The occasional open thread: the lesser of two evils

Posted on April 19, 2013 by Dr. Conspiracy

Put your Obama Conspiracy comments not related to the current articles here. Comments will close in two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

500 Responses to The occasional open thread: the lesser of two evils

  1. ASK Esq says:
    April 19, 2013 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    Wow…birthersim must really be dying. This is the longest I’ve ever seen an open thread go unused.

    So, maybe someone can tell my why I can’t get my avatar picture to be clear, instead of blurry. I’ve tried using a small version, to no avail.

  2. Bob says:
    April 19, 2013 at 12:40 pm  (Quote)

    Jerome Corsi says that Birtherism is a dead horse politically and of course the Birthers see Corsi’s declaration as just more evidence of The Conspiracy.

  3. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    April 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm  (Quote)

    ASK Esq:
    Wow…birthersim must really be dying. This is the longest I’ve ever seen an open thread go unused.

    Birthers have shot off all of their good fireworks, all they have left are those crappy little ash snakes, and those things that you throw at the ground.

  4. US Citizen says:
    April 19, 2013 at 1:50 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: and those things that you throw at the ground.

    Facts? Laws? Truth?

  5. Deborah says:
    April 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm  (Quote)

    So… the United States gives political asylum to war-torn Russian immigrants in the 1990’s, two of them athlete brothers who plant bombs at the Boston marathon in 2013, and Orly the Russian moron blames Obama! She really deserves to have her citizenship revoked and to be sent back to Russia.

  6. richCares says:
    April 19, 2013 at 2:24 pm  (Quote)

    Sheriff Joe abanded Captain Zullo, poor guy, can’t sell cars and can’t sell Obama conspiracy, really sad and pathetic.

  7. Majority Will says:
    April 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah:
    So… the United States gives political asylum to war-torn Russian immigrants in the 1990′s, two of them athlete brothers who plant bombs at the Boston marathon in 2013, and Orly the Russian moron blames Obama! She really deserves to have her citizenship revoked and to be sent back to Russia.

    Moldova. Not Russia.

  8. arrrogantlyignorant says:
    April 19, 2013 at 3:01 pm  (Quote)

    Birthers have become so desperate on YouTube that someone has been reposting video of the 3/1/12 Arpaio press conference as “Breaking News” a year after the fact, hoping to make some noise and generate interest I guess.
    It’s got to sting pretty bad when Jerome Corsi throws you under the bus.

  9. Majority Will says:
    April 19, 2013 at 3:04 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Birthers have shot off all of their good fireworks, all they have left are those crappy little ash snakes, and those things that you throw at the ground.

    I actually liked those ash (black) snakes. Sure they’re mostly lame but still oddly compelling to watch. And bang snaps were perfect for putting under toilet seats.

  10. Majority Will says:
    April 19, 2013 at 3:06 pm  (Quote)

    arrrogantlyignorant: It’s got to sting pretty bad when Jerome Corsi throws you under the bus.

    Figuratively speaking, of course. Corsi won’t do any heavy lifting unless it involves a free buffet.

  11. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    April 19, 2013 at 3:27 pm  (Quote)

    Guess their gravy train has officially gone off the tracks.

  12. roadburner says:
    April 19, 2013 at 3:35 pm  (Quote)

    arrrogantlyignorant:
    Birthers have become so desperate on YouTube that someone has been reposting video of the 3/1/12 Arpaio press conference as “Breaking News” a year after the fact, hoping to make some noise and generate interest I guess.
    It’s got to sting pretty bad when Jerome Corsi throws you under the bus.

    yeah, but we’ve been having fun playing `spot the sock puppets’ and `embarrass the lovestruck sucker’

    we’re definately in the age of the neo-birfoons though

  14. arrrogantlyignorant says:
    April 19, 2013 at 5:14 pm  (Quote)

    Hehe.. I couldn’t imagine dredging the slimey depths of birther video comments for some “action”.
    More proof positive that birthers have no shame.

    roadburner: yeah, but we’ve been having fun playing `spot the sock puppets’ and `embarrass the lovestruck sucker’

    we’re definately in the age of the neo-birfoons though

  15. misha marinsky says:
    April 19, 2013 at 5:33 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: And bang snaps were perfect for putting under toilet seats.

    And in the aisle of a dark cinema theater.

  16. JD Reed says:
    April 19, 2013 at 6:57 pm  (Quote)

    I found this in the online version of the Washington Post. I would highly recommend it to birthers such as John, Saynomorejoe and e. vattel:

    Posted by Joel Achenbach on April 19, 2013 at 12:18 p
    “A note from Joel:

    Chris, here’s my week-in-review, and sorry that it’s not more political – I had to write to the news unfolding this morning. All week, huge stories overtook political news and, except for the demise of the gun bill in the Senate, it was hard to stay focused on Washington.

    I do have one thought about news coverage. Journalism had a rough week – lots of misinformation passed along by some normally reputable outlets (CNN, for example). If you are a journalist you should remember that the number one goal is to be right. Fast is good; right is better. Don’t get ahead of the story.”

    Of course, if they really followed Mr. Achenbach’s advice, it would be impossible to continue to be birthers.

  17. Keith says:
    April 19, 2013 at 8:42 pm  (Quote)

    JD Reed: I do have one thought about news coverage. Journalism had a rough week – lots of misinformation passed along by some normally reputable outlets (CNN, for example). If you are a journalist you should remember that the number one goal is to be right. Fast is good; right is better. Don’t get ahead of the story.”

    He’s right. CNN was really bad day before yesterday. They’ve been much more cautious, and in the process, actually more informative, during the manhunt in Watertown.

  18. misha marinsky says:
    April 19, 2013 at 9:27 pm  (Quote)

    Bob: Corsi says that Birtherism is a dead horse

    Corsi is a dead horse.

  19. CCB says:
    April 20, 2013 at 10:04 am  (Quote)

    Deborah,

    Actually, I think it’s worse than blaming Obama. According to what I read, the brothers alleged to bombed the marathon were admitted to the US in 2002. This was when you-know-who was leading the crusade, excuse me, war against terrorism.

    I am not sure but I think Ms. Taitz married her way into the US from Israel though she was born in Moldova.

    A friend of mine who is a member of the Blackfoot thinks all this could have been avoided if the immigration laws had been better enforced in the early 1600’s

  20. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    April 20, 2013 at 11:09 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Figuratively speaking, of course. Corsi won’t do any heavy lifting unless it involves a free buffet.

    He strikes me as the sort who hoards buffet table gravy. Probably fills his pockets with the stuff.

  21. Majority Will says:
    April 20, 2013 at 12:27 pm  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: He strikes me as the sort who hoards buffet table gravy. Probably fills his pockets with the stuff.

    And cheese fries.

  22. Deborah says:
    April 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm  (Quote)

    The idea that Orly would ever sit on jury duty is horrifying. She would never follow instructions but would use her own demented reasoning instead. She could never be considered an impartial jurist because she is plagued with prejudices. She would take over and bully other jurors and would lead a deadlock.

  23. Plantmaster says:
    April 20, 2013 at 5:47 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: He strikes me as the sort who hoards buffet table gravy. Probably fills his pockets with the stuff.

    And cheese fries.
    *************
    Or tater tots, like Napoleon Dynamite…

  24. Plantmaster says:
    April 20, 2013 at 5:54 pm  (Quote)

    At the laundromat last night, while loading my clothes into the drier, I had to entertain the ravings of of a conspiracy NJ who was sure that the Boston Marathon bombing was being used to implement the One World Government, and that the Tsarnaev brothers had microchips implanted in them by members of the conspiracy. After laughing in his face (and snarking, “you probably also think Obama was born in Kenya!”), I told him, “Let’s call it quits right now. We’re not going to convince each other, and I have no tolerance for ideas that are totally full of crap!” He left me alone the rest of the evening… 😉

  25. justlw says:
    April 20, 2013 at 8:52 pm  (Quote)

    richCares:
    Sheriff Joe abanded Captain Zullo, poor guy, can’t sell cars and can’t sell Obama conspiracy, really sad and pathetic.

    Did I miss a specific thing about the Shurf explicitly saying, “Run along now, mustache boy”, or is this just noting that Zullo seems to be freelancing these days?

  26. justlw says:
    April 20, 2013 at 9:05 pm  (Quote)

    There’s a conversation going on in the household right now about a PostSecret card:

    Everyone who knew me before 9/11 believes I’m dead.

    Which raised the obvious questions: how hard would this be to carry out?

    Maybe this person had no next of kin at the time, so all they did was walk away from whatever job they had, and moved, and kept themselves the heck out of the eye out of the usual social media suspects. So maybe they just “disappeared” from their then-current social circle, who presumably aren’t too motivated to do any rigorous search for them, and kept their original documented identity, just in another city.

    But what if this were a more serious effort, where someone at the spur of the moment decided to take advantage of 9/11 and build a brand new identity? How hard is it to build a new identity from scratch? Would it have to involve Connecticut?

  27. justlw says:
    April 20, 2013 at 9:13 pm  (Quote)

    ASK Esq: So, maybe someone can tell my why I can’t get my avatar picture to be clear, instead of blurry. I’ve tried using a small version, to no avail.

    I think you want to use the largest version. That’s what I did with mine, at least.

    Gravatar lets you adjust the cropping frame, so play around with that to get the focal point of your image as large as possible and centered.

    The other thing you might want to try is using your favorite photo editing software to boost the contrast and such so that your image stands out more from its background.

  28. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 20, 2013 at 10:16 pm  (Quote)

    I would think that it is very difficult. It’s much easier to assume the identity of someone else than to create one from scratch, even more so post 9/11.

    justlw: But what if this were a more serious effort, where someone at the spur of the moment decided to take advantage of 9/11 and build a brand new identity? How hard is it to build a new identity from scratch? Would it have to involve Connecticut?

  29. justlw says:
    April 20, 2013 at 10:49 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s much easier to assume the identity of someone else than to create one from scratc

    Oops — my “build one from scratch” was an unnecessary boundary to the thought exercise.

  30. Pip says:
    April 20, 2013 at 11:35 pm  (Quote)

    Another option is just to go off the grid. Put everything that needs documentation in your girlfriend’s name and live a cash-only existence. Make up a stupid fake name that people call you, but don’t bother with identification. I know a certain deadbeat father who did just that.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I would think that it is very difficult. It’s much easier to assume the identity of someone else than to create one from scratch, even more so post 9/11.

  31. ben says:
    April 21, 2013 at 12:55 am  (Quote)

    The birther concept may be dead for lack of evidence & hence of legal wins. Except for Orly. Following below after my comments was posted on Orly’s site (cut & pasted here sans the video link). This woman cannot write, how this woman passed & got certified by the California bar is a mystery to me. here goes..& of course the full spectrum treatment can be found at the Dental nut’s site. Orly I must say is our revenge on lawyers…dont hate them..send them Orly. Here’s the article, & note the spelling mistakes with the usual bad grammar…laugh while you cringe folks. Oh and who is “Thurgood Martial”…hmm must be an actor from the martial arts movies from the 70’s

    Posted on | April 20, 2013 | 3 Comments
    Baruch
    23 approved
    on 2013/04/20 at 8:57 am

    The Tsarnaev brothers were double agents who decoyed US into terror trap

    http://debka.com/article/22914/The-Tsarnaev-brothers-were-double-agents-who-decoyed-US-into-terror-trap

    Mother of Boston Marathon bombers claims they worked with FBI for 5 years. gaping holes in the official account of the events
    Share
    Category: Uncategorized

    Mother of Boston Marathon bombers claims they worked with FBI for 5 years. gaping holes in the official account of the events

    Posted on | April 20, 2013 | 11 Comments

    The mother of the Boston marathon bombers gave an interview to RT and stated that her sons worked with the FBI for 5 years. This can be easily checked.There must be phone records, FBI files, witness accounts of specific individuals visiting the house.

    Additionally there are gaping holes in the official account of the events.

    Homicide investigator Mark Fuhrman appeared on Hannity and stated that he was puzzled by the fact that FBI claimed not to know who the perpetrators were.

    1. FBI admitted that they interviewed the older brother on a request of a foreign government. FBI had his picture, name, address and all the biometrics. How could the FBI claim not to know who they were and not to know where they live when the pictures surfaced and FBI could run the visual recognition program and ID them and get all the info within minutes?

    2. The story of the owner of the carjacked Mercedes made no sense whatsoever. Imagine: 2 people are trying to escape after being identified as bombers. They burglarize a 7/11 store to get some money for the escape, they kill a police officer, they carjack a Mercedes and force the owner of the Mercedes to withdraw $800. Logically you would believe that they would kill the owner of the Mercedes and dump his body somewhere in the woods in order to escape. Instead the owner of the Mercedes claimed that they bragged to him about being the bombers and let him go. Why would they bragged to him and let him go? So he would sick the police on them, so the police would kill them? No. It is much more probable to believe that they indeed worked with the FBI. Possibly they were FBI informers who turned double agents. Possibly the older brother worked for the CIA when he went to the training camps in Chechnya and he later turned double agent. It makes much more sense to believe that the owner of the Mercedes is not a random person, but somebody they knew and trusted. He agreed to give them the car and the money and later set them up by sicking the police on them. Demand from the FBI release of the name of the man, whose Mercedes was allegedly carjacked by the terrorists. The public has a right to know, whether this person worked for the FBI or was an FBI informant or did he possibly work with the terrorists and was their contact, their handler on the other side?

    3. Demand answers in regards to reports of Obama meeting with the Saudi foreign minister or another Saudi official after the bombing and Michelle Obama visiting a Saudi person of interest in the hospital. Is this person of interest on a terrorist watch list? Is there any evidence of him being connected with Chechen rebels and Chechen jihadists?

    4. Why wasn’t the older brother simply deported in 2010 and denied U.S. permanent residency after a foreign government asked to question him and after he was arrested for domestic violence and after evidence surfaced showing his running a site dedicated to promotion of an Australian imam recruiting young people to be suicide bombers? the older brother was not a US. citizen and could easily be deported.

    5. Demand answers from the FBI and department of Justice: who paid for the expenses of these 2 brothers in the U.S.? Their parents returned to Chechnya or Dagestan, their sister did not see them in years. How did they make a living. there is no evidence of them working anywhere: there is no report of employment of either one of them. Who paid for their education and rent, food, closing, several thousands dollars for their travel to Russia and Chechnya?

    6. Two FOX stooges Bbill O’Reilly and Jeraldo Rivera appeared together and claimed that the organized jihad is dead and that there are just a couple of self motivated kids -jihadists. These regime stooges, controlled opposition puppets, arrogantly treat every American citizen as a complete idiot. This is the same behavior they exhibited when O’Reilly posted my picture and attacked me, claiming to allow parties to respond, while categorically refusing to allow me to appear on the show and respond and provide all the evidence showing Obama using forged IDs and a stolen Social Security number 042-68-4425. Similarly with Rivera, I talked with him on the air, he was willing to talk for a short while about invalid voter registrations in CA, but immediately cut me off when I started to talk about evidence of Obama’s use of forged IDs.These stooges have to be prosecuted as accomplices to the elections fraud and forgery, in FCC violations aiding and abetting elections fraud. In exchange for the large checks from the network these cohorts sold their sole to the devil and committed treason against their own country and became accomplices in elections fraud and forgery. Lately Jerome Corsi showed his true colors again by appearing on a radio show, peddling his new book and telling people not to talk about the eligibility issue anymore as they will be marginalized. If Thurgood Martial were to be afraid to be marginalized we would still have apartheid in this couutry, we would still have segregation.

  32. Deborah says:
    April 21, 2013 at 2:09 am  (Quote)

    ben April 21, 2013 at 12:55 am (Quote) #

    The birther concept may be dead for lack of evidence & hence of legal wins. Except for Orly.

    She has issues. She is either living in a James Bond movie, or still living in Moldova, during the Cold War (which only gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991).

    She has brought much luggage with her in her travels, and she needs psychotherapy to deal with her past, fast. Until she is able to put it behind her, she will continue to project ancient history into the present and all her relationships will be poisoned.

  33. ben says:
    April 21, 2013 at 2:18 am  (Quote)

    Deborah:
    ben April 21, 2013 at 12:55 am(Quote) #

    The birther concept may be dead for lack of evidence & hence of legal wins. Except for Orly.

    She has issues. She is either living in a James Bond movie, or still living in Moldova, during the Cold War (which only gained independence from the SovietUnion in 1991).

    And we thought we here in America were living with Americans- but no. She has brought with her much luggage and she needs psychotherapy to deal with her past. Until she is able to put it behind her, she will continue to project ancient history into the present and all her relationships will be poisoned.

    Orly & relationships of any sort are POISON…& what relationships….I pity her husband & sons who have to put up with her. They probably cringe when friends & associates read about her exploits & ask about her. In fact pretty sure they wished some sort of witness protection like program existed for a situation such as theirs

  34. Lupin says:
    April 21, 2013 at 4:01 am  (Quote)

    The Boston tragedy shows that even people who have been living in this country ( I mean the USA) for a long time find it difficult if not impossible to escape from the ghosts of their native cultures.

    For all intents & purposes, Orly is still in Moldovia, battling her own ghosts. I also suspect that in her case, we’re seeing the first symptoms of some form of dementia. (My mother became quite obsessive about certain issues eight years before she was formally diagnosed with Alzheimer.)

  35. Tomtech says:
    April 21, 2013 at 11:55 am  (Quote)

    I can’t reach the homepage here. I am redirected to the site’s “Default Web Page”.

    I flushed my dns to no avail.

    Is anyone else having the same problem?

  36. dunstvangeet says:
    April 21, 2013 at 12:14 pm  (Quote)

    Tomtech:
    I can’t reach the homepage here. I am redirected to the site’s “Default Web Page”.

    I flushed my dns to no avail.

    Is anyone else having the same problem?

    Try flushing the cache that your browser has as well. That worked for me.

  37. richCares says:
    April 21, 2013 at 12:16 pm  (Quote)

    ”
    I can’t reach the homepage here. I am redirected to the site’s “Default Web Page”.
    I flushed my dns to no avail.
    Is anyone else having the same problem?”
    .
    this occurs Only on Internet Explorer,
    Firefox and GOOGLE work FINE

  38. Arthur says:
    April 21, 2013 at 12:26 pm  (Quote)

    richCares: this occurs Only on Internet Explorer,
    Firefox and GOOGLE work FINE

    Actually, I had the same problem using Firefox. I tried to do the cache clearing thing, and it didn’t help. I finally made it in through a link at “Bad Fiction.”

  39. dunstvangeet says:
    April 21, 2013 at 12:32 pm  (Quote)

    richCares:
    ”
    I can’t reach the homepage here. I am redirected to the site’s “Default Web Page”.
    I flushed my dns to no avail.
    Is anyone else having the same problem?”
    .
    this occurs Only on Internet Explorer,
    Firefox and GOOGLE work FINE

    I had the problem on Firefox. Flushed my DNS and my Cache, and that solved it.

  40. Tomtech says:
    April 21, 2013 at 12:51 pm  (Quote)

    dunstvangeet: I had the problem on Firefox.Flushed my DNS and my Cache, and that solved it.

    Clearing Cashe on Google fixed it.

  41. Reality Check says:
    April 21, 2013 at 1:12 pm  (Quote)

    I am having a similar problem with Chrome on my iPad. Safari seems to work all right.

  42. Majority Will says:
    April 21, 2013 at 3:10 pm  (Quote)

    “On Monday, an act of terror wounded dozens and killed three innocent people at the Boston Marathon. But in the days since, the world has witnessed one sure and steadfast truth: Americans refuse to be terrorized. Ultimately, that’s what we’ll remember from this week. That’s what will remain. Stories of heroism and kindness; resolve and resilience; generosity and love.”

    President Barack Obama

  43. donna says:
    April 21, 2013 at 3:31 pm  (Quote)

    FCC Chair Endorses Red Sox F-Bomb

    Boston Red Sox slugger David Ortiz got the Federal Communications Commission’s seal of approval after he dropped an F-bomb in a pre-game speech that was broadcast on live television. Ortiz’s R-rated remarks were delivered on the field at Fenway Park before the first Red Sox home game since Monday’s bombing at the Boston Marathon.

    “This is our f*&^% king city,” Ortiz said. “And nobody gonna dictate our freedom. Stay strong. Thank you.”

    The FCC regulates “obscenity, indecency and profanity” on radio and television and often issues fines for on-air swearing. However, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski issued a statement of support for Ortiz on the agency’s official Twitter account after the game.

    “David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today’s Red Sox game. I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston,” Genachowski wrote.

  44. A.R. Nash says:
    April 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm  (Quote)

    from obama- -nation.com

    Naturalized Bombers & Natural Born Presidents;
    ~Obama, natural citizenship, & national adoption
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/naturalized-bombers-natural-born-presidents/

    I’ve been on a very long and wide-ranging journey for three full years, one that has led to writing a couple hundred thousand words of exposition, and reading ten times that many. In all of that time I’ve been looking for the keys to understanding the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama and the words describing what an American President must be in order to be valid and not an unqualified imposter, -those words being “natural born citizen.”
    Along that journey I’ve rediscovered several overlooked truths, and forgotten facts, which together create a picture that was previously unknown to Americans of today. But there was still something missing, one last piece to the puzzle, a missing key to unlock the final mystery and make everything make perfect sense.
    Yesterday I had a new realization, -one which was uneventful in its impact, but which carries enormous significance. It was a simple Eureka moment which put in the final bolt to finish the roller-coaster ride that my journey has been on, and thereby allow it to come to completion. One over-looked truth came to mind, and I realized that when applied to the mystery, it solved it by explaining it. And now it needs to be shared with all those who care about their country, the rule of law, and the primacy of fact over fiction and ignorance.

    [It is a view shared by no one else since no one else has ever been aware of its existence. But my challenge to all is to do your best to disprove it, -not by opinion, but by fact. I don’t believe that can be done. If you love the truth, then you will love what you discover, if not…you’ll hate it. A.R. Nash]
    .
    [skipping over what I discovered, I capsulize thusly:

    Now let’s concisely state the known facts;
    Obama is not:
    1. A Natural Citizen having an American father & mother
    2. A Born Citizen via birth to a legal immigrant mother and /or father covered by the 14th Amendment
    3. A Naturalized Citizen via the naturalization process
    4. A Derivative Citizen through naturalized parents
    5. A Statutory Citizen via positive law covering children born abroad to married mixed-nationality parents.
    6. A Provisional Citizen dependent on living certain years in the U.S. due to birth abroad to an unwed mother and foreign father, or an American father who will not acknowledge paternity.

    Obama’s citizenship is strictly presumptive in nature and could be nullified by an order of the Attorney General or the President and not violate the Supreme Court opinion of 1898, nor the 14th Amendment. Obama could, by his own constitutional authority, politically decapitate himself by declaring that his own presumptive citizenship will no longer be recognized.
    No other President in American history could have done that because they were all (with one secret exception) natural born citizens, -citizens by nature, -not by law, and especially not by presumption.

    read the full newly discovered truth and experience the scales of embedded misconceptions peel off your brain.

    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/naturalized-bombers-natural-born-presidents/
    short url: http://wp.me/p1vLQT-Iu

  45. Deborah says:
    April 21, 2013 at 4:13 pm  (Quote)

    It was a simple Eureka moment

    A.R. Nash: A.R. Nash April 21, 2013 at 3:38 pm (Quote) #

    As one commenter here already noted, epiphanies and “eureka moments” do not rely on facts, they only require a deluded faith in what you wish to be true.

    You have neglected from your list that Obama has a U.S. citizen for a mother, and an African exchange student for a father. It does not have to be “proven” because it is the responsibility of the accuser to prove otherwise. The evidence provided told a simple story- Barack Obama is the child of a United States citizen mother, and an African college exchange student. Period. There is no secret conspiracy to transmit his alleged “British citizenship” into a renewed English monrarchial tyranny- that is simply what you want to believe because you are not advanced in the study of history.

  46. Rickey says:
    April 21, 2013 at 4:16 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    skipping over what I discovered

    Amazing coincidence! That’s precisely what I plan to do.

  47. nbc says:
    April 21, 2013 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: read the full newly discovered truth and experience the scales of embedded misconceptions peel off your brain.

    Such as you ignoring that according to the 14th Amendment, those born on US soil under our jurisdiction, are (natural) born citizens…

    And Obama, by virtue of his documented birth on US soil, clearly is a natural born citizen.

  48. Deborah says:
    April 21, 2013 at 4:37 pm  (Quote)

    He had the “epiphany” upon learning that the recent terrorist bombings at the Boston marathon were done by a naturalized citizen and his brother in the process…but he did not have the epihanies when domestic terrorism was committed by natural born citizens. Natural born citizens like Timothy McVeigh or the Army of God or the Ku Klux Klan do NOT commit acts of terrorism as we all know. Only foreigners.

  49. aarrgghh says:
    April 21, 2013 at 5:40 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: “It is a view shared by no one else since no one else has ever been aware of its existence. But my challenge to all is to do your best to disprove it, -not by opinion, but by fact. I don’t believe that can be done. If you love the truth, then you will love what you discover, if not…you’ll hate it. A.R. Nash”

    you might as well just signed it: “just another textbook crank”

  50. Rickey says:
    April 21, 2013 at 6:10 pm  (Quote)

    nbc: Such as you ignoring that according to the 14th Amendment, those born on US soil under our jurisdiction, are (natural) born citizens…

    And Obama, by virtue of his documented birth on US soil, clearly is a natural born citizen.

    In the past Nash has pushed the ludicrous argument that foreign tourists, foreign residents, foreigners here on student visas, etc. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

  51. SluggoJD says:
    April 21, 2013 at 6:40 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    from obama- -nation.com

    Naturalized Bombers & Natural Born Presidents;~Obama, natural citizenship, & national adoption
    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/naturalized-bombers-natural-born-presidents/

    I’ve been on a very long and wide-ranging journey for three full years, one that has led to writing a couple hundred thousand words of exposition, and reading ten times that many.In all of that time I’ve been looking for the keys to understanding the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama and the words describing what an American President must be in order to be valid and not an unqualified imposter, -those words being “natural born citizen.”Along that journey I’ve rediscovered several overlooked truths, and forgotten facts, which together create a picture that was previously unknown to Americans of today.But there was still something missing, one last piece to the puzzle, a missing key to unlock the final mystery and make everything make perfect sense.Yesterday I had a new realization, -one which was uneventful in its impact, but which carries enormous significance.It was a simple Eureka moment…………..

    LOL and what was your “Eureka moment?” Did you realize you’re Yet Another Moron (YAM, trademarked) who thinks he solved the mysteries of the universe? Perhaps you finally realized you have no life, and maybe it’s time to go bowling or fly a kite?

    Barack Obama is President of the United States.
    And you are, basically, nothing at all.

    That’s truth. That’s reality. Try Eureka-ing that for a change.

  52. Northland10 says:
    April 21, 2013 at 8:39 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: It is a view shared by no one else since no one else has ever been aware of its existence. But my challenge to all is to do your best to disprove it, -not by opinion, but by fact.

    Your entire article was a list of your opinions lacking any authority to back it up. Stating, “it is this way” is not fact, it is a opinion.

  53. Keith says:
    April 21, 2013 at 9:18 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Now let’s concisely state the known facts;

    You left off the most obvious and most certain fact:

    Obama IS a Natural Born Citizen having been born in within the geographical confines of the United States (specifically, in Honolulu, Hawai’i) and under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States (specifically, his parents are not foreign diplomats nor part of invading armies).

    That is the only detail that you appear to have ‘skipped’ that is in any way relevant. Having read all that material and not ‘learned’ that simple bit of information would indicate that you made no attempt to understand what it was that you were reading, or you were reading sources that had no authority whatsoever.

    The American system doesn’t have ‘lost secrets’ like this that are discoverable only by lone researchers. The operations of the American system is well documented, exhaustively documented, and well taught.

  54. Keith says:
    April 21, 2013 at 9:35 pm  (Quote)

    (I hit submit too soon and then ran out of edit time… sorry… I meant to add:)

    The operations of the American system is well documented, exhaustively documented, and well taught, even to elementary school students.

    While insights into the thinking behind laws and judicial opinions, and conventions can always be discussed and argued, the facts of those are not in dispute. The 14th amendment says anyone born in America is a born citizen. The Wong Kim Ark decision confirms that a born citizen is a “Natural Born Citizen”.

    Unless you willfully avoided the most important information about the subject you were researching, you cannot possibly have read that many words on the subject without reading about the 14th Amendment and the WKA case. Since you completely ignored the only conclusion possible from an understanding of the 14th Amendment and the WKA case you cannot possibly have understood those millions of words you read, or willfully ignored the most significant and relevant words.

    The only conclusions we can arrive at here, then are:

    1) You started with a fixed view and ignored everything that contradicted that view.
    2) You completely wasted your time because of (1).
    3) You are wasting our time.

  55. Keith says:
    April 21, 2013 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: 1. A Natural Citizen having an American father & mother
    2. A Born Citizen via birth to a legal immigrant mother and /or father covered by the 14th Amendment
    3. A Naturalized Citizen via the naturalization process
    4. A Derivative Citizen through naturalized parents
    5. A Statutory Citizen via positive law covering children born abroad to married mixed-nationality parents.
    6. A Provisional Citizen dependent on living certain years in the U.S. due to birth abroad to an unwed mother and foreign father, or an American father who will not acknowledge paternity.

    Just to be complete, A.R.

    You are correct about items 3, 4, 5, and 6. None of those items pertains to President Obama’s birth details in any way shape or form. They are totally wasted bits of word salad.

    Item 1 is superficially correct because the citizenship status of his parents have nothing to do with his citizenship status (except that they have to be subject to the American legal system, of course). He is a Natural Born Citizen because he was born in the United States.

    Item 2 is ridiculous. The 14th amendment doesn’t say anything what-so-ever about parents, whether native or immigrant, legal or otherwise.

    It says anyone born in the United States or Naturalized in the United States is a citizen. Two kinds of citizens: Born and Naturalized. Naturalized means ‘Natural Made’. A citizen who is born a citizen is not naturalized and cannot be ‘made natural’, they are ‘born natural’, that is, they are Natural Born Citizens.

  56. The Magic M says:
    April 22, 2013 at 5:43 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Obama could, by his own constitutional authority, politically decapitate himself by declaring that his own presumptive citizenship will no longer be recognized.

    Even if you were correct, the result is still: “so what?”
    A President can resign any day, and in your fantasy world, he could render himself ineligible any day, what’s the difference?

    A.R. Nash: It is a view shared by no one else since no one else has ever been aware of its existence.

    So you think you’re Einstein and have just discovered the laws of Special Eligibility and Quantum Eligibility?
    Actually, my cat Schrödinger thinks it’s impossible to know if someone is ineligible until he becomes President and Congress looks at him.
    My other cat Heisenberg thinks you cannot know both the eligibility and the American-ness of a President at the same time.
    I think my cats are more intelligent than all birthers combined.

    “Oh, I see. You got a lot of cats and gave them cute Jewish names.” (Sheldon’s mom, “The Big Bang Theory”)

  57. Reality Check says:
    April 22, 2013 at 9:26 am  (Quote)

    I can go to any page other than the home page on my iPad. The home page goes to the “default page”. It seems to only happen with chrome.

  58. Jim says:
    April 22, 2013 at 9:43 am  (Quote)

    Reality Check:
    I can go to any page other than the home page on my iPad. The home page goes to the “default page”.It seems to only happen with chrome.

    Same thing with me on one of my computers when I tried to access Saturday when it was down. Try clearing out your history and see if that fixes the problem.

  59. Reality Check says:
    April 22, 2013 at 10:18 am  (Quote)

    I finally figured out how to clear the cache in Chrome. That did the trick. Thanks.

  60. Rickey says:
    April 22, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    SluggoJD: LOL and what was your “Eureka moment?”Did you realize you’re Yet Another Moron (YAM, trademarked) who thinks he solved the mysteries of the universe?

    We should lock A.R. Nash, Bob Gard and Jedi Pauly in a padded cell until they figure out which of them had the real Eureka! moment.

  61. Deborah says:
    April 22, 2013 at 2:11 pm  (Quote)

    Here is Glen Beck’s “expose” on the Obama “cover-up” of a Saudi National who was said to have been coded as a terrorist for deportation during the Boston marathon.

    It’s amazing how many words can be used to say nothing. Anyhow, this is not the first time Beck has “exposed” Obama.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/22/beck-breaks-exclusive-information-on-saudi-national-allegedly-connected-to-boston-bombings/

  62. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 22, 2013 at 2:34 pm  (Quote)

    A talented Obot could probably do a pretty effective play on this theme (recalling “No Exit“).

    Rickey: We should lock A.R. Nash, Bob Gard and Jedi Pauly in a padded cell until they figure out which of them had the real Eureka! moment.

  63. US Citizen says:
    April 22, 2013 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    (Payback for all the bad Misha jokes…) 😉

    There once were two twin sisters.
    Although they had real names, people would call them by their very different personalities.
    One was called “Cooler” and the other “Hotter.”

    One day a baron from a neighboring country visited and fell in love with Hotter.
    They planned to wed, but Cooler wouldn’t have any part of this, for she loved the baron too.
    So Cooler decided to kill Hotter and replace her with herself, thinking the baron would never recognize the difference.

    After several unsuccessful attempts on her life, Cooler finally remembered that Hotter was allergic to marshmallows.
    That night, she served Hotter some cooked yams smothered in marshmallow.
    As expected, Hotter died and Cooler took her place.

    The story became famously known as “Marry Hotter and the Deathly Mallows”

  65. misha marinsky says:
    April 22, 2013 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Go to this before they take down my comment:

    They took it down. I posted “Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl http://didglennbeckrapeandmurderagirl.blogspot.com/ ”

    At least I got five minutes, and irritated his staff. Hopefully, he’ll be told about this and know it’s still floating around.

  66. US Citizen says:
    April 22, 2013 at 4:28 pm  (Quote)

    He just retroactively unraped and unmurdered the girl.

  67. misha marinsky says:
    April 22, 2013 at 4:35 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah: Here is Glen Beck’s “expose” on the Obama “cover-up” of a Saudi National

    It’s all libel and innuendo. His whole site is a sewer. Don’t forget to buy the 3-month supply of food. $100 off if you buy now.

  68. Arthur says:
    April 22, 2013 at 6:18 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Don’t forget to buy the 3-month supply of food. $100 off if you buy now.

    And don’t forget the $100 bag of magic beans, er, I mean seeds. Also, I hear that the price of gold has really been doing well lately, all thanks to Glenn “Goldy” Beck.

  69. Deborah says:
    April 22, 2013 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s an Obama election fraud trial that began today according to Fox News.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/22/trial-begins-for-officials-accused-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/

  70. misha marinsky says:
    April 22, 2013 at 6:37 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Also, I hear that the price of gold has really been doing well lately, all thanks to Glenn “Goldy” Beck.

    Don’t forget Huckabee endorsed Goldline, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_qRluBt–0

  72. Dave B. says:
    April 22, 2013 at 7:00 pm  (Quote)

    Is there room in there for Gordon Epperly?

    Rickey: We should lock A.R. Nash, Bob Gard and Jedi Pauly in a padded cell until they figure out which of them had the real Eureka! moment.

  73. Keith says:
    April 22, 2013 at 7:42 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky:
    Richie Havens died today, of a heart attack:

    http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1559103/richie-havens-folk-and-woodstock-legend-dead-at-72

    Chrisy Amphlett died today, of cancer and multiple sclerosis.

    Australian female rock icon Chrissy Amphlett of The Divinyls has died after a battle with breast cancer. (report includes video).

    Both are big losses.

  74. J.D. Sue says:
    April 22, 2013 at 10:42 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: Richie Havens died today, of a heart attack

    —
    Sorry to hear it. One of my personal favorites from the Woodstock era.

  75. misha marinsky says:
    April 22, 2013 at 10:53 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue: Sorry to hear it. One of my personal favorites from the Woodstock era.

    Richie Havens – Here Comes The Sun (live 1971): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbXKsKXyNU

  77. gorefan says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:34 am  (Quote)

    Anyone hear anything about Paige v. Obama in Vermont’s Supreme Court?

  78. misha marinsky says:
    April 23, 2013 at 12:45 pm  (Quote)

    Yessss!! Philly’s in the news again: 2nd Child of Pa. Couple Dies After Only Praying

    A Philadelphia couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another of their children has died.

    Remember, dog backwards spells god.

    Coincidence?

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2nd-child-pa-couple-dies-praying-19021893#.UXa5yKLvtJs

  79. Deborah says:
    April 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm  (Quote)

    Misha, I think I figured it out. Society is plagued by a God-concept that believes that God punishes innocent members of a group for the crimes of a few people in the group. I have never been able to understand this type of group mentality until someone recently posted on Facebook, “if we had a less level-headed President we would be at war with Chechnya right now.” Yes, that is the American God mentality- punish an entire country for the sins of two men.

  80. misha marinsky says:
    April 23, 2013 at 4:22 pm  (Quote)

    Deborah: Society is plagued by a God-concept that believes that God punishes innocent members of a group for the crimes of a few people in the group.

    I don’t know if you read this, so I’ll repeat it, with the indulgence of Dr C: I drove to the Iditarod several years ago, before I had a stroke. I met a minister in the Anchorage AoG; Palin belongs to the Wasilla AoG.

    He invited me to his church; I said I was Jewish, and no thank you. He demanded I let him baptize me, and when I refused he bellowed “Auschwitz was divine retribution because you people have refused to accept God’s only son.” A woman with him told me Jewish people “deserve to suffer.”

    I will remember that every time I go into the voting booth.

  81. Deborah says:
    April 23, 2013 at 4:45 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, Misha, I did read that!

    There was a Christian female bus driver who used to preach to the passengers (until I complained profusely). One time a couple kids in a group of teen-agers from the charter school were acting up and she kicked the entire group of teen-agers off the bus when peers would not turn in the culprits. Christian social justice.

  82. Plantmaster says:
    April 23, 2013 at 5:54 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash

    I’ve been on a very long and wide-ranging journey for three full years, one that has led to writing a couple hundred thousand words of exposition, and reading ten times that many.
    ************
    I read yr essay “Jus Soli and 500,000 Dead.” A pile of unintelligible regurgitated prejudice masquerading as profundity.

    *************
    A.R. Nash
    Along that journey I’ve rediscovered several overlooked truths, and forgotten facts, which together create a picture that was previously unknown to Americans of today. But there was still something missing, one last piece to the puzzle, a missing key to unlock the final mystery and make everything make perfect sense.
    Yesterday I had a new realization, -one which was uneventful in its impact, but which carries enormous significance. It was a simple Eureka moment which put in the final bolt to finish the roller-coaster ride that my journey has been on, and thereby allow it to come to completion. One over-looked truth came to mind, and I realized that when applied to the mystery, it solved it by explaining it. And now it needs to be shared with all those who care about their country, the rule of law, and the primacy of fact over fiction and ignorance.

    [It is a view shared by no one else since no one else has ever been aware of its existence. But my challenge to all is to do your best to disprove it, -not by opinion, but by fact. I don’t believe that can be done. If you love the truth, then you will love what you discover, if not…you’ll hate it. A.R. Nash]
    .
    *************
    As a practicing Catholic, I believe in the possibility of supernatural private revelations. I am not, however, required to accept them, especially if it’s clear something is wrong with the visionary. I can prove that you are a conceited racist who can’t bear the fact that “one of them” won the Presidency fair and square. You make up for it by an avalanche of words and disinformation that bore the crap out of us. “Neighbors, you are tedious!”

  83. Deborah says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:29 pm  (Quote)

    Here’s an excellent expose on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lFDwdRXCg3I

  84. Dave B. says:
    April 23, 2013 at 6:59 pm  (Quote)

    All right, I bit. I went and read it. And it’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in quite a while– and that includes all the cheap, self-published, unedited Zombie books I’ve read lately.

    A.R. Nash: I’ve been on a very long and wide-ranging journey for three full years, one that has led to writing a couple hundred thousand words of exposition, and reading ten times that many. In all of that time I’ve been looking for the keys to understanding the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama and the words describing what an American President must be in order to be valid and not an unqualified imposter, -those words being “natural born citizen.”

  85. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 23, 2013 at 8:43 pm  (Quote)

    Adrien, meet Bob. Bob, meet Adrien.

    A.R. Nash: I’ve been on a very long and wide-ranging journey for three full years, one that has led to writing a couple hundred thousand words of exposition, and reading ten times that many. In all of that time I’ve been looking for the keys to understanding the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama and the words describing what an American President must be in order to be valid and not an unqualified imposter, -those words being “natural born citizen.”

  86. JPotter says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:22 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A talented Obot could probably do a pretty effective play on this theme (recalling “No Exit“).

    LOL! Good one, Doc!

    If only they were more numerous, and had any capacity for salvation, it could be Twelve Angry Birthers. But they aren’t, and they don’t, so it is indeed No Exit. how could they ever escape from themselves?

  87. Arthur says:
    April 23, 2013 at 10:40 pm  (Quote)

    gorefan: Anyone hear anything about Paige v. Obama in Vermont’s Supreme Court?

    Here’s an entertaining article about it from the Burlington Free Press.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130423/NEWS03/304230018/Vt-Supreme-Court-hears-case-challenging-legality-Barack-Obama-s-run-re-election

    My favorite part:

    “As the hearing ended, Paige called out to the justices and began walking toward them as they were departing the courtroom, hoping to give each of them copies of ‘The Law of Nations,’ the 867-page book first published in 1773 by Emer de Vattel.”

    “Paige has claimed the framers relied on ‘The Law of Nations’ when they inserted the term natural born citizens into the Constitution as a presidential requirement.”

    “‘Don’t approach,’ an alarmed Justice Marilyn Skoglund told Paige. He was instead advised to leave the five copies of the thick book with a court clerk.”

  88. Dave B. says:
    April 24, 2013 at 12:14 am  (Quote)

    I kind of like this part:
    “Paige, of the town of Washington, appealed to decision to the high court. At Tuesday’s hearing he told the justices he was not challenging Obama’s citizenship, as the so-called “birthers” group has contended.

    “Don’t pay any attention to them,” he told the justices. “The birther argument is just a sheer flight of fancy.””
    Arthur: My favorite part:

    “As the hearing ended, Paige called out to the justices and began walking toward them as they were departing the courtroom, hoping to give each of them copies of ‘The Law of Nations,’ the 867-page book first published in 1773 by Emer de Vattel.”

    “Paige has claimed the framers relied on ‘The Law of Nations’ when they inserted the term natural born citizens into the Constitution as a presidential requirement.”

    “‘Don’t approach,’ an alarmed Justice Marilyn Skoglund told Paige. He was instead advised to leave the five copies of the thick book with a court clerk.”

  89. misha marinsky says:
    April 24, 2013 at 12:24 am  (Quote)

    Arthur: Here’s an entertaining article about it from the Burlington Free Press.
    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130423/NEWS03/304230018/Vt-Supreme-Court-hears-case-challenging-legality-Barack-Obama-s-run-re-election

    “Paige has claimed the framers relied on ‘The Law of Nations’ when they inserted the term natural born citizens into the Constitution as a presidential requirement.”

    I let Paige have it. From that picture, he’s foppish.

  90. Dave B. says:
    April 24, 2013 at 2:03 am  (Quote)

    I was going to let Lyin’ Joe Montgomery have it over there, but they won’t let me log in.

    misha marinsky: I let Paige have it.

  91. A.R. Nash says:
    April 24, 2013 at 5:29 am  (Quote)

    For your enlightenment, I’ve distilled a plethora of illuminating citizenship facts down to a compact single page large-print delineation of the four principle forms of U.S. citizenship, each explained briefly but succinctly. You people will hate the truth that it displays, but won’t be able to dispute it factually since the facts are not on your side. But I’m sure some will attack it in a non-factual manner being as there is no factual counter.

    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/types-of-us-citizenship-ds.jpg

  92. A.R. Nash says:
    April 24, 2013 at 5:39 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: We should lock A.R. Nash, Bob Gard and Jedi Pauly in a padded cell until they figure out which of them had the real Eureka! moment.

    I have never heard of those people, but I’m willing to wager that whatever they believe, I don’t. If they believe in Vattel’s so-called “definition” of NBC, then I would argue against that fallacy all the day long. Vattel taught that nationality was inherited from the father, not from the father and the soil, but irrationality has perverted that fact and redefined a description as a definition even though Vattel never used the term natural born citizen, (les indigenes ou les naturels)

  93. Arthur says:
    April 24, 2013 at 8:13 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: “Don’t pay any attention to them,” he told the justices. “The birther argument is just a sheer flight of fancy.””

    It’s amusing when a guy advocating crank legal opinions thinks the people holding slightly different crank legal opinions are deluded and he isn’t. I mean, whatever happened to esprit de cuckcoo?

  94. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 24, 2013 at 8:37 am  (Quote)

    So, given the fact that early American writers sometimes, including in judicial opinions, listed “native born citizen” as the requirement for the presidency, why do you think that “native born” and “natural born” have a distinct meaning, particularly in the light of the Oxford English Dictionary giving them identical definitions? Can you give any authority that indicates that the late 18th century American usage for “native born” implies born within the borders of the country? Can you cite any authority that say that “native born” and “natural born” were distinct categories?

    This question is primarily a test to see whether you can engage in discussion, and defend a thesis.

    A.R. Nash: For your enlightenment, I’ve distilled a plethora of illuminating citizenship facts down to a compact single page large-print delineation of the four principle forms of U.S. citizenship, each explained briefly but succinctly.

  95. Arthur says:
    April 24, 2013 at 8:56 am  (Quote)

    More evidence that the believing brain will believe anything. Here’s a story of a New Hampshire State Representative (R) who not only believes the anti-Obama videos she sees on YouTube are accurate, but that the Boston bombings were a false-flag operation. And yes, she’s an Alex Jones fan-gurl.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/stella-tremblay-boston-bombing_n_3140461.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

  96. ballantine says:
    April 24, 2013 at 10:19 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    For your enlightenment, I’ve distilled a plethora of illuminating citizenship facts down to a compact single page large-print delineation of the four principle forms of U.S. citizenship, each explained briefly but succinctly.You people will hate the truth that it displays, but won’t be able to dispute it factually since the facts are not on your side.But I’m sure some will attack it in a non-factual manner being as there is no factual counter.

    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/types-of-us-citizenship-ds.jpg

    Another amateur claiming he has the truth and the facts without providing evidence of either. They can’t understand simply saying something is true does not make it true. Let’s take a look at his amateur chart.

    So, “natural born” means by the law of nature which is by descent. Of course, no legal authority in the US has ever said that. Simply making things up is not an argument. the framers actually were taught that the law of nature was jus soli as such was the English law laid down by Lord Coke. Natural law was rarely raised by anyone in connection with citizenship, however, when raised they had the English notion of natural law. For example, the man who introduced the 14th Amendment citizenship clause to Congress:

    “They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

    Finally, it is simply a matter of settled law that persons born out of the United States with citizen parents is an alien unless made a citizen by Congress as the Supmeme Court has said over and over. There is no citizenship by descent in the US outside of statute. Here is Scalia on someone with a citizen father:

    “Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and “can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress.” Id., at 702—703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the “authority of Congress” that is appealed to–its power under Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.”

    Your “native born” section makes no sense. No one has ever said such persons are “naturalized at birth” as the Amendment itself distinguishes citizens at birth from naturalized citizens. Of course, the Supreme Court has said over and over that native born citizens are eligible to be president and, for people who can actually read, said in Wong Kim Ark that a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment means the same thing as a natural born citizen. It is amazing that not a single birther is smart enough or honest enough to understand what Wong Kim Ark said.

    Your “citizens by policy” is gibberish. Wong Kim Ark clearly defined exactly who was excluded by the 14th Amendment. Have you ever read the case? Seriously?

    “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.”

    Plain English. The only exclusions are children of diplomats, alien enemies and members of indians tribes. The common law with the addition of indians who were unknown to the common law. Really not that hard.

  97. JoZeppy says:
    April 24, 2013 at 11:49 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    For your enlightenment, I’ve distilled a plethora of illuminating citizenship facts down to a compact single page large-print delineation of the four principle forms of U.S. citizenship, each explained briefly but succinctly.You people will hate the truth that it displays, but won’t be able to dispute it factually since the facts are not on your side.But I’m sure some will attack it in a non-factual manner being as there is no factual counter.

    http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/types-of-us-citizenship-ds.jpg

    Simply stating something to be true, with nothing to support it, doesn’t make it a fact. My first question is, “what qualifies you to be an expert on the law, even being a higher authority on it than the United States Supreme Court?” For instance, your chart directly contradicts serveral opinions of SCOTUS. One being the Court has stated there are only two types of citizens, born and naturalized. You have four. Secondly, the Court has said those born overseas to citizen parents are only citizens by viture of the laws passed by congress, and the terms of their citizenship is subject to the laws passed by Congress (a person born abroad claim to “inherit” their citizenship can lose their citizenship by the terms of the statutes congress passed granting them citizenship in the first place…kinda blows a hole in your first catagory, doesn’t it?). Your “citizen by policy” is utter bunk. It has nothing to do with any AG’s interpretation, it’s the clear words of WKA.

    It’s actually very easy to dispute your little chart simply because it contradicts virtually the entire body of jurisprudence on the subject. Sorry buddy, just because you think up of some wild and crazy theory on the law, doesn’t make it binding on anyone. That’s not how the law works. The law isn’t based on some gnostic theory of hidden knowledge waiting to be discovered by those God deems worthy. The fact that you can cite no legal authority to support this system of citizenship should be the first clue that you have a crack-pot legal theory. This isn’t hate. This is just explaining to you how our legal system actually works.

  98. Rickey says:
    April 24, 2013 at 11:58 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:

    I have never heard of those people, but I’m willing to wager that whatever they believe, I don’t.

    Their crank theories are a lot closer to yours than you think.

  99. sfjeff says:
    April 24, 2013 at 12:19 pm  (Quote)

    There are still quite a few people that deeply resent the 14th Amendment and its very, very inclusive nature- to the point where they try to argue that the plain language of the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean what the words say.

  100. misha marinsky says:
    April 24, 2013 at 12:53 pm  (Quote)

    sfjeff: There are still quite a few people that deeply resent the 14th Amendment and its very, very inclusive nature- to the point where they try to argue that the plain language of the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean what the words say.

    Look at the noise made by several conservatives, about amending the 14th.

  101. JoZeppy says:
    April 24, 2013 at 1:02 pm  (Quote)

    And in other news…Orly continues to see just how low she can go:

    Asking, why won’t the government release the name of the person who’s car was car jacked during the Tsarnaev’s attempt to flee (because we so routinely publish the name’s of victims?)

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=415889 (warning…Orly site).

    As well as trying to contact the victims of the Boston attack

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=415876

    stay classy Orly.

  102. Majority Will says:
    April 24, 2013 at 1:33 pm  (Quote)

    JoZeppy: Sorry buddy, just because you think up of some wild and crazy theory on the law, doesn’t make it binding on anyone.

    It does in his own adorable fantasy world, A.R. Nashville, where he resides as emperor, sole citizen and his own girlfriend complete with pretty eyes and a mouth painted onto his loquacious and charming left fist.

  103. ASK Esq says:
    April 24, 2013 at 4:21 pm  (Quote)

    In case anyone was thinking “Gee, I wonder if Orly Taitz, after going after the family of a dead infant in Hawaii, can possibly go any lower,” the answer is, of course, yes.

    She is now asking her cavity creeps/flying monkeys (Your choice of term of endearment for her minions) to put her in touch with the victims or victims’ families of the Boston Marathon bombing.

    As if they hadn’t sufferred enough.

  104. A.R. Nash says:
    April 24, 2013 at 6:44 pm  (Quote)

    “They can’t understand simply saying something is true does not make it true.”
    And you simply can’t understand that things are not untrue simply due to you not liking them, nor to the absence of a benediction by authority. If I claim that the backside of the moon is in perpetual darkness, and the current year is 1960, do I need to present “proof” in order for it to be true, -in order for you to grasp that it is true? The appeal to authority is juvenile in the realm of logic because logic is its own authority. And understand this, there is no such thing as an authority in the sphere of Natural Law. All authorities are experts only in the sphere of human law so when seeking an understanding of the word “natural” one must not rely on human law because it is not defined in that sphere.
    I can’t have an adult conversation with someone who would make this statement and then completely contradict himself; “Simply making things up is not an argument.” At least you grasp that truth, but you follow it with your own fantasy; “the framers actually were taught that the law of nature was jus soli as such”.
    The absurdity of that statement is seen in the law of nature by which off-spring are the same as the parents, and where they exit the womb changes nothing, ever, anywhere, anytime. So either you believe that the framers were inherently stupid and didn’t understand nature, or that they did but threw what they knew overboard in favor of the everyday opinions of British jurists. Let’s see…the opinion of flawed and imperfect men with imperfect understanding and imperfect characterizations of what they sought to put into words, versus the Law of Nature and Nature’s God. Clearly, the former must be what they settled on since they were such great respectors of all things British, especially its government and civil structure.

    “Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country” Don’t you even read your own quotes? Where are the words “natural born” in that? Citizens, are not natural born citizens but you get confused by the fact that the reverse is true.
    “the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” That means that the states cannot pass laws barring natural citizens from the federal privilege of serving as President or VP (on account of not being white for instance).

    “Finally, it is simply a matter of settled law that persons born out of the United States with citizen parents is an alien unless made a citizen by Congress”. That is incorrect. It is a matter of settled policy, not law, because no such law exists since no such authority to pass such a law exists.
    Congress has no authority to pass any legislation except in regard to natural-izing foreigners and their children. Americans are not foreigners, nor are their children. THAT is what being a “natural citizen” is all about. American parents produce American children by natural law, -not Congressional law or Constitutional law, or SCOTUS opinion.

  105. A.R. Nash says:
    April 24, 2013 at 6:48 pm  (Quote)

    Natural citizens’ citizenship is beyond all law because it is a result of the natural realm, not the legal realm. It cannot be revoked because it was never bestowed. Natural citizens do not have a form of national membership which is dependent on government, but foreigners do, including their native born children who are dependent of the existence of the 14th Amendment. Prior to it, as Wong Kim Ark found out, they were considered to be foreigners just like their father. Now they have a constitutional right to American citizenship from birth, but the Amendment could be overturned just like the 18th Amendment was repealed and then they would have no right to citizenship, much less being viewed as being natural citizens.
    As for Scalia’s statement, he is just as capable as everyone else of holding an erroneous view due to not understanding something more fundamental than anything that he has ever studied.

    “No one has ever said such persons are “naturalized at birth” Truth is not determined by what people have or haven’t said.
    “the Supreme Court has said over and over that native born citizens are eligible to be president.” Now I’m confused, I don’t know if you are simply self-deluded or are lying. The reason you failed to quote your authoritative source for such a claim is because there is none.
    You say: “It is amazing that not a single birther is smart enough or honest enough to understand what Wong Kim Ark said.” And yet it is the other way around because of the built-in bias toward defending Obama’s eligibility, while birthers have no preference except that the law (the Constitution and the truth about its meaning) be followed. There is nothing to gain by pointing out the truth because clearly nothing is going to be done about it, just as was the case regarding numerous other violations of the Constitution, -like the interment of over 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent. Don’t you recall reading about the travesty against them in High School and then seeing that it was not followed by any account of the government’s profuse later apology and fincial compensation? That was very disturbing. Why was that not done even two and a half decades later when I read about it in school? Because government is slower than molasses to admit to being wrong. Pride is one of the reasons. Like the Vatican that failed for centuries to admit that Galileo was correct and the Church was flat out bigoted against the truth and it being made known (until the 1990s).

    Regarding Wong, you go off the same rails as the likes of Donofrio and Apuzzo by presuming “facts” not in evidence; “both of which,…had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” Yes, children of ambassadors and enemy occupiers aren’t citizens, but don’t bet your life that you could in a million years locate the presense of the word “only” in that superficial statement. Its perennial absence reveals that something remains undefined, and therefore a simplistic statement about it is inherently ambiguous as to the boundaries that exist. That is because children born to foreigners are never inherently natural citizens due merely to the happenstance of where they were born, even though they inherently are American citizens (by law, not nature). Just as Apuzzo clings to the belief that natural born citizens *must* be both born of citizens *and* born in America regardless of any such definitive statement every made by anyone, including Vattel, while you cling to the belief that *Only* children of ambassadors and enemy occupiers are not citizens by nature in the absense of any such definitive statement made by anyone at anytime. No one every made such a statement because to make it would be to venture into a realm in which one is blindfolded by ignorance of the governing principle involved. It was never taught nor studied nor expounded on (until Obama came along and I began to think and write long and hard about it.)
    “The ONLY exclusions are children of…” That is where logic fails your non-incisive thinking. The Only exclusions means exactly what? The only exclusions that exist? Or the only exclusions commonly stated? Where is the language by anyone at anytime that unequivocally declares that children of foreign visitors are not also one of the “usual” exceptions? I’ve read and saved multiple times a quote by Bingham (I believe) stating that children of visitors are not rightfully beneficiaries of U.S. citizenship merely due to their birth transpiring here. Their fathers were/are not under any allegiance to the U.S. government, and their children therefore are not subject through a non-subject head of the household. They instead are born subject to their father’s nation. It’s natural law. Learn from it.

  106. A.R. Nash says:
    April 24, 2013 at 7:36 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. C. asked: “Can you give any authority that indicates that the late 18th century American usage for “native born” implies born within the borders of the country?”
    When the constitution was written, there was no common usage of reference to birth within the borders of a nation that did not yet exist. All birth matters were State matters, including naturalization and immigration. All naturalized immigrants swore allegiance to the State that was adopting them, -they were American citizens only by extension.
    Native-born referred to State citizens, such as a native-born Virginian. But I don’t assume that the terminology was any less ambiguous then than it is now. Those born to state natives, (citizens) could be called native-born, as well as those born in a state that provided citizenship to children of its immigrants. The term doesn’t differentiate, but the INS does, and a page on its (CIS) website names the three recognized forms of citizenship, “-whether naturalized, native or natural born”. The story of that page and reference is found on my home page @ obama–nation.com, (double dash) including how the obomunist in charge altered its url to hide it.

    “Can you cite any authority that says that “native born” and “natural born” were distinct categories?” See the above.
    Other than that, there are no authorities to quote because no one ever had a serious reason to dwell on the topic being as it is related to nothing other than the arcane subject of that rare 1 in 300,000,000 position of POTUS. But until B. Obama came along, every other previous president was both (except C, Arthur.) so there was no reason to read about a subject that no one wrote about because there was no reason to write about it. Hence, no “authority” on either side exists to quote. To find the truth you have to follow the river to its source, and that is found in natural law only. Human law can’t help you.

  107. Deborah says:
    April 25, 2013 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    I wonder how long her followers can tolerate the American government being called a “regime.” Her vocabulary is shocking- “handlers,” “operatives,” “stooges” etc.

  108. Paper says:
    April 25, 2013 at 12:26 am  (Quote)

    Alice Hoagland was on Wednesday night’s Rachel Maddow Show, with a few perspicacious words about conspiracy theorists. A good segment.

    In terms of which general, descriptive word to use, “crank” or some other, Maddow seems to like “crackpot.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/

  109. Dave B. says:
    April 25, 2013 at 12:34 am  (Quote)

    All right, what do you make of this one?
    http://www.uscis.gov/err/E2%20-%20Applications%20for%20Certification%20of%20Citizenship/Decisions_Issued_in_2005/JAN122005_03E2309.pdf

    A.R. Nash: American parents produce American children by natural law, -not Congressional law or Constitutional law, or SCOTUS opinion.

  110. Dave B. says:
    April 25, 2013 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    Still pushing that canard, eh?
    First off, there is no INS.
    Second, the inclusion of “natural born” in Interpretation 324.2:
    “The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html#0-0-0-22855
    is just as much an error as the substitution of “neutralized” for “naturalized” in Interpretation 322.3:
    “A child within this category may be neutralized even though he is mentally incapable of taking a meaningful oath of allegiance.”
    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48389.html
    The section of the INA being interpreted, Sec. 324. [8 U.S.C. 1435]:
    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
    refers only to ” the status of a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States, whichever status existed in the case of such person prior to the loss of citizenship” and to “the status of a citizen of the United States by birth.” Nowhere in the Section being interpreted does the phrase “natural born citizen” appear. The appearance of the phrase in the interpretation is of absolutely no significance, and you can manufacture neither any significance for it, or a distinction in the statute between “natural born” and “native born”.
    In none of the statutes referred to in Interpretation 324.2 is there any reference to “natural born citizens.” The statutes refer only to native-born and naturalized citizens.

    Now are you going to make as big a fuss over that substitution of “neutralized” for “naturalized” as you do over the substitution of “natural-born” for “naturalized”?

    A.R. Nash: The term doesn’t differentiate, but the INS does, and a page on its (CIS) website names the three recognized forms of citizenship, “-whether naturalized, native or natural born”. The story of that page and reference is found on my home page @ obama–nation.com, (double dash) including how the obomunist in charge altered its url to hide it.

  111. Dave B. says:
    April 25, 2013 at 1:52 am  (Quote)

    I went looking over at A.R.’s cesspool for this reference, and in looking for it I found this, amongst a whole lot of General Jedi Pauly-like nonsense (with a little Gardage thrown in, too) which I had at least the good sense not to bother reproducing here:
    “Examples of unnatural mixed parentage result from Romeo & Juliet combinations of very different backgrounds such as crossing a pure-bred canine with a mutt (resulting in mongrel puppies, -as in Lady & The Tramp), a horse and a donkey (a mule), a Native American and a Spaniard (a mestizo), a Caucasian and an African (a mulatto), or a Capitalist and a Communist, -a patriotic North Korean and a patriotic American, a Sunni and a Shiite, a Jew and a Muslim, a Catholic and a Protestant, an atheist and “a believer”, and on and on.
    Unnatural combinations can never produce an off-spring that is a natural member of either parent’s background. They will always be hybrids. Hybrids are always unnatural combinations of dissimilar backgrounds. They are never 100% this nor 100% that, instead they are like 50-50 combos.”

    “Like Siamese twins and hermaphrodites, no hybrid is a natural member of any group. There is no natural citizenship group labeled “Unusual” or “Mixed”. There is only the natural-citizenship group, and the other-than-natural group.
    There is no natural religious group made up of children of Muslim and Jewish parents. There is no natural racial group made up of children of Chinese and Africans. There is no natural ethnic group made up of Swedes and Mexicans. Likewise, there’s no natural citizenship group made up of Kenyans and Americans.”

    http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/?s=324.2

    I kind of see what we’re dealing with here.

    A.R. Nash: The term doesn’t differentiate, but the INS does, and a page on its (CIS) website names the three recognized forms of citizenship, “-whether naturalized, native or natural born”. The story of that page and reference is found on my home page @ obama–nation.com, (double dash) including how the obomunist in charge altered its url to hide it.

  112. Deborah says:
    April 25, 2013 at 1:54 am  (Quote)

    This was posted on Facebook tonight, stating that Obama’s attorneys “admit” the birth certificate is a fraud..

    http://www.occupycorporatism.com/obamas-lawyers-officially-admit-birth-certificate-is-fake/

  113. The Magic M says:
    April 25, 2013 at 3:28 am  (Quote)

    Is it Night of the Undead Claims again?
    But it’s interesting how the original “Obama lawyer admits forgery” transforms into even more non-existing details like “… and that Obama knows he’s not an NBC” etc.
    The birther version of “telephone” produces amazing results…

  114. The Magic M says:
    April 25, 2013 at 3:56 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: as it is related to nothing other than the arcane subject of that rare 1 in 300,000,000 position of POTUS

    Sure, the President of the United States is such an uninteresting subject that nobody ever researches it, no Constitutional scholar ever deals with the eligibility provisions… Right, what a waste of time that would be!

  115. aarrgghh says:
    April 25, 2013 at 3:57 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: I kind of see what we’re dealing with here.

    yup, we’ve all seen this crap before. take off all the tinsel and sparkle and a.r.’s just another corn-pone racist, parceling out rights and privileges to only those humans who conform to his own self-serving definition of ethnic purity.

    “but we’re not racists!”

    yeah, right.

    listen to a birfer long enough …

  116. bovril says:
    April 25, 2013 at 4:07 am  (Quote)

    Sooooooo, according to Old Gnasher, beliefs and opinions are genetic and ergo inviolate…?

    So, taking his “hybrid” cack what happens if someone say, converts from Judaism to Christianity..,do any offspring from before the conversion miraculously become non “mutt” or only the progeny after conversion…or neither, or both…?

    Seems terribly Lamarckist to me.

    I’m not even going into the whole issues around Hetrosis aka hybrid vigor and basically how Old Gnasher plainly wants to keep it “all in the family”.

    Family tree = straight line, Old Gnasher…?

  117. Lupin says:
    April 25, 2013 at 4:20 am  (Quote)

    If AR Nash’s notion of “natural law” was real, he would be roasting on a spit being eaten by smarter folks (which includes pretty much everybody else).

  118. A.R. Nash says:
    April 25, 2013 at 4:38 am  (Quote)

    from my homepage:
    In Dec. 2011 I discovered that NATURALIZED, NATIVE, and NATURAL BORN ARE DISTINCT in the official Immigration Service website which includes Attorney General Interpretations of Supreme Court decisions and Congressional Naturalization law.

    It states the following…

    UPDATE: THE PAGE HAS BEEN MOVED ON THE CIS WEBSITE! The page displayed now states:
    404 – Requested Page Not Found on Site

    This was the url perhaps for many years, possible a decade: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.htm

    But the puppet-masters changed its address so the link that I’d found would no longer lead to it. But by using the site’s search function I was eventually able to relocate it.

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

    Also, even though the CONSPIRATORS in Obama’s inner circle altered the CIS website, the internet archive site “the WayBack Machine” has it recorded. Here’s its copy of the moved page: http://web.archive.org/web/20110711184242/http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html (the rats are on the run)

    The pertinent sentence is the second-to-last stand-alone sentence.

    Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
    Repatriation
    (7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. [“paragraph 6”] but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Natural citizens can be born anywhere in the world because their parents are Americans, but “native-born” citizens, with immigrant parents, must be born in the U.S. or else the 14th Amendment does not apply to them. They are constitutional citizens by the grace of the American people who passed the 14th Amendment, whereas natural citizens are citizens by nature and no law grants, governs, regulates, restricts or defines their citizenship. It doesn’t come from government. It precedes government. Government can’t exist without naturally connected members to create it.

    The pdf of the appeal for a certificate of citizenship by the Mexican-American woman is a classic statutory citizenship situation. Neither parent is described as having citizenship by birth to American parents. Her father derived citizenship through “a parent”, meaning probably his mothered who was unmarried or married to a Mexican national. Either way, he was a provisional citizen dependent on living a certain period of time in the U.S. before his citizenship would become permanent.

    Her mother was a U.S. citizen. She herself was born in Mexico. Her father lost his provisional citizenship and her mother could not provide evidence of U.S. residency of a sufficient period of time to comply with the statute when her child is born outside the U.S. while married to a non-US citizen. That has no connection to natural citizenship, it is instead purely statutory, legal citizenship, with the issue being: “American?…or Alien?” Not “natural born citizen?…or legal born citizen?”

  119. Keith says:
    April 25, 2013 at 5:44 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: The term doesn’t differentiate, but the INS does, and a page on its (CIS) website names the three recognized forms of citizenship, “-whether naturalized, native or natural born”.

    The phrase “-whether naturalized, native or natural born” lists only two types of citizenship.

    1) naturalized
    2) native or natural born

    There is only one comma there. In a list, a comma separates every list item, therefore there are only two items in the list.

    The writer is indicating that the words ‘native’ and ‘natural’ mean the same thing and is indicating that you can call such a citizen ‘native born’ or ‘natural born’.

    If there was a comma after the word ‘native’ you might have an argument, but since there isn’t you just demonstrate that you don’t know how to read.

  120. Keith says:
    April 25, 2013 at 6:15 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.(quoteing A.R. Nash): “Like Siamese twins and hermaphrodites, no hybrid is a natural member of any group. There is no natural citizenship group labeled “Unusual” or “Mixed”. There is only the natural-citizenship group, and the other-than-natural group.
    There is no natural religious group made up of children of Muslim and Jewish parents. There is no natural racial group made up of children of Chinese and Africans. There is no natural ethnic group made up of Swedes and Mexicans. Likewise, there’s no natural citizenship group made up of Kenyans and Americans.”

    Actually, it could be said that he is correct.

    The only ‘natural’ grouping that exists that includes any of the folks he has named is ‘Humanity’. All other groupings are invented social constructs- not natural – not one of them.

    So like the broken clock that is accidentally correct twice a day, A.R is accidentally correct, even though his ‘correctness’ completely defeats his supposed argument.

  121. Keith says:
    April 25, 2013 at 6:17 am  (Quote)

    aarrgghh: yup, we’ve all seen this crap before. take off all the tinsel and sparkle and a.r.’s just another corn-pone racist, parceling out rights and privileges to only those humans who conform to his own self-serving definition of ethnic purity.

    Yeah, I’m starting to get a whiff of the stench of eugenics going on here.

  122. Majority Will says:
    April 25, 2013 at 7:40 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Yeah, I’m starting to get a whiff of the stench of eugenics going on here.

    As I recall from his history of posts, Nash has been promoting his Master Race theory for awhile.

    It’s the stuff neo-Nazis eat up.

    There’s no reference yet to A. R. Nash on Hatewatch (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/).

  123. misha marinsky says:
    April 25, 2013 at 7:55 am  (Quote)

    Majority Will: It’s the stuff neo-Nazis eat up.

    “In the 1970s, the book entitled “Union Jack” described how the British Elite would gain control for the behest of the Rothschild Dynasty to pave the way for one world Zionist-controlled government.”

  124. Northland10 says:
    April 25, 2013 at 8:10 am  (Quote)

    Deborah:
    This was posted on Facebook tonight, stating that Obama’s attorneys “admit” the birth certificate is a fraud..

    http://www.occupycorporatism.com/obamas-lawyers-officially-admit-birth-certificate-is-fake/

    The birthers love to recycle old items, including this incorrect article from last year (April 2012). Even Mario stated that the attorney did not admit it was a fake. He sort of had to admit the truth since there was a video of the proceeding.

  125. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 25, 2013 at 8:12 am  (Quote)

    My recollection (I looked at this things over a year ago) is that if one looks at the underlying statute (this is just commentary) there is no such distinction made in it, and there is indication that you’re just misreading it.

    A.R. Nash: (7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. [“paragraph 6”] but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.

  126. The Magic M says:
    April 25, 2013 at 8:23 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: there is no such distinction made in it, and there is indication that you’re just misreading it

    It doesn’t prove his point anyway. There is no dispute that “native born” and “natural born” are not identical (children of foreign diplomats can be native born but wouldn’t be natural born, McCain was natural born but not native born). The only point is that native born people are natural born with two exceptions, neither of which applies to Obama. So it’s just another birther straw man because only the two types recognized by the Constitution and the law (naturalized and natural born) matter.

  127. Paper says:
    April 25, 2013 at 8:38 am  (Quote)

    Any sentence in the entire Constitution can be repealed or altered. Some have been. So?

    Comparing the 14th amendment to the 18th at best reflects a misunderstanding of the integral importance of the 14th.

    It is immensely more likely that the one use of the word “natural” (that is, “natural born Citizen”) in the body of the Constitution will be amended out of existence (so that even naturalized citizens could be president) than it is that the 14th will be repealed short of some world altering event. You deeply misunderstand our country if you think the 14th is so trivial. The 14th realigned and reaffirmed the deepest foundations of our constitution. The 14th was born out of a war.

    Get rid of the 14th, by the way, and Chicago (Illinois) could go back to prohibiting guns. The decision in McDonald v. Chicago depends upon the 14th amendment to explicitly declare that the second amendment is also incorporated against the states.

    A.R. Nash:
    Now they have a constitutional right to American citizenship from birth, but the Amendment could be overturned just like the 18th Amendment was repealed and then they would have no right to citizenship, much less being viewed as being natural citizens.

  128. Paper says:
    April 25, 2013 at 9:05 am  (Quote)

    1) It is great then that we all are human beings. Natural connection? Check.

    2) It is not by the “grace” of the American people. It is out of the sacrifice, death and war whereby we collectively said (I paraphrase) : “enough of this sh!t.”

    A.R. Nash:

    They are constitutional citizens by the grace of the American people who passed the 14th Amendment, whereas natural citizens are citizens by nature and no law grants, governs, regulates, restricts or defines their citizenship.It doesn’t come from government.It precedes government.Government can’t exist without naturally connected members to create it.

  129. ballantine says:
    April 25, 2013 at 10:23 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    ”At least you grasp that truth, but you follow it with your own fantasy; “the framers actually were taught that the law of nature was jus soli as such”. The absurdity of that statement is seen in the law of nature by which off-spring are the same as the parents, and where they exit the womb changes nothing, ever, anywhere, anytime. So either you believe that the framers were inherently stupid and didn’t understand nature, or that they did but threw what they knew overboard in favor of the everyday opinions of British jurists.Let’s see…the opinion of flawed and imperfect men with imperfect understanding and imperfect characterizations of what they sought to put into words, versusthe Law of Nature and Nature’s God.Clearly, the former must be what they settled on since they were such great respectors of all things British, especially its government and civil structure.

    Again, you cite nothing to support you. The framers learned law reading Coke and Blackstone and Calvin’s Case, the dispositive English case on the issue, said jus soli was the law of nature. Have you ever read Calvin’s Case? Show me an early Ameican legal authority who said “natural born citizen” was based some law of nature that embraces the rule of descent. There are none. Merely claiming you are right is not an argument.

    “Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country” Don’t you even read your own quotes? Where are the words “natural born” in that?

    Uh, the point of the Howard quote was that he was saying jus soli was the rule of natural law. Senator Morrell said much the same thing:

    “The honorable Senator from Kentucky…forgets this general process of nations and or nature by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and upon the general principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, in my understanding, of all citizenship…” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

    Howard did talk about Presidential eligiblity if you are interested:

    “I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869).

    Show me a single person in the 14th Amendment Congress who thought jus sanguinis was the law of nature. Simply doesn’t exist just like it doesn’t exist in the early Republic.

    Congress has no authority to pass any legislation except in regard to natural-izing foreigners and their children. Americans are not foreigners, nor are their children. THAT is what being a “natural citizen” is all about. American parents produce American children by natural law, -not Congressional law or Constitutional law, or SCOTUS opinion.

    Another assertion you cannot back up with any authority as no one has every said such a thing. I guess Justice Scalia doesn’t know what he is talking about. The only US court that has ever said the child of ctiizens born outside the US can be a citizen without statute was a state court in Ludlam v. Ludlam and the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark said that case was wrong. You can stomp your feet all you want, but the opinion of the Supreme Court counts, not your.

    “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” Miller v. Allbright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998),

  130. ballantine says:
    April 25, 2013 at 10:29 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Still pushing that canard, eh?
    First off, there is no INS.
    Second, the inclusion of “natural born” in Interpretation 324.2:
    “The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”
    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html#0-0-0-22855
    is just as much an error as the substitution of “neutralized” for “naturalized” in Interpretation 322.3:
    “A child within this category may be neutralized even though he is mentally incapable of taking a meaningful oath of allegiance.”
    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48389.html
    The section of the INA being interpreted, Sec. 324. [8 U.S.C. 1435]:
    http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.f6da51a2342135be7e9d7a10e0dc91a0/?vgnextoid=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa7e539dc4bed010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&CH=act
    refers only to ” the status of a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States, whichever status existed in the case of such person prior to the loss of citizenship” and to “the status of a citizen of the United States by birth.”Nowhere in the Section being interpreted does the phrase “natural born citizen” appear.The appearance of the phrase in the interpretation is of absolutely no significance, and you can manufacture neither any significance for it, or a distinction in the statute between “natural born” and “native born”.
    In none of the statutes referred to in Interpretation 324.2 is there any reference to “natural born citizens.”The statutes refer only to native-born and naturalized citizens.

    Now are you going to make as big a fuss over that substitution of “neutralized” for “naturalized” as you do over the substitution of “natural-born” for “naturalized”?

    More gibberish. INS regulations aren’t binding definition and they neverthelessdo not define who is natural or native born. The Supreme Court however does have such authority and it trumps anything else:

    Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”);

    United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) (“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”);

    Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency”);

    United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931) (“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more”);

    Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)(“Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country “save that of eligibility to the Presidency”).

    Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting)(“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.)”

    See, native born citizens are eligible to be President. You can also read Wong Kim Ark which defines both natural born and native born in accordance with the English common law but that decision appears to be too hard for most birthers. How many additional legal authorities would you like me cite? I can make such citations all day if you would like.

  131. ballantine says:
    April 25, 2013 at 10:58 am  (Quote)

    Regarding Wong, you go off the same rails as the likes of Donofrio and Apuzzo by presuming “facts” not in evidence; “both of which,…had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”Yes, children of ambassadors and enemy occupiers aren’t citizens, but don’t bet your life that you could in a million years locate the presense of the word “only” in that superficial statement.Its perennial absence reveals that something remains undefined, and therefore a simplistic statement about it is inherently ambiguous as to the boundaries that exist.That is because children born to foreigners are never inherently natural citizens due merely to the happenstance of where they were born, even though they inherently are American citizens (by law, not nature).Just as Apuzzo clings to the belief that natural born citizens *must* be both born of citizens *and* born in America regardless of any such definitive statement every made by anyone, including Vattel, while you cling to the belief that *Only* children of ambassadors and enemy occupiers are not citizens by nature in the absense of any such definitive statement made by anyone at anytime.No one every made such a statement because to make it would be to venture into a realm in which one is blindfolded by ignorance of the governing principle involved.It was never taught nor studied nor expounded on (until Obama came along and I began to think and write long and hard about it.)
    “The ONLY exclusions are children of…”That is where logic fails your non-incisive thinking.The Only exclusions means exactly what?The only exclusions that exist?Or the only exclusions commonly stated?Where is the language by anyone at anytime that unequivocally declares that children of foreign visitors are not also one of the “usual” exceptions?I’ve read and saved multiple times a quote by Bingham (I believe) stating that children of visitors are not rightfully beneficiaries of U.S. citizenship merely due to their birth transpiring here.Their fathers were/are not under any allegiance to the U.S. government, and their children therefore are not subject through a non-subject head of the household.They instead are born subject to their father’s nation. It’s natural law.Learn from it.

    Is this supposed to make sense? I quoted Wong Kim Ark saying exactly who was excluded by the “Subject to the jurisdiction” language. It was intened to exclude the English common law exceptions “both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” The Court says exclusions were based upon persons covered by the privilege of extraterritoriality and leaves open the possibility that other persons covered by such privilege might also be excluded. It didn’t include children of temporary residents in such exclusion as such were not excluded under the common law and are not covered by the privilege of extraterritoliality. There is nothing in the decision saying domicile was required only that the common law was adopted which includes, but is not limited to, native born children of domiciled aliens. I suppose you don’t understand vevy much about case law, but what is precedent in Wong Kim Ark is not only its conclusion, but the rationale that we adopted the English common law rule in both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment, neither of which requires domicile. Of course, you think you know more than the Supreme Court and everyone else.

    And we know that birthers pick a single quote of Bingham, who actually had nothing to do with the citizenship clause. Such quote was actually made early in the Civil Rights Act debates. His later quotes are much clearer:

    “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)

    “That article of Amendment is substantially that all persons born in this land, within the jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to complexion or previous condition are citizens of the Republic.” John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 39th Congress, pg. 500 (1867)

    Here are some other people who were in the 39th Congress that passed the 14th Amendment:

    “This provision, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law is now…..The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

    “I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

    “The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).

    “in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “I told him that that I thought a man was eligible for the office of President or Vice President even if he was a citizen of the Territory of Tennessee if he was a native born citizen of the United States…If he is a citizen of the United States, born within the limits of the United States, he is eligible, no matter whether he was born in a territory that never became a state or born in the District of Columbia, or inside some of the forts of the country.” Rep. Broomall, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.468 (1865)

    “The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)

    “No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, can be voted for.” Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.552 (1865)

    “that the President and Vice President must be native born.” Rep. Clarke, Congressional Globe, 2nd session, 40th Congress. 1105 (1868).

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877).

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

    “you shall be permitted to take a position equal in every respect, with the exception, perhaps, of not being eligible to the office of President of the United States, to that of the native-born citizen.” Mr. Schenck, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess., pg. 298 of Appendix (1866).

    “The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

    Can you find anyone who agrees with you?

  132. Rickey says:
    April 25, 2013 at 11:00 am  (Quote)

    Nash’s entire argument is based upon the flawed assumption that there is something we can call “citizenship bestowed by nature.” The problem is that nature does not have anything to do with citizenship, because citizenship is a human construct. Nature draws no distinction between a person born in Vancouver, British Columbia and one born in Seattle, Washington. Those cities are in two different countries, but nature doesn’t know that. The boundary between the United States and Canada was established by men, not by nature. There is no “natural” boundary between the two countries. Indeed, the political entities which we call the United States and Canada were created by men, not by nature.

    And Nash is a racist.

  133. Dave B. says:
    April 25, 2013 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    But the statute refers to native-born or naturalized citizens, and only to native-born or naturalized citizens– not to native-born persons. Children of foreign diplomats may be native-born in a purely geographical sense, but according to the statutes, the 14th Amendment and the underlying principle its Citizenship Clause affirms, they’re not native-born CITIZENS. In the INA and U.S. Code, “native” applies not merely in a geographical sense, but to the wider range of circumstances of birth which can result in citizenship being conferred at birth.

    The Magic M: There is no dispute that “native born” and “natural born” are not identical (children of foreign diplomats can be native born but wouldn’t be natural born, McCain was natural born but not native born).

  134. Dave B. says:
    April 25, 2013 at 12:55 pm  (Quote)

    The inclusion of “natural-born” there is simply an error (which is hardly unique among those Interpretations– their principles may be sound, but they could use a good editing; for example, there’s that use of “neutralized” in place of “naturalized” in Interpretation 322.3: “A child within this category may be neutralized even though he is mentally incapable of taking a meaningful oath of allegiance.”), and is extraneous to the statute being interpreted. The statutes make no distinction between “native” and “natural-born” citizens. You can’t distill such a distinction from the material you have there in that interpretation, and I’ll throw the actual statute being interpreted into the pot with it.
    The mere fact that such errors are allowed to stand in these Interpretations indicate how much genuine significance they have.

    A.R. Nash: The pertinent sentence is the second-to-last stand-alone sentence.

    Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
    Repatriation
    (7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. [“paragraph 6”] but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.

  135. Dave B. says:
    April 25, 2013 at 1:37 pm  (Quote)

    All right, where to begin…
    “Neither parent is described as having citizenship by birth to American parents.”
    In the mother’s case, who knows? Maybe she had American parents, maybe she didn’t. For all we know her ancestors sailed on the Mayflower. It doesn’t matter. She was born in the United States. In the father’s case, it is plainly stated that “he derived U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent.” Oh, how about that– you restated that yourself. Having a hard time keeping all those balls in the air, A.R.? You say that parent was “probably his mothered who was unmarried or married to a Mexican national.” How do you figure? I can guarantee you your first supposition there is wrong. If her father had been born to an unmarried U.S. citizen mother, he wouldn’t have acquired U.S. citizenship under Sec. 201(g) of the Nationality Act, but under Sec. 205– and there would have been no retention requirement, and he wouldn’t have lost his U.S. citizenship. But you don’t give a hoot about little technicalities like laws, do you?
    I don’t even begin to know what to make of your whole “natural vs. legal” citizenship nonsense. It’s utterly unassailable by any rational argument, because it’s utterly irrational. And since you’re obviously entirely incapable of seeing how utterly unpersuasive your arguments are in the first place, I hold out no hope for you to ever join us in the rational universe.

    A.R. Nash: The pdf of the appeal for a certificate of citizenship by the Mexican-American woman is a classic statutory citizenship situation. Neither parent is described as having citizenship by birth to American parents. Her father derived citizenship through “a parent”, meaning probably his mothered who was unmarried or married to a Mexican national. Either way, he was a provisional citizen dependent on living a certain period of time in the U.S. before his citizenship would become permanent.

    Her mother was a U.S. citizen. She herself was born in Mexico. Her father lost his provisional citizenship and her mother could not provide evidence of U.S. residency of a sufficient period of time to comply with the statute when her child is born outside the U.S. while married to a non-US citizen. That has no connection to natural citizenship, it is instead purely statutory, legal citizenship, with the issue being: “American?…or Alien?” Not “natural born citizen?…or legal born citizen?”

  136. ballantine says:
    April 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t even begin to know what to make of your whole “natural vs. legal” citizenship nonsense.It’s utterly unassailable by any rational argument, because it’s utterly irrational.And since you’re obviously entirely incapable of seeing how utterly unpersuasive your arguments are in the first place, I hold out no hope for you to ever join us in the rational universe.

    He is just making things up. No one has ever said someone born to citizen parents outside the US is a “natural citizen.” I have never even seen such term used. Such foreign born persons can only be statutory citizens and some have argued that such persosns naturalized at birth by such statutes (such as Ted Cruz) can be natural born citizens following the English practice of granting such status to subjects naturalized at birth by statute. No serious person suggests the foreign born are citizens without statute. I think Mr. Nash has a great deal of research to do.

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 656, 703 (1898)

    “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” Miller v. Allbright 523 U.S. 420 (1998)

    “Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and “can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress.” Miller v. Allbright 523 U.S. 420 (1998)(Scalia, J., dissenting)

    “Mr. Binney demonstrates that, under the law then existing, the children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and whose parents were not citizens of the United States on or before the 14th of April, 1802, were aliens because the Act of 1802 only applied to such parents, and because, under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens.” Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)

    “And the Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent. As hereinabove noted, persons born abroad, even of United States citizen fathers who, however, acquired American citizenship after the effective date of the 1802 Act, were aliens. Congress responded to that situation only by enacting the 1855 statute.” Rogers .v Bellie 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” Rogers .v Bellie 401 U.S. 815 (1971)(Black, J., dissenting)(quoting Wong Kim Ark)

    “Foreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens, Mr. Binney argued… The view of Mr. Blinney and the 1855 Congress that the Act of 1802 had no application to the children of persons who were not citizens in 1802 has found acceptance in the decisions of this Court.” Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

  137. donna says:
    April 25, 2013 at 6:25 pm  (Quote)

    Fox News Seizes On Boston Bombing To Suggest Obama Is A Secret Muslim

    A day after Fox News host Bill O’Reilly wondered why Obama refused to condemn radical Islam before the Boston bombers’ motives were known, the network suggested that Obama’s middle name might provide the answer. Radio host Bill Cunningham implied, while appearing on Sean Hannity’s program, that Obama’s upbringing in Indonesia prevents him from opposing terrorism:

    CUNNINGHAM: Sean Hannity, maybe his middle name is a clue, as well as the fact that he spent his childhood practicing the Muslim faith. I think — of course he’s a Christian now, but we have to understand where he came from. He says the sweetest sound he ever heard was prayers at sunset. So with that orientation, I think it’s hard for this to say anything other than “Muslim jihadist terrorist” because it runs contrary to what he was taught as a boy in Honolulu and Jakarta, Indonesia.

    http://thinkprogress.org/media/2013/04/25/1920191/fox-islamophobia-boston/

  138. donna says:
    April 25, 2013 at 6:42 pm  (Quote)

    RINO (Mitch McConnel) Blocks Investigation Of Obama’s Birth Certificate

    Louise Hodges sent copies of Obama’s mother’s passport files to Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham and got no R E S P E C T

    She received a response from Sen. McConnell today that reads as follows:

    When you contacted my office, you mentioned your concerns regarding President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. During the 2008 election season, President Obama released a copy of his birth certificate stating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Since the election, several public officials — including Republican Governor Linda Lingle – have viewed and certified the original document. The consensus is clear that President Obama is a natural-born citizen.

    Her suggestion: Let’s make it a two-fer. Let’s get rid of Obama and his crony, Mitch McConnell, who has been stopping up the lawful investigation of Obama’s eligibility.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/rino-blocks-investigation-of-obamas-birth-certificate

  139. Dave B. says:
    April 25, 2013 at 6:51 pm  (Quote)

    I’m willing to meet her halfway on that one.

    donna: Her suggestion: Let’s make it a two-fer. Let’s get rid of Obama and his crony, Mitch McConnell, who has been stopping up the lawful investigation of Obama’s eligibility.

  140. JPotter says:
    April 25, 2013 at 8:18 pm  (Quote)

    Failure to birf makes him a RINO….LOL! I love how reds use and abuse that empty epithet while eating their own!

  141. A.R. Nash says:
    April 25, 2013 at 9:15 pm  (Quote)

    “Show me a single person in the 14th Amendment Congress who thought jus sanguinis was the law of nature.”
    Jus Sanguinis is not the law of nature, it is merely an expression of it. The actual law of nature is that off-spring are the same as their parents. Dogs don’t give birth to cats, just as Asians don’t give birth to Indians, or Russians don’t give birth to Americans, but Americans do. You are what your parents are; -that is the law of nature and the basis of natural citizenship.

    “but the opinion of the Supreme Court counts, not yours.” Legally speaking you are correct. Factually speaking, opinions don’t matter at all, only the facts matter, and the original facts are what they were when the Constitution was written:
    Only males can be President; only Whites can be President; only the educated can be President; only Protestants can be President; only the morally upright can be President; and only sons of Americans can be President, and then only if they were older and wiser and longer a U.S. resident than for any other office.
    The Presidency was all about exclusion, -no inclusion, except for the founders’ generation. In it, even citizens with foreign fathers could be President. [That meant that it would have been possible that someone whom I’m descended from might have qualified (the Marquis de la Porte, friend and companion of the Marquis de la Fayette. But it’s doubtful that a nobleman would want to renounce his distant title and nobility, along with his inheritance. But his daughter was an American, probably by marriage.

    “Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress.” Miller v. Allbright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998),”
    That statement is almost true, but he used an incorrect word; “provided”. It should have been “as recognized by Acts of Congress.” Congress can’t grant what it has no authority to grant except to do it in violation of the limits placed on it by the Constitution. The power of Congress, like the power of the President, was not unlimited. It was in fact very limited, and very deliberately. So the issue isn’t what power Congress exercises, but what power it constitutionally can exercise.

    Citizens born just over the border are either American or they are aliens, but what they are is not within the purview of Congressional authority if their parents are American citizens. It is determined by nature. One is either a natural American or one is not, depending on parentage, meaning natural law. If either parent isn’t an American, then one’s citizenship is purely legal citizenship via the authority of Congress. Otherwise there is no law making them an American citizen because their natural national membership is something more primal than the authority of the government.

    “The Supreme Court however does have such authority and it trumps anything else.” Except the truth about the Constitution. No one’s opinion can trump reality.

    United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) (“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”);
    Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the *native citizen* in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency”);

    Native citizen = natural born citizen ; Native-born citizen = an undefinable citizen with unknown parentage. A naturalized citizen = a natural citizen by a fiction of law, but not every “natural citizen” is born of a native father, (an American native) because some of them were born of foreigners making them alien-fathered native-born naturalized “natural citizens” who are ineligible to serve as President because they were not born as natural citizens, i.e., natural born citizens, or born natural citizens.
    John Jay underlined the word “born” meaning just what I shared initially, -that the founders knew that naturalized citizens were, under the law, natural citizens by having been natural-ized, or made natural. So he advocated that the only so-called natural citizens allowed to serve be those who were natural citizens by birth (to American parents), and not by a fiction of law.

  142. agent50 says:
    April 25, 2013 at 9:52 pm  (Quote)

    birthers are still kickin’…NUTZ

    RINO Blocks Investigation Of Obama’s Birth Certificate
    April 25, 2013 by Louise Hodges 37 Comments
    inShare6

    Mitch McConnell 3 SC RINO Blocks Investigation of Obamas Birth Certificate

    When I discovered Obama’s mother’s passport files posted on the Internet, I sent copies to Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, explaining the passport problem and asking for an investigation. I also wrote a piece for the Western Center on Journalism, explaining the problem with Ann Dunham’s passport files. I had one simple question: If Obama was born in Hawaii, why wasn’t he included on his mother’s passport files? Passport regulations required a photo of parent and child and a copy of a hospital birth certificate.

    I have a home in Louisville, KY, so I used my Kentucky address. My legal residence, however, is Arizona. I am concerned that someone in Congress apparently does not want any investigation into Obama’s eligibility to proceed.

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been subjected to public ridicule for investigating Obama’s records since Congress refused. The American people want to know if their President is a citizen of the United States. That is not too much to ask.

    I received a response from Sen. McConnell today that reads as follows:

    When you contacted my office, you mentioned your concerns regarding President Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. During the 2008 election season, President Obama released a copy of his birth certificate stating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. Since the election, several public officials — including Republican Governor Linda Lingle – have viewed and certified the original document. The consensus is clear that President Obama is a natural-born citizen.

    Sen. McConnell specifically avoided any mention of the passport problem, obviously because he knows that whoever was altering or photoshopping records failed to look into his mother’s passport files.

    I have a suggestion to make. Let’s make it a two-fer. Let’s get rid of Obama and his crony, Mitch McConnell, who has been stopping up the lawful investigation of Obama’s eligibility.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/rino-blocks-investigation-of-obamas-birth-certificate

  143. J.D. Sue says:
    April 25, 2013 at 10:07 pm  (Quote)

    donna: RINO (Mitch McConnel) Blocks Investigation Of Obama’s Birth Certificate

    —
    Hey Donna. I thought Orly’s latest posted statement re McConnell was priceless. “Please, write to McConnell. Remind him that he is a lawyer and should act like one…” She then goes on to school him about the federal rules of evidence….

  144. A.R. Nash says:
    April 25, 2013 at 11:03 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey
    “Nash’s entire argument is based upon the flawed assumption that there is something we can call ‘citizenship bestowed by nature.'”

    Those are not words that I used or would use regarding nature. Was your humanity “bestowed” by nature? The only bestowing being done is that which is done by government for the benefit of foreigners.
    Your dog was not bestowed with his doggieness. Your daughter was not bestowed with her girliness nor humanness. Living things are what they are by inherited nature, and members of natural groups are members by natural inheritance. It is not bestowed on them. But outsiders need permission to be members of the group. For them membership has to be bestowed or they do not have it. It is bestowed by government.
    Government is bestowed with its authority by the natural members that create it. They are the mothers of government, -not the other way around. Their membership in their group is natural membership. That is how countries come into existence. Natural citizens are how nations and governments come into existence. You have to come out from among the legal trees in order to see the entire forest.

    “…nature does not have anything to do with citizenship, because citizenship is a human construct.” You need to grasp the fact that humans are a construct also, -of nature! (as are their natural associations, -family, clan, tribe, country). The Greek City-States became a nation based on natural association. They had so much in common that unity was the natural course for them. They were all natural members of the Greek family, language and culture, and natural citizens of the Greek nation even before they created it. The Greek government did not create itself nor its citizens. Nor did the American government create Americans. Americans created it. As a SCOTUS justice wrote; “Citizenship is nothing more than membership in a nation.”

    “Nature draws no distinction between a person born in Vancouver, British Columbia and one born in Seattle, Washington. Those cities are in two different countries, but nature doesn’t know that.”
    Don’t look now but you’ve just pointed out exactly what I alone have been arguing for several years. It is the fact that place, -as in place of birth, has no place in nature nor in that which is natural. That is exactly why natural citizenship is not dependent on place of birth. It is only dependent on that which is natural, and that is the mother and the father.

    Are they of the same species? The same race? The same ethnicity? Then the children will be exactly that same species, race, and ethnicity, regardless of where in the universe their children are born.
    Their nature is inherited, just like inherited political nature. You are not an American thanks to the generosity of the government. You are an American by inherited political nature. If you go to another very different nation and culture, you will not belong to it, just as the marathon bombers never belonged to America and so could betray their own adopted home.
    As for the infantile “racist” charge, I’ll adopt a familiar quote: “Racism” is the last resort of a scoundrel.

  145. Keith says:
    April 26, 2013 at 12:03 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: Nash’s entire argument is based upon the flawed assumption that there is something we can call “citizenship bestowed by nature.”…

    Superbly and succinctly put.

  146. Keith says:
    April 26, 2013 at 12:19 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: He is just making things up. No one has ever said someone born to citizen parents outside the US is a “natural citizen.”

    John McCain.

    I have never even seen such term used. Such foreign born persons can only be statutory citizens and some have argued that such persosns naturalized at birth by such statutes (such as Ted Cruz) can be natural born citizens following the English practice of granting such status to subjects naturalized at birth by statute. No serious person suggests the foreign born are citizens without statute.

    This is an honest academic discussion point. There is no question that McCain’s citizenship was ‘by statute’.

    One side of the argument is that the statute basically says he’s a citizen at birth and naturalization doesn’t apply to him, therefore since he isn’t naturalized, he must be natural born.

    The other side of the argument is that the statute is actually automatically naturalizing the foreign born child at the moment of birth without the necessity of the formal process of naturalization, but none-the-less it is a statutory naturalization.

    If the first argument is correct, McCain is eligible, if the second argument is correct, McCain is ineligible.

    In 2007, the Congress decided unanimously that they would not get involved in any ‘angels on the head of a pin’ type arguments, and correctly noting that it would be a gross injustice for a person in McCain’s circumstance to be denied the right to serve his country as President, came down on the side of the first argument, and said (unanimously) that they would not entertain objections to his candidacy raised on such grounds. Although this was not a definitive answer to the question, and is not binding on future Congresses, it is a powerful precedent that really should put the question to rest for all practical purposes.

    Folks like A.R. have no practical purposes, so the question is not put to rest for them.

  147. A.R. Nash says:
    April 26, 2013 at 1:07 am  (Quote)

    “Can you find anyone who agrees with you?” No one other than private individuals are known to agree with me because my views are practically unknown. Those who disagree believe what those who came before them taught them, and they were taught by people before them, going back generations. If what has been believed for all of those generations it correct, then it should be easy to point out the fallacies of the logic I present. Yet few ever attempt it, and when they do, as here, their reasoning is faulty in ways that are easily pointed out. They appeal to authority instead of reason or fact.
    Quotes contain indefinite words like “It’s always been that way” “Everybody knows…” “I have no doubt” “It’s known that in general…” “My understanding is that…” Errors that are widely accepted are what is known as institutionalized errors. One common one is the labeling by Columbus of native Americans as “Indians”, and they are still, 500 years later, erroneously called by that name, even by the government (The Bureau of Indian Affairs). But India is half the way around the world. Here’s another example:
    “Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, ***in theory***, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, ** in legal contemplation**, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull
    Babies aren’t born in the allegiance to anything other than their mother’s breast. Any other kind of talk is pure monarchical crap. But the father is obligated to obey his sovereign and his son falls under his fathers jurisdiction, inheriting his obligation as a latent responsibility that becomes his as well upon reaching manhood.
    “Only two exceptions”? Says who? No one. What had always been said was that “there are two exceptions”. The word “only” was never attached to those two, but since they were the only two that anyone ever mentioned, it would be true to say that there are two exceptions that everyone always recognizes, and only two. No one bothers to mention the third because no one cares, and it isn’t as interesting as Ambassadors and foreign invaders, but tourists, and foreign transients of all sorts are also not under the allegiance of the foreign government of the country that they are visiting. They also are merely guests, like the ambassador.

    “Birth and allegiance go together.” That is perfectly accurate. What is perfectly inaccurate is that “Birth-place and allegiance go together.” Birth is a natural event resulting from pro-creation. Birth place is merely a coincidental location which has no actual connection to the natural process that ends in a live birth. Allegiance is inherited from one’s father, not from the ground on which one’s mother gave birth.

  148. A.R. Nash says:
    April 26, 2013 at 1:38 am  (Quote)

    ” Dave B. “The inclusion of “natural-born” there is simply an error (which is hardly unique among those Interpretations–”
    Error did you say? Please repeat. Error? By the perfectly infallible government? How can that be? I’m the only one so foolish as to think such a thing is possible. Now you’ve been infected also. Call the Red Cross! But in fact I do not think such a thing can happen by error, -typos of course, but not entire words or phrases. Consider what is being explained. A woman’s status during the period in which she was denied her U.S. citizenship was not nullified regardless of whether or not she was a naturalized citizen, a native-born citizen or a natural born citizen. No form of citizenship of women conferred any special exemption. To make that point required that all three forms be mentioned.
    But the 8 hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fact that women did not possess citizenship anywhere near equal to that of men. And all of the people who passed the Naturalization Act of 1907 which stripped American women of their unalienable citizenship (if natural born) were all men. That is equivalent to only welfare recipients being allowed to vote on whether or not to raise property taxes, -which none of them have to pay.

  149. The Magic M says:
    April 26, 2013 at 1:52 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: You are not an American thanks to the generosity of the government.

    Yes. you are. Elementarily, every country is the sole arbiter of its citizenship rules. Therefore Congress could easily pass a law stating “only people who have been issued a citizenship certificate are US citizens”. It could effectively remove both ius soli and ius sanguinis from the law, and there would be no way someone born of two citizen parents could litigate his way back to citizenship. SCOTUS cannot rule against the law and no international court will interfere with how the US defines its citizenship.

    Another argument: by US law, you can renounce your US citizenship. How is that possible if “by nature”, you are always a “natural born citizen of the US” if you’re born from two citizen parents? If such thing as a “natural citizenship” exists, how can man-made law strip it from you? How can you strip it from yourself? By your logic, it’s bestowed by nature and therefore as much removable by law as your skin colour.

  150. nbc says:
    April 26, 2013 at 2:23 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Rickey: Nash’s entire argument is based upon the flawed assumption that there is something we can call “citizenship bestowed by nature.”…

    Superbly and succinctly put.

    Citizenship is bestowed by municipal, and common law. Geez…

  151. A.R. Nash says:
    April 26, 2013 at 2:30 am  (Quote)

    Dave B “I don’t even begin to know what to make of your whole “natural vs. legal” citizenship nonsense. It’s utterly unassailable by any rational argument, “.
    That is always the case when something is true, -it is unassailable by any rational argument. But I’m baffled by your inability to readily comprehend what is so simple that any child can grasp it. As I’ve written more than once, it is comparable to membership in a family. The normal pattern is natural blood connection, parental commonality, identical genetic source, but not all children are natural children. Some small percentage (like naturalized immigrants) are adopted. They are not called natural children, instead they are legal children, -children by law, just as most citizens are natural citizens, but some are citizens by law and the permission of the government through naturalization or permission of the Congressional statutes, or permission of the 14th Amendment which began following the Wong opinion.

    Speaking of which, there’s something that you all get wrong when attempting to decipher the Wong opinion. The court did not rule on the issue of the citizenship of children of foreigners. That view is an institutionalized error. What they ruled on was the citizenship of children of immigrants. All immigrants are foreigners but not all foreigners are immigrants, -which is a distinction that unfortunately for America, Attorney General Griggs failed to make when writing his interpretation of the Wong opinion.

    I haven’t found and read it yet, but I have the evidence of what it contained via a State Dept. letter to an American consul in Italy in 1901 regarding the child of Italians temporarily in the U.S. when the child was born. Word was sent that the child is viewed as being an American citizen (even though its father was never subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.).

    Such a child is, as I’ve explained, not a natural citizen nor a legal citizen but instead is a policy citizen because the policy is not in step with the law (which is the Wong opinion). Barack Obama is just such a citizen because his father also was never subject to the political jurisdiction of the American government. For that reason I’ve asserted that he was not a U.S. citizen at nor by birth. I also assert that he wasn’t a citizen through his mother because a mother’s nationality is only passed to her child if it is born outside of the U.S.

    But *natural* citizenship has never passed from mother to child unless the father was dead when the child was born or was unknown. If Obama’s mother and father had never gotten a divorce, as is supposedly evidence that they were married sometime somewhere, which no one can recall, for which there are no photos, no guests, no recollections, then I would have concluded long ago that he could not be philosophically excluded from the category of natural born citizen if his mother had not listed a father or claimed she didn’t know. Under that circumstance she would have been the head of the household, and if only 17 years of age, her father would have been, and either way he would have been an American by birth.
    But that is not the case when a woman is married. Then the child takes after the nationality of only the father if born in the United States. If born in Vancouver, then he’d be a citizen through his mother, but only a statutory citizen. No statute for citizenship through mothers when born in the U.S. was ever written because of the prevalence of the institutionalized error of assuming that the 14t Amendment covered all births to foreigners in the U.S., but in fact it only covered births to immigrants, -excluding ambassadors and visitors.

    Don’t assert otherwise without some form of proof because as has been stated repeatedly, opinions don’t matter. Just the facts. I’ve tossed out a theory, derived from facts, that upsets the whole apple cart. Prove it wrong or accept it.

  152. A.R. Nash says:
    April 26, 2013 at 3:10 am  (Quote)

    “There is no question that McCain’s citizenship was ‘by statute’.
    One side of the argument is that the statute basically says he’s a citizen at birth and naturalization doesn’t apply to him, therefore since he isn’t naturalized, he must be natural born.”

    Constitutionally speaking, that side is the only side because the authority of Congress begins and ends at foreigners, not Americans. You can’t naturalize an American into being an American. But you can naturalize a Russian into being an American. You can “naturalize” a male into being a female, but you can’t naturalized a male into being a male because that is what he is by nature already.
    McCain was already an American by birth. Statutes can and do prescribe that such citizens must be recognized as being citizens so boneheads in the CIS, ICE, or State Dept don’t do to a John McCain what the entire government did to Wong Kim Ark. But then he was not a natural American like McCain.

    The Founders & Framers attempted to correct an oversight in the Constitution when they mandated that children of Americans born abroad be recognized not simply as U.S. citizens instead of foreigners, they mandated that they be recognized as being natural born citizens. Meaning their sole intent in using that language was to make it known to all that foreign birth location did in no way alter natural citizenship, and those sons born abroad are eligible to serve all the way up to and including the presidency, just like their fathers before them.
    The use of the words “natural born” in the 1790 Act seemed sufficient at the time to secure that birthright for those whom the Constitution overlooked. But the later Congress lost sight of that perspective and only focused on the naturalization issue in the re-write and therefore dropped those two important and deliberate words penned by our founding fathers. Since then, everyone has been confused by the false idea that Congress was altering or limiting their citizenship, when in fact all it was doing was stream-lining the language to pertain solely to the subject of naturalization and recognition of inherited citizenship, -not presidential eligibility.

  153. Rickey says:
    April 26, 2013 at 3:12 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    As for the infantile “racist” charge, I’ll adopt a familiar quote: “Racism” is the last resort of a scoundrel.

    Actually, racism is most often the first resort of a scoundrel.

    And I wasn’t charging you with being a racist. I was declaring you to be a racist. The evidence and verdict are already in, courtesy of your own writings.

  154. A.R. Nash says:
    April 26, 2013 at 3:23 am  (Quote)

    The magic M: “Therefore Congress could easily pass a law stating “only people who have been issued a citizenship certificate are US citizens”. It could effectively remove both ius soli and ius sanguinis from the law,…” Only in your dreams. You could also say that Congress could declare war…on the United States! But you won’t understand the truth without understanding the pillars on which the government is founded. A nation that is created by a free people has a government that answers to them, not the other way around. You must have been born and raised under a dictatorship to have such a tyrannical view of the power of the American government. It is such a view that the founders were diligent to guard against and block from ascendancy into the councils of our government.
    As for jus soli, yes it could remove it from our law by getting the 14th ‘amendment repealed, but it could not remove the jus sanguinis principle (Right of Blood) without also removing its own legitimacy because it is based on the consent of the natural citizens of the nation. They are the type of citizen that created the nation and its government.

  155. A.R. Nash says:
    April 26, 2013 at 3:34 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M.: “Another argument: by US law, you can renounce your US citizenship. How is that possible if “by nature”, you are always a “natural born citizen of the US”?

    Easily, because your inherited political nature is one thing but your voluntary association with your own government is another. You have the right to renounce that association because you are a free member of the American family, and have the right to abandoned that membership. One of my nieces did just that in relationship to the rest of the family, but that doesn’t change her natural family connection.

  156. Lupin says:
    April 26, 2013 at 3:39 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: As for the infantile “racist” charge, I’ll adopt a familiar quote: “Racism” is the last resort of a scoundrel.

    I don’t know how you are personally, but you do come across as horribly racist in your writings. If you don’t want to be tarred with that particular brush, I’d suggest you might want to revise your theories. Otherwise you could equally just come out as a proud racist, like, say, members of the Aryan Nation. Either way will work, but right now, you don’t make sense.

  157. Majority Will says:
    April 26, 2013 at 6:09 am  (Quote)

    “As for the infantile “racist” charge, I’ll adopt a familiar quote: “Racism” is the last resort of a scoundrel.”

    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then . . .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

  158. Majority Will says:
    April 26, 2013 at 6:28 am  (Quote)

    “Government is bestowed with its authority by the natural members that create it. They are the mothers of government, -not the other way around. Their membership in their group is natural membership. That is how countries come into existence. Natural citizens are how nations and governments come into existence.”

    Truly idiotic and blatant racism, elitism and chauvinism. It’s the twisted birther bigot fantasy summed up.

    http://www.ellisisland.org/Immexp/index.asp

    “You are an American by inherited political nature. If you go to another very different nation and culture, you will not belong to it, just as the marathon bombers never belonged to America and so could betray their own adopted home.”

    What a steaming pile of horsesh!t. The fetid air of xenophobia is the birther’s cologne.

    The implication is that one person is more American than another. That’s disgusting and asinine.

  159. ballantine says:
    April 26, 2013 at 7:17 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:

    “but the opinion of the Supreme Court counts, not yours.”Legally speaking you are correct.Factually speaking, opinions don’t matter at all, only the facts matter, and the original facts are what they were when the Constitution was written: Only males can be President; only Whites can be President; only the educated can be President; only Protestants can be President; only the morally upright can be President; and only sons of Americans can be President, and then only if they were older and wiser and longer a U.S. resident than for any other office. The Presidency was all about exclusion, -no inclusion, except for the founders’ generation.In it, even citizens with foreign fathers could be President.[That meant that it would have been possible that someone whom I’m descended from might have qualified (the Marquis de la Porte, friend and companion of the Marquis de la Fayette.But it’s doubtful that a nobleman would want to renounce his distant title and nobility, along with his inheritance.But his daughter was an American, probably by marriage.

    Wow, more gibberish and racist gibberish at that. So you don’t think the Supreme Court opinions count, just your opinion which you still cannot provide any authority to support. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said native-born citizens are eligible to be President, has said the foreign born are aliens unless naturalized by Congress and has said in Wong Kim Ark that “natural born citizen” is defined by the English common law definition of “natural born subject.” Those are facts as is the fact that the opinion of the Supreme Court counts and your uniformed opinion does not. And you really think that Jay underlining “Born” means something. Jay, of course, know that “natural born” was an old established legal term of art and there is no evidence anyone in the founding period thought it meant anything other than it’s English meaning. So let summarize:

    (1) You cannot cite a single authority to support your theory that a “natural citizen” was defined by some rule of natural law based upon descent. You have simply made this up.

    (2) You cannot cite a single authority to support your theory that anyone born outside the US is a citizen without Congressional statute.

    (3) You have not citied a single authority saying that native born citizens are not eligible to be President.

    (4) You have not cited a single authority saying a 14th Amendment citizen by birth is different than a natural born citizen as the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark said they were both defined by the English common law which, of course, has always included children of temporary residents.

    Sorry, from what we see, your argument look dumber with each post you make. Another amateur who thinks he know more than all the courts and scholars but who really understands nothing about law. And, btw, the framers of the 14th amendment made clear in their debates that they were making clear that blacks could be eligible to be President their opinion being that they were always natural born citizens anyway.

  160. Paper says:
    April 26, 2013 at 10:35 am  (Quote)

    It’s the kind of gibberish that tempts you into wanting to take it apart piece by piece, but then you ask yourself, really do I want to indulge such garbage? Or try to note the internal contradictions?

    Is Nash racist, and thus a scoundrel by his own reference? (“‘Racism’ is the last resort of a scoundrel.” Or perhaps first, as Rickey suggests?)

    However that may be, it seems likely that the only natural (?) audience for his ruminations is an audience of racists.

    America, if anything, is the antithesis to his thought process. America may step backwards at times but it continues to leave Nash’s brand further and further in the dust.

    Let’s consider that the only minuscule hold his pet theory has here is the word “natural,” which, not by itself but only as part of the term “natural born Citizen,” only occurs once in the body of the Constitution, and not in any sweeping way, but only in reference to the eligibility of the president.

    Never mind the 14th amendment, for only one example, that totally trashes Nash’s whole philosophy. Our constitution, as it stands, thus explicitly rejects such thoughts of his brand of natural citizenship. Even *if* Nash somehow won his argument viz. the presidency, he loses it everywhere else. The project of this country as a whole rejects his version of nature. And that rejection, encoded right there in the 14th, is the overriding spirit, or forest if you will, in which his stunted “tree” struggles to get the slightest ray of light.

    Oh, oh, birthers cry, the 14th doesn’t explicitly say that anyone born here is a natural born citizen, just a citizen. Beyond how the entire country, short of a minuscule number of crackpots, has no doubt that anyone born here is eligible to be president, let us note–the 14th immediately goes on to say that citizens, anyone born here, shall not have their privileges and immunities abridged.

    Whatever one makes of that implication, what it does suggest at least is that *if* Nash, or the few of his mind, ever made any substantial progress in their argument, they would be promptly greeted by an amendment either defining natural born citizen as anyone born here, or born American, or even by an amendment eliminating the whole problem, by allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible.

    Because everyone born here, most if not all, deeply believe it is their privilege as Americans to grow up and potentially become President. That long held belief saturating every corner of American culture also likely invokes the ninth amendment.

    Whatever Nash is or is not, I speak no ill will of his nature, his views are already in the dustbin of history at best. Most of the country has nothing good to say about his views. That is the reality he faces.

    Okay…enough giving in for now to the temptation of responding to nonsense…off to work…

  161. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 26, 2013 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    There is no such distinction in the historical record of our founders. Nothing in the debates over the eligibility for any office in the United States from the Federal Convention of 1787 even hints of such a distinction.

    A.R. Nash: Such a child is, as I’ve explained, not a natural citizen nor a legal citizen but instead is a policy citizen because the policy is not in step with the law (which is the Wong opinion).

  162. Scientist says:
    April 26, 2013 at 11:34 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Only males can be President; only Whites can be President; only the educated can be President; only Protestants can be President; only the morally upright can be President; and only sons of Americans can be President, and then only if they were older and wiser and longer a U.S. resident than for any other office.

    The following are also requirements to be President:

    Must wear pantaloons and a powdered wig (or pony tail)
    Must write with a quill pen (if you ever used a computer or phone you are disqualified)
    May only travel on horseback or by horse-drawn carriage (Air Force I and limos are unconstitutional)
    May not take or have taken any pharmaceuticals ever
    May not appear on television, radio, internet, etc.

  163. Scientist says:
    April 26, 2013 at 11:43 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: ature draws no distinction between a person born in Vancouver, British Columbia and one born in Seattle, Washington. Those cities are in two different countries, but nature doesn’t know that.”
    Don’t look now but you’ve just pointed out exactly what I alone have been arguing for several years. It is the fact that place, -as in place of birth, has no place in nature nor in that which is natural. That is exactly why natural citizenship is not dependent on place of birth. It is only dependent on that which is natural, and that is the mother and the father.

    But why are Seattle and Vancouver in different countries? They are similar cities within the same climatic and ecological region (the temperate rainforest of the Pacific coast). Their populations are ethnically similar (White with very large Asian minorities). The same native tribes lived in both places and practiced similar lifeways-fishing for salmon, gathering shellfish, building totem poles. The boundary is a completely artificial line, the 49th parallel, that follows no natural feature and was simply negotiated by men in Washington and London who had never even visited the area. Under natural law, this entire region should be the independent nation of Cascadia and should tell Washington and Ottawa to F off.

  164. Scientist says:
    April 26, 2013 at 12:06 pm  (Quote)

    Just one more point regarding nature and natural law from the perspective of a natural scientist. Nature and natural law allow each human group (or animal group for that matter) to freely choose its leaders. Any restrictions whatsoever on that choice, where in a Constitution or statute are a blatant violation of the people’s natural rights. As the choice of the American people, Barack Obama IS the NATURAL PRESIDENT, regardless of his parents or place of birth. To say otherwise is illegal under natural law.

  165. Dave B. says:
    April 26, 2013 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: But in fact I do not think such a thing can happen by error, -typos of course, but not entire words or phrases.

    I’ve already given you another example of an entire word substituted in error. In fact, you simply do not think very well. Not very well at all.

    A.R. Nash: Consider what is being explained. A woman’s status during the period in which she was denied her U.S. citizenship was not nullified regardless of whether or not she was a naturalized citizen, a native-born citizen or a natural born citizen. No form of citizenship of women conferred any special exemption.

    What’s being explained is Sec. 324 of the INA (8 USC 1435)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1435
    Sec. 324 of the INA refers to no other “form of citizenship” besides native-born or naturalized.

    A.R. Nash: But the 8 hundred pound gorilla in the room is the fact that women did not possess citizenship anywhere near equal to that of men.

    You’ve actually stumbled upon a bit of truth there. At the time a woman could lose her citizenship through marriage to an alien, or through the foreign naturalization of her citizen husband. How is that at all relevant to the matter at hand?
    And you’ve said that this interpretation “differentiates” among these terms. So what’s the difference– and I’m not talking about your crackpot theory– what’s the difference, clearly and unambiguously stated by an agency of the United States, between “native-born” and “natural-born”?

    A.R. Nash: That is equivalent to only welfare recipients being allowed to vote on whether or not to raise property taxes, -which none of them have to pay.

    No, it’s more like your property owners voting to deny those they deem inferior to themselves the right to vote at all.

  166. Dave B. says:
    April 26, 2013 at 12:46 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: That is always the case when something is true, -it is unassailable by any rational argument.

    No, it’s always the case when something has no basis in rationality; another instance of which you proceeded to provide:

    A.R. Nash: Barack Obama is just such a citizen because his father also was never subject to the political jurisdiction of the American government. For that reason I’ve asserted that he was not a U.S. citizen at nor by birth. I also assert that he wasn’t a citizen through his mother because a mother’s nationality is only passed to her child if it is born outside of the U.S.

    That’s just incredibly stupid. How do you manage to find your way in this world?

  167. Dave B. says:
    April 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm  (Quote)

    The mind reels, A.R., the mind reels.

    A.R. Nash: Don’t assert otherwise without some form of proof because as has been stated repeatedly, opinions don’t matter. Just the facts. I’ve tossed out a theory, derived from facts, that upsets the whole apple cart. Prove it wrong or accept it.

  168. Dave B. says:
    April 26, 2013 at 12:50 pm  (Quote)

    You know, a rational person might take a hint from that.

    A.R. Nash: “Can you find anyone who agrees with you?” No one other than private individuals are known to agree with me because my views are practically unknown. Those who disagree believe what those who came before them taught them, and they were taught by people before them, going back generations.

  169. Rickey says:
    April 26, 2013 at 11:37 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: But why are Seattle and Vancouver in different countries? They are similar cities within the same climatic and ecological region (the temperate rainforest of the Pacific coast).Their populations are ethnically similar (White with very large Asian minorities).The same native tribes lived in both places and practiced similar lifeways-fishing for salmon, gathering shellfish, building totem poles.The boundary is a completely artificial line, the 49th parallel, that follows no natural feature and was simply negotiated by men in Washington and London who had never even visited the area.Under natural law, this entire region should be the independent nation of Cascadia and should tell Washington and Ottawa to F off.

    Nash repeatedly conflates characteristics of nature (race) with a man-made political characteristic (citizenship). There is nothing in nature which distinguishes a U.S. citizen born in Seattle from a Canadian citizen born in Vancouver. The could be of the same race and ethnicity, yet they are citizens of two different countries.

    He appears to believe that the only natural-born citizens of the U.S. are direct descendants of the founders. I wonder how he characterizes French-Canadians? I am no expert on Canadian history, but from what I have read it appears that following the Seven Years War the French in Canada had little or no say in the formation of British Canada. I can only assume that Nash considers French-Canadians to be second-class citizens.

  170. nbc says:
    April 27, 2013 at 1:07 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: But why are Seattle and Vancouver in different countries?

    They are not. There is a Vancouver Washington…

  171. SluggoJD says:
    April 27, 2013 at 1:08 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    For that reason I’ve asserted that he was not a U.S. citizen at nor by birth.I also assert that he wasn’t a citizen through his mother because a mother’s nationality is only passedto her child if it is born outside of the U.S…………Don’t assert otherwise without some form of proof because as has been stated repeatedly, opinions don’t matter.Just the facts.I’ve tossed out a theory, derived from facts, that upsets the whole apple cart.Prove it wrong or accept it.

    Dude, you might very well be the dumbest person on the planet. Congratulations.

    1. Your “assertion” is meaningless crap. You ain’t King of the US. You can’t assert anything.

    2. Proof? Barack Obama has been living in the White House as President of the United States for over four years, while you’ve been hiding in a closet out of xenophobic fear of scary brown people.

    YOU are nothing.
    HE is President.

    YOU have no life.
    HE can call anyone, go anywhere, eat anything, get on your TV and piss you off whenever he wants, launch nukes (better go hide!!), and pretty much anything else he wants to do at any time.

    May I suggest you take a boat out to sea, find some deserted island, set up camp, and then you can declare and assert and decree and dictate to your ugly heart’s content.

  172. Deborah says:
    April 27, 2013 at 1:50 am  (Quote)

    There is some graphic language in this> It’s funniest closer to the end. Lmao!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uJLaWeyr1jw#!

  173. Keith says:
    April 27, 2013 at 2:34 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: Nash repeatedly conflates characteristics of nature (race) with a man-made political characteristic (citizenship).

    Neither ‘race’ nor ‘citizenship’ is a characteristic of nature; both are human social constructs. There is no such thing in biology as ‘race’ other than the ‘Human Race’; there are no biological markers for race.

    The modern concept of ‘race’ is only a few hundred years old and was developed as a justification for colonialism; the ‘obvious’ superiority of the civilised white man, and the God given duty to dominate the ‘inferior’ races. To the extent that race was used in the past, it was a substitute for ‘ethnicity’ and merely meant ‘not our tribe’, not ‘inferior to our tribe’.

    That is not to say that ‘racism’ is not real. It is very real indeed.

    Not the link I’m looking for but it’ll do for now:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/race-is-a-myth-deborah-orr

    http://www.themythofrace.com/

  174. Keith says:
    April 27, 2013 at 2:53 am  (Quote)

    More articles on the myth of race:

    A Brief History of Racism


    The Myth of Race: America’s Original Science Fiction
    (Wow something useful from ASU! 😎 )

    American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race”

    (emphasis markup is mine)

    Historical research has shown that the idea of “race” has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that “race” as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

    From its inception, this modern concept of “race” was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus “race” was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used “race” to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.

    As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each “race,” linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

    Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the “racial” categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.

    Ultimately “race” as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of “race” and “racial” differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of “inferior races” (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.

    “Race” thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into “racial” categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.

    My only complaint with the AAA’s position is their continual use of the word ‘myth’. You would have thought that the Anthropologists would know better. The word they should be using here is ‘fiction’.

  175. A.R. Nash says:
    April 27, 2013 at 5:35 am  (Quote)

    Rickey wrote: “There is nothing in nature which distinguishes a U.S. citizen born in Seattle from a Canadian citizen born in Vancouver. I can only assume that Nash considers French-Canadians to be second-class citizens.”

    “I can only assume…” You really need to lose a whole lot of your confidence in your ability to logically assume anything. Check out the family ancestry blog I created recently and then you can apologize after you feel the repentance that awaits you. http://nnjjob.wordpress.com

    The actual ruling of the court in Wong was that he, by the authority of nothing other than the actual words of the 14th Amendment, was a U.S. citizen (without adjectives describing what type of citizen) based on the simple fact that he was born in America to legal immigrants. Nothing more. No connection to natural citizenship. No connection to state law. No connection to presidential eligibility. It did *NOT* rule that he was qualified to one day be President, -that he was a natural born citizen, or that his citizenship was even defined except by the general term. Nothing else that was written as investigative background is part of American law since it is not precedence.

    “Because everyone born here, most if not all, deeply believe it is their privilege as Americans to grow up and potentially become President. That long held belief saturating every corner of American culture…” Only a male chauvinist or young whippersnapper would say that because it was not true of half of the population, like my dear grandmother, until after the 19th Amendment was passed. No American mother taught her daughters that they could one day be President until after the Women’s liberation movement of the Sixties.

    Dr. Conspiracy
    “There is no such distinction in the historical record of our founders” (as to the existence of citizens by policy, rather than law).
    I believe I made it clear that citizenship by policy didn’t come into being until the error of A.G. John Griggs when his interpretation of the Wong opinion was not in conformity with it. The law of the land then became his interpretation, rather than the S.C. interpretation because the executive branch does not follow the order of the Supreme Court since it has no power to issue orders. All it can do is issue opinions. Then the A.G. must turn that opinion into instructions for federal employees. If his interpretation is incorrect then an error becomes the law of the land, -an institutionalized error.
    That is what happened when he mistook citizenship for children of foreigners for citizenship for children of immigrants. Not all foreigners are immigrants, but that extremely important fact escaped his attention because illegal immigrants essentially did not exist back then, nor did “citizenship-by-birth tourism”, i.e., native-born baby-birthing hotels.

    ballantine: “He is just making things up. No one has ever said someone born to citizen parents outside the US is a “natural citizen.” That could very well be true, but nevertheless, what I’ve said is not fantasy but reality, even though not recognized in the fog and mist that is the state of understanding of the fundamentals of citizenship in the United States. By the Obots thinking, there are no fundamentals, -there’s only statutes, precedent and opinion,..-no fundamentals. Well, take away all of the laws, precedent, and opinions, and guess what? You still have the law of natural membership by which groups of people are born as members of their own tribe, country, and nation, and that natural membership is known in law as Natural Citizenship.

    Keith: “There is no question that McCain’s citizenship was ‘by statute’.” No question? Hardly. I refute that claim totally. What I agree with is that the *recognition* of his natural citizenship was by statute, so clear up the confusion resulting from confusing and ambiguous language. Citizenship “by statute” exists only for foreigners and their children because naturalization law only exists to naturalize those who are *foreigners*, -NOT those who happen to be foreign-born.
    If the wife of President George W. Bush gave birth two feet over the Canadian border, that would make her hypothetical son a Canadian, and make him a foreigner in relationship to his own country. That would be pure insanity. By that lame logic, the framers of the Constitution were so stupid as to bar the son of a President who was the son of a President.
    By that logic, no American born over the border is eligible to be President because the meaningless, irrelevant, forgotten moment of birth happened to happen on dirt that the government didn’t control during a fleeting and irrelevant window of time. That is monarchist crap!
    That is full adoption of the bastardized policy of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. “All life that issues from my land belongs to me, -whether from seed, sow, serf, or slave.”

    Please, step up to the plate and defend that steaming pile! It is soooo American! It’s so in touch with natural law; “All life forms produce identical off-spring. All members of all groups produce, by birth, new members of their own group. All citizen parents produce, by birth, new citizens, -natural citizens.” By what pathetic logic can any logical mind dispute the irrefutable?

    ballantine: “So you don’t think the Supreme Court opinions count, -just your opinion which you still cannot provide any authority to support.” You still don’t get it because you don’t actually grasp what I’ve written, so you’ve failed to comprehend. If I were proffering only opinions then I would seek authority to support them, but most of what I’ve written is not opinion. It is simply facts. Can you stand the facts? Like Truman said: “~they say I give them hell, but I just tell the truth and it feels like hell.”

    There are no authorities in the field of natural law regarding citizenship because it has no connection to anything,…with the one lone exception of the office of President. But since all previous Presidents (except one) were natural born citizens, it was never an issue to research so how would anyone become an authority on a subject that no one ever seriously studied?

    I theorize that Obama was not a citizen by U.S. law, but at some point was assumed to be one by erroneous U.S. policy, unless he is naturalized. That is an opinion that no one can factually refute because of a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of citizenship. It could be refuted by citing statutes that disprove it. I invite all to try to find them. All I’ve found is statutes that deal with maternally transmitted citizenship in cases of foreign birth, -not domestic birth. Because Griggs misinterpreted the Wong opinion, no statute was written for domestic birth to a non-immigrant alien father.

    “(4) You have not cited a single authority saying a 14th Amendment citizen by birth is different than a natural born citizen as the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark said”
    First, no 14th Amendment citizen is a citizen by birth. They all are citizens “from” and “at” birth, never *by* birth. To be a citizen by birth means to be a citizen by being born of citizens, to be a citizen by life, -not law; -a citizen by parentage, -not permission of government. The amendment describes both types of citizens because it is too ambiguously broad due to attempting to cover both freed slaves and children of immigrants.
    Second, nothing from the Supreme Court is the law of the land except that contained in its ruling. It’s ruminations and expositions and erroneous impressions are not the law of the land, and alter nothing, especially the Constitution.

  176. Lupin says:
    April 27, 2013 at 5:44 am  (Quote)

    Keith: Today scholars in many fields argue that “race” as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century

    I’d be inclined to say 16th century:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate

  177. A.R. Nash says:
    April 27, 2013 at 5:57 am  (Quote)

    If you want to grasp the truth, you must do this thought exercise: imagine that the year is 1897 (2 years before my French great grandparents met and married in America http://nnjjob.wordpress.com) and you are one Wong Kim Ark. You are certain without a doubt that you are an American because America is your only home, and you are correct. But to the government, you are not a United States citizen even if you are an American. Native Americans are also Americans but not citizens because they are born subject to a sovereign power other than the United States government. You were born subject to a father who was subject for life to the Emperor of China, with no right of expatriation in his view (until a treaty was signed with the U.S.)
    In the eyes of federal immigration officers and port authorities, and by the never altered American policy, you inherited that same inescapable connection to China and therefore were not born with sole allegiance to the United States Constitution. You are not a citizen. You are an alien. All of the United States government agrees.
    You find a lawyer to appeal your case while you are out of incarceration on bail. The first court finds against you. You appeal your situation to a higher court and that appeals court finds against you. You file one last appeal to the United States Supreme Court, (which accepts about 1 in 100 cases currently) and it declines to hear it. You are what the United States government has said that you are. You are a non-citizen. You are Chinese only. That’s the law of the land which hadn’t change since 1789. The government giveth or the government giveth not; it’s up to the government because you are not a natural citizen. You were not born of American parents, -over whom the government has no authority in regard to their unalienable citizenship. Their citizenship is beyond all law and government authority. The government exists solely within the cocoon of the consent of natural citizens. Remove their consent and the legitimacy of the government vanishes.

    “the framers of the 14th amendment made clear in their debates…that blacks could be eligible to be President” Why were they eligible? Because they were born to native-born parents who were subject to the political authority of the central government, -not because they were born in the U.S. If a freed slave was the child of imported slaves, then he was not a natural born citizen and was not eligible to be President because his parents were Africans, -not Americans, and were not born subject to the American government.
    Children of immigrants were not subject either, until the Court issued its opinion, then and only then did the government have to change its view about the immigrant fathers of the native-born.
    By declaring their children to be citizens they were also declaring them to be subject to federal authority. That implied that their fathers were also subject (and thus could be drafted) because subjection flows through the head of the household, but since the fathers were not citizens, their children were not eligible to be President because they were only citizens by the court’s re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and not by natural citizenship.

    Their citizenship at that point was 100% dependent on the court’s opinion. Hence, they are “citizens of the United States” (which is everything), but like 99.9999999% of the rest of the population, they would never be president (with the lone exceptions of Chester Arthur and B. Obama) because they are not natural born Americans. Being “born citizens” is insufficient unless they are born of citizens. Then they are natural “born citizens”.

  178. A.R. Nash says:
    April 27, 2013 at 6:10 am  (Quote)

    ” the only minuscule hold his pet theory has here is the word “natural,”…but only as part of the term “natural born Citizen,”
    I reject the baseless assumption that “natural born citizen” is a “term”. No one can nor ever will demonstrate that to be a fact because it is in fact a fallacy. It is simply three normal words used with their normal definitions, easy for all to understand as a differentiation from any other use of only one or two of those words. “Citizen”; insufficient. “Born citizen”; insufficient. “Natural citizen”; insufficient. One must be all three which is the only combination which eliminates ambiguity since a naturalized citizen can also be a natural citizen by a fiction of law, and a born citizen can be born of foreign parents or American parents but only one of those two produces natural American off-spring.

    “No citizen naturalized BEFORE the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
    REJECTED
    “No citizen naturalized AFTER the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
    REJECTED.
    “No citizen born outside of the United States shall be eligible to the office of the President.” REJECTED.
    “No citizen except a Born Citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.” REJECTED.
    “No citizen except a Natural Citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.” REJECTED.
    “All citizens except Naturalized citizens shall be eligible to the office of the President.” REJECTED.
    “All citizens born inside of the United States shall be eligible to the office of the President.” REJECTED.
    “All citizens of the United States shall be eligible to the office of the President.” REJECTED.
    “No person except a natural born citizens, (or a citizen of the United States at the TIME of the adoption of this Constitution), shall be eligible to the office of the President.” ACCEPTED.

    The gate open to naturalized and native-born sons of immigrants closed shut in May of 1788 when the 9th State adopted the Constitution, thus putting it into effect.

    After that month, only those born of Americans could be President because the children of immigrants were not natural born citizens.
    Born subjects, aka Native-born subjects, aka Alien-born subjects) were those born (*as* subjects) to *immigrant* fathers, whereas *natural* born subjects were those born (*of* subjects) to *English* fathers.

    “America, if anything, is the antithesis to his thought process”. No one’s thought process is relevant in the least, except that of the founding fathers. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and what it actually means is all that matters. Loving it or hating it is irrelevant.

    “Scientist: “But why are Seattle and Vancouver in different countries?”
    “Under natural law, this entire region should be the independent nation of Cascadia and should tell Washington and Ottawa to F off.”
    You fail to understand natural law. Geography has nothing to do with it. Only life itself is involved, and the relationships that result from it. Only groups are elements of natural law, not regions.

    When the Kuwaiti population was chased from their country, their nation continued to exist and its government continued to exist even though the group of people known as Kuwaiti had no geographic place to call home while Saddam Hussein’s army occupied their land.

    Scientist: “Nature and natural law allow each human group (or animal group for that matter) to freely choose its leaders. Any restrictions whatsoever on that choice in a Constitution or statute are a blatant violation of the people’s natural rights” Finally, a perspective based on logic. Is it flawed? Yes it is, -in a logic that goes deeper than the superficial logic in that statement. Here’s why:
    People have a right to select their own leaders, and to give those leaders the authority to set the rules by which the society is to be government and led. Once those rules are established and endorsed by the vast majority of the people, then action that violates those rules can rightfully be punished. It you don’t have the Rule of Law, then you have anarchy.

    “Nash: But in fact I do not think such a thing can happen by error, -typos of course, but not entire words or phrases.”
    Dave B.
    “I’ve already given you another example of an entire word substituted in error. In fact, you simply do not think very well. Not very well at all.”
    Nash: The word you gave (neutralized) is not a word typed in error. It is the correct word typed incorrectly with only two letters being incorrectly substituted for the letter “a” in naturalized, and two letters reversed. If you don’t know it, typists doing that sort of typing are flying along at over 100 words per minute. My mother told me she once passed a typing test (on a manual typewriter) at 125 words per minute. She was also dynamite on the piano. I make even worse typing errors, -typing words that my mind didn’t even mean to send to my fingers, which my typing mind spells correctly.

    “what’s the difference, clearly and unambiguously stated by an agency of the United States, between “native-born” and “natural-born”? The differentiation is not in defining those terms but in *using* those terms, instead of just simply referring to “citizens”. Naming them has the purpose of emphasizing the fact that there are different forms of citizenship and none of those different forms of citizenship are exempt.

    “No, it’s more like your property owners voting to deny those they deem inferior to themselves the right to vote at all.”
    So children should have the right to decide how much cake and ice cream their parents must buy for them. Isn’t democracy great? Let me be the child and you be the parent and let there be tens of millions of other children just as hunger for cake and ice cream as I am. Sounds fair.

    Nash: That is always the case when something is true, -it is unassailable by any rational argument.
    Dave B.
    “No, it’s always the case when something has no basis in rationality; another instance of which you proceeded to provide:”
    Nash: So if I claim that the sun will not rise tomorrow, you would be incapable of mounting a rational argument against that claim. That claim would have no basis in rationality so by your assertion it would be unassailable by any rational argument, which is as irrational as your statement, and which I’m assailing quite rationally right now. People! do you see what I have to deal with? Reason that is totally irrational and backwards. Well I’m enjoying it, more than you probably.

    “That’s just incredibly stupid. How do you manage to find your way in this world?” When one’s lack of knowledge prevents them from making a factual response, they have to turn to school ground bullying to attempt to appear superior. Insults are the last resort of a scoundrel.

  179. A.R. Nash says:
    April 27, 2013 at 7:05 am  (Quote)

    “1. Your “assertion” is meaningless crap. You ain’t King of the US. You can’t assert anything.”

    The only crap that is meaningless is that which is not true. You fail to argue that it is not true because you lack the knowledge to refute it. I can’t assert anything? Soooo, this isn’t a free country? No one wants falsehood refuted? The only opinions that matter are yours, and everyone else that doesn’t agree with you needs to shut up because your views are infallible? Wow! How very tolerant of you. I wish you were my dad. I would then be sure to turn out perfectly.

    “you could equally just come out as a proud racist, like, say, members of the Aryan Nation.”
    View this collage I made recently from Nazi photos I optimized with text I wrote and then you can apologize later after feeling the repentance that awaits you.
    http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nazi-collage.jpg

    “you’ve been hiding in a closet out of xenophobic fear of scary brown people.

    YOU are nothing.
    HE is President.”

    You think he deserves respect from your inexperienced perspective. But you haven’t really lived yet so your perspective is very limited.
    Who am I really? Here’s five pictures you should take a look at before you shoot-off your ignorant juvenile mouth.
    https://www.facebook.com/adrien.nash.9

  180. Majority Will says:
    April 27, 2013 at 7:17 am  (Quote)

    “Insults are the last resort of a scoundrel.”

    Who am I really? Here’s five pictures you should take a look at before you shoot-off your ignorant juvenile mouth.”

    Boom. Irony meter vaporized.

  181. Scientist says:
    April 27, 2013 at 7:28 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: You fail to understand natural law. Geography has nothing to do with it. Only life itself is involved, and the relationships that result from it. Only groups are elements of natural law, not regions.

    It isn’t just a matter of geography, but of the ecosystem, which of course is affected by geography. Humans, like all other living things, depend on the ecosystem. The ecosystem of the Puget Sound is one and not determined by national boundaries.And it has nothing in common with other ecosystems in North America, like deserts or eastern woodlands.

    If I took away the flags and street signs and plunked you down in Seattle or Vancouver I defy you to tell me whether you are in Canada or the US. The boundary is a completely artificial line that could have been drawn at the Columbia River, in which case Seattle would be in Canada or further north, as some American wanted, in which case Vancouver would be in the US. Nothing natural. 100% man made.

    A.R. Nash: People have a right to select their own leaders, and to give those leaders the authority to set the rules by which the society is to be government and led. Once those rules are established and endorsed by the vast majority of the people, then action that violates those rules can rightfully be punished. It you don’t have the Rule of Law, then you have anarchy.

    So now you’re talking man-made laws, not natural laws. And the vast majority of people in the US endorse the rule that born here=natural born citizen. Even the majority who did not vote for Obama don’t share your silly view. Your views are even a minority among birthers, the majority of whom are “born in Kenya’ partisans.

    So, under natural law you lose and under man-made law you lose and under “endorsed by the vast majority of the people” you lose. Quite a loss….

  182. Arthur says:
    April 27, 2013 at 8:39 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Here’s five pictures you should take a look at before you shoot-off your ignorant juvenile mouth.

    How ill white hairs become a fool.

  183. ballantine says:
    April 27, 2013 at 8:39 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: “So you don’t think the Supreme Court opinions count, -just your opinion which you still cannot provide any authority to support.”You still don’t get it because you don’t actually grasp what I’ve written, so you’ve failed to comprehend. If I were proffering only opinions then I would seek authority to support them, but most of what I’ve written is not opinion.It is simply facts.Can you stand the facts?Like Truman said: “~they say I give them hell, but I just tell the truth and it feels like hell.”

    Seriously, what a moron. So your argument is that you are right because you say you are right. Your opinions are facts because you say they are facts. Everyone in history is wrong except you because you say so. No one in history understood natural law except you. Apparently even our founding fathers must be stupid since none said anything that remotely agrees with you. Do you really think you are going to convince anyone with such silly argument. Just another ignorant wingnut pretending to be a Constitutional scholar. Yawn.

  184. Paper says:
    April 27, 2013 at 10:04 am  (Quote)

    That’s fine. Yet, you yourself then go on to describe it using other words that mean the same thing; that is, what you describe is a term: “a word or group of words designating something,” or “any word or group of words considered as a member of a construction or utterance.”

    I was speaking of an ordinary, normal term. Keeping it simple. Didn’t mention terms of art, if that was what you were thinking, nor terms of endearment.

    Your emphasis on the inseparability of those words (“one must be all three”) as they apply to the president’s eligibility makes my point even more relevant, as then the word “natural” by itself doesn’t appear at all in the Constitution. I agree those three words are inseparable, but I was going to give you the word “natural” for the sake of discussion.

    My point, regardless, was that even if you were to convince everyone that natural born Citizen means what you say, you would then only be talking about an eligibility requirement for presidents. The rest of the Constitution does not care if its citizens are natural or not, in any configuration.

    Even if we were to accept your definition of jurisdiction, the Constitution still defines citizens without any requirement to be natural. Your charts then are irrelevant to our country’s form of citizenship. You can subdivide into whatever categories you want, logical groupings, or otherwise. Our Constitution doesn’t care. It makes no case for or against your specific groupings. In effect, it just says, so?

    I am just pointing out the “natural” boundaries to your argument. In my book, your definitions of natural born Citizen, as well as of jurisdiction, are in error. But even if you were correct, your whole argument involving nature is limited to the eligibility of presidents. Period.

    A.R. Nash:

    Paper: ” the only minuscule hold his pet theory has here is the word “natural,”…but only as part of the term “natural born Citizen,”

    A.R. Nash: I reject the baseless assumption that “natural born citizen” is a “term”.No one can nor ever will demonstrate that to be a fact because it is in fact a fallacy.It is simply three normal words used with their normal definitions, easy for all to understand as a differentiation from any other use of only one or two of those words.“Citizen”; insufficient.“Born citizen”; insufficient.“Natural citizen”; insufficient.One must be all three which is the only combination which eliminates ambiguity since a naturalized citizen can also be a natural citizen by a fiction of law, and a born citizen can be born of foreign parents or American parents but only one of those two produces natural American off-spring.

  185. Keith says:
    April 27, 2013 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: I’d be inclined to say 16th century:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate

    I agree, but that was a quote from the American Anthropology Association position paper, and is their opinion, not mine.

  186. Lupin says:
    April 27, 2013 at 12:12 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: View this collage I made recently from Nazi photos I optimized with text I wrote and then you can apologize later after feeling the repentance that awaits you.
    http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nazi-collage.jpg

    Anyone who assimilated FDR to Adolf Hitler deserves only contempt. You, sir, are loathsome beyond belief. You are lucky to be able to hide behind the 1st Amendment in the US. Here or in Germany, we could drag your sorry *ss before the Courts (and we would).

  187. Dave B. says:
    April 27, 2013 at 12:46 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: “Nash: But in fact I do not think such a thing can happen by error, -typos of course, but not entire words or phrases.”
    Dave B.
    “I’ve already given you another example of an entire word substituted in error. In fact, you simply do not think very well. Not very well at all.”
    Nash: The word you gave (neutralized) is not a word typed in error. It is the correct word typed incorrectly with only two letters being incorrectly substituted for the letter “a” in naturalized, and two letters reversed.

    Never mind the fact that you got your description wrong– did you honestly put much thought into that one?

    A.R. Nash: “what’s the difference, clearly and unambiguously stated by an agency of the United States, between “native-born” and “natural-born”? The differentiation is not in defining those terms but in *using* those terms, instead of just simply referring to “citizens”. Naming them has the purpose of emphasizing the fact that there are different forms of citizenship and none of those different forms of citizenship are exempt.

    A simple “I don’t know” would’ve sufficed.

    A.R. Nash: “No, it’s more like your property owners voting to deny those they deem inferior to themselves the right to vote at all.”
    So children should have the right to decide how much cake and ice cream their parents must buy for them. Isn’t democracy great? Let me be the child and you be the parent and let there be tens of millions of other children just as hunger for cake and ice cream as I am. Sounds fair.

    A.R., the problem with a superiority complex like you’ve got there is that sooner or later you’re going to find yourself on the wrong side of it.

    A.R. Nash: Nash: That is always the case when something is true, -it is unassailable by any rational argument.
    Dave B.
    “No, it’s always the case when something has no basis in rationality; another instance of which you proceeded to provide:”
    Nash: So if I claim that the sun will not rise tomorrow, you would be incapable of mounting a rational argument against that claim. That claim would have no basis in rationality so by your assertion it would be unassailable by any rational argument, which is as irrational as your statement, and which I’m assailing quite rationally right now.

    But you’re not claiming that the sun will not rise tomorrow, are you? My point is that you, A.R. Nash, are invulnerable to rational argument because you’re completely irrational.
    If you were the only one saying the earth went around the sun, while everyone else said the sun went around the earth, that would make you a visionary. But that ain’t what you’re doing. For all your talk about “nature”, you simply don’t understand the nature of the very thing you’re talking about. You’re talking about things that exist only because they’re agreed upon by authority and consensus– you, however, claim to have a superior understanding, which overcomes all that authority and consensus.
    And that, A.R., makes you not a visionary, but a CRACKPOT.

    A.R. Nash: “That’s just incredibly stupid. How do you manage to find your way in this world?” When one’s lack of knowledge prevents them from making a factual response, they have to turn to school ground bullying to attempt to appear superior. Insults are the last resort of a scoundrel.

    Honestly, A.R., if you don’t like having the things you say called stupid, don’t say such stupid things. And talking about anybody’s “lack of knowledge” while continuing to demonstrate your own breathtaking insufficiency does not make for a very effective argument.

  188. gorefan says:
    April 27, 2013 at 1:04 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: It is simply three normal words used with their normal definitions,

    Samuel Johnson’s 1768 dictionary says the adjective “natural” means,

    “NA’TURAL. a. [naturel. Fr.] 1. Produced or effected by nature. Wìlkins, 2. Illegitimate. Temple. 3. Bestowed by nature. Swift. 4. Not forced ; not farfetched; dictated by nature. Wetton. 5. Tender; affectionate by nature Shakesp. 6. Unaffected; according to birth and locality. Addison. 7. Opposed to violent: as, a natural death

    That second one is the key definition – “Illegitimate”. We know the Founders used natural in this way.

    “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded from other advantages. ” In France,” said M. Marbois, ” they are not admitted into the army nor any office in government.” I said, they were not excluded from commissions in the army, navy, or state, but they were always attended with a mark of disgrace. M. Marbois said this, no doubt, in allusion to Mr. F.’s natural son, and natural son of a natural son. I let myself thus freely into this conversation, being led on naturally by the Chevalier and M. Marbois on purpose, because I am sure it cannot be my duty, nor the interest of my country, that I should conceal any of my sentiments of this man, at the same time that I do justice to his merits. It would be worse than folly to conceal my opinion of his great faults.” John Adams Diary Volume III 19 page 221.

    Maybe that Framers only wanted “Illegitimate” children to be President.

  189. SluggoJD says:
    April 27, 2013 at 1:44 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    “1. Your “assertion” is meaningless crap. You ain’t King of the US. You can’t assert anything.”

    The only crap that is meaningless is that which is not true.You fail to argue that it is not true because you lack the knowledge to refute it.I can’t assert anything?Soooo, this isn’t a free country?No one wants falsehood refuted?The only opinions that matter are yours, and everyone else that doesn’t agree with you needs to shut up because your views are infallible?Wow! How very tolerant of you.I wish you were my dad.I would then be sure to turn out perfectly.

    “you could equally just come out as a proud racist, like, say, members of the Aryan Nation.” View this collage I made recently from Nazi photos I optimized with text I wrote and then you can apologize later after feeling the repentance that awaits you.
    http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nazi-collage.jpg

    “you’ve been hiding in a closet out of xenophobic fear of scary brown people.

    YOU are nothing.
    HE is President.”

    You think he deserves respect from your inexperienced perspective.But you haven’t really lived yet so your perspective is very limited.
    Who am I really?Here’s five pictures you should take a look at before you shoot-off your ignorant juvenile mouth.
    https://www.facebook.com/adrien.nash.9

    LOLOL you think your pathetic attempt at intellectual superiority puts even the slightest dent into the reality of life – that Barack Obama is President of the United States, and you are nothing but a grain of worthless sand?

    Right now, Obama is probably talking to some world leader about problems, or perhaps he’s raising millions of dollars for a cause, or just sitting around enjoying his favorite foods…

    And you are posting on a message board. Wow. Impressive. Worthy of respect. I’m mirin’

    Please continue to grace our day with more meaningless bullsh!t.

  190. Dave B. says:
    April 27, 2013 at 3:18 pm  (Quote)

    Yes, that’s quite the little fantasy you have there, but if you want to grasp the truth– the reality– you should note the fact that Wong Kim Ark isn’t the one who had to appeal to the Supreme Court, because he wasn’t the one who lost in District Court.
    And you seem to have entirely missed the central fact in the case. You say

    “Children of immigrants were not subject either, until the Court issued its opinion, then and only then did the government have to change its view about the immigrant fathers of the native-born.
    By declaring their children to be citizens they were also declaring them to be subject to federal authority. That implied that their fathers were also subject (and thus could be drafted) because subjection flows through the head of the household, but since the fathers were not citizens, their children were not eligible to be President because they were only citizens by the court’s re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and not by natural citizenship.”

    Putting aside for a moment the fact that this is just another of your crackpot natural citizenship theories to begin with, the controversy in Wong didn’t arise from his having immigrant parents. The controversy arose from the specific exclusions of Chinese immigrants from U.S. citizenship. Had Wong Kim Ark’s parents had any other national origin, not so excluded by law, he wouldn’t have been refused admission when he re-entered the United States following a brief sojourn in his parents’ native land.
    And as for your crackpot historical theory, I’ll quote Judge Morrow of the District Court in his ruling on Wong, regarding the overreaching argument of District Attorney Foote and Mr. Collins:
    “…if the contention of counsel for the government be correct, it will inevitably result that thousands of persons of both sexes who have been heretofore considered as citizens of the United States, and have always been treated as such, will be, to all intents and purposes, denationalized and remanded to a state of alienage.”

    A.R. Nash: If you want to grasp the truth, you must do this thought exercise: imagine that the year is 1897 (2 years before my French great grandparents met and married in America http://nnjjob.wordpress.com) and you are one Wong Kim Ark. You are certain without a doubt that you are an American because America is your only home, and you are correct. But to the government, you are not a United States citizen even if you are an American. Native Americans are also Americans but not citizens because they are born subject to a sovereign power other than the United States government. You were born subject to a father who was subject for life to the Emperor of China, with no right of expatriation in his view (until a treaty was signed with the U.S.)
    In the eyes of federal immigration officers and port authorities, and by the never altered American policy, you inherited that same inescapable connection to China and therefore were not born with sole allegiance to the United States Constitution. You are not a citizen. You are an alien. All of the United States government agrees.
    You find a lawyer to appeal your case while you are out of incarceration on bail. The first court finds against you. You appeal your situation to a higher court and that appeals court finds against you. You file one last appeal to the United States Supreme Court, (which accepts about 1 in 100 cases currently) and it declines to hear it. You are what the United States government has said that you are. You are a non-citizen. You are Chinese only. That’s the law of the land which hadn’t change since 1789. The government giveth or the government giveth not; it’s up to the government because you are not a natural citizen. You were not born of American parents, -over whom the government has no authority in regard to their unalienable citizenship.

  191. Daniel says:
    April 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm  (Quote)

    Our birther friend Rudy (Lonestar)… turns out he’s not just a birther, he’s a geocentrist. He insists that the Sun and all the universe revolves around the sun. Why does he discard all of the laws of physics? Because the bible says so.

    Every time I think I’ve plumbed the depths of human stupidity, someone like Rudy comes along with a shovel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32T56YC-X1I

  192. Paper says:
    April 27, 2013 at 5:50 pm  (Quote)

    It is inaccurate to say no one’s thought process is relevant except the founding fathers. At the very least, there are a number of amendments ratified well after the founding fathers were dead.

    Moreover, the people are the ones who ratified the Constitution, the first time a *people* adopted its own constitution. Their thought processes matter quite a bit as well. The same is true of others during times of constitutional change, such as Reconstruction, or potentially, if it came to it, even us now.

    So, our thought processes, conservatives and liberals alike, are more relevant than you seem to think.

    A.R. Nash:

    Paper: “America, if anything, is the antithesis to his thought process”.

    A.R. Nash: No one’s thought process is relevant in the least, except that of the founding fathers.The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and what it actually means is all that matters.Loving it or hating it is irrelevant.

  193. Keith says:
    April 27, 2013 at 9:32 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel: Every time I think I’ve plumbed the depths of human stupidity, someone like Rudy comes along with a shovel.

    In Rudy’s case, I think that is a Roto-Rooter (tm by somebody or the other).

  194. SluggoJD says:
    April 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    Our birther friend Rudy (Lonestar)… turns out he’s not just a birther, he’s a geocentrist. He insists that the Sun and all the universe revolves around the sun. Why does he discard all of the laws of physics? Because the bible says so.

    Every time I think I’ve plumbed the depths of human stupidity, someone like Rudy comes along with a shovel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32T56YC-X1I

    LOL, see, some of them really are as dumb as a turnip.

  195. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    April 27, 2013 at 10:47 pm  (Quote)

    That is an insult to turnips!

  196. A.R. Nash says:
    April 27, 2013 at 11:47 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist proclaimed: “So, under natural law you lose and under man-made law you lose…” Like a child that can’t wait to put in its own two cents, you forgot to even state a reason why I “lose” under man-made law. I know why, that would be because you don’t have one. As for natural law, humans and their societies do not derive fundamental principles from natural laws of physics, nor climate, nor hydroponics, nor geology, nor ecology. The principles of organic life (deliberately redundant) are the source of the natural law that translates directly to the principle of natural groups, and naturally associated people. That principle is that life produces identical life. Group-life (members) produce identical group-life (new-born members). Is that too simple for you to accept? I suspect that it is. Simplicity is not high on your favorites list.

    ballantine: ” Do you really think you are going to convince anyone with such silly argument. Just another ignorant wingnut pretending to be a Constitutional scholar.”
    You don’t get it at all. The only legitimate thing that has any rightful place in convincing anyone of anything is irrefutable logic and facts to support it. I’ve given a whole boat load. You’ve given nothing, because you have an empty quiver. You can’t fire arrows of truth at me because you don’t have any, and so you pathetically resort to throwing rocks, seeking out the biggest ones your little hands can lift.

    ““Race” thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. ~ Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.”

    Those two statements contain a lake-full of enlightenment for everyone. “evolved as a worldview” translates as “evolved as a national view”, i.e., the false assumption that place of birth is synonymous with natural conception, gestation, and delivery, producing natural off-spring citizens via the soil.

    How about these words: “a body of PREjudgements that DISTORT our ideas”. That’s what everyone needs to realize about them self. They harbor misconceptions unavoidably because like the flu, they pick them up via contact with other people’s ideas, instead of forming their own based on the source.
    “Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences…” The truth behind that one is worst of all because those folk beliefs were considered by all “intelligent” and educated people to be scientific facts based on the “science” of eugenics, inspired by Darwin’s theory, and as embraced by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Henry Ford, and Margaret Sanger who made some of the most racist statements ever, all based on her “knowledge” of the genetic inferiority of certain races and groups.

    Better watch out where your influences come from because you could be embracing “facts” that are, in fact, fiction, an evil fiction at that.

  197. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:07 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: “Nature and natural law allow each human group (or animal group for that matter) to freely choose its leaders. Any restrictions whatsoever on that choice in a Constitution or statute are a blatant violation of the people’s natural rights”

    It’s good to recognize the natural rights of individuals, but those rights are sacrificed in part in order to establish civilization, -which is governed by rules. The principle you over-looked is that of the supremacy of the alpha male. Human history, like that of most of the animal world, is anchored to the will of men, not women nor children.

    Fathers were the lords of the family and their will was supreme. That same principle translates to the governance of clans and tribes. Someone is supreme. In Islamic cultures and male chauvinist cultures (usually indistinguishable) that is Sharia Law or a similar male-favoring tradition. In a democratic republic, the laws established by the People are supreme. In America, that was once the Constitution, but in today’s bastardized legal environment, it’s only a sort of guideline. The nation went off the tracks almost immediately with the Alien & Sedition Acts.

  198. SluggoJD says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:15 am  (Quote)

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    That is an insult to turnips!

    I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to insult the turnips.

  199. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:39 am  (Quote)

    Paper: “The rest of the Constitution does not care if its citizens are natural or not,”

    That’s a fact, and I’ve emphasized it repeatedly in many expositions, countering even those who believe rightfully that Wong was decided wrongfully, from a legal stand-point. But from a social stand-point, and a standpoint of reason and reality, children of immigrants should be granted citizenship in the world in which it first was instituted because America would be their one and only home.
    But now, with mass transportation, leaving one’s new homeland is as easy as boarding a plane or driving across a border, taking one’s American citizen children with them back to nation’s that may hate us. But that would be a very rare exception and shouldn’t determine the rule.

    The Constitution allows all citizens that meet age and residency requirements to hold all positions in the land, with only one exception, -that of the Commander of the American military. Since that position is entrusted to the President, he must be the child of an American father. Otherwise the President could be any citizen.

    Anyone involved in the vetting of candidates for holding top secret positions knows that they, and those who are entrusted with authority over nuclear weapons, must be a child of American parents only. There is no room for error in such deadly serious matters, and if even natural born citizens sometimes are traitors for love or money (CIA, FBI) the possibility of disloyalty by one with no undivided loyalty to the Constitution and America is even greater.
    With that being reality, B. Obama could never pass the vetting process for someone with his access to power and information since his background is both a black hole of deliberately secrets, as well as known to contain associations with known Marxists, radicals, terrorists, and revolutionaries.

  200. Majority Will says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:52 am  (Quote)

    Nash’s drivel is racist garbage and utterly moronic. It’s a cry for help.

  201. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 1:20 am  (Quote)

    Lupin: “Anyone who assimilated FDR to Adolf Hitler…”
    That is a fiction of your own mind. I only present the facts of what FDR did, though I’ll assume after reading yesterday or before that it was the fault of a lying deceiving racist general in charge of the West coast who hated the Japanese, and so he misrepresented the known facts to everyone of importance, including the Supreme Court and the President.

    But you missed the point completely since it wasn’t about FDR, it was about out-of-control unconstitutional government power being exercised by a statist authoritarian national machine against innocent Americans.

    gorefan: “They (illegitimate sons) are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament,”
    “the rights of inheritance” are natural rights of property. A man’s legal children belong to him, and are of him. When he is gone it rightfully passes to those who were his legacy, his own off-spring. Their inheritance rights are natural property rights, but one born illegitimately has no such right, but may obtain a gift of his substance via positive law (his written testament). That is just like children of aliens who have no natural right that their children inherit American citizenship, but they have a legal right due to the testament of the 14th Amendment.
    As for the use of “natural” to label illegitimate children, it was a preferred substitute for “bast*ard” which gentlemen probably refrained from using, -like Americans once refrained from using the word “pregnant”; “with child” being preferred among polite company.

    Dave B., -honestly, if you don’t have anything of substance to counter my points, of which I’ve made a boat load, but only psychological arm chair analysis of my personality based on nothing other than your own fertile imagination, they why not just remain silent? This is not a spitting match. This is not a kindergarten play ground controlled by the biggest verbal bully. Be clear that there is no one on the planet that can intimidate me with words. Only facts and faultless logic impress me, so don’t bother wasting your time with insults. If you want to embarrass me, do it with facts, not your opinions.
    The fact that you don’t employ facts is testament to the fact that you don’t have any.

  202. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 2:35 am  (Quote)

    Sluggedface: “Right now, Obama is probably talking to some world leader about problems, or perhaps he’s…” Yeah, so was Nixon. You have no comprehension of what respectable is, you’ve never seen it nor lived it. You live in a little bubble of security in an affluent nation that has shielded you from the knowledge of reality. Oh, by the way, that describes your lord and savior as well.

    DaveB. Your comments on Wong were both informative and enlightening. I didn’t know that he had won in a lower court, prompting the government to appeal. I’ll preface my response with the note that the elements of that case are multi-fasceted and thus abnormally complex because of the issue of equal protection of 14th Amendment rights.

    “the controversy in Wong didn’t arise from his having immigrant parents. The controversy arose from the specific exclusions of Chinese immigrants from U.S. citizenship.”

    That was likely the view of the Immigration Service, but probably not that of the courts. They had to weigh whether the exclusion act was even constitutional in that it was completely discriminatory, but the the subjects of that discrimination were not Americans and thus were not protect by American citizenship rights.

    But the complexity increased due to the case not being about an immigrant, but a native-born person. Then arose the whole issue of whether or not jus soli was in fact a part of the law of the land, and could such a claim be proven, and by what authority? If the 14th A. didn’t exist, then there would be no authority. But it did and had for three decades. But no law or amendment becomes enforced law unless the executive branch enforces it. It never did as federal policy.
    It just ignored it, as it often ignores the Constitution. And it could have ignored the Wong ruling also, but wasn’t that roguish.
    The issue the high court focused on wasn’t the legitimacy of the exclusion act but the authority of the 14th Amendment since Wong was not an immigrant. The government’s position seems to have been that son’s of all immigrants could, by federal policy alone (since there was no controlling law except the unenforced14th amendment) be declared to not be United States citizens regardless of native-birth and regardless of State citizenship resulting from state jus soli law.

    “Had Wong Kim Ark’s parents had any other national origin, …he wouldn’t have been refused admission when he re-entered the United States…”
    I assume that is true, but the issue in the government’s appeal is not the thinking of the port authority which barred his re-entry. Read again your own quote, which might verify what I stated above:
    “…if the contention of counsel for the government be correct, it will inevitably result that thousands of persons of both sexes who have been heretofore considered as citizens of the United States, and have always been treated as such, will be, to all intents and purposes, denationalized and remanded to a state of alienage.”

    If by “thousands” he meant tens or hundreds of thousands rather than thousands literally, that would mean that the issue in the eyes of the executive branch was the legitimacy of all children of immigrants. That they viewed them all as aliens because their fathers failed to naturalize and thereby provide them with derivative citizenship. That would conform with my hypothetical scenario. Americans were of two minds on the issue, -the court by a small majority leaned against the government’s position. So the fate of millions of native-born children rested in the hands of a couple of men. They did the right thing, even if it wasn’t the traditional thing. They voted against national policy in favor of national interest. In the real world, interest should trump policy as long as the issue is ambiguous and not a constitutional violation.

    Say, if Wong won in the District Court, did he also win in the Appeals Court, or did the government prevail there?

  203. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 3:01 am  (Quote)

    Daniel:
    “Our birther friend Rudy (Lonestar)… turns out he’s not just a birther, he’s a geocentrist. He insists that the Sun and all the universe revolves around the sun.
    Every time I think I’ve plumbed the depths of human stupidity, someone like Rudy comes along with a shovel.”

    There’s no explaining what some people will hold an unshakeable faith in, like Obama’s eligibility and his unsigned, 9-layer uncertified abstract counterfeit birth certificate image. Opps, hope I’m not bursting any bubbles.
    Daniel, does Rudy really insist that the Sun (and all the universe) revolves around the Sun? If you don’t want to look as stupid as you complain he is, I’d suggest proof reading. But if you are like me, you can read things 5-8 times and still miss something that the mind has a blind spot toward. It happens with beliefs as well. We can’t see reality when we have a blind spot in a place that we are unaware of.

  204. Scientist says:
    April 28, 2013 at 4:13 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: That principle is that life produces identical life.

    You must have been sleeping through high school biology. I was paying attention and went on to a PhD. Only asexual reproduction produces offspring that are identical to the parents. The purpose of sexual reproduction is to reassort the genetic material to allow variability in the offspring so that some will have whatever might be required to survive and reproduce themselves in an environment subject to variation. In fact, the greater the reassortment, and the variance between the parents, the better (known to plant breeders as hybrid vigor).

    You lack the basic knowledge to argue nature with a natural scientist such as myself.

  205. Scientist says:
    April 28, 2013 at 4:15 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: The principle you over-looked is that of the supremacy of the alpha male.

    I guess Barack Obama is the alpha male right now. And you, sir, are not.

  206. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 4:33 am  (Quote)

    Scientist said: “You must have been sleeping through high school biology. I was paying attention and went on to a PhD. Only asexual reproduction produces offspring that are identical to the parents.”

    Seriously? I’m sorry, you are right and I am wrong. I wish I was as smarts as you be, then I’d know that dogs do in fact give birth to cats.
    Say, did you hear about the survey that was recently released? It found to the researchers surprise, that the people who are most dogmatic and dismissive of alternate views were scientists, -when they are supposed to be just the oppose! Well, they must have included you in those results, and anyone can see why. Elitist pride.

    Are you really so dense as to not grasp that the word “identical” is not limited to the meaning that you attached to it? Are you so hell bent on distortion that you are compelled to set up a definition straw man so that you can employ your superior intelligence to knock it down? Why did everyone else understand my point, including you, and yet you have to resort to petty word games? Time to consider your motives. They aren’t pretty.

  207. Lani says:
    April 28, 2013 at 5:03 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    Fathers were the lords of the family and their will was supreme.That same principle translates to the governance of clans and tribes.Someone is supreme.In Islamic cultures and male chauvinist cultures (usually indistinguishable) that is Sharia Law or a similar male-favoring tradition. In a democratic republic, the laws established by the People are supreme.In America, that was once the Constitution, but in today’s bastardized legal environment, it’s only a sort of guideline.The nation went off the tracks almost immediately with the Alien & Sedition Acts.

    No, the nation has advanced. You have not. Thanks for showing your true colors. You are on the losing side of history. You can relax and join the welcoming crowd, or you can continue to write drivel. Your choice. The rest of us are moving on.

  208. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 28, 2013 at 8:30 am  (Quote)

    I hate it when birthers make unreferenced assertions like this, as if they had some deep authority and grasp of the facts, when you didn’t even know who was the appellant in the Wong case. Seriously, that’s pretty basic stuff.

    If you read, for example, the debates in Congress, you would know that the children of other nationalities born in the country were unquestionably citizens. No one asked of the Irish the questions they asked about the Chinese. The government’s argument was that a nation had the power to decide who its citizens were, and therefore the Congress had the power to exclude the Chinese.

    Both sides in the Wong case understood what was being decided. You do not.

    A.R. Nash: That was likely the view of the Immigration Service, but probably not that of the courts. They had to weigh whether the exclusion act was even constitutional in that it was completely discriminatory, but the the subjects of that discrimination were not Americans and thus were not protect by American citizenship rights

  209. ballantine says:
    April 28, 2013 at 8:45 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: ” Do you really think you are going to convince anyone with such silly argument. Just another ignorant wingnut pretending to be a Constitutional scholar.”You don’t get it at all.The only legitimate thing that has any rightful place in convincing anyone of anything is irrefutable logic and facts to support it.I’ve given a whole boat load.You’ve given nothing, because you have an empty quiver.You can’t fire arrows of truth at me because you don’t have any, and so you pathetically resort to throwing rocks, seeking out the biggest ones your little hands can lift.

    Wow, how clever. “Irrefutable logic and facts?” All you do is assert over and over that you are right because you say you are right presenting no facts or argument at all. You have made up your own citizenship law that no one in history agrees with and will be laughed at by any court or legal authority. Wow, what an accomplishment. And, looking at our site, you apparently spend much of your time writing article after article that no one will every read that simply say over and over that you are right because you say you are right. Talk about not having a life. Why do so many wingnuts with no knowledge of law pretend to be legal scholars. Seriously, it’s all over the internet. Sad people pretending they are somebody. Maybe you should join the sovereign citizens since they do the same thing.

  210. ballantine says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:15 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I hate it when birthers make unreferenced assertions like this, as if they had some deep authority and grasp of the facts, when you didn’t even know who was the appellant in the Wong case. Seriously, that’s pretty basic stuff.

    If you read, for example, the debates in Congress, you would know that the children of other nationalities born in the country were unquestionably citizens. No one asked of the Irish the questions they asked about the Chinese. The government’s argument was that a nation had the power to decide who its citizens were, and therefore the Congress had the power to exclude the Chinese.

    Both sides in the Wong case understood what was being decided. You do not.

    True. However, the debates made clear that children of Chinese aliens were citizens as well. Only one Senator objected and he was fine with children of non-Asian aliens being citizens. During the 15th Amendment debates and the 1870 naturalization debates it was clearly acknowledged that the children of the Chinese born on or soil would be citizens while their parents could not. Indeed, one version of the 15th Amendment would specifically say no Chinaman born in China could vote. Many of the Republicans thought this wrong, but the hatred of the Chinese was pretty intense. When the Republicans lost power and racists gained power, they tried to come up with arguments to exclude native born Chinese as well. However, before Wong Kim Ark no court had ever held that native born children of aliens were aliens as such had never been the law of the United States. It was the government that was taking a new position at the end of the 19th century to exclude the Chinese which was shot down by the court. It is sad that no birther seems to be able to understand what Wong Kim Ark says.

  211. Scientist says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:18 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: I’m sorry, you are right and I am wrong. I wish I was as smarts as you be, then I’d know that dogs do in fact give birth to cats.

    Dogs and cats are different species. But dogs are an excellent counter-example to your drivel, because they show what is likely the greatest intra-species differences in all of nature. Think of a mastiff and a chihuahua and how different they are. Yet they can mate and produce viable offspring. The differences between groups of humans are tiny compared to that between breeds of dogs, and humans have inter-mated throughout our history. DNA studies show genes that originated in particular locations are found throughout the human population. Again, the fact that you slept through biology class is past history-it isn’t too late to educate yourself.

    A.R. Nash: Say, did you hear about the survey that was recently released? It found to the researchers surprise, that the people who are most dogmatic and dismissive of alternate views were scientists, -when they are supposed to be just the oppose!

    Citation???

  212. Keith says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:40 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Say, if Wong won in the District Court, did he also win in the Appeals Court, or did the government prevail there?

    It was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court used to take a lot of cases that are now heard by the Appeals Courts.

  213. Majority Will says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:40 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: Wow, how clever. “Irrefutable logic and facts?”All you do is assert over and over that you are right because you say you are right presenting no facts or argument at all.You have made up your own citizenship law that no one in history agrees with and will be laughed at by any court or legal authority.Wow, what an accomplishment.And, looking at our site, you apparently spend much of your time writing article after article that no one will every read that simply say over and over that you are right because you say you are right. Talk about not having a life.Why do so many wingnuts with no knowledge of law pretend to be legal scholars.Seriously, it’s all over the internet.Sadpeople pretending they are somebody.Maybe you should join the sovereign citizens since they do the same thing.

    Nash would gain a more approving and encouraging audience with the skinheads and other neo-Nazis at Stormfront and Aryan Nation.

  214. Majority Will says:
    April 28, 2013 at 10:19 am  (Quote)

    (excerpt) President Barack Obama slid in a shoutout during his 2013 White House Correspondents’ Dinner speech to conspiracists who wonder about both his religion and economic preferences.

    “These days, I look in the mirror and I have to admit,” Obama said. “I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/obama-muslim-socialist_n_3171902.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

  215. Paper says:
    April 28, 2013 at 10:56 am  (Quote)

    There is no such requirement that the president be the child of an American father.

    In addition, the president currently cannot be any citizen, as naturalized citizens are excluded, citizens younger than thirty-five are excluded, and citizens who have not resided in the United States for fourteen years are also excluded. Citizens born abroad remain, for the moment, a bit of a question mark, even if matters seem to lean their way.

    Short of some kind of post apocalyptic idiocy, you will never see your notion of citizen-fatherhood to be accepted as a requirement.

    The founders thought fourteen years were good enough. According to the founders, who themselves spent a lot of time abroad. That residency requirement is explicit, clear, and has never been altered.

    Where is this requirement of citizen-fatherhood? Can you point to such a requirement without relying upon your personal theories of what is natural?

    No meaningful numbers of Americans are going to accept your natural theories of fatherhood citizenship. No important bodies in our government will accept it. But let’s say you got an extreme Supreme Court to rule in your favor somehow, we would amend the Constitution out from under your theory pronto. We of course did just that kind of thing during Reconstruction. If you think America would ever accept citizen-fatherhood as a requirement, you are sorely mistaken.

    Moreover, if you want to mince about the past status of women, then you need yet again to face the fourteenth amendment, which begins “all persons.” All [such described] *persons*…are *citizens.* Whatever your concerns about the citizenship of women in antebellum America, such concerns were discarded by the Constitution itself in 1868. Then the nineteenth amendment nailed it even further home.

    Amendments change things. Even if you could tie natural born citizenship to parents in general, the fourteenth at the very least would prevent you from tying it to fatherhood.

    You can talk about what you think is natural, but constitutionally that is a non-starter. But again, you can argue with me, with us, maybe win a point here or there, and nonetheless if you somehow pressed your point far enough, America would rise up and make it very clear to you how your notions will never pass muster. You might notice that these days women vote.

    A.R. Nash:

    The Constitution allows all citizens that meet age and residency requirements to hold all positions in the land, with only one exception, -that of the Commander of the American military.Since that position is entrusted to the President, he must be the child of an American father.Otherwise the President could be any citizen.

  216. Majority Will says:
    April 28, 2013 at 11:12 am  (Quote)

    If there is an amendment, it should be to allow any citizen, natural born or naturalized to run for the office of President of the U.S. Let the will of the majority decide.

  217. Paper says:
    April 28, 2013 at 11:25 am  (Quote)

    Scientist can handle himself, and can be quite fierce in his arguments. I would note, however, that you are the one who said:

    “The actual law of nature is that off-spring are the same as their parents. Dogs don’t give birth to cats, just as Asians don’t give birth to Indians, or Russians don’t give birth to Americans, but Americans do. You are what your parents are; -that is the law of nature and the basis of natural citizenship.”

    You are the one who equates Asians and Indians, Russians and Americans, as being as different as dogs and cats. Moreover, it is very natural for men and women of all different kinds to have all kinds of children. History is chock full of such matings. It’s so natural it happens all the time.

    A.R. Nash:

    …I wish I was as smarts as you be, then I’d know that dogs do in fact give birth to cats….

    Are you really so dense as to not grasp that the word “identical” is not limited to the meaning that you attached to it?… Why did everyone else understand my point, including you, and yet you have to resort to petty word games?…

  218. misha marinsky says:
    April 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: I’d know that dogs do in fact give birth to cats.

    Here’s an example: http://i47.tinypic.com/2145i5k.jpg

  219. Paper says:
    April 28, 2013 at 1:08 pm  (Quote)

    I believe what you are saying here is that your opinion is that only the children of bonafide immigrants should be recognized as citizens.

    If so, that seems to be about the only coherent argument you make here that doesn’t fall apart as soon as you make it. I don’t accept your assertion about reason and reality. I think America quite reasonably, and passionately, embraces a different reality that grounds us in a powerful, advantageous paradigm. I think Reconstruction rightfully secured us on this path, and that this path has made all the difference for us. I also don’t think your desire is the future, nor is it the past, nor does it have any bearing on this President, but it is an opinion that at least *could* become the way we do things. Not without some extremely heavy social and political lifting, mind you.

    A.R. Nash: But from a social stand-point, and a standpoint of reason and reality, children of immigrants should be granted citizenship in the world in which it first was instituted because America would be their one and only home.

  220. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: “…when you didn’t even know who was the appellant in the Wong case. Seriously, that’s pretty basic stuff.”
    Basic to what? To the principles that determine citizenship? Why would I care about such minutia? But you have one point by mentioning basic stuff, and that is that the heart of what I write about is also basic stuff, but none of you were aware of it nor have any means to refute it factually, nor logically, and that’s why my main role as follow-up is dispelling counter-arguments that contain serious logical holes.

    “No one asked of the Irish the questions they asked about the Chinese.”
    Why was that so? Why could the questions about Wong be asked at all if the law was widely known and indisputably unambiguous? It’s because there was no federal law regarding the citizenship of the native born of foreigners. There was only state law, not federal law, so everything that uninformed state representative said on the matter was based purely on their own impressions derived from their own state’s laws, not on the laws of Congress. It was all presumption! The children of aliens were, just like Obama, presumptive citizens, not legal United States citizens.

    Congress never federalized the alternate principle of jus soli citizenship that some of the states had adopted until the Civil Rights Act of 1866. There, I’ve made a statement based on supposition, logical supposition. I expect that if it is incorrect, then one of you experts will correct my mis-impression. If the statement is true, I expect you to acknowledge its veracity and the fact that federal citizenship was not a legal thing if the parents were aliens. It was only an assumed thing.

    ballantine: ” All you do is assert over and over that you are right because you say you are right ” Man, you are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to replying since you’ve resorted to asserting pure fiction. Please quote an example of what you claim is true. Where are my repeated assertions that I am right because I say I am right? You dare talk about making unsubstantiated claims? You’ve made the biggest one of all. Pathetic.

    You wrote: “before Wong Kim Ark no court had ever held that native born children of aliens were aliens, as such had never been the law of the United States.”
    That is true but looking through the telescope from the wrong end. The court never held an opinion on a matter that was never before it, and the fact that a government position had never been the law of the United States doesn’t mean that it was not the *policy* of the United States nor that a law existed that bestowed citizenship to alien-born children. The absence of a law is not the presence of a counter law. There was no law!

    So whatever an administration’s policy was (such as on DOMA, or gun ownership) it was not law, and another administration could follow with the opposite policy since no law existed. That’s why it was necessary to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866. To fill the void. The take-away that shouldn’t be overlooked is that when the nation was founded, children of aliens were also aliens to the federal government because they were viewed as being what their fathers were by natural law.

    Scientist: The report on the attitudes of people regarding alternate beliefs was probably presented on Fox news, though it might have been CNN, about three days ago.

  221. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm  (Quote)

    Obama: “These days, I look in the mirror and I have to admit,” Obama said. “I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be.”
    There’s no persuasion more seductive and disarming than satirical wit. It works every time on minds and souls that are not armed against its irresistible likeability. Whatever view that can be put on a level that is seen to be worthy of mocking, is a view that can be discredited by intellectual snobbery. No one has enough intellectual integrity to resist appeals to insider ego massaging.

    Paper: “Where is this requirement of citizen-fatherhood? Can you point to such a requirement without relying upon your personal theories of what is natural?”

    Can you point to a definition of natural born off-spring that excludes one’s own off-spring? In what alternate universe is a native-born Virginian indistinguishable from a natural born Virginian when one could be the son of a native and the other the son of a foreigner?
    Being merely an American wasn’t enough, nor being merely a citizen, nor merely a born citizen, nor merely a natural citizen. The Commander of the American Army must be a natural citizen, but not one with an alien father. He must be born a citizen. A born citizen must not be the son of an alien father. He must be a natural citizen, meaning born of a citizen.

    With the complication of ambiguous language (two kinds of born citizens; two kinds of natural citizens) all three terms had to be used to make it clear that foreigners and their children could not wield the power that could destroy the nation and re-enslave it to Britain.
    While on that topic, I have a new thought I’ll drop now like a grenade. It is that naturalization was a process which did not end in the creation of “a naturalized citizen” Instead, it resulted in the creation of a new natural citizen.

    The natural-izing of a foreigner did not create a new form of citizen. By a fiction of law, it resulted in a new natural citizen because there was no such thing as a naturalized citizen class. There were only natural citizens and foreigners.

    Once a foreigner had completed the natural-izing process, he was a new American natural citizen. It was similar to baptism. Upon completing the baptism process, one is a new creation in Christ, reborn, not the old creation with a new label. What did — does baptism represent? It represents being dead & buried to your old sinful life (water instead of soil) and then resurrected into a new life. That was the model for becoming a new American. All of one’s old nationality self was buried and a new American self was born in its place

    It is also analogous to sexual reassignment surgery. Before surgery, a male candidate has prepared himself by becoming femin-ized up to the point of being ready to bury his born gender (think born nationality) and go under the knife. After that female-izing process, he emerges as a new creature, a new gender, a new female, -not a “surgical female”, but one indistinguishable in time from a born female. “She” is then viewed as purely female. She is not a new member of an alternative class of females which is treated and viewed very differently.

    She is a new member of the one and only class of females that exists, the natural female class. But considering her to be a natural female is a fiction of society, and may someday soon be a fiction of law as well.

    But she, like natural-ized citizens, -American-ized aliens, has something unseen about her that is different from true natural females, and that is the absence of reproductive organs. Naturalized citizens have the absence of birth to American parents, being born of an alien nationality, akin to a different gender. If you wanted to select the leader of a natural-child-birth association, would you feel comfortable with being led by a “surgical female”?

    Fiction can only be embraced until the rubber actually hits the road. (then your black plastic tires that look great while not driving, won’t fill the bill. you need the real deal, the real rubber, not a rubber look-alike.)
    True born natural citizens were the only natural citizens that were to be entrusted to command the American Army. Citizen-ized aliens wouldn’t do even though their rights were identical to those of natural citizens. But that one position of power was off-limits because wielding its power was not a right; it was purely a privilege, and the guardians of the future security of the nation choose to “err” on the side of caution by limiting that privilege to only those whose loyalty to the Constitution would be undivided.

  222. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: The Constitution allows all citizens that meet age and residency requirements to hold all positions in the land, with only one exception, -that of the Commander of the American military. Since that position is entrusted to the President, he must be the child of an American father. Otherwise the President could be any citizen.

    That is not what the Constitution says. It says ‘natural born’ and the definition of natural born was fully explored in US v Wong Kim Ark, in which is was found to simply mean “born on soil under jurisdiction”. The same sentiment is captured by the 14th Amendment which recognizes that birth on soil makes one a (natural born) citizen.

    There is just no evidence to support that the Constitution meant to limit such citizenship to those born on soil to a US citizen father. It may be tempting to argue this because of the present reality that even children born on soil to illegal immigrants are born on soil under our jurisdiction and thus natural born citizens, but if our Constitution did not foresee this possibility then there is only one way to remedy this: an amendment.

    Until then reason and reality dictate that we accept the wisdom of our Founders…

  223. ballantine says:
    April 28, 2013 at 3:57 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    I believe what you are saying here is that your opinion is that only the children of bonafide immigrants should be recognized as citizens.

    As a matter of policy, we can debate these things and it is not entirely clear to me what the best rule should be. That is democracy. Personally, to me, punishing children of illegal immigrants for the crimes of their parents and denying them membership in the only society they ever knew violates the most basic rules of due process and equal protection rights. On the other hand, I have little sympathy for vacation babies who never lived here. Others disagree, though most have never thought about, or understand, such issues. If policy is what people like A.R. want to debate, that is fine.

    However, they don’t claim to be making policy debates, but rather claim they have already one based upon their interpretation of the Constitution. Conservatives who claim to be originalists or strict constructionalists are the ones being hypocrites since there is no way the text or the history of the 14th Amendment can exclude children of temporary residents or illegal aliens. Such persons were fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as a matter of elementary public law. Seriously, ever text on public law said they were wrong. For example, perhaps the most influential book on the Law of Nations in 1866:

    “To be resident within the territory of a Nation is to be subject to its Jurisdiction; but Nations, from considerations of mutual Comity, do not apply the same Laws in all matters to persons who are only temporarily resident, as to persons who are permanently resident within its territory. The discretion, however, of a Nation as to the particular Law which shall be administered in its Courts is absolute, and it may decline to allow its Courts to give any effect to Foreign Law: the other hand, if it allows its Courts to administer Foreign Law in disputes between foreigners, or otherwise, it adopts tacitly the Foreign Law as its own for the settlement of such disputes.” Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations, pg. 260 (1861)

    So as a matter of public law 101, all residents, including temporary residents, were subject to the jurisdiction of the nation they are in though such nation may decline to exercise jurisdiction if it chooses as a matter of mutual comity, i.e., choosing to treat foreigners in your country the way you want your citizens treated in their country. Such comity is completely voluntary. Not really that hard.

    With respect to legislative history, in the 14th Amendment debates, someone asked if children of temporary residents were citizens. Here was the answer:

    “I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States…The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.” Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

    No one protested and no one further suggested that temporary residents or anyone were excluded. Of course, such was not the common law or the law prior to 1866 and everyone in such Congress said they were simply re-stating pre-existing law. People who say otherwise have never read the debates on the 14th Amendment nor our legal authorities prior to 1866.

    And seriously, the morons saying that permanent residency was required by Wong Kim Ark who have never read, not is smart enough to understand Wong Kim Ark (which appears to include almost all birthers), here is the Court’s definition of the 14th Amendment (which it said meant the same thing as the NBS clause, for those who can read)”

    So, if conservatives want to change the law, they should be honest enough to admit that the text and history of the clause does not support them and they are advocating their version of a living Constitution.

  224. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    nbc wrote: ” the definition of natural born was fully explored in US v Wong Kim Ark, in which it was found to simply mean “born on soil under jurisdiction”.

    Caution: what you are about to read will be disturbing.

    Everything about that statement is wrong. First, the definition of nbc was not adjudicated nor even a matter of focus in the legal exploration leading up to the court’s actual ruling.

    It was not “defined” by the court, ever. As for U.S. citizenship, the court determined that the 14th Amendment would henceforth mean that alien fathers of native-born children were subject to the jurisdiction of the American government and not just their own government.

    Being under the political authority of Washington meant that their children were born with a latent subjection to that American authority also, (through them) and that latent subjection was enough to qualify them for automatic naturalization at birth.
    That meant that both fathers and sons could be forced to fight for America and be criminally prosecuted for refusing to do so.
    I knew an old Mexican national who saved my life from death by hypothermia in the ocean in front of his Mexican property where I was living. He told me to my shock that during WW II, when he was a permanent resident of the United States, he was ordered to be conscripted into the Army.

    He felt the government had no such authority (as was the case before the Wong ruling) and refused. What did the government do? It prosecuted him and convicted him and incarcerated him in a federal prison for years. All because he was unwilling to march to the orders of a government that was not his.
    The consequence of the Wong decision had that as a repercussion. Members of a society have an obligation and responsibility to defend the society and nation that is their home, even if it is not their original home. That responsibility falls only on the shoulders of the male citizens because they are the natural defenders of the vulnerable and defenseless women and children.
    The 14th Amendment’s meaning of jurisdiction began with general authority over citizens but ended with the authority to conscript, train, deploy, and order men into deadly battle from which one is unlikely to survive.

    Without that authority, most of the battles of the Civil War would have been waged entirely differently, along with the invasion of Normandy and the Pacific islands. I was once under that authority, and knew quite well that the powers over me could order me into a situation that would almost certainly result in my death, and do so legally if the situation required it.

    The Wong opinion meant that Wong could be drafted whereas before it he could not have been. Prior to Wong the federal government had no constitutional authority to institute a draft. Today it doesn’t matter if one is a citizen or not. All permanent male residents must register with the Selective Service if they are between 18 and 25.

    Did Obama register? The evidence is that he did not because the evidence that he did so is bogus and inexplicable except as deliberate fraud. Being the pothead and crack user that he was, he not only did not serve his country, he in fact avoided even being vulnerable to being forced to serve his country. How is such an individual qualified to command the Commandant of the Marine Corps? It’s mind boggling.

  225. A.R. Nash says:
    April 28, 2013 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine quoted: “I have always believed [RED FLAG! HE IS EXPRESSING OPINION, NOT FACT] that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States…The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. [WHAT? HOW COULD AN AMERICAN THINK SUCH A THING?] I know that is so in one instance, [NOTICE: HE DIDN’T SAY “ONLY” ONE INSTANCE] in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a FICTION OF LAW such persons are not supposed to be RESIDING here, and under that fiction of law their children would NOT BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.” Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

    Neither foreign ministers nor foreign visitors are “residing” in the United States, and under that “fiction of law” neither is subject to the political authority of the federal government. The same principle applies to both by the same fact regarding residency. Visitors are not residents. They are transients.
    Transients are guest of the host and are not under the obligations of the residents. They aren’t required to clean our family’s toilets nor fight our wars. Their children born under our roof do not belong to us. They belong to the homeland of the guest.
    The Wong opinion did not confer citizenship upon them for those reasons. That is where Obama fell between the cracks of legal citizenship, but because of the error of A.G. John Griggs, the policy erroneously followed since 1898 is that automatic naturalization is conferred without regard to subjection (or lack thereof) as the Amendment requires, but is conferred solely on the happenstance of birth location.

    He in effect whacked off half of the requirement for conferring citizenship. That is the institutionalized error that America has followed ever since, while thinking that it was the law resulting from the Wong opinion, when in fact it is just a policy that is based solely on a misunderstanding, or mis-interpretation of the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The court’s ruling only dealt with a child of immigrants, it didn’t deal with children of “non-immigrant aliens” as the government calls them.
    There is about zero chance that that policy will ever be recognized for what it is, much less changed. There is not one single individual on the political or media scene that knows the truth nor would be willing to espouse it. It would be career suicide for almost everyone in today’s politically correct world.
    But it doesn’t follow that the truth should never be made known, -that knowledge is a bad thing and should be avoided. That the citizenry should be kept in the darkness of ignorance about their own history and law.

  226. Keith says:
    April 28, 2013 at 7:20 pm  (Quote)

    Wow.

    Reagan’s Confidant Says Republican Party Is A Coalition Of Gangs That Stands For Nothing (VIDEO)

    …I think the Republican Party is not really a party. It doesn’t stand for anything except reelecting itself. It’s a coalition of gangs….

    The Neo Cons which I have no use for are only oriented to an aggressive imperialistic foreign policy, a big defense establishment, and suppression of our civil liberties. That’s a bad. I am against that.

    The Tax Cons want to just cut taxes anytime any day regardless of the fiscal situation. That has gone to absurd lengths. I oppose that.

    The Social Cons, social policy people, the right to life issue, gay marriage and all that, that’s irrelevant to governing a democracy in a free society.

    That is basically the heart of the Republican Party. In that mix how can you find anything that is going to stand for conservative economics, fiscal rectitude, free markets, sound money; it’s not there. The Republican Party is basically irrelevant to the economic crisis that faces the country.

  227. Dave B. says:
    April 28, 2013 at 7:49 pm  (Quote)

    I’m plumb eat up with facts. I can come up with ’em all day. I can bore people to tears with facts; and if I’m exercising any restraint at all, consider it a minor kindness.
    You, on the other hand, have demonstrated an exceptionally broad range of factlessness. Feel free to drive out of those old ruts any time.

    A.R. Nash: Dave B., -honestly, if you don’t have anything of substance to counter my points, of which I’ve made a boat load, but only psychological arm chair analysis of my personality based on nothing other than your own fertile imagination, they why not just remain silent? This is not a spitting match. This is not a kindergarten play ground controlled by the biggest verbal bully. Be clear that there is no one on the planet that can intimidate me with words. Only facts and faultless logic impress me, so don’t bother wasting your time with insults. If you want to embarrass me, do it with facts, not your opinions.
    The fact that you don’t employ facts is testament to the fact that you don’t have any.

  228. Dave B. says:
    April 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: “the controversy in Wong didn’t arise from his having immigrant parents. The controversy arose from the specific exclusions of Chinese immigrants from U.S. citizenship.”

    That was likely the view of the Immigration Service, but probably not that of the courts.

    Huh?

    A.R. Nash: They had to weigh whether the exclusion act was even constitutional in that it was completely discriminatory, but the the subjects of that discrimination were not Americans and thus were not protect by American citizenship rights.

    What?

    A.R. Nash: But the complexity increased due to the case not being about an immigrant, but a native-born person. Then arose the whole issue of whether or not jus soli was in fact a part of the law of the land, and could such a claim be proven, and by what authority? If the 14th A. didn’t exist, then there would be no authority.

    Man, you just don’t read, do you? I suppose when you have this “natural” philosophy that answers anything and everything, you don’t have to, but if you were actually interested in learning anything, you might try working your way up to this:
    http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
    I don’t know where to tell you to start. I started with a little book called “The King, the Mice, and the Cheese.” Anyway, go to that link, and have somebody read the first sentence of paragraph 77 to you.

    A.R. Nash: “Had Wong Kim Ark’s parents had any other national origin, …he wouldn’t have been refused admission when he re-entered the United States…”
    I assume that is true, but the issue in the government’s appeal is not the thinking of the port authority which barred his re-entry. Read again your own quote, which might verify what I stated above:
    “…if the contention of counsel for the government be correct, it will inevitably result that thousands of persons of both sexes who have been heretofore considered as citizens of the United States, and have always been treated as such, will be, to all intents and purposes, denationalized and remanded to a state of alienage.”

    Why do you suppose I characterized it as an “overreaching argument”, and why do you suppose neither U.S. court found it persuasive?

    A.R. Nash: That would conform with my hypothetical scenario.

    Your hypothetical scenarios aren’t even consistently comprehensible.

    A.R. Nash: Say, if Wong won in the District Court, did he also win in the Appeals Court, or did the government prevail there?

    Now I’m going to do you a little favor, although I don’t know why I bother, considering your attitude towards actual facts– when you look at a Supreme Court case like “United States v. Wong Kim Ark”, the petitioner or appellant is listed first. Here on earth, first means– oh hell, I can’t even come up with a frame of reference to explain anything to you. And just for you, I’m going to break my hard-and-fast rule, and actually CITE WIKIPEDIA:
    “The party that lost in the lower court is the petitioner and the party that prevailed is the respondent. All case names before the Court are styled petitioner v. respondent, regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the trial court.”

  229. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 28, 2013 at 8:30 pm  (Quote)

    Total and complete nonsense as to foreign visitors.

    A.R. Nash: Neither foreign ministers nor foreign visitors are “residing” in the United States, and under that “fiction of law” neither is subject to the political authority of the federal government.

  230. ballantine says:
    April 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    nbc wrote: ” the definition of natural born was fully explored in US v Wong Kim Ark, in which it was found to simplymean “born on soil under jurisdiction”.

    Caution: what you are about to read will be disturbing.

    Everything about that statement is wrong.First, the definition of nbc was not adjudicated nor even a matter of focus inthe legal exploration leading up to the court’s actual ruling.

    It was not “defined” by the court, ever.As for U.S.citizenship, the court determined that the 14th Amendment would henceforth mean that alien fathers of native-bornchildren were subject to the jurisdiction of the American government and not just their own government.

    Gee, your saying the court didn’t define the term because you say so doesn’t change the fact that it define the term by the English common law. I know they use some big words you can’t understand. Too bad.

    Seriously, I is starting to look like you are incapable of reading English. No matter. All modern courts read Wong Kim Ark as defining the term. You see, we have courts to listen to so we don’t have to listen to ignorant sovereign citizens, tax protestors and people like you who think they can make up law. Keep writing those articles that no one will ever read saying only you understand the law of citizenship and everyone else in history is wrong. What a life.

    I suggest you save whatever money you have to hire a real lawyer to explain to you what the big words in Wong Kim Ark says. Everyone else gets it.

  231. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 8:57 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: nbc wrote: ” the definition of natural born was fully explored in US v Wong Kim Ark, in which it was found to simply mean “born on soil under jurisdiction”.

    Caution: what you are about to read will be disturbing.

    Everything about that statement is wrong. First, the definition of nbc was not adjudicated nor even a matter of focus in the legal exploration leading up to the court’s actual ruling.

    It is sad that apparently our friend has failed to read the decision in US v WKA.

  232. Dave B. says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:00 pm  (Quote)

    It has certainly become sadly apparent.

    nbc: It is sad that apparently our friend has failed to read the decision in US v WKA.

  233. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:01 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Neither foreign ministers nor foreign visitors are “residing” in the United States, and under that “fiction of law” neither is subject to the political authority of the federal government.

    I guess you still do not understand how the Court in WKA establishes the meaning of allegiance/subject to jurisdiction which was meant to exclude indeed foreign ministers and other dignitaries but not foreign visitors. In fact, the court observed that children born to foreign parents sojourning in the country, would make such children natural born

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

    US v Wong Kim Ark citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn

    Concluding

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

    Bummer

  234. ballantine says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:03 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    ballantine quoted: “I have always believed [RED FLAG!HE IS EXPRESSING OPINION, NOT FACT] that everyperson, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States…TheSenator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. [WHAT?HOW COULD AN AMERICAN THINKSUCH A THING?] I know that is so in one instance, [NOTICE: HE DIDN’T SAY “ONLY” ONE INSTANCE] in thecase of the children of foreign ministers who reside “near” the United States in the diplomatic language. By a FICTIONOF LAW such persons are not supposed to be RESIDING here, and under that fiction of law their children would NOTBE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.” Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

    Neither foreign ministers nor foreign visitors are “residing” in the United States, and under that “fiction of law” neitheris subject to the political authority of the federal government.The same principle applies to both by the same factregarding residency.Visitors are not residents.They are transients.Transients are guest of the host and are not under the obligations of the residents.They aren’t required to clean our family’s toilets nor fight our wars.Their children born under our roof do not belong to us.They belong to the homeland of the guest. The Wong opinion did not confer citizenship upon them for those reasons.That is where Obama fell between the cracks of legal citizenship, but becauseof the error of A.G. John Griggs, the policy erroneously followed since 1898 is that automatic naturalization is conferredwithout regard to subjection (or lack thereof) as the Amendment requires, but is conferred solely on the happenstance ofbirth location.

    Again, everything you say is wrong, but you are too ignorant to understand. To say Wong Kim Art did not bestow citizenship on children of visitors is simply lying or is the statement of a person too dumb to read English. Again, I suggest you hire an attorney to explain to you how to read case law. Here is the actual conclusion of the case:

    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

    Gee, they adopted the “ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth” which it spent 50 pages telling us was the English common law with includes “children here born of resident aliens” but obviously doesn’t require such. No 5th grader would read such sentence as requiring residency as it expressly states what the exceptions from native birth are. This is after the court spent the first half of the case saying that “natural born citizen” was defined by the same English common law rule. Seriously, did you even graduate the 5th grade? Keep posting here and perhaps one day you may say something that is right. However, I doubt it.

  235. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Say, if Wong won in the District Court, did he also win in the Appeals Court, or did the government prevail there?

    Wong Kim Ark resolves that question

    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    It does help to actually read the decision… As well as the lower court’s ruling and the appellant and appellee briefs to the Supreme Court.

    Instead you have chosen to go down a road that appears to be built mostly on wishful thinking and shows little familiarity with the case’s background and rulings

  236. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:08 pm  (Quote)

    Poor Nash… I he had only taken the time to read US v Wong Kim Ark and not just the Cliff Note’s version provided by the birther 🙂

    Next we will learn that he only read the syllabus…

    ballantine: Again, everything you say is wrong, but you are too ignorant to understand. To say Wong Kim Art did not bestow citizenship on children of visitors is simply lying or is the statement of a person too dumb to read English. Again, I suggest you hire an attorney to explain to you how to read case law. Here is the actual conclusion of the case:

    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

  237. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:13 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: In the past Nash has pushed the ludicrous argument that foreign tourists, foreign residents, foreigners here on student visas, etc. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    That indeed is hilarious but even children born to illegal aliens were found to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US

    Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction, while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment support that constricting construction of the phrase “within its jurisdiction.” [n10]

    FN 10 reads

    Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .” (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term “jurisdiction” was used. He further noted that it was

    impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Id. at 687.

    Justice Gray concluded that

    [e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

    Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).

  238. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:16 pm  (Quote)

    Pretty basic stuff for anyone who makes the claim that they understand the Wong decision and pontificates about it on the Internet. (See: Dunning-Kruger effect.)

    This, and pretty much every word that you write here prove that you are woefully incompetent in your chosen crank domain. But that is what I have experienced daily for four and a half years: people full of themselves, and not much else.

    A.R. Nash: Dr. Conspiracy: “…when you didn’t even know who was the appellant in the Wong case. Seriously, that’s pretty basic stuff.”
    Basic to what? To the principles that determine citizenship?

  239. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:31 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: This, and pretty much every word that you write here prove that you are woefully incompetent in your chosen crank domain. But that is what I have experienced daily for four and a half years: people full of themselves, and not much else.

    Hear hear…
    And for our friend’s benefit

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]

  240. Daniel says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:34 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    the guardians of the future security of the nation choose to “err” on the side of caution by limiting that privilege to only those whose loyalty to the Constitution would be undivided.

    Timothy McVeigh was a natural born citizen. He also had two NBC Parents. Didn’t seem to affect his loyalty at all.

  241. SluggoJD says:
    April 28, 2013 at 9:58 pm  (Quote)

    LOLOL

    “Sluggedface: “Right now, Obama is probably talking to some world leader about problems, or perhaps he’s…” Yeah, so was Nixon. You have no comprehension of what respectable is, you’ve never seen it nor lived it. You live in a little bubble of security in an affluent nation that has shielded you from the knowledge of reality. Oh, by the way, that describes your lord and savior as well.”

    I have no comprehension of what respectable is? I live in a little bubble of security? My lord and savior?

    Did these things come up on a Ouija board? Do you roll dice to come up with assertions?

    Stay far away from Vegas!

  242. J.D. Sue says:
    April 28, 2013 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: In the past Nash has pushed the ludicrous argument that foreign tourists, foreign residents, foreigners here on student visas, etc. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    ====
    Yeah, I’d like to hear him tell that to the courts! Notably, from time to time, he likes to insert the term “political”, as in his use of the terms “political jurisdiction” and “inherited political nature.”

  243. Dave B. says:
    April 28, 2013 at 10:09 pm  (Quote)

    All right, A.R., I’m going to bypass for a moment your nonsensical inclusion of “foreign visitors” here– but what about the U.S. citizen spouses of foreign diplomatic agents? Are they “subject to the political authority of the federal government”?

    A.R. Nash: Neither foreign ministers nor foreign visitors are “residing” in the United States, and under that “fiction of law” neither is subject to the political authority of the federal government.

  244. J.D. Sue says:
    April 28, 2013 at 10:38 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: but what about the U.S. citizen spouses of foreign diplomatic agents? Are they “subject to the political authority of the federal government”?

    —

    Oh, come on, Dave, it’s simple. If the Diplomat is a woman, her American husband is still naturally “subject to the political authority of the federal government” because that is the nature of manhood. If, however, the Diplomat is a man, then the American woman–though still legally subject to federal jurisdiction–is nonetheless an irrelevant nobody when it comes to “political jurisdiction” in America and has been since the day she gave away all her political citizenship and identity via marriage…. It’s only natural….

    I guess under Nash’s theory, Obama is a real freak of nature–just look how Obama has spent his life devoted to the service of his mother’s (and his own) homeland when nature dictated that he be politically devoted to father’s homeland. (Well, not really his father’s homeland, but rather politically devoted to the British Empire that had colonized his father’s homeland….). It’s only natural….

  245. Dave B. says:
    April 28, 2013 at 10:47 pm  (Quote)

    Come on, now, you’re scaring the fish!

    J.D. Sue: Oh, come on, Dave, it’s simple.

  246. Northland10 says:
    April 28, 2013 at 10:54 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Neither foreign ministers nor foreign visitors are “residing” in the United States, and under that “fiction of law” neither is subject to the political authority of the federal government. The same principle applies to both by the same fact regarding residency. Visitors are not residents. They are transients.
    Transients are guest of the host and are not under the obligations of the residents.

    Having read WKA, you would have noticed a citation to Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (“and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are ” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)“)

    The citation referred to (emphasis mine):

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

    “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted by 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that

    “all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

    The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0118_0356_ZO.html

    In short, those with diplomatic immunity (foreign ministers), and invading armies are not under US jurisdiction. A note on invading armies. That refer to armies who have entered the country (realm) and possessed territory and thus, deprives the nation of exercising jurisdiction over the army in that occupied territory.

    You see, I came to my understanding of jurisdiction by listening to the explanations of others and reading the cases they mentioned.

  247. nbc says:
    April 28, 2013 at 11:27 pm  (Quote)

    Details, details…

    Excellent find, once again, WKA keeps on giving and giving to those who read it and follow all the references.

    Northland10: Having read WKA, you would have noticed a citation to Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (“and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are ” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)“)

  248. Dave B. says:
    April 28, 2013 at 11:36 pm  (Quote)

    I’ve seen birthers cite Wong as supporting their position just because Justice Gray cites Minor. The last few days I’ve been into it with Joe Montgomery, with him citing Luria v. United States, which he can’t even tell refutes his wacky arguments, just because Minor is cited. They see “Minor v. Happersett” and presume their argument is being buttressed.

    nbc:
    Details, details…

    Excellent find, once again, WKA keeps on giving and giving to those who read it and follow all the references.

  249. nbc says:
    April 29, 2013 at 12:16 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: I’ve seen birthers cite Wong as supporting their position just because Justice Gray cites Minor.

    Even Minor does not give any credibility to their arguments as it never addressed the status of children born on US soil to alien parents.

  250. Keith says:
    April 29, 2013 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Keith: “There is no question that McCain’s citizenship was ‘by statute’.” No question? Hardly. I refute that claim totally. What I agree with is that the *recognition* of his natural citizenship was by statute, so clear up the confusion resulting from confusing and ambiguous language. Citizenship “by statute” exists only for foreigners and their children because naturalization law only exists to naturalize those who are *foreigners*, -NOT those who happen to be foreign-born.

    Refute it all you want. Panama is not and never has been U.S. Soil. The Canal Zone is not and never has been U.S. Soil.

    McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which is ‘overseas’. The 14th Amendment applies only to children born or naturalized in the United States, not children born overseas, including the Panama Canal Zone. Therefore the only way he could be recognized as a citizen is via a law passed by Congress.

    There are two such laws that I know of that apply to McCain. One is the general law that applies to the children born abroad to American Citizens in any country, and one is specific to children born in the Panama.

    8 USC 1403 – Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

    (a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    (b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

    McCain derives his citizenship from either of those two laws. And notice that both sections of 8 USC 1403 describe the parental requirement as “whose father or mother or both”. Two citizen parents doesn’t enter into it even though Congress could have made it a requirement.

    Is it therefore your opinion that a person born overseas in Panama with one American citizen parent is a Natural Born Citizen, but a person born in the geographical United States in Hawai’i with one American citizen parent is not?

    How do you figure that?

  251. Dave B. says:
    April 29, 2013 at 12:27 am  (Quote)

    Well, yeah, but they don’t let that get in their way, do they? And they never do put much thought into what, exactly, were those “doubts” Chief Justice Waite referred to. Which become pretty plain when you look at the history of the Court’s decisions on who are citizens of the United States.

    nbc: Even Minor does not give any credibility to their arguments as it never addressed the status of children born on US soil to alien parents.

  252. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:01 am  (Quote)

    The issue in Wong was his nationality. That was all that was decided, and what became the new law of the land was the basis of deciding that issue. The meaning of nbc was not decided because the court has no standing to decide matters that are not before it. The issue of whether or not Wong was eligible to be President was not decided by the court by construing the meaning of nbc since that was not the issue before it. The only issue before it was whether or not he was even a citizen at all. And if so, why?

    Its opinion that he was a citizen based on the 14th Amendment had no connection whatsoever to an establishment of a national definition of what a natural born citizen is. It wasn’t before them, and they didn’t rule on it.
    And Gray erred in saying that the court in Happersett construed the meaning of the 14th Amendment. In that case the court shunned any effort as to construing the amendment since the petitioner was clearly a natural born citizen, born in America to American parents.

    “Everyone else gets it.” That’s the nature of institutionalized error. Everybody gets it but nobody can explain it except by citing the authority of others who bought into the error or created it in the first place for seemingly reasonable reasons. But that reasoning was flawed. The facts expose the error, but the defense of the error doesn’t rely on facts. Instead it resorts to unlimited appeals to authority. Well, as you might guess, I don’t give a crap about your vaunted authority. Just the facts ma’m, just the facts.

    I’m still waiting to hear some but not holding my breath because I know that there aren’t any, and that is why folks like you never cite any. Just opinions, suppositions, presumptions… Wearing a black robe does not confer infallibility or else we might be living in a much more perfect world. With all of your knowledge, you should know better than I just how fallible the Supreme Court can be, along with the English courts.

    Next I’m going to dissect the errors of the experts in construing nationality via the Calvin case. Your eyes will then finally be opened to what was before you all along but was over-looked because of the mist of authority that fogs your brains and retards your contemplation of the principles involved, principles which even the experts failed to grasp.

  253. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:07 am  (Quote)

    In terms of fathers, you can repeat “must” as much as you like, but we don’t live in that world. Men may have been all the rage once upon a time, but that has changed. Sorry if you didn’t know. Even were we to accept the idea that natural born citizenship depends upon citizen parents, we would never accept that it all depends upon the father. Check the calendar. Check the Constitution. It is 2013.

    I’ve already pointed it out to you, but, again, take note of the word “persons” in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment. Take note of the nineteenth. Women are constitutionally enfranchised citizens. None of their privileges or immunities may be abridged. Equal protection of the laws may not be denied to them. They must be able to be natural born citizens in their own right, and if you impose jus sanguinis, you cannot exclude the mothers.

    So again, can you point to an actual requirement for citizen-fatherhood without relying upon your personal theories of what is natural?

    A.R. Nash:

    Paper: “Where is this requirement of citizen-fatherhood?Can you point to such a requirement without relying upon your personal theories of what is natural?”

    A.R. Nash: The Commander of the American Army must be a natural citizen, but not one with an alien father.He must be born a citizen.A born citizen must not be the son of an alien father.He must be a natural citizen, meaning born of a citizen.

  254. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:42 am  (Quote)

    WONG KIM ARK 1.
    12. ‘The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,..political status [national allegiance & obligation]…and civil status (marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy)… [Political jurisdiction must not be confused with civil jurisdiction, which, in America is left of the States.]

    He **evidently** [ALERT; Presumption follows] used the word ‘citizen,’ not as equivalent to ‘subject,’ [CITIZEN, -NOT AS EQUIVALENT TO SUBJECT] but rather to ‘inhabitant’; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule [RULE, i.e., POLICY, -NOT LAW ] that all persons born under British dominion are *natural-born* subjects.” [note the hyphen]
    Whose “rule” was it to call them nbs? It was the greedy King’s rule, established to increase his power and sovereignty. Rules, and policies are not laws even though they are enforced with just as much power.

    NOTE: The use of a hyphen between the words natural and born reveal that he had no idea of the origins of what he was discussing. There never was such a thing as a “natural-born” anything (except as a euphemism for a bastard child).

    There were in the real world only four types of inhabitants of Britain; [NOTE; Visitors…Are…Not…Inhabitants]…the natives or natural born subjects (children of Englishmen), foreign immigrants (denizens), their children (alien born subjects) and naturalized subjects.

    Immigrant subjects were not natural born subjects, nor were their naturalized-at-birth alien-born children. But…in time they came to be referred to as natural born subjects because the focus was deliberatedly shifted away from the natural source of one’s national connection (paternity) in order to maintain the fiction of law that all subjects are equal because of where they were born. Thereby all of the focus shifted from the natural rights of Free Englishmen (and the progeny they produce) to the authority of his majestic which flowed from his ownership of the entire country, in effect, as its royal dictator.

    Call them all by the same term and it must be that there is no difference between them. But there was a difference when it came to national security, and no alien born subject was allowed to hold critical positions on which the fate of the nation or the monarch might rest. Holding that kind of a position was not a right of subjects. It was a privilege.

  255. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 3:33 am  (Quote)

    Wong Kim Ark 2.
    14. “Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” Sheer ignorance of the principle of natural law. No questioning as to *how* he became a subject “at birth”. Was it by naturalization law? Or something else?

    To illustrate, a hypothetical: A law is passed that it is a crime to cause harm to an unborn subject. An Englishman beats his wife; his son is born damaged; he is convicted of harming an unborn subject.
    A denizen beats his wife; he is not charged after his damaged son is born because his son did not become a subject until “the moment of his birth.” The damage was done before he became a subject, whereas the son of the Englishman was a subject by nature, a natural subject even before he was born.
    [His subjecthood was his natural political inheritance and his natural national character that could not be changed by relocation outside of national borders, while the son of the immigrant did not inherit any nationality from his father other than his father’s nationality, and if born outside of the nation’s borders, he would not be a subject.]

    ‘Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject.” [The bastardization of language, logic, and law was thus established as institutionalized error]
    “This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”
    [That is utterly false. It was NOT a principle, it was a mere policy. No principle was involved other than a complete reversal of the actual principle of nationality. The real Principle is that anyone not born *naturally subject* [as opposed to legally subject] to the lawful authority of the government is not a natural subject.
    There are NO EXCEPTIONS to principles.

    Children of foreign diplomats and children of foreign visitors, -sojourners, are born subject to their own government’s sovereignty because they both are guests of the nation they are temporarily in. Neither are immigrants. Neither owe to the government the allegiance that subjects and immigrants owe.

    The concept that all born within the King’s borders are natural subjects was a flat out lie that was promoted as a principle when it was in violation of the real principle. Its defense fell on its face as a principle because it had to make two exceptions, but principles have no exceptions. If exceptions exist then that is evidence that a policy is being promoted and enforced as if it were an actual principle. That is what bastardization is.
    It is highly analogous to the respectable attempts to explain the movement of the planets within a geocentric solar system. No matter how respectable the explanation might have been, it still was flat out wrong. Same with the native-birth produces natural born subjects deception.

  256. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:46 am  (Quote)

    Wong Kim Ark 3.
    http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

    The true principle of natural law is that all those who are born naturally subject to the Crown, (-not subject by law or policy) are the true natural born subjects because only they inherit the subjection of their subject fathers. Their tie to the nation and its king is a bond of blood, of membership by birth, not law or edict or decree or court opinion. They are born as natural subjects. Their allegiance is undivided because their father was not a foreigner.

    14. “…it in theory at least [the theory is actually the principle] depended, not upon the locality of a man’s birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.’

    “born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance,” -that translates in terms of the 14th Amendment language as “born within the jurisdiction without being born subject to the jurisdiction.” The first use pertains to an area of authority, while the second use refers to the authority to which one owes obedience. One is geographic in nature, -the other is political in nature.

    The amendment requires that one be born subject to the political jurisdiction of the nation’s government without regard to whether or not the subjection is natural or legal. Before Wong it was non-existent for children of aliens. They were in a kind of citizenship legal limbo until the court rendered its opinion because citizenship had for most of American history been a state matter.

    The government viewed the jurisdiction requirement as only pertaining to natural subjection but the courts recognized that moral subjection was just as important as natural subjection, and far superior to no subjection at all. The native-born immigrants’ children of America were viewed by the courts as being just as morally responsible as natural citizens for the defense of the nation, and therefore they were morally subject to a national responsibility, -just as natural citizens were naturally subject to that national responsibility.

    15. “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England…aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the…jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was *a British subject*, -unless the child of an ambassador…or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
    Notice what I did there? I altered it a speck to make it accurate. I removed two words that had no place in the statement, just like Congress removed the same two words in the 1795 Naturalization Act, -the words being “natural born”.

    Politicians just love to toss those two words in left and right because it adds to the appearance of the scholarliness of their words. Instead of saying “British subject” which was the correct term, he said “natural born subject” for no good reason whatsoever.
    To add those words implies that there were other types of subjects, such as naturalized subjects which needed to be distinguished from born subjects as if they were inferior even though by a fiction of law they also were natural subjects.

    What purpose did the use of the word “natural” serve? None, it just sounds better to the ear than plain old vanilla “born subject”. Esthetics are important to the pleasurableness of language so he resorted to a more appealing version of labeling a British subject.
    That is what it really all boils down to. He was not elucidating a fundamental principle, he was just parroting what others had said before him. No one did the fundamental philosophical research to find out what the heck the words really imply or mean. That would have been a lot of work and they were too busy for such a pursuit. Not to mention that it would not have been easy.

  257. The Magic M says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:51 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Being the pothead and crack user that he was, he not only did not serve his country, he in fact avoided even being vulnerable to being forced to serve his country. How is such an individual qualified to command the Commandant of the Marine Corps?

    Last I checked, the people decide by vote who becomes President. The people have every right to vote for an “unqualified” candidate simply because the Constitution does not prevent them from doing so.

    Back to your “natural” claim, let’s try a thought experiment:

    Two foreigners illegally enter the country and trick the authorities into naturalizing them. Then they have a child in the US. By your “natural” claim, that child would be a natural born citizen because of his parents’ citizenship. The child becomes President 60 years later.
    Another 6 years later, in the midst of his second term, authorities discover what his parents did 66 years before. What now? Do they retroactively revoke the parents’ citizenship? What happens to the child? Does it lose its “natural born” status because the parents were stripped of their citizenship or because they never legally had it to begin with?
    What if it turns out the stamp on the naturalization document was set to the wrong date and the mother didn’t naturalize the day before but the day after birth? Does that magically change the allegiance of the 66-year-old President?

  258. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 5:14 am  (Quote)

    Paper: “Where is this requirement of citizen-fatherhood? Can you point to such a requirement without relying upon your personal theories of what is natural?”

    [ A.R. Nash said: The Commander of the American Army must be a natural citizen, but not one with an alien father.He must be born a citizen.A born citizen must not be the son of an alien father.He must be a natural citizen, meaning born of a citizen.]

    Response: My choice of words in reference to fathers is rooted in the era of the Constitution, -from that frame of reference. They are not intended to endorse the patriarchal limitations of the yesterday, but simply to illuminate the dark distant past so accurate impressions can be had.

    The word “persons” in the eligibility clause, and in the 14th Amendment refers solely to men in the context in which it was used. Women could not become President, vote, nor serve in public office. They were an elevated form of property.

    Regarding the amendment, women were not subject to the jurisdiction of the national authority because they did not bear the responsibilities of citizens, the duty to serve on juries, to support the rule of law by serving on posses, or in militias, to support democracy by being involved in politics and voting, and most important of all, to defend the nation. The problem wasn’t that the status quo of the nation’s society was chaotic because it wasn’t, the problem was that the wording of the amendment was very vague as to very important words, resulting in confusion.

    Women are natural born citizens also but that did not confer on them equal rights as men because the world not long ago was not a place were equal rights were a priority. In fact, they were greatly resisted, as is the case in Islamic countries today. The use of the word “persons” did in effect make the Constitution a living document in that regard since it now applies to women, and they therefore can be President.

  259. Lupin says:
    April 29, 2013 at 6:07 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Lupin: “Anyone who assimilated FDR to Adolf Hitler…”
    That is a fiction of your own mind. I only present the facts of what FDR did, though I’ll assume after reading yesterday or before that it was the fault of a lying deceiving racist general in charge of the West coast who hated the Japanese, and so he misrepresented the known facts to everyone of importance, including the Supreme Court and the President.

    But you missed the point completely since it wasn’t about FDR, it was about out-of-control unconstitutional government power being exercised by a statist authoritarian national machine against innocent Americans.

    Yeah yeah, and you plastered all this over a picture of Hitler; nice tarring job, you loathsome bigot.

  260. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 6:32 am  (Quote)

    Magic M. By your hypothetical scenario the child would have been a 14th Amendment citizen because his parents would have been subject to our national authority but the parents would not have been citizens at all because their documents would have to have been counterfeit, perpetrating a fraud on the government, thereby nullifying the validity of their citizenship. So their child could not be a legitimate President because it would not have been born to U.S. citizens.

  261. misha marinsky says:
    April 29, 2013 at 7:11 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: he not only did not serve his country, he in fact avoided even being vulnerable to being forced to serve his country.

    Exactly. Willard Mitt Romney went to France as a missionary, and avoided it for two years. Plus, Romney’s five sons never volunteered.

    Talk about hypocrites!

  262. misha marinsky says:
    April 29, 2013 at 7:29 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:Being the pothead and crack user that he was, he not only did not serve his country, he in fact avoided even being vulnerable to being forced to serve his country.

    I know. Cheney got five deferments until he was no longer eligible for the draft. Plus, Cheney has two DWI felony convictions.

    I wonder how he got away with all of it.

  263. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 7:33 am  (Quote)

    The Wong conclusion:
    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: [Notice it does not say the foregoing PRINCIPLE because it did not rely on any principle; it relied on opinions based on semi-informed assumptions] the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule [NOTICE is says RULE, not Law, -not Principle, and that’s because as I’ve pointed out, there was no law. There was only a rule which was a distortion and perversion of a natural law principle, and that distortion was for and to the benefit of a royal dictator. What a great example to take direction from.]

    of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of RESIDENT aliens.”!

    How can you be so clueless after all the clues I’ve given you? Understand these facts: without birth within the national territory there is no citizenship for children of aliens; but even WITH birth within the national jurisdiction there is NO CITIZENSHIP without full subjection to national jurisdiction, i.e., the full political authority of the government over both citizens and immigrants.

    It’s like the dual-key system to launch nuclear missiles. If one key is missing, it can’t be operated. If one requirement is missing, there is no citizenship. It’s very simple. Only legal immigrants are subject to federal jurisdiction. No other aliens are RESIDENT aliens.
    They are what the CIS labels “non-immigrant aliens”. Their children are not U.S. citizens by the 14th Amendment nor the opinion of the court. But they are citizens by presumptive policy and it alone. Not by law.
    Birth within the territory is insufficient. Learn how to think clearly and then read the 14th Amendment with your eyes open. It does not say: “All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, are citizen of the United States.” Yet that is what you shout to the world. Why?
    What is wrong with your comprehension ability?

    ” with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.” What about those owing direct allegiance to their own foreign homeland? Exactly how are they different from children of Indians? They aren’t.

    Claiming that “the additional exception” was the “single” exception is evidence of stupidity, cluelessness, avoidance, or oversight by failing to mention the rare and out-of-sight–out-of-mind exception of pregnant foreign women who deliver their babies here instead of in their own home nation.

    The claim that Indian children were the single exception was blatantly false, but almost true since children of non-immigrant aliens might have constituted a fraction of the population so small as to be invisible. Microscopic. The oversight could be said to be perfectly natural and normal. But unfortunate because it has sown the confusion that now reigns in minds that think that Wong is nothing more than what impressions imply. But impressions are deceiving.

  264. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:33 am  (Quote)

    If this nonsense were true (and it is not) why have there been bills proposed in Congress to exclude the so-called “anchor babies” from citizenship?

    They are citizens based on the 14th amendment, and your fantasies about what it means are not shared by the courts.

    A.R. Nash: It’s like the dual-key system to launch nuclear missiles. If one key is missing, it can’t be operated. If one requirement is missing, there is no citizenship. It’s very simple. Only legal immigrants are subject to federal jurisdiction. No other aliens are RESIDENT aliens.
    They are what the CIS labels “non-immigrant aliens”. Their children are not U.S. citizens by the 14th Amendment nor the opinion of the court. But they are citizens by presumptive policy and it alone. Not by law.

  265. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:37 am  (Quote)

    And after that I suppose you will be enlightening us a to the flatness of the earth and that the moon landing was faked.

    I am frankly not interested in your nonsense. We’ve been over all of this material, which we know a darned sight better than you, already.

    A.R. Nash: Next I’m going to dissect the errors of the experts in construing nationality via the Calvin case.

  266. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:51 am  (Quote)

    Two part series at Patriot post arguing that Immigrants shouldn’t have guns (part 1) and that Obama isn’t eligible to be President (part 2)

    http://patriotpost.us/commentary/17812
    http://patriotpost.us/commentary/17813/

    I hope I won’t regret posting replies there.

  267. Northland10 says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:13 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If this nonsense were true (and it is not) why have there been bills proposed in Congress to exclude the so-called “anchor babies” from citizenship?

    They are citizens based on the 14th amendment, and your fantasies about what it means are not shared by the courts.

    Not to mention, the bills and proposed amendments would only require one citizen (or those who fall under an exception list). Apparently Vitter and Steve King didn’t get the memo.

    Some of the ones from the 90s specified the mother must be a citizen. No mention of the father. I keep asking Birthers about this, but they never reply.

    I can’t grab a link now but sum simple searching on Thomas will find the bills.

  268. ballantine says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:16 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    The Wong conclusion:
    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: [Notice it does not say the foregoing PRINCIPLE because it did not rely on any principle; it relied on opinions based on semi-informed assumptions] the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule [NOTICE is says RULE, not Law, -not Principle, and that’s because as I’ve pointed out, there was no law.There was only a rule which was a distortion and perversion of a natural law principle, and that distortion was for and to the benefit of a royal dictator.What a great example to take direction from.]

    of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of RESIDENT aliens.”!

    How can you be so clueless after all the clues I’ve given you?Understand these facts:without birth within the national territory there is no citizenship for children of aliens; but even WITH birth within the national jurisdiction there is NO CITIZENSHIP without full subjection to national jurisdiction, i.e., the full political authority of the government over both citizens and immigrants.

    It’s like the dual-key system to launch nuclear missiles.If one key is missing, it can’t be operated.If one requirement is missing, there is no citizenship.It’s very simple.Only legal immigrants are subject to federal jurisdiction.No other aliens are RESIDENT aliens. They are what the CIS labels “non-immigrant aliens”.Their children are not U.S. citizens by the 14th Amendment nor the opinion of the court.But they are citizens by presumptive policy and it alone.Not by law.Birth within the territory is insufficient.Learn how to think clearly and then read the 14th Amendment with your eyes open.It does not say: “All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, are citizen of the United States.”Yet that is what you shout to the world.Why?
    What is wrong with your comprehension ability?

    ” with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”What about those owing direct allegiance to their own foreign homeland?Exactly how are they different from children of Indians?They aren’t.

    Claiming that “the additional exception” was the “single” exceptionis evidence of stupidity, cluelessness, avoidance, or oversight by failing to mention the rare and out-of-sight–out-of-mind exception of pregnant foreign women who deliver their babies here instead of in their own home nation.

    The claim that Indian children were the single exception was blatantly false, but almost true since children of non-immigrant aliens might have constituted a fraction of the population so small as to be invisible. Microscopic. The oversight could be said to be perfectly natural and normal.But unfortunate because it has sown the confusion that now reigns in minds that think that Wong is nothing more than what impressions imply.But impressions are deceiving.

    Is that rant supposed to make any sense? Are you sure you are not an ilegal alien as your language skills don’t seem very good. The conclusion of Wong is unambiguous and lists the only exceptions to the jus soli rule. This after the court spent 20 pages saying such was the law under the original constitution as well.

    If you could read, Gray said “subject to the jurisdiction” must be understood as it was in Justice Marshall’s opinion that defined what aliens were under our jurisdiction for purposes of public law. Marshall said all visitors here on”business or caprice” were fully subject to our jurisdiction and only persons covered by the rule of extra-territoriality who were not subject to our laws, (ambassadoes, public ships and foreign armies) were excluded. Hence the conclusion of the court. The additional exception was for indians who were deemed to be born in what we considered an alien nation. See Elk v. Wilkins. Everyone. In the 14th amendment congress agreed that such indian children would be citizens if their parents left their tribal nations, came within our jurisdiction and became subject to our laws.

    You just keep showing us that either you can’t read or are a lier. Justice Gray was clear as can be that any native born child of an alien was a citizen and such remains the law of the land because the people who count can read. Now, it’s time for you to write more articles that no one will ever read saying you are right because you are right, which seems to be how you spend your time.

  269. Keith says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:18 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: The issue in Wong was his nationality. That was all that was decided, and what became the new law of the land was the basis of deciding that issue. The meaning of nbc was not decided because the court has no standing to decide matters that are not before it.

    The issue that was before the court was whether or not the District Court ruling was in error or was not in error.

    The District Court is a Trial Court, where evidence is weighed, and facts determined. The ruling of the District Court included, among other things, the finding of fact that WKA was a natural born citizen.

    The Supreme Court found that the District Court was absolutely correct in every particular, including the finding that WKA was NBC.

  270. Keith says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:24 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I hope I won’t regret posting replies there.

    Trying to drum up some more hits? 😀

  271. Majority Will says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:24 am  (Quote)

    Birther bigot drivel:
    “Learn how to think clearly and then read the 14th Amendment with your eyes open.”
    “What is wrong with your comprehension ability?”

    Oh, the irony. It burns.

  272. JD Reed says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:35 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    “The issue in Wong was his nationality.That was all that was decided, and what became the new law of the land was the basis of deciding that issue.The meaning of nbc was not decided because the court has no standing to decide matters that are not before it.”
    Confusing your terms, are you? Courts have jurisdiction, not standing. People who appear before them have standing (or not, as birthers are frequently told in their courtroom misadventures).
    You’re welcome.

  273. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:50 am  (Quote)

    I’m thinking about an essay titled “Immigration policy and despotism” that I will probably not publish here, but on my personal blog. The idea is that the vast chasm between the 17th-century monarchs in Europe and the peasants/serfs created a more harsh despotism to keep the underclasses subjugated. The French Revolution scared the rules of the rest of Europe witless.

    What I see with the right wing immigration policy today is the same punitive attitude in response to inequality. Rather than try to deal with inequality, the idea is to keep the poor under control. It’s a vicious cycle that leads, if unchecked, to social disintegration.

    Why is there terrorism in the world? It comes from injustice and inequality.

  274. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:54 am  (Quote)

    The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, disagrees with this silly notion.

    A.R. Nash: The word “persons” in the eligibility clause, and in the 14th Amendment refers solely to men in the context in which it was used. Women could not become President, vote, nor serve in public office. They were an elevated form of property.

  275. ballantine says:
    April 29, 2013 at 10:07 am  (Quote)

    The issue in Wong was his nationality. That was all that was decided, and what became the new law of the land was the basis of deciding that issue. The meaning of nbc was not decided because the court has no standing to decide matters that are not before it. The issue of whether or not Wong was eligible to be President was not decided by the court by construing the meaning of nbc since that was not the issue before it. The only issue before it was whether or not he was even a citizen at all. And if so, why?

    A.R. Nash: issue in Wong

    What is precedent is not limited to the issue before the court, but the necessary legal propositions used to settle such question. Well, it’s a little more complicated than that, but this is already going to be over your head. SInce the 14th Amendment was deemed to be declaratory or pre-existing law under the original Constitution, it was necessary to look at what it was declaratory of, hence the defining of “natural born citizen” in Article II the original Constitution as the basis of birthright citizenship prior to 1866. Defining “natural born citizen” in Article II of the original Constitution obviously tells us who is eligible to be President. Duh! The concept of standing is completely irrelevant to what you are talking about. Pure ignorance.

    Of course, our modern courts and legal authorities all understand this so it really doesn’t matter what legally ignorant people ranting nonsense on the internet think.

    Seriously, why do you comment on things you know nothing about? Do you go on medical blogs and pretend to be a brain surgeon? I guess that is what losers do.

  276. ballantine says:
    April 29, 2013 at 10:15 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, disagrees with this silly notion.

    Doc, you know what the Supreme Court says doesn’t count. Nash says he is right because he says he is right and everyone else in history is wrong. We have seen such people here before.

  277. Yoda says:
    April 29, 2013 at 10:46 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: Doc, you know what the Supreme Court says doesn’t count.Nash says he is right because he says he is right and everyone else in history is wrong.We have seen such people here before.

    The truth is, aside from the fact that oft cited paragraph from MInor is dicta did not set precedent, Minor actually says the exact opposite of birthers claim that it does.

    If you assume as I do, that Supreme Court decisions do not use excess verbiage, it is clear that the Court never said that children of citizen parents born on US soil are NBC. To the contrary, it says that the children of citizen parents born on US soil are citizens at birth. It then goes on to say that “these” which, in the context of the paragraph, must refer to citizens at birth and not the off spring of citizen parents born on US soil, are native or natural born citizens.

    There are only two interpretations of the word “these” in this paragraph. It could mean refer to the children of citizen parents born on US soil or it could mean citizens at birth. To see which one is correct all you need to do is substitute the two meanings within the paragraph and see which one makes more sense.

    Here is the first part of the paragraph in its original form:

    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.

    If we use the birther understanding of the word they, this is how the paragraph changes:

    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. Children of citizens born in a country were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    I submit that that is redundant and contrary to our usual understanding of how the Supreme Court operates. Forgetting for a second that the second half of the paragraph expressly states that it is not ruling on the citizenship status of children born to aliens, if Waite had wanted to say that the children of citizen parents born in country, he would have said exactly that, but he didn’t.

    Now, if you substitute my interpretation of the word these into the paragraph, you get a whole consistent, non redundant paragraph.

    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. Citizens at birth were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    No doubt in my mind that these refers to citizens at birth. Therefore the Court stated that there is no doubt that citizens at birth are natives or natural born citizens. The only question to be resolved was whether the children of aliens were citizens at birth. That was resolved by the passing of the 14th Amendment, WKA, and was codified in Title 8, section 1401(a) of the US code.

  278. Dave B. says:
    April 29, 2013 at 12:04 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: “Everyone else gets it.” That’s the nature of institutionalized error. Everybody gets it but nobody can explain it except by citing the authority of others who bought into the error or created it in the first place for seemingly reasonable reasons. But that reasoning was flawed. The facts expose the error, but the defense of the error doesn’t rely on facts. Instead it resorts to unlimited appeals to authority. Well, as you might guess, I don’t give a crap about your vaunted authority. Just the facts ma’m, just the facts.

    And as proof of your “facts”, you’ve shown us pictures on your Facebook page, presuming we might be awed by your air of “vaunted authority.” If I may repeat myself, one who says the earth goes around the sun when everyone else says it’s the other way around would be a visionary. One like you who talks of things that exist only because they’re agreed upon by authority and consensus, and claims to have a superior understanding which overcomes all that authority and consensus, is just a crackpot.

  279. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    April 29, 2013 at 12:31 pm  (Quote)

    So nash how do you deal with those whose father’s died before they were born? We’ve had several presidents whose fathers passed away before they were yet born. Or how about when you don’t know who the father is?

    Do you think Tom Vilsack current Secretary of Agriculture is eligible for the Presidency?

  280. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 1:02 pm  (Quote)

    You start out saying your choice of words was about the past, but your words actually were about the present: “must be.” Not just here, but in related writings of yours elsewhere, you discuss fatherhood as if it is a contemporary concern. You use it in reference to President Obama’s father, for instance. I am glad you here and now disavow such concerns as they relate to our time and thus this current president, as well.

    You then invoke the notion of a “living constitution” in order to explain how the word “persons” now includes women even though you believe it did not include women at the time it was written. Aren’t you the one who argued that “natural born citizen” is just three plain words, not a term? But here the plain meaning of “persons” is not persons? Why do you force yourself, a man who believes in the supremacy of the founders’ intent, to invoke a notion that must stick in your craw, that meanings of words in the constitution change, when you can just point to the constitution being actually amended? Particularly as those same Reconstructionists demonstrated they knew the difference by using the word “male” later in that same amendment? That was a constitutional first, by the way, which energized the suffragist movement.

    As for women as an “elevated form of property,” there are a number of twists and turns concerning the status of women in early America, particularly state by state. One principle, though, was that the husband and wife were considered one person, as *represented* by the husband. Take note of how marriage was instrumental here, as single women had different considerations. Also note, that things began changing in this regard in 1839 with the first of the Married Women’s Property Acts, basically thirty years before the fourteenth amendment. You’ll notice a *natural* progression there.

    As you consider such matters, also note that the fourteenth amendment made a distinction between civil rights and political rights, so that then the nineteenth amendment later continued the progress made by the fourteenth in civil rights by severing the notion that women’s political rights were represented by men.

    You add that the world not long ago was “not a place where equal rights were a priority.” When do you think that started to change? Which amendment used the word “equal”?

    Regardless, the point here is that you cannot rely upon fatherhood as the limiting factor in your musings about contemporary scenarios.

    You may want to let go of your concern expressed elsewhere about America having been “dumbed-down” because it doesn’t share your concern over how, according to the rules of a past era (which expatriation rules were not even as clean cut as you imply), Ann Dunham “by marrying a foreigner” might have “abandoned her U.S. citizenship and adopted his.” Maybe America is smart enough to know we are living in the twenty-first century.

    You may want to clarify when you speak of Obama’s foreign father that in your view a foreign mother would be just as bad. Your views of mixed citizen parentage are not very useful, however, and not part of our law. But at least your errors and backward notions would be clearer.

    A.R. Nash:

    My choice of words in reference to fathers is rooted in the era of the Constitution, -from that frame of reference.They are not intended to endorse the patriarchal limitations of the yesterday, but simply to illuminate the dark distant past so accurate impressions can be had.

    The word “persons” in the eligibility clause, and in the 14th Amendment refers solely to men in the context in which it was used.Women could not become President, vote, nor serve in public office.They were an elevated form of property.

    Regarding the amendment, women were not subject to the jurisdiction of the national authority because they did not bear the responsibilities of citizens, the duty to serve on juries, to support the rule of law by serving on posses, or in militias, to support democracy by being involved in politics and voting, and most important of all, to defend the nation.The problem wasn’t that the status quo of the nation’s society was chaotic because it wasn’t, the problem was that the wording of the amendment was very vague as to very important words, resulting in confusion.

    Women are natural born citizens also but that did not confer on them equal rights as men because the world not long ago was not a place were equal rights were a priority.In fact, they were greatly resisted, as is the case in Islamic countries today. The use of the word “persons” did in effect make the Constitution a living document in that regard since it now applies to women, and they therefore can be President.

  281. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 1:13 pm  (Quote)

    This relates to the question of jurisdiction in the fourteenth amendment. I follow the notion that jurisdiction is clear, but there are some fascinating non-crackpot discussions about the meaning of jurisdiction, including the thoughts of senators such as Trumbull at the time. Here and now, though, I just mention it because the issue with undocumented aliens is not their children as much as it is simply undocumented aliens as a whole, and that were we to exclude their children, we would not be helping but making matters worse by increasing the numbers of undocumented aliens to how include the children. That would have the effect of growing an underclass, growing inequality within our borders.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m thinking about an essay titled “Immigration policy and despotism” that I will probably not publish here, but on my personal blog. The idea is that the vast chasm between the 17th-century monarchs in Europe and the peasants/serfs created a more harsh despotism to keep the underclasses subjugated. The French Revolution scared the rules of the rest of Europe witless.

    What I see with the right wing immigration policy today is the same punitive attitude in response to inequality. Rather than try to deal with inequality, the idea is to keep the poor under control. It’s a vicious cycle that leads, if unchecked, to social disintegration.

    Why is there terrorism in the world? It comes from injustice and inequality.

  282. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 1:18 pm  (Quote)

    Keep in mind that for Nash what matters for natural born citizenship is parentage. Birthplace is entirely irrelevant to him. Your parents have to be Americans. If they are, you are a natural born citizen no matter where you are born. If they are not, you can be born in Pittsburgh or Omaha and you still are not a natural born citizen.

  283. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 1:42 pm  (Quote)

    Mr. Nash, the current status of women also means you will have to give up your notion that Obama is some kind of “provisional” citizen. His mother was a citizen. He was born here.

    You may discuss how in your own personal view of what is natural that your notion of natural born citizen includes only children of two American parents.

    But 1) that is not actual law nor a reasonable view of our actual history, founders’ expressed views, nor court cases. And 2) under any construction of the word “jurisdiction” President Obama falls under the 14th amendment, being born here to a citizen mother. So even if you do not call that a natural born citizen, it certainly is not provisional.

  284. Dave B. says:
    April 29, 2013 at 1:50 pm  (Quote)

    A.R., you still haven’t answered my question: Are the U.S. citizen spouses of foreign diplomatic agents “subject to the political authority of the federal government”?

    A.R. Nash: Neither foreign ministers nor foreign visitors are “residing” in the United States, and under that “fiction of law” neither is subject to the political authority of the federal government.

  285. nbc says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:02 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: You just keep showing us that either you can’t read or are a lier. Justice Gray was clear as can be that any native born child of an alien was a citizen and such remains the law of the land because the people who count can read. Now, it’s time for you to write more articles that no one will ever read saying you are right because you are right, which seems to be how you spend your time.

    Yes, Wong Kim Ark does not help our friend much and like e.vattel, he could benefit from actually reading the ruling, following the cited precedents and understand the lower Court’s ruling and the briefs filed.

    Then he would come to understand that the Court fully rejected Vattel…

  286. ballantine says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    This relates to the question of jurisdiction in the fourteenth amendment.I follow the notion that jurisdiction is clear, but there are some fascinating non-crackpot discussions about the meaning of jurisdiction, including the thoughts of senators such as Trumbull at the time.Here and now, though, I just mention it because the issue with undocumented aliens is not their children as much as it is simply undocumented aliens as a whole, and that were we to exclude their children, we would not be helping but making matters worse by increasing the numbers of undocumented aliens to how include the children.That would have the effect of growing an underclass, growing inequality within our borders.

    Well there are a number of political partisans motivated by the anchor baby issue. They essentially re-argue the lost arguments in Wong Kim Ark and have tried to argue citizenship is based upon mutual consent in a thinly veiled attempt to exclude people here without out consent. While some of these people have credentials, I find them to be little better than birthers. Their main arguments are cherry-picking out-of-context quotes from the debates of the 39th Congress and ignoring the multitude of quotes expressly stating they were adopting the common law or that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “subject to our laws.” Take Trumbull for instance. He repeatedly said that native born children were aliens, even children of Chinese aliens who would be dual citizens. He also said we adopted the common law of England which he said was the common law of every country. They ignore that and focus on Trumbull saying the phrase meant “not owing allegiance to anyone else.” In context, Trumbull was distinguishing between indians born in indian nations we treat as foreign nations that were not subject to our laws, but treaties, and the same indians who left such nations, came withion our jurisdiction and became subject to our laws. The former were aliens owing allegience to someone else, i.e., the indian nation they were born in. The latter were citizens even though their indians parents would still be aliens since such indians could not be naturalized. His statements in context are perfectly consistent with the common law interpretation and the cherry picking of these people is shamful scholarship.

  287. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm  (Quote)

    I was just rereading that passage in the Congressional record myself and noting the Indian context and all the points you make. I find some of the arguments interesting regarding gradations of distinctions, but I agree with you. You are echoing much of my own thinking in that regard.

    I would add that the most important point is that the jurisdiction in question is the jurisdiction over the child born here, not the parents.

    ballantine: They essentially re-argue the lost arguments in Wong Kim Ark and have tried to argue citizenship is based upon mutual consent….Their main arguments are cherry-picking out-of-context quotes from the debates of the 39th Congress and ignoring the multitude of quotes expressly stating they were adopting the common law or that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant “subject to our laws.”Take Trumbull for instance….His statements in context are perfectly consistent with the common law interpretation….

  288. ballantine says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    I was just rereading that passage in the Congressional record myself and noting the Indian context and all the points you make.I find some of the arguments interesting regarding gradations of distinctions, but I agree with you. You are echoing much of my own thinking in that regard.

    I would add that the most important point is that the jurisdiction in question is the jurisdiction over the child born here, not the parents.

    Yeah, they always want to talk about the jurisdiciton of the parent. However, it should make no difference as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in McFadden v. The Schooner Exchange, alien parents are fully subject to our jurisdiction as well unless they have the privilege of extraterritoriality. There was no such thing in public law as partial jurisdiction or political jurisdiction. Those terms appear to have been made up by persons trying to narrowly interpret the Amendment. Anyway, here are some useful quote from Trumbull in case anyone is interested:

    “whenever they [indians] are separated from their tribes, and come within the jurisdiction of the United States so as to be counted, they are citizens of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).

    “If they [indians] are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).

    “Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “Undoubtably.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen’s question whether the Civil Rights Act will have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese aliens and Gypsies born in this country).

    “The President also has an objection to making citizens of Chinese and Gypsies. I am told that few Chinese are born in this country, and where the Gypsies are born I never know…… And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1757 (1866)

    “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?” Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

    “I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”‘ Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

    “birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

    “It is competent for Congress to declare, under the Constitution of the United States, who are citizens. If there were any question about it, it would be settled by the passage of a law declaring all persons born in the United States to be citizens thereof. That this bill proposes to do.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 475 (1866).

    “My own opinion is that all these people born in the United States and under it authority, owing allegiance to the United States, are citizens without any act of Congress.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 527 (1866)

  289. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    April 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    So, one of Orly’s latest ideas, is to get everyone in every town to harass their sheriff into doing her bidding. Unless your Joe Arpaio, you probably have better things to do, like run your police department…or if you’re TJ Hooker, clinging to parked car hoods!

  290. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:02 pm  (Quote)

    Well, I would note that any questions about the intentions of the parents become moot, in that a newborn infant cannot be said to have entered the country illegally, and a newborn cannot be said to have travelled here as a tourist. We cannot speak of an infant’s intention to reside or domicile here.

    We can, however, protect that child’s rights and preserve those rights even while honoring the parents’ rights to take their child with them should they leave.

    We could have referenced parents in the amendment, but we didn’t.

    In the interests of equality and preserving rights, I find the fourteenth amendment elegant and clear.

    More to say in this regard, but I need to rush off.

    ballantine: Yeah, they always want to talk about the jurisdiciton of the parent.However, it should make no difference as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in McFadden v. The Schooner Exchange, alien parents are fully subject to our jurisdiction as well unless they have the privilege of extraterritoriality.

  291. J.D. Sue says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: We could have referenced parents in the amendment, but we didn’t.

    —

    Or in the Declaration of Independence, i.e., “… that they are endowed by their Parents with certain unalienable Rights…”

  292. ballantine says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:24 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    Well, I would note that any questions about the intentions of the parents become moot, in that a newborn infant cannot be said to have entered the country illegally, and a newborn cannot be said to have travelled here as a tourist.We cannot speak of an infant’s intention to reside or domicile here.

    We can, however, protect that child’s rights and preserve those rights even while honoring the parents’ rights to take their child with them should they leave.

    We could have referenced parents in the amendment, but we didn’t.

    In the interests of equality and preserving rights, I find the fourteenth amendment elegant and clear.

    More to say in this regard, but I need to rush off.

    True. But the intention to reside, domicile or the status of the parents is irrelvant to the issue of whether one is subject to the jurisdiction of a nation. The most fundamental maxim of Public International Law (or the Law of Nations) is that every nation has absolute jurisdiction over all persons within its borders and any limitation imposed by itself through its consent or notions of mutual comity. Justice Gray summarizing the leading case on the issue cited by most leading treatises on public law in America and England:

    “In short, the judgment in the case of The Exchange declared, as incontrovertible principles, that the jurisdiction of every nation within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, and is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by the nation itself; that all exceptions to its full and absolute territorial jurisdiction must be traced up to its own consent, express or implied; that, upon its consent to cede, or to waive the exercise of, a part of its territorial jurisdiction rest the exemptions from that jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns or their armies entering its territory with its permission, and of their foreign ministers and public ships of war, and that the implied license under which private individuals of another nation enter the territory and mingle indiscriminately with its inhabitants for purposes of business or pleasure can never be construed to grant to them an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found. See also Carlisle v. United States (1872), 16 Wall. 147, 155; Radich v. Hutchins (1877), 95 U.S. 210; Wildenhus’ Case (1887), 120 U.S. 1; Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604.”

    There is no exemption other than by implied consent to persons covered by the privilege of extra-territoriality. One can find the same discussion on any book on public law. For example:

    “From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that “the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.’ This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.” George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law, pg. 39 (1900)

    “To be resident within the territory of a Nation is to be subject to its Jurisdiction; but Nations, from considerations of mutual Comity, do not apply the same Laws in all matters to persons who are only temporarily resident, as to persons who are permanently resident within its territory. The discretion, however, of a Nation as to the particular Law which shall be administered in its Courts is absolute, and it may decline to allow its Courts to give any effect to Foreign Law: the other hand, if it allows its Courts to administer Foreign Law in disputes between foreigners, or otherwise, it adopts tacitly the Foreign Law as its own for the settlement of such disputes.” Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations, pg. 260 (1861)

    To think the drafters of the Amendment were not aware of this fundamental principle of law is a little silly.

  293. justlw says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm  (Quote)

    I see the twits on the twitfeeds have wrapped their little birdclaws around a Zombie Birfer Story: “NPR’s Betsy Liley Admits Birther Coverup.”

    This story, exhumed from the pre-LFBC days of early 2011, reveals a recording where (now-ex) NPR exec Betsy Liley was caught on tape saying that some conservative commentators are questioning Obama’s birthplace, or as she said about his being born in Hawaii:

    “…and that is a fact. I think the challenge in our society is we are questioning facts, it’s not opinions that we are debating.”

    She compared it to Flat Earthers debating the fact of a spherical Earth.

    This first resurfaced on some argle bargle site this weekend under the banner “Flashback,” indicating that site could at least get right that this is a zombie story, even if they somehow twist this into her “indicating that there was monkey business going on in Hawaii.” She indicates no such thing.

    ORYR has run with it, of course promptly removing the one correct point the originating site made (which is that this is not just a non-story, it’s a two year old non-story) and touting it as through it’s breaking news.

  294. Rickey says:
    April 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    Well, I would note that any questions about the intentions of the parents become moot, in that a newborn infant cannot be said to have entered the country illegally, and a newborn cannot be said to have travelled here as a tourist.We cannot speak of an infant’s intention to reside or domicile here.

    I would add that it is not jurisdiction over the parents which controls, but jurisdiction over the child.

    I could foresee a situation in which a child is born in the U.S. to a foreign father who is not in the United States at the time of the birth. The foreign father is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while he is not present in the United States, but the child born here is subject to the jurisdiction at the moment of birth. The primary exception is the child of foreign diplomats, because the child immediately inherits the diplomatic immunity which the parents enjoy.

    The idea that Barack Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction when he was born is ludicrous on its face. Let us imagine that Stanley Ann Dunham died in childbirth and Barack Obama the father was no longer in the U.S. when the birth occurred. In that case, the State of Hawaii would have taken custody of the child, at least temporarily, because the baby was subject to its jurisdiction. If that had occurred, Hawaii likely would have granted custody of the baby to the Dunhams, and the State would have been able to do so because it had jurisdiction over the child.

  295. Benji Franklin says:
    April 29, 2013 at 5:52 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: SInce the 14th Amendment was deemed to be declaratory OF pre-existing law under the original Constitution, it was necessary to look at what it was declaratory of, hence the defining of “natural born citizen” in Article II the original Constitution as the basis of birthright citizenship prior to 1866. Defining “natural born citizen” in Article II of the original Constitution obviously tells us who is eligible to be President. Duh!

    Thank you , Ballantine, for your patience and skill in providing expert opinions about the legal and historical significance of so many details pertaining to this discussion. I think the fact that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of what citizenship already consisted of BEFORE it was passed, instead of being an enactment that created 14th Amendment Citizens, is tragically under recognized in these discussions, and disingenuously denied by characters like Mario.

    One need look no further than the jarring difference between the language used in the 14th Amendment, and almost every other Constitