeptic can fairly argue doubts based on where there are holes in facts, logic or evidence. The term “denier” is probably more indicative of taking a position as a matter of faith.
So, I’ll leave it to you to categorize yourself how you see best appropriate.
Youforgot to mention that this was a 5th Circuit decision, which in no way trumps the SCOTUS. Second, this was essentially a dismissal of the Federal Case not a decision on a matter of law. The Judge was incorrect in stating that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen. It happens to Judges as well.
Sorry, looks like you posted too soon on this.
Wong Kim Ark was a SCOTUS opinion, I am sure you are aware of this? The Judge was merely following what SCOTUS had logically ruled upon in Wong Kim Ark.
It’s called precedent. And there is no reason to believe that the Judge was wrong to rule him a NBC, after all, by the standards provided by SCOTUS in WKA, he undoubtably was a NBC
Diomedia: The Judge was incorrect in stating that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen.
Most likely the judge actually read Wong and you haven’t. The devil is in the details.
Dr. Conspiracy,
What would you do, rescue the Maru or just leave it die?
While there is a bit of rhetorical brilliance in your question, I suppose the answer depends on whether the Maru is full of Federation ambassadors, or whether it is an unmanned garbage scow.
I will admit virtue in the impossible pursuit of a worthy cause. I do not admit any virtue in misleading the public.
Either way, the end is the same…
While we are on the subject of intellectual dishonesty, let us not forget that in the Kerchner complaint Mario asserted as fact that in 1981 there was a ban against Americans traveling to Pakistan. When confronted with irrefutable evidence that no such ban existed, instead of acknowledging his error Mario put forth the ludicrous claim that there was a “de facto” ban on travel to Pakistan. He has yet to admit that the supposed travel ban is at best a figment of his imagination.
Rickey,
I stand by my “de facto” travel ban. It is the substance that counts, not the form. You are just still steaming over that ban because my answer burst your bubble.
Also, did anyone on this illustrious site ever tell me with what passport Obama travelled to Pakistan? Now be sure to answer me so that I do not think you are being intellectually dishonest. You people on here know so much about Obama’s every detail. I’m sure you can tell me about his passports. I’ll be waiting. Now let’s be honest!
Scientist,
Your effort at rationalizing your position shows the weakness of the pro-Obama argument on the “natural born Citizen” clause.
You really are in a non-defensible position. How can you argue against what is in the best interest of our nation?
Now that is that irony again… Wonderful Mario…
Do you even see the irony
Poor Mario… Such an inflated opinion of himself.
I agree with your reasoning but I don’t think their goal is to take down Obama through those ridiculous and obviously doomed to fail court actions.
Unlike Orly, I don’t think Mario is a delusional cretin. I think he is knowingly pushing forward a KKK-type agenda to delegitimize non-white non-christian people, reverse Dred Scott, etc.
The birther agenda is just a mean to an end.
I’d be curious to know who finances Mario.
“You are very small among the very big.”
Oh the irony again.
You should look up “projection”.
nbc,
You quote me but you leave off the most important part. I’m still waiting to know what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan. Now let’s be honest!
I note with some interest that Mario has not denied my speculation that (a) he is being financed or supported or used by Klan-like right-wing extremists; and (b) the real purpose of his Quixotic suit is not primarily to challenge Obama’s legitimacy, but to promote a legal agenda to disenfranchize non-white, non-christian citizens (or somehow make then less than full US citizens).
So, Orrin Hatch is pro-Obama? As far as I am aware, he, like his fellow Republicans, has voted 100% against every Obama initiative. However, unlike you he doesn’t insult his fellow citizens by claiming his vote is worth 69 million of theirs.
Now, I heard there was an accident on the Turnpike, so I’m sure you have work to do.
Stick to lawyering. You’ll never make a career in comedy.
Mario Apuzzo: I stand by my “de facto” travel ban.
Your choice: travel ban, or intellectual honesty.
The documented truth is: “Americans could travel freely to Pakistan in 1981 on US Passports, with a 30-day visa available to them at the border.” Unless you are willing to say that, or present new evidence to the contrary, then you are not intellectually honest, and your credibility here will remain nil.
Oh, the laughs keep coming with SuperComedyMario. Be honest, there’s no evidence to suggest Barack Obama has ever had any other passport than a US passport, so you’re fishing here for ideas. Too bad you’ll never have the chance to stand up in court and make an ass of yourself asserting there was a Pakistan travel ban and Obama had multiple passports. Heck, if you ever get the chance, you might as well just cross-dress as Orly Taitz, because you’ll sound just like her. You are becoming a caricature just like Orly. By the way, what is a “de facto travel ban” any way. Oh, the knee-slappers from you Mario Taitz!
Mario Apuzzo: did anyone on this illustrious site ever tell me with what passport Obama travelled to Pakistan?
One may say with confidence that Barack Obama used a US Passport for all of his overseas travel because 1) he is a US Citizen, and 2) there is no evidence he ever claimed citizenship of any place else.
[I note the Indonesian school record stating Obama’s nationality as “Indonesian,” but Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship, and as has been amply argued here Obama could not have lost his US Citizenship as a child. Obama, in his book Dreams from My Father, stated that he returned to the US from Indonesia with a US Passport. Various lies and misrepresentations of Indonesian law have been discussed in other articles on this site. It has not even been alleged that Obama used a British or Kenyan passport, which is the only theoretical alternative.]
It would be intellectually dishonest to suggest that your question has not been conclusively answered.
There was NEVER a ban, legal or de facto, on Americans travelling to Pakistan. I personally know a native-born American who travelled there several times in the early 80’s on a US passport. There was a State Department advisory, as there are at times for numerous countries, due to crime, natural disasters, epidemics, political tensions, etc. None of those forbid travel. There were dangerous areas in Pakistan in that era, though less so than today. There were also dangerous areas in New York City in the early 80s and I travelled there.
The only country US citizens have been banned from visiting in recent times is Cuba. Even with that, thousands of Americans have gone, including many with no family ties. Hop over to any large city in Canada and catch a flight. When you re-enter the US, just say you were in Canada and got your tan at a salon or on the ski slopes.
So, I will assert that Obama went to Pakistan on a US passport. Prove differently.
Now go chase an ambulance.
To repeat my analogy: Mario practicing constitutional law, is like my performing ocular surgery because I dissected a sheep’s eye.
Amazing coincidence.
“I’d be curious to know who finances Mario.”
Probably, the same people who finance Orly and her coterie.
Not much of a de facto ban if the New York Times wrote a travelogue about going there.
Have you ever answered what passport the NY Times writer traveled on?
You’re just steaming, Mario, over the fact that your “de facto ban” is a steaming pile.
When Obama came to France earlier this year, he said that he had traveled through France during his college days and that a return trip to the southeastern region of Provence was long overdue.
I assume this means the early 1980s.
Local people’s recollections when interviewed is that he introduced himself as an American tourist; therefore, he must have had a US passport.
In fact, how could he have re-entered the US without a US passport?
Here is the link to the transcript of the interview where Obama refers to his trip to France during his college days:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/transcript-of-the-interview-of-the-president-by-laura-haim-canal-plus-6-1-09/
nbc,
The beauty with irony is that it is invisible.
Lupin,
It is unfortunate that you see your world through all that is racial. You have a lot of hidden hate that you have to get rid off.
It’s interesting to see Mario denying global warming given his personal contribution and those of his fellow birthers to the problem:
1. Emission of enormous quantities of hot air.
2. The cutting down of entire forests for the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
nbc,
I can tell when you are losing. You revert to your infantile ways. Maybe you can hire me as your psychoanalyst. I really would do wonders for you. I can be a great coach. Give it a thought.
nbc,
That is funny. I was thinking the same exact thing about you.
Dr. Conspiracy,
That must have been some cathartic (mental not physical) experience that you had in the Andes in 2007.
brygenon,
Your shallowness shows so vividly. You really should consider ways to enrich your life. It will make you happier with yourself and make others around you more appreciative of who you are.
nbc,
I see that you keep praying to St. Wong Kim Ark.
Dr. Conspiracy,
The Devil is not in the detail. He is in the motivation.
Now if you could apply your ‘skills’ more effectively to when you are losing and we would not have this somewhat embarrassing discussion.
As to being ‘infantile’, I am trying to adapt the level to my immediate audience Mario. Seems it worked.
Irony is only invisible to ’emperors without clothes’. Do you really not realize how much you entertain us with your ‘musings’?
That irony again
Seeing the facts with your own eyes can be quite cathartic. I highly recommend it.
You’re a funny guy Mario.Now if you could only harvest those skills and apply them in a meaningful manner, and you would not be fantasizing about a career in psychoanalysis… We often see ourselves as excelling in careers where we have no business of being involved.
Highly ironic.
Is Mario truly considering a career change into psycho analysis? It may make him happier with himself and make others around him more appreciative… Wait a minute, I have seen those words before… Now where was that..
Mario’s latest ‘argument’ where he claims that Congress has been struggling with the definition of the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen” seems to be at odds with what is known about the NBC act which intends to extend NBC to children born to US citizens (in the Vattel meaning of one or more citizens) while abroad.
As to the historical meaning of NBC, the act recognizes that it includes children born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents.
Mario makes up fake facts.
He makes up fake law.
Then he insults others and accuses others of intellectual dishonesty.
He’s just a psuedolawyer practicing pseudolaw.
Since he has a day job as a legal bottomfeeder I assume that he latched onto the birther movement, late in the game, for the attention it provides. He’ll never have a job in a prestigious form nor win attention in the media for representing rich and famous clients — but its easy enough to rise to prominence in birfer-land. If he’s lucky and there are enough delays in his appeal, he’s got a chance to be the last man standing (assuming Orly is disbarred and Berg loses interest).
He used travel documents given to him as an Indonesian Refugee.
How does a young without so much as cab fare to his name pay tuition and living expenses to attend Occidental College?
Hahaha, you’re funny Sven. Still no real evidence now do you.
Snicker.
Mario Apuzzo says:
I stand by my “de facto” travel ban. It is the substance that counts, not the form. You are just still steaming over that ban because my answer burst your bubble.
It is your claim of a de facto ban which is totally lacking in substance. Please provide evidence that there was even one U.S. citizen who tried to travel to Pakistan on a U.S. passport in 1981 and was prohibited from doing so. Until then, my bubble remains intact. And the only steam I can see is coming from your direction.
Also, did anyone on this illustrious site ever tell me with what passport Obama travelled to Pakistan? Now be sure to answer me so that I do not think you are being intellectually dishonest.
As a reasonable and prudent person, and based upon the preponderance of actual evidence, I am confident that Obama traveled to Pakistan on a U.S. passport. I have arrived at this conclusion because Obama is and was a United States citizen, he has never claimed to be a citizen of any country other than the United States, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that he has ever held a passport from any country other than the United States.
If you evidence to the contrary – that’s evidence, not mere speculation – let’s see it. I won’t be holding my breath while waiting.
Of all the incredibly weak birther arguments, this may be the weakest. In Sweden college is free. In the US there are scholarships based on need and academic merit. Occidental, like other top private colleges, has and had large endowments and offers scholarships to most entering students.
Here is a link
http://departments.oxy.edu/finaid/CMSLIVE/09-10%20Financial%20Aid%20Policy%20Guide.pdf
For a student from a family with a modest income these often cover full tuition, room and board. I can absolutely guarantee you that any college admissions officer would wet their pants over a half-black, half-white student from a prestigious Hawaiian prep school. A kid like that would have their pick of schools and very generous scholarships.
The idea that only foreign students get scholarships is absurd. The vast najority of scholarships are reserved for US citizens and permanent residents.
You sir are a moron.
SvenMagnussen says:
He used travel documents given to him as an Indonesian Refugee.
That’s one of the stupidest comments you have made, and that’s saying a lot. Even if Obama had not been a U.S. citizen he would not have qualified for refugee status.
How does a young without so much as cab fare to his name pay tuition and living expenses to attend Occidental College?
Another of the great myths. Obama’s family wasn’t exactly destitute – his grandmother, who basically raised him, was a vice-president of the Bank of Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-07-obamagrandma_N.htm
Have you ever heard of scholarships? The Boston Globe (8/25/08) reported that Obama attended Occidental on scholarship.
In 1981, Pakistan was on the State Department list for “travel advisory.” \\Secretary\legalfiles\Political\Obama\Pakistan\Travel Advisory Sheets Archive.mht; http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf. “The advisory is vital to ensure travelers are well-prepared,” insist the State Department travel advisory. ” “We provide advice to citizens so they will be well-prepared,” added the State Department advisory. http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel. “Travel warnings, which the State Department has been making public to American travelers since 1978 and which cover everything from civil unrest to health concerns, originate with the U.S. embassy or consulates of a specific country. Then the Bureau of Consular Affairs—and, occasionally, other agencies—weighs in, with the final decision coming from the office of the Undersecretary of State. The State Department subsequently revisits the warnings, usually every six months.” http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/state-department-travel-warnings-explained/1. That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981.
When Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981, the country was going through a civil war and was under martial law. It was experiencing serious social, political, and religious upheaval. A few years earlier, General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq had overthrown the government of Bhutto by way of coup. Zia-ul-Haq even created a separate electoral system for non-Muslims. Courts were created to make sure the country’s laws were not repugnant to Islam. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan and the Afghan Mujahedeen operated in Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. Government-issued visas to foreign visitors were good only for 30 days. The Government had in place Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, which allowed the Government to prevent any person who was in Pakistan from leaving the country even though they had valid travel documents without, in the name of “public interest,” even giving a reason for the action. Any person violating that ordinance faced 5 years of imprisonment. Because of these conditions, travel by an American using an U.S. passport was very risky to say the least. Also, there is currently a U.S. State Department travel warning for Americans wanting to travel to Pakistan. “The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against non-essential travel to Pakistan in light of the threat of terrorist activity. This replaces the Travel Warning dated February 25, 2009, updates information on security incidents and reminds U.S. citizens of ongoing security concerns in Pakistan.” http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_930.html. Hence, while there might not have been a de jure “ban” on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981, there surely was a de facto one.
Furthermore, if there was no problem traveling to Pakistan in 1981 as you suggest, tell me the following:
1. How many Americans with U.S. passports went there in 1981.
2. What function (job category) did these Americans have before entering the country.
3. What was the purpose of their trip there.
4. How long did they stay there.
5. How many Americans were refused visas to enter the country.
6. Why were they refused those visas.
7. What passport did Obama use to travel into Pakistan.
8. How did the young Obama finance his trip to Indonesia, India, and Pakistan.
9. Why has Obama since mentioning his Pakistani trip just once never speak about it again even though there have been so many public inquiries about it.
10. Why did the Obama campaign not respond to an invitation to comment on some of the speculation surrounding the visit to Pakistan or to provide further details about the trip.
11. Was Obama one of the many included in the stream of Afro-Americans who–in the words of veteran security analyst, Bahukutumbi Raman, a former Indian counterterrorism chief–visited Pakistan to feel the greatness of the Afghani jihad against communism and their fascination for Abdullah Azzam.
12. For how long did Obama stay in Pakistan.
13. With whom did Obama visit while he was in Pakistan. If he visited politicians while there, how was he able to make such political connections.
14. Why did Obama not mention his Pakistani trip and the in-depth religious knowledge that he gained from it in his autobiographies.
So as you see, playing word games–“travel ban” vs. “travel advisory” really does not get you very far when we consider the realty that existed in Pakistan in 1981 and all the unanswered questions that Obama’s visit there raises.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Please spare me all of your hot air. I just want to know what passport Obama used to travel to Pakistan. Also, do not tell me that your presume or assume what the answer is. If you do not have any evidence of what passport he used, simply state so for the sake of “intellectual honesty” rather than dance around.
Expelliarmus,
The only credit I give you is in picking your name. It sound so much like ignoramus.
nbc,
Why do you not try addressing the real issue and stop wasting people’s time.
The only passport we know Obama ever owned would be a US passport. We know for instance that he returned to the US from Indonesia on such a passport.
nbc,
“Still no real evidence now do you.” It would help if you learned how to write a sentence.
And your given name sounds like putz.
Seriously, Mario, do you think you’re some kind of raconteur? Some kind of wit in the mould of Oscar Wilde or Shaw? You’re a two-bit ambulance chaser with a losing case based on ridiculous ideas and racism. Your only talent seems to be the ability to look like a minor-league Noo Joizy extra on the Sopranos when you have your picture taken.
Beat it, you cheap hack.
ROTFL, what a cunning linguist you are Mario. But those schooled in the classic languages would know that the two have no common linguistic roots beyond the -mus
expelliarmus: From Harry Potter
ignoramus – ignoro : to be ignorant of, not know / rarely: neglect, overlook.
It’s hard to know what you consider to be the real issue. We have already shown how your NBC means born to 2 US citizens is flawed. When you claimed that Congress had attempted to add 14th amendment citizens, another invention of yours, to the definition of NBC, we again showed you to be wrong.
What more do you want?
It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that there was a “de facto” travel ban, or that there is any suggestion that Obama traveled on anything other than a US passport.
Damn it, Mario! I just replaced that irony machine from the last time you broke one.
I am sending you an invoice for these things – and do you know a good lawyer?
Criticizing grammar. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
And you still haven’t read Wong Kim Ark!
You’re a funny guy Mario, irony deficient perhaps but with the right supplements we can have you back on your feet in no time.
I figured the reference would be lost on a squib like Mario.
Specifically, Mario should stick to representing drunk drivers, crazy cat ladies, and such. He tried Constitutional law in Kerchner v. Obama, and proved not worth his fee. And he took the case pro bono.
I don’t know what a “de facto” travel ban is, but I know what you, Mario, wrote about travel to Pakistan in your “Second Amended and Verified Complaint” was false. Specifically:
“and we know that at the time such travel was prohibited to Americans using an U.S. passport”
and,
“But such travel was forbidden to American citizens at the time.”
No, Mario, you and your client knew no such thing, and had you exercised anything resembling due diligence, you would have found there was no such prohibition. Such travel was not forbidden to American citizens, contrary to the claims you wrote in your filing to the Court.
Mario, did you inform the Court that these claims in your filing were false? Have you explained to the judge how you were confused by some “de facto” situation, and retracted your false claims of “prohibited” and “forbidden”?
Mikie,
That’s putzo. You really have been deprived in the world. We are a special breed. Our last names end in a vowel.
“I am an Italian American. My roots are deep in ancient soil. Drenched by the Mediterranean sun and watered by pure steams from snow capped mountains. I am enriched by thousands of years of culture. My hands are those of the mason, artist, the man of soil. my thoughts have been recorded in the annals of Rome, the poetry of Virgil, the creations of Dante, and the philosophy of Benedetto Croce.
I am an Italian American, and from my ancient world I first spanned the seas to the New World, I am Christoforo Columbo. I am GiovanniCaboto known in American history as John Cabot, discoverer of the mainland of North America. I am Amerigo Vespucci, who gave my name to the new world, America. First to sail on the great lakes in 1679, founder of the territory that became the State of Illinois. Colonizer of Louisiana and Arkansa, I am Enrico Tonti. I am Filippo Mazzei, friend of Thomas Jefferson, and my thesis on equality of man was written into the bill of rights. I am William Paca, signer of the Declaration of Independence and yes an Italian American.
I am an Italian American. I financed the Northwest expedition of George Rogers Clark and accompanied him through the lands that would become Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan, I am Colonel Francesco Virgo. I mapped the Pacific from Mexico to Alaska and to the Philippines, am Alessandro Malaspina. I am Giacomo Beltrami, the discoverer of the Mississippi river in 1823. I created the dome of the United States capitol. They called me the Michelangelo of America, I am Constantino Brumidi. In 1904, I founded in San Francisco, the Bank of Italy now known as the Bank of America, the largest financial institution in the world. I am A.P. Gianni. I am Enrico Fermi, father of nuclear science in America. First enlisted man to win the medal of honor in World War II, I am John Basilone of New Jersey.
I am an Italian American. I am the million strong who served in America’s armies and the tens of thousands whose names are enshrined in military cemeteries from Guadalcanal to the Rhine. I am the steel maker in Pittsburgh, the grower in the Imperial Valley of California, the textile designer in Manhattan, the movie maker in Hollywood, the home maker and the breadwinner in 10,000 communities.
I am an American without stint of reservation, loving this land as only one who understands history, its agonies and its triumphs, and can love and serve as that of any other American. I will stand in support of this nation’s freedom and promise against all foes. My heritage has dedicated me to this nation. I am proud of my FULL heritage and I shall remain worthy of it.”
Author, Angelo Bianchi, Esq.
What’s your story, Mikie?
Sven, are you recycling your debunked Indonesian refugee status theory again? I missed it. We had some much fun here on Dr. C’s site debunking it back in May. I guess we can expect your diplomatic consular passport theory next. What is up with you birthers? Are you getting into recycling by repeating the same debunked theories? This is pretty pathetic…
Because of the large number of URL’s in Mr. Apuzzo’s post, it was automatically moderated by the blogging software. When I saw it, I was sorely tempted not to allow such a large dump of disinformation to be published on this blog, a web site dedicated to reason and evidence. Nevertheless, folks here are not easily fooled, and I’m committed to providing an uncensored forum insofar as this is compatible with an orderly discussion, and so I approved the comment. It’s largely a rehash of what became before, but I will offer one response.
Mr. Apuzzo: Because of these conditions, travel by an American using an U.S. passport was very risky to say the least.
Mr. Apuzzo then asks a number of smear-oriented and irrelevant questions. But I have one question for Mr. Apuzzo:
If what you way were actually true, and travel by U. S. Citizens to Pakistan in 1981 was “very risky”, how do you account for the Travel Advisory issued by the State Department in that year SAYING NOT ONE DAMNED WORD ABOUT IT? The advisory’s sole warning was that the 30 day visas available at the airport could not be extended.
The fact is that you are intellectually dishonest and factually dishonest. You are the one playing word games, and when you play, you cheat.
Recycling formerly debated topics is standard troll behavior.
Mario was sloppy and got caught in a lie, but he lacks the integrity to admit it.
Didn’t they teach you “deductive reasoning” in lawyering school.
As usual, you are not being very honest. Here is what Sen. Nickles said with respect to this proposed amendment?
“It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President. However, many Americans would probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains as to whether children born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving in the military or serving at a Government post are not clearly, indisputably, eligible to seek the highest office in our land. Nor is it clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working abroad is eligible to run for President. There are strong legal arguments that say these children are eligible to run for President, but it is certainly not an inarguable point. The Natural Born Citizen Act would make it clear that these children would be considered “natural born” citizens within the meaning of the Constitution.”
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3697
Gee, exactly like I said before I even looked at it. Soak it in “It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.” Did you not see this or are you completely dishonest? You may think it is fun to make stuff up online, but your pleadings contain plain misstatements of facts and claims that cases say what no lawyer would say they say. If you want to follow Orly down the road to disbarment, just continue your ways.
Mario [fake travel ban] Apuzzo: The Devil is not in the detail. He is in the motivation.
I make it a policy never to assert demonic possession as an explanation for my opponents’ otherwise inexplicable behavior.
Come on Mario, you are getting a free ride on top of thinkers, poets and famous artists. Be careful not to confuse your heritage with actual accomplishments. Glad to hear though that you consider yourself still to be partial italian but please do not burden Italian heritage with your musing.
Mario [fake travel ban] Apuzzo: I see that you [nbc] keep praying to St. Wong Kim Ark.
And birthers have lost 55 court decisions in a row. What’s your point?
Cathartic? The tour guide pointed at the mountains and said, “they were covered in glacier when I was a boy.” It was just plain rock in 2007.
He asked a question. I answered it.
I’m Jewish of Russian descent, and we produced two of the greatest military strategists in history: Leon Trotsky, and Moshe Dayan.
We have produced Einstein, Salk, Sabin, Estee Lauder, Helena Rubenstein, Charles Revson (Revlon), Max Factor, Sandy Coufax, Irving Berlin, Brandeis, Cardozo, Chaim Solomon – who financed the American Revolution – Helmut Newton, Avedon, Roy Lichtenstein, Sholom Alechem (Fiddler On The Roof), Lou Reed (Rabinowitz), Michael Tilson Thomas, Leonard Bernstein, Sergei Eisenstein, ALL of the concert violinists…I point these out, because we are less than 1% of the world’s population.
And then there is my mother’s brother:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3342979/Cyborg-found-in-outer-space.html
Mario, in fact you fired the opening shot comparing a commenter’s name as synonomous with ignorance. That is both infantile and churlish, and is beneath a counselor.
Playing name calling games is something we all left behind in grade school. Really.
You never answer questions, you speculate, you fantasize, you invent.
“It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.” Sen. Nickles.
More commentary from the 2004 amendments:
“The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country’s borders.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/news/03iht-a5_1.html
You’ve posted this before, Mario. It doesn’t get any better.
Travel advisory means advice. It is not the same as travel warning, much less than travel ban. When you talk about “word games,” you really should look in the mirror!
And what on earth does the current warning against traveling to Pakistan (it’s 2009, if you were confused) have to do with what was going on in 1981?
All your “questions,” Mario, are worthless until you can answer them for the New York Times reporter who wrote about traveling to Pakistan within months of Obama’s travel there!
Actually, Mario, all your questions are worthless, period. You have no evidence worth its name that Obama traveled on anything other than a US passport and even if you did, you have no reason to believe that it would have any effect on his eligibility, and even if you did, you have no standing to bring the issue before the courts!
You sound angry. How is your blog doing? Do you need me to come over there and spice things up?
I’m looking at Barry’s Form DS-4080 and waiting for the right time to publish it. What do you have to offer? Can your blog handle 10 million hits per minute for a few days.
What’s the over/under on the debunking of Sven’s “DS-4080?”
I’m going to go 2 minutes. That’s how long it will take to retrieve the law that says that 6-10 year olds cannot sign DS-4080 forms.
Sven, a 6 year-old cannot buy a car, why do you think they can renounce their citizenship? Many 6 year-olds cannot even use the pointy scissors !
I hope you didn’t pay money for this “DS-4080.”
Let him publish it. I’ll have fun with it, like my birth certificates.
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-cats-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
Of course it can handle such a flow. But I doubt you have any way of generating such interest in my blog.
I am not angry, I am just pointing out how you confuse your fantasies with ‘arguments’.
Sven’s imagination has never caused him to consider the facts. What a crock
nbc,
Too bad I did not hear back from mikie.
misha,
Enrico Fermi produced the atomic bomb so we could have it before the Germans.
And you got hold of your forged copy of a DS-4080 how?
Hope you also remembered to create a fake DS-4081 and fake DS-4082, and got the names of all the people right. Lucas Smith screwed up by misspelling the name of the Mombasa hospital administrator and dating his document for a time that someone else held the position. Better do your research carefully. Also, with respect to the seal on the Consular Officer’s attestation (form DS-4081), I suggest that you read 18 USC 506 very carefully. If you actually do post your fake document, it looks like you will have plenty of time to do that reading).
Just as aside, Fermi came to the States, because his wife was Jewish. My step-father was a doctoral physics student at UoC, when someone ran into the classroom and shouted “Fermi just split the atom.” He told me they all went to the site.
He died of stomach cancer at 53, in Chicago.
I knew Fermi, you are no Fermi my confused pall.
What do you expect him to do, ride the coat tails of others?
Please Mario, stop embarrassing yourself, and if that is not a concern, stop making us feel embarrassed.
Yes, PLEASE publish it. This is so much fun.
Sven writes:
He used travel documents given to him as an Indonesian Refugee.
No can do. There is and never was no such thing as “Indonesian refugee” no more than there are “Algerian” or a “Tunisian” refugees. The issuance of international refugee documents are severely limited. Read about it on Wiki, if you’re interested.
He could have entered the EU (then the EEC) with a valid Indonesian passport, but it’s totally unlikely since he was identified as an American (and would have had to present ID at hotel, to convert currency, etc.
And then he couldn’t have returned to the US without a visa.
In fact, he couldn’t have left the US with a US passport and entered France on an Indonesian passport and then reentered the US without explaining why his US passport wasn’t stamped, not without some questioning.
The problem with you guys is that you really have no idea how the world works. None whatsoever.
I knew Enrico Fermi. Fermi was a friend of mine. Believe me counselor, you’re no Enrico Fermi.
Blame Dante or the other giants on whose coat tails Mario wants to ride…
He is after all a proud Italian American and seems to believe that he somehow can take credit for the achievements of some of his more successful “ancestors” from Italy.
But being unable to admit that one was wrong is well…
sad
A shame that with such proud heritage, you fight to deny others similarly endowed the same rights.
Just saying.
Wow Misha.
Isn’t knowingly handling forgeries of official state documents some kind of felony?
“Isn’t knowingly handling forgeries of official state documents some kind of felony?”
Yes, five years imprisonment. Yipee!!
I was sooo hoping Sven would post it, so I could do one of my famous parodies.
nbc,
You are a jerk and a fool.
nbc,
My apologies. I aimed at the wrong person. My comment was directed to misha, not you.
Let’s cut to the chase and recap.
None of us here, I think, believe Mario is dense, in the way that Orly (or Sven) really are.
He is simply behaving like any defense attorney confronted with damning evidence: “‘Tis but a scratch’ ‘A scratch?! Your arm’s off!’ ‘No, it isn’t.'”
Or “Your Honor, when I said that the prosecution is like a stream of bat’s piss, I only mean that they shine out like a shaft of gold when it’s dark all around.”
(quoting from Monty Python).
The question that piques my interest is WHY?
This is a man whose legal career so far has been based, as far as I can tell, on making a fast buck. (Nothing wrong with that, as George Costanza might say.) He has never been a legal scholar or exhibited any known passion for constitutional matters before.
So why would he take, allegedly pro bono, a case for which he is ill-suited and which he knows very well he can’t win, bringing to it the same kitchen sink approach he’d use to defend a drunk driver, which in this case I think is ill-advised.
What Mario says at this point is mostly devoid of real interest, but I would very much like to know the full picture. I think there’s more there than we see.
Darn, I always wanted to be called a jerk and a fool. Is this your final answer? As for Misha having known Fermi, I am sure that your comments are ill placed.
Prove it. I say you are full of BS. Put up or shut up, troll.
“My comment was directed to misha…You are a jerk and a fool.”
That is redundant. Secondly, I was paraphrasing Lloyd Bensten’s retort to Dan Quayle during their debate.
Let me borrow from “Barry Lyndon”: “Come now, Mr. Lyndon. I’d rather be known as a cuckhold, than a fool.”
Your turn.
So, if I had page 1 and 2 with original signature of Stanley Ann’s 1982 IRS Form 1040 and was unable to produce Schedule A, then it would prove pages 1 and 2 were forged? I don’t follow the logic.
And why would you assume it’s fake document? Mr. Obama’s Department of State files were corrupted during the Presidential campaign. Wouldn’t it be fair to assume an original document saw the light of day? And if I didn’t have the complete file, why would it be reasonable to assume the one or two pages I had were forged?
Are you sure you want to advise me on how to publish a stolen document? Wouldn’t that make you an accessory? Shouldn’t you advise me to call the police and report it?
You sound like the dill weed and Clerk of the Court in Georgia. The only appropriate response would have been for him to advise Capt. Rhodes to discuss any issue she might have with her attorney. Instead, he started working her to take advantage. And she was prepping to leave for a war zone deployment the next day! If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.
You’re confusing a voidable contract with an enforceable contract.
Any person can renounce their US citizenship if he/she can convince a US State Dept representative they are not under duress to commit an act which may have severe consequences in their future. The fact a minor can make an affirmative stance to void the renunciation of their citizenship before they turn 18 years and 6 months makes it valid.
It’s a common mistake. A minor can make a contract, but to be valid it must be voidable until the minor reaches the age of majority. A voidable contract is not an invalid contract. The minor may choose to meet the terms of the contract without voiding it, such as Barry Soetoro did.
Here is the current list of countries with travel advisories:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html
Among the countries listed are :
Saudi Arabia-thousands of American live there
Nepal-Thousands of hikers and climbers visit
Israel-plenty of Americans there
Haiti-Same
So obviously, plenty of Americans have no difficulty visiting places under advisories. As I said, I know Americans who visited Pakistan around the time Obama did, with US passports. Was it dangerous? Less than some parts of New York City in the early 80s. Now that was scary!!
By the way, you might want to check out a copy of “Charlie Wilson’s War” to see who was funneling money to the Islamist Afghan fighters via Pakistan around that time.
Okay Mario, since de facto is the same thing as legal in your eyes and Obama is the de facto President, then by the rules of logic he is the legal President as well.
Mario said: “We are a special breed. Our last names end in a vowel.”
You mean like Obama?
Nice fantasies my dear Sven. Of course, that’s all they are, fantasies.
It would be a common mistake to take your musings seriously as so far you have never provided any factual support for your claims
Just enough mixing of your fantasy with reality does not make it real.
It would only be fair to assume if there were such a document produced.
As expected, you remain empty handed.
Again
My mistake. It’s not Form DS-4080 with Barry Soetoro’s original signature. On closer examination, it’s Italian-American Bobby Somatero’s Form DS-4080.
That doesn’t sound right at all.
In France, a non-emancipated minor has no legal capacity to enter into a contract, period. (Art 1124 Civil Code)
Also to renounce one’s citizenship is not a contract, it’s an administrative act which can ONLY be filed six months before the age of majority. So a child of, say, 12, even his parents supported the decision, could still NOT file such a declaration. It would have no effect.
Finally, except for Israel, I think, you can’t renounce a citizenship unless you already are a citizen of another country; so Obama would have had to be a bona fide Indonesian citizen before he could renounce his US citizenship.
I’m going by what I know of French Law in such matters. Yours is no doubt different in the details. But I doubt basic principles vary much.
I didn’t say the contract was void, Sven, and I know the difference between a void contract and a voidable contract. I’m guessing you’re a 1L who just got to that section in your contracts class, right?
I can’t wait to see this alleged renunciation of citizenship, wherein a 6-10 year-old convinced the US Government that he was capable, not just of using pointy scissors, but also fully comprehending the renunciation of his citizenship.
Renouncing citizenship is a little different than the voidable contract that a minor can enter into which can be ratified when they turn 18. The infant attempting to renounce his citizenship, Sven, must convince the government that he fully understands the nature and consequences of his action, and is not subject to undue influence or duress. Then, the renunciation has to be approved by the Department of State in Washington.
Currently, any child under 16 is presumed to lack the mental capacity to renounce citizenship.
I can’t wait to see this form, Sven. I’d love to see how the consular officials found a six year-old mature enough and sufficiently knowing to renounce his US Citizenship.
And, I assume that we’re talking about 6 year-old Barack, right, since this is all premised on his kindergarten school records, right?
Let me bring this discussion to an end through the use of unassailable scientific logic:
1. The President must be a natural born citizen
2. Obama is President.
Therefore, Obama is a natural born citizen.
Thank you all very much. Donations gratefully accepted…
Scientist,
What a pleasure to be arguing logic with a scientist.
Try this one out:
If I say someone is not a “natural born Citizen,” that person is not a “natural born Citizen.”
I say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.”
Therefore, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.”
Phenomenon that we both can see
Happening near the beach by the sea
Sharks attacking swimmers
But they stay clear of lawyers
Due to Professional Courtesy
Your 2 premises are unfounded personal assertions. False premises, false conclusion.
My 2 premises are statements of fact. Therefore, the conclusion is sound.
As a sidebar, I will note that your entire legal case amounts to nothing more than “I say Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen'”.
Given Mario’s overwrought assertions about the dangers of traveling to Pakistan in 1981, it is instructive to review the contents of the State Department’s Travel Advisory which was issued on August 17, 1981:
TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN
BEFORE TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN, AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING UPDATED VISA REQUIREMENTS: 30 DAY VISAS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAKISTANI AIRPORTS FOR TOURISTS ONLY. AS THESE VISAS ARE RARELY EXTENDED BEYOND THE 30 DAY TIME PERIOD, TOURISTS PLANNING TO STAY LONGER SHOULD SECURE VISAS BEFORE COMING TO PAKISTAN. ANY TRAVELER COMING INTO PAKISTAN OVERLAND FROM INDIA MUST REPEAT MUST HAVE A VALID VISA, AS 30 DAYS VISAS ARE NOT REPEAT NOT ISSUED AT THE OVERLAND BORDER CROSSING POINT AT WAGHA.
ANY NON-OFFICIAL AMERICAN WHO IS IN PAKISTAN FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS MUST REGISTER WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S FOREIGNER REGISTRATION OFFICE. EXIT PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE WHO HAVE STAYED LONGER THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY. ALL AMERICANS TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS OR FOR PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A VISA BEFORE ARRIVAL, AND, AS THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN’S CLEARANCE PROCESS IS OFTEN LENGTHY, WE WOULD URGE THOSE COMING TO APPLY AT THE NEAREST PAKISTANI EMBASSY OR CONSULATE AS FAR IN ADVANCE OF THEIR SCHEDULED ARRIVAL AS POSSIBLE.
THIS SUPERSEDES REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN DEPARTMENT PUBLICATION M-264, “VISA REQUIREMENTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.”
EXPIRATION DATE: INDEFINITE.
That’s quite a de facto ban! No mention of civil war, no mention of martial law. In his long-winded defense of his “de facto ban” claim, Mario tries to blur the distinction between a travel advisory and a travel warning, but in fact they are very different.
A travel advisory is nothing more than a delineation of the requirements for traveling to and within a foreign country. Now called “Country Specific Information,” such advisories can be found for every country in the world.
A travel warning describes “long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable. A Travel Warning is also issued when the U.S. Government’s ability to assist American citizens is constrained due to the closure of an embassy or consulate or because of a drawdown of its staff.”
A travel alert is “issued to disseminate information about short-term conditions, generally within a particular country, that pose imminent risks to the security of U.S. citizens. Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, coups, anniversaries of terrorist events, election-related demonstrations or violence, and high-profile events such as international conferences or regional sports events are examples of conditions that might generate a Travel Alert.”
There was no ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan in 1981. There was no travel warning. There was no travel alert. There was only a travel advisory which listed rules for travel that were no more onerous than the rules for Americans traveling to Australia.
As expected…
Mario, you are confusing personal opinion with fact, while scientist is applying a more logical approach. Of course, he may still be wrong and President Obama, through some strange set of circumstance may be found ineligible, but he has still been qualified according to the Constitution by Congress.
I am sure that you are familiar that Congress discussed both Quo Warranto and how to deal with eligibility issues after the President was sworn in?
In 1882, Congress attempted to change the law and the NY Times reports
In Congress Mr Thurman observed
Cheers.
Has it occurred to you that you may not always get what you want?
As to the most likely guess, it was his US passport. We know for instance that Obama, when he returned to the US, returned as a US citizen.
What evidence do you have my dear comedian
Well put, Lupin! I think that sums things up and the “why” indeed is the biggest question.
Of course, as a defense attorney, he’s going to try to defend his case on paper, regardless of how full of holes it is.
As you pointed out, this is not his normal line of legal work. What is his real motivation behind taking up something as silly as this?
The one thing that is obvious is that Mario doesn’t have any evidence to support any of his myriad of theories, but demands that the President disproof his theories.
He demands that the President ‘prove’ that he used a U.S. Passport to travel to Pakistan, but Americans know that when accusing someone of something, you are supposed to provide the proof- the accused has no obligation to respond to the crazy lady out on the street screaming that Obama is a murderer or Mario’s demands for passports.
I agree- Mario can’t be so stupid as to think he has an actual case, or that the President has any obligation to provide any proof. So the real question is- who is paying Mario to harass the President? Who is he in the pay of? A foreign government? Some neo-con institute? Al Qaeda?
See if I was a birther I would be saying Mario needs to prove that he isn’t any of the above. But he doesn’t need to prove anything nor does the President.
Thing is, Mario, your jurisdiction is the world in your head. Obama is President in reality. The real U.S. Congress certified his election, and the real Chief Justice of the United States swore him in (twice!).
Want to make a difference in the real world? As the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey told you when dismissing your suit, your remedy may be found in your vote.
Nuts, foiled again.
I say Mario has to prove he was not involved in a rape and murder in 1990. Can he conclusively prove that he was not?
Pakistan has encouraged tourism for many years. In 1965, the country, with French consultants, came up with a 25 year plan to promote tourism. The later leaders of the country placed greater or lesser emphasis on tourism.
Mountain tourism, for example, has been promoted since 1981, with the first International Trekking Convention held in Rawalpindi.
Linda Richter, of Kansas State University, has done several studies of tourism in Southeast Asia. In 1982, she reports, 313,000 foreign tourists went to Pakistan.
The second photo on this page is a Pakistan International Airlines Boeing 707 at Kennedy Airport in New York on August 20, 1981.
http://www.historyofpia.com.unusualaircraft.htm
It’s odd that PIA would have been flying regularly-scheduled service between Pakistan and New York if there had been a de facto ban on Americans traveling to Pakistan.
Rickey,
I’m pretty sure that you’re not fighting fair… using logic? For shame!
Every time the Pakistan thing comes up, Mario once again claims there was a ‘defacto’ ban, and then there are a myriad of posts showing him there was no ban of any sort. He huffs and puffs- and repost his laundry list of accusations and then eventually wanders off because he has nothing of substance to say.
In a month or 2 he will make all the same claims again. We might as well save all the responses here for the next time.
Where’s the long-form Indonesian refugee travel documents? I refuse to believe he’s an Indonesian refugee until I see these documents myself!
Dr. Conspiracy,
You can spin this site any which way you want. There is one thing you cannot do and that is make Obama a “natural born Citizen.” Only nature can do that. I am suprised that you have not come to the same conclusion as me. You seem to be an intelligent person. Just study the history. It all point to one conclusion.
brygenon,
It is all not real. How many people really accepted it. It they did not accept it, it did not happen. They only asked for consideration. A little respect. But they got none.
misha,
The reason sharks do not bite lawyers is that lawyers have taught them well that they are not to bite the hand that feeds them.
Rickey,
Do you really believe that the Pakistan thing merits all the attention that you are giving it?
It does all point to one conclusion, Mario, the same one that every legal scholar that has looked at it has come to. That Obama is a natural born citizen because anyone born here is a natural born citizen.
You only have one thing to sell as a lawyer, Mario, and that’s your credibility.
Yet, you stand behind the “de facto” travel ban.
Why should we buy what you’re selling on the tough stuff if you can’t even get this right? You clearly cannot read the travel advisory in English, yet you want to interpret Vattel’s French?
You’re exactly right. Dr. Conspiracy can’t make President Obama a natural born citizen. He already is one. Now how about that travel ban or did that already fall down your memory hole?
Scientist,
The next project that you should work on is proving that God exists through logic.
Mario Apuzzo: I am [surprised] that you have not come to the same conclusion as me.
As I am bewildered that you would say that about me.
While this blog is just entering into its eleventh month, I have been researching and writing on fringe views about Barack Obama since even before the COLB was published. What I found as I looked into these fringe views is that they all hinged on some sort of logical fallacy or outright misrepresentation.
I have a long history studying cranks, starting with ESP research in the 1960’s, through Ancient Astronauts, bleeding statues, UFO abductions, the Bermuda triangle, young earth creationism and flood geology, holocaust denial, Afro-centrism/melanism, homeopathic cures, 200 MPG carburetors, pyramidology and crystal power. All of these crank theories are couched in such a way as to sound reasonable until one looks at the bigger picture, and the context where the so-called evidence is found. Each has some element of fraud or misrepresentation (perhaps sometimes honest mistakes).
Perhaps the best example I can offer is a photograph of an ancient Mayan sculpture carefully cropped so that it purports to show an astronaut in a space capsule. However, when one “zooms out” a little, it obvious that the “space capsule” is really a something else. In the same way, snips out of court cases can sound convincing until the context is read, or the legal definition of the term is understood. Frankly, I can’t understand how someone could finish law school and pass the bar without enough reasoning skills to know this natural born citizen redefinition stuff is pure nonsense.
[Typical response at this point is to say that I call the Constitution “crap,” which I did not. The Constitution is fine; the things Apuzzo says are nonsense.]
I believe it does as it is indicative of what is so wrong with your arguments
Dr. Conspiracy,
You have actually complimented me and you do not realize it. Now you see how the truth sneaks out sometimes.
Professional courtesy I thought it is called.
Scientist,
Hang it up.
Dear Mario,
Mario, you wrote: In 1981, Pakistan was on the State Department list for “travel advisory.” …… Hence, while there might not have been a de jure “ban” on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981, there surely was a de facto one.
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf
Check out that cite! Mario would have us believe it is something equivalent to an ACTUAL State Department Travel Warning; actually it is an innocuous if not mundane ADVISORY reminder that Pakistan is serious about time-limits and procedures for visas, only suggesting careful advance planning. Mario’s attempt to here propagate a potentially strict foreign statute, via his own imagined parade of horribles, into something comprising a “de facto” travel ban!
http://www.eturbonews.com/7010/us-state-department-travel-advisory-london-dangerous-place-travel
With his MISLEADING partial quoting of this cite, Mario tries to seduce us into equating reminding a traveler to be well-prepared and well-informed when traveling in foreign countries, with a ban on travel there. As it turns out, its a current U.S. State Dept. travel advisory for those traveling to London and the UK, based on the threat of common urban crimes, specifically “rapes by unlicensed cab drivers, muggings and ATM scams”! Or does the State Department of Mario DEFACTO ban travel to every country of which it can be said, (as does his cited article) “Despite its excellent overall safety record, British trains have poor track conditions, resulting in train derailments, including some fatalities.” ?
http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/state-department-travel-warnings-explained/1
This Mario cited article irrelevantly explains that (OFFICIAL) “Travel warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country” while cruelly scolding Mario that EVEN THEY should only “inform, but not necessarily govern, your next trip.” Mario solemnly wants us to read here that, “The State Department subsequently revisits the (OFFICIAL) warnings, usually every six months.” Mario’s constant vigilance in defending the Constitution apparently only requires Him to revisit his own personally contrived U.S. “de facto” travel ban to Pakistan, once every 28 years! The article informs every reader except Mario, “Just because the State Department has issued a travel warning for a country, it doesn’t necessarily mean the place is one great big danger zone.”
Hoping we have not read that part, Mario then demonstrates his mastery of the English language by contradicting his own thesis when he tortuously binds himself inadvertently to the truth with an unwitting double negative construct, wherewith he avows: “That the State Department did not technically put a “ban” on travel to Pakistan does not mean that it was not recommended for Americans to go there in 1981.”
Precisely Mario! The absence of an official Pakistan travel ban in 1981 did not mean that the State Dept. was NOT RECOMMENDING that Americans go there! Case dismissed!
Benji Franklin
Scientist got you there though… After all if a de facto ban is like a real ban, then a de facto president is like a real one.
Yes Mario, namely that you are wrong.
Simple really
misha,
Do you not think that it would help a little if you even told me where this rape and murder occurred.
I hope you never blog on criminal law.
Greg,
I especially like their coffee.
Rickey,
Sound like one of those Mission Impossible scenes where the dictator believes he was flown out of his country but he never left his own house.
I am sure you and Misha share the same hopes.
Greg,
What a genius you are. So if I do not understand German I also do not understand Spanish.
benji,
I can finally admit to an error. I stand corrected on that double negative. Very good!
Good grief! Apuzzo really doesn’t know logic! No wonder he says fallacious things.
Greg: I can’t wait to see this alleged renunciation of citizenship, wherein a 6-10 year-old convinced the US Government that he was capable, not just of using pointy scissors, but also fully comprehending the renunciation of his citizenship.
I think Pakistan had a de facto “pointy scissors ban” in 1981.
Do you really believe that the Pakistan thing merits all the attention that you are giving it?
Yes, as long as you continue to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty while refusing to acknowledge your own. Admit that you were wrong about the supposed travel ban and I’ll be happy to drop the subject.
SvenMagnussen: Can your blog handle 10 million hits per minute for a few days[?]
No. If you have a document to share, I suggest putting it on Scribd.com and then we can talk about it here.
I think it more accurate to say that J. Robert Oppenheimer produced the first atomic bomb (and then the Apuzzo-style smearbots ruined him).
Is German your native tongue?
If you’re incompetent in your native tongue, how much credibility do you have in a foreign tongue?
If you can’t do addition, how much credibility do you have in calculus?
Lupin,
When it comes to Obama, why do I get anwers that always say “must, must, must,” and not “is, is, is?”
misha,
You are barely hanging on.
Rickey,
Knock yourself out.
Well, if you make stuff up, and then expect others to disprove it, you should expect that the answers will fall on the deductive side of the reasoning chart, rather than the inductive side.
“Prove that Obama didn’t travel to the moon in a spaceship made of green cheese” is going to get you answers like, “A spaceship must be made of sturdier stuff than green cheese.”
Let me sum it up. Your arguments are stupid. There was no travel ban to Pakistan, de facto or otherwise, so it would be a waste of time to show that Obama traveled on a US passport.
ballantine,
I really like your logic. A bill only does what the authors tell us it does. Brilliant.
Why do you not practice what you preach?
No worse than your logic, that a bill that says X is clear is actually saying that X is not clear.
Genius stuff, that.
I believe he is having a grand ole time. What surprises me is how reluctant you seem to be to admit that you were mistaken
ROTFL.. Touche once again
Hear hear. Greg you hit the nail on the head. Why should Mario not be held to supporting his outrageous claims? Does he really believe that it is up to the defendant in court to disprove the plaintiff’s assertions?
Wow
Haha ha ha . This must be the most stupid (or is it stupidest ???) comment by Mario (& every one know he’s made many stupid comment !!) so all the legal procedure has be followed to the letter & a man was properly sworn but a few pple dont accept it & there4 the election voted upon by over a 100million pple is somehow invalid because they “feel” an assertion which they cant even convince the public to believe, these same pple now “think” they can convince a court of law ???
When i hear the that such a large percentage of Republican dont believe Obama was born in the USA, i alway wonder how was the question asked becos most people will admit Obama is the president no matter what they believe about his place of birth !!!
I only ask for a little respect for my sincere belief that gravity doesn’t exist. I don’t accept gravity, therefore it is not real. As long as I maintain this steadfast position, I can jump out of an airplane without a parachute and suffer no harm.
Perhaps, Mario, you would care to join me in a little experiment? I will let you jump first, since you are even firmer in your convictions than I.
Mario [fake travel ban] Apuzzo write: When it comes to Obama, why do I get [answers] that always say “must, must, must,” and not “is, is, is?”
It’s a matter of intellectual honesty.
I come from a background in mathematics, so I tend to think of arguments in terms of mathematical proofs. If I can show that something must either be A or B, and then show that it is not A, then I have proven that it is B. Such arguments are valid and conclusive. Unlike the birthers, I am unwilling to sacrifice intellectual honesty to make a point, and so I do not assert that something “is” except in the context of evidence, for example “Barack Obama is President of the United States.” I don’t say things like “there was [past tense of is] a de facto travel to Pakistan in 1981″ or “the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen is based on the writing of Emerich de Vattel” because that would be dishonest, because there’s no good evidence to support either.
Your arguments seem to be designed to persuade [the ignorant, lazy and weak minded], but not to prove. I get the impression that you are either trying to trick the reader, or that you have a fundamental deficiency in logic skills. Perhaps you should take a Logic Class.
Take what small comfort you can find.
Those who’ve smelled New Jersey’s stink
Got what they expected.
Water that’s unsafe to drink
And air that should be tested.
In reality, all arguments about birth certificates, travel documents, Swiss philosophers and any other such ephemera became completely moot on Jan 20, 2009. The plain fact is that even the Austrian-born son of Austrian citizens (I’m not thinking of anyone in particular) would be a completely legitimate President if he won an election, won the Electoral College vote and had his election ratified by Congress. That is, by the way, not just my position, but has been implicitly and explicity stated by the judges who have heard these cases. Unfortunately, the birthers not only flunked Logic 101, but Grade 1 Reading or they would know that.
The discussion becomes relevant again in 2012 when PRESIDENT Obama discards the vestments of office and once again becomes a candidate. At that point the birtheres can drag out their tired old arguments, but their success then is unlikely to be any better than it was in 2008, since the facts and the law are strongly against them.
Mario, you lose all credibility because you refuse to admit that you were wrong. Without conducting the proper research any legal professional would have done, you used an obvious lie to support your overall theory. In a court of law if I caught the witness in a lie, I would be able to cast doubt on his/her entire testimony. In this case everyone here has eviserated your so called Pakistan Travel Ban evidence you used to support your contention regarding “what passport the President traveled under” that you made to support your supposed theory that Obama was a citizen of another country. Once it has been shown that there was no travel ban to Pakistan in any way, no was there any sort of advisory against traveling there, one is left to wonder what else were you wrong about. And since you are a lawyer this is surprising. If you were on the stand your case would have just went down the drain…No amount of literary fellatio you attempt to do now can change the fact that you were originally wrong but refuse to admit it…
black lion snarls:
well, there’s always literal fellatio — i’ve read that sometimes works, with the right judge.
You guys are being King Arthur to Mario’s Black Knight. I’m sure he’s having a good laugh.
Mario, I’m really interested in you. You’re the story here.
Without breaking any client confidentiality, of course, could you tell us if you took this case pro bono, if your clients (presumably the plaintiffs?) pay for your costs or someone else does, what led them to hire you in the first place — notwithstanding your presumably successful injury/litigation practice, this case would seem to call for a different type of attorney — were you old friends? did you belong to the same societies?
If you feel you cannot answer these questions, could you please state why?
I think that it’s likely that the birthers will clear the standing hurdle in the run-up to the 2012 election only to have their hopes crushed by judicial notice being taken of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii and if they’re really unlucky, a SCOTUS ruling on the definition of NBC.
It’s worse than that. Mario Apuzzo filed a verified complaint; under Mario’s counsel, his clients swore to the false allegations.
Obviously Mario’s complaint took the lies from Phil Berg’s. Check out the attestations at the end of the complaints: Phil Berg’s statements are subject to the penalties “relating to unsworn falsifications” (emphasis added). Mario’s clients’ statements are sworn and witnessed.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/1/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/Kerchner-et-al-v-Obama-Congress-et-al-filed-250-am-20-Jan-2009-2nd-Amendment-filed-09-Feb-2009
Mario took allegations from an unsworn complaint, failed to apply anything resembling due diligence, and let his clients swear to the false statements. What did Mario do when he learned he had filed false, sworn statements? We’re still waiting for him to answer on that, but pretty clearly he simply let the lies stand before the court.
That may be Mario’s last and best hope…
Mario: Maybe the appropriate question is:
Was his Indonesian travel papers about to expire when he turned 21? Didn’t Soetoro notify his family he was no longer Soetoro and was referring to himself as Barack Obama from that point on?
Why is President Bill Clinton snubbing the usurper on his first State Dinner, but taking the time to present an award to Steven Spielberg? Will the usurper get drunk and insult Hillary as the Senator representing Punjab?
The usurper? You mean the guy whose brother stole Florida for him? He’s gone now. You gotta stop dwelling on the past.
I’m still waiting on the long-form Indonesian refugee paperwork, Sven. How can I believe a word you say when you don’t provide any evidence? Perhaps you’re hiding something?
Sven, how do you make all this stuff up? Fertile imagination there- or as we called them as a kid- ‘bald faced lies”
The real usurper is the dry drunk who stole the 2000 election, and launched a war against the wrong country. Merely the worst military blunder in US history. Napoleon now has competition.
How many are coming back from Iraq missing eyes, limbs, with 3rd degree burns, and psych cases?
Just curious.
Didn’t Soetoro notify his family he was no longer Soetoro and was referring to himself as Barack Obama from that point on?
If he had, it certainly would have surprised his family, since all of his high school classmates remember him as Barry Obama. No one in high school or college ever heard him use the name Soetoro.
You are so pathetic.
Humans are not just about mathematical/scientific logic. The interpretation of the laws must include assumptions and reasoning. Thanks God we are humans and not robots.
Good reasoning requires logic.
Good assumptions must be testable and should be based on reasoned arguments or empirical evidence, not subjective prejudices and emotional biases.
Let’s not get all Bergish. No one usurped the presidency then either. The Florida vote was controversial, so both candidates argued their sides in court and the judiciary expiated the cases for timely final judgment.
We may not have agreed with the Court’s decision, but let’s set a good example for the birthers. Accepting adverse outcomes is part of living under the rule of law. And part of being a grown-up.
mrlqban: Humans are not just about mathematical/scientific logic. The interpretation of the laws must include assumptions and reasoning. Thanks God we are humans and not robots.
Very true, and the reason no one would ever call a robot a “jackass.”
Finally, we agree on something.
misha,
Yea, but we have electricity and toilets.
That’s your proof?
He traveled to Pakistan under the name Barack Obama because no one in H.S. or college ever heard of Barry Soetoro.
Ha Ha Ha. That’s funny.
This is factually wrong since we know for a fact that he traveled to France at the same time under the name Barack Obama and was identified as an American.
Agreed, which is why I always said that in 2000 Bush was selected, not elected.
I do believe however he won 2004 fair and square. Well, square anyway.
I’d like to have the answers to my questions too.
Why is a personal injury lawyer involved in this, and who is paying for the costs?
Pssst – Steven Spielberg was a guest at Obama’s state dinner tonight, so it won’t be all that difficult for Clinton to attend and award all at once.
Survey says, ‘you fail.’
I would never drop the “U-word” into an argument, but Mr. Whitman did, so I felt it was appropriate to point out where that leads. I don’t believe Bush was illegitimate. The Court had to decide and they voted along party lines. It was legal, if reminiscent of a banana republic. Nevertheless, there is more substantial reason to question Bush’s legitimacy than Obama’s.
The real issue was with Cheney. I still believe he was not entitled to the electoral votes of Texas, since electors are forbidden to vote for residents of their state for both President and Vice. The CEO of Halliburton, headquartered in Houston, Texas, was a Texas resident regardless of how much land he owned in Wyoming. Without Teaxs’ votes for Cheney, Lieberman was Veep. Of course, given how he’s been since 9/11, that might not have been an improvement.
And your proof of the contrary?
United States v. Low Hong (1919)
“Low was born in the United States around 1894 of Chinese parents. At that time Chinese persons could not become naturalized citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. We may, therefore, be certain that Low Hong was not born of US Citizen parents.”
Uh, no.
You cannot be certain that Low Hong was not born of US citizen parents. Here’s a very similar situation:
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/253/454/case.html
Kwock Jan Fat was born in 1897. His father was born in California of Chinese nationals and was a native born US citizen. His mother was a naturalized US citizen by marriage (that was the law until 1922). The court said that Kwock Jan Fat was a “natural born citizen”. He was born in the US to two US citizen parents.
Don’t make unwarranted assumptions. You don’t know that Low Hong wasn’t born of US citizen parents. His parents were most probably citizens.
You are, of course, correct. This deficiency has been pointed out before, but it slipped my mind to fix it. This has been remedied and the article updated.
Don’t you either. Whether his parents were citizens was irrelevant to the District Court’s analysis.
The court inquired as to the effect upon the issue if it should appear that the relator was born in the United States…
By admitting that Low Hong was born in the United States, the Government admitted he was a natural born citizen, as far as the court was concerned.
Regarding Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920), I am surprised on how the errors continue here. There is no evidence in the case that Kwock Jan Fat’s parents were U.S. citizens. The Court said that Kwock’s father was born in America to Chinese parents. Even though Kwock’s father was born in the United States, the Court clearly said that Kwock’s parents were “permanently domiciled in the United States” when Kwock was born to them. The Court then said that under Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Kwock would be a “citizen” of the United States if he proved he was born in the United States to parents who were permanently domiciled in the United States. Even though his father was born in the United States and married, the Court did not state anywhere in the decision that Kwock’s parents were U.S. citizens. The Court does tell us that Kwock’s father voted. But proving that a person voted does not prove that that voter was a citizen.
Kwock was born in 1897. In 1915, when Kwock was 18 years old, he filed his application to prove he was a U.S. citizen by birth. We know from the decision that Kwock’s father was then deceased. We do not know when he died. He could have died when Kwock was just about 1 years old which would have been before the Wong Kim Ark decision came out in 1898. Being dead before Wong Kim Ark was decided, maybe Kwock’s father was not able to benefit from the decision and to be declared a “citizen” of the United States which if he were alive he would have.
Another possibility is that Kwock’s father even though born in the U.S. was not born to parents who were domiciled in the United States. We do know from the decision that Kwock’s father’s parents were Chinese. The decision does not tell us where Kwock’s father’s parents lived or even if they were ever domiciled in the United States. Both of these scenarios would have prevented Kwock’s father from being a citizen. Also, when his father married, his wife would have acquired his citizenship. Hence, Kwock’s mother also would not have been a citizen.
We do not know why the Commissioner of Immigration initially declared Kwock a “natural born citizen.” But we do know for sure that the United States Supreme Court never declared Kwock a “natural born citizen” but rather said that he could be a “citizen” of the United States if he was born in the United States to parents who were permanently domiciled here. Finally, the Court’s reference to “natural born citizen” at the end of the decision does not mean that the Court was prepared to declare Kwock a “natural born citizen.” The Court mentioned the term not specific to Kwock but rather in a general way and to describe a broad category of citizens that need special protection from being erroneously and permanently excluded from the United States.
“This leap…is where counsel entered the thicket of legal frivolity”. Wong Kim Ark is an interpretation of the constitution of the United States. Ceteris paribus, the decision in Wong Kim Ark describes the legal situation since July 9th, 1868 – when the 14th amendment was adopted. It should be noted that the Equal Protection Clause which would obviously be invoked in your scenario, is also part of the 14th amendment.
You say that this isn’t referring to Kwock, but to a broad category of citizens that need special protection from being erroneously excluded.
Why?
What suggestion is there in the case that the Court has shifted its focus away from Kwock, who apparently needs no special protection, to natural born citizens, who do need protection?
Are you saying that if there was no suggestion that Kwock was born to a citizen as opposed to a permanent domiciliary, then the administrative agency could have acted secretly and capriciously, since there was no danger that a “natural born citizen” would be excluded, just a “citizen?”
Greg,
In Kwock Jan Fat, the Supreme Court was most concerned with an individual facing permanent exclusion from the United States receiving from the immigration authorities specifically a fair hearing and generally due process under the Constitution. Its final comment about “natural born Citizens” is a statement of dicta in which the Court makes it know that it is our policy that the United States would rather improperly admit many Chinese immigrants than to improperly permanently exclude a single “natural born citizen.” The statement sets a standard on the burden of proof that the government must meet in excluding persons from the United States. We have the same type of standard in our criminal law where we say that it is our policy that 10 guilty persons go free rather than one innocent person be improperly convicted.
The statement does not mean that the court found that Kwock was a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the Court clearly stated that he was a “citizen” of the United States, being born in the United States to parents who were permanently domiciled in the United States, citing Wong Kim Ark.
Also, regarding your last question, of course I am not suggesting that the Government can “secretely and capriciously” exclude from the U.S. “citizens” but not “natural born Citizens.” The two classes of citizens are equal under the law (both classes are “citizens”) except only the latter have the privilege of being eligibile to be President. Please note that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 itself when prescribing the eligibility requirements to be President distinguishes between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Other than this one exception prescribed by the Framers concerning presidential eligibility, constitutional equality among “Citizens” and “natural born Citizens” (both being “citizens”) is confirmed in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1; the 5th Amendment; and the 14th Amendment.
I think the more relevant comment from the case is:
This makes it clear that the court held the view that the child of resident aliens (implied by the phrase “permanently domiciled”) are natural born citizens, demolishing your “two citizen parent” theory. Whether Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife were citizens or not is irrelevant to the operation of this citation, which assumes they were not.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
Mario Apuzzo: I am surprised on how the errors continue here.
Oh my, the condescension ploy. Well things get fixed a lot quicker here than they do in your lawsuits, Mr. Fake Travel Ban to Pakistan.
But in this case, there is no error in any article here pointed to by your objection. If you had enlarged your citation:
The Supreme Court make it clear that they believed that the decision in US v. Wong says that the child of resident aliens born in the United States are natural born citizens. I.e., de Vattel need not apply.
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
Mario Apuzzo: The statement does not mean that the court found that Kwock was a “natural born Citizen.”
Which part of the words “natural born American citizen” used by the Court doesn’t mean that?
It is at this point which the Mario-train leaves the reality station. There are two classes of citizen: natural-born and naturalized. Those who are natural-born are eligible for the presidency, those who obtain their citizenship through naturalization are not eligible.
That’s it. Any further distinction between citizens born here is pure fantasy. Your distinction doesn’t even rise to the level of dicta, Mario, it is the product of a fevered imagination. There isn’t even a hint of dicta supporting this nonsense.
Dr. Conspiracy,
What is at your benefit, I set the record straight on whether Kwock’s parents were citizens or not. You accepted red red rose’s argument that they probably were. Then that led you to abandon your article on Low Hong, thinking that if Kwock’s parents were citizens then so could Low Hong’s. Hence, you concluded that if these native born citizens did not have alien parents, you lost your argument on the significance of having U.S. born children of aliens declared “natural born citizens.”
Even though I cleared this matter up for you and gave you back the argument that you thought you lost (that Low Hong was born in the U.S. to alien parents but was still declared a “natural born Citizen”), you and your associates continue your ridicule. Do not get me wrong, I do not intend to make angels out of devils. Your side is just all emotion and feeling driven by bias and politics. My side is logic.
Just a hint. I you want to convey the sense of being helpful, starting off with a generalized insult (“I am surprised on how the errors continue here”) is not a good tactic.
I did not concede that Low Hong’s parents were probably citizens; I conceded that they could have been, and this was enough to make it impossible to draw a firm conclusion based on logic from the facts of the case. My original reliance on the Chinese Exclusion Act was flawed if one or more parents was born in the United States. If it were true that my side “is just all emotion and feeling driven by bias and politics” then I wouldn’t have retracted the article.
In the case of Kwock, however, the Court assumed that the parents were resident aliens, and still reached a conclusion of “natural born American citizen”. Now, let’s see the logic of your side on that one.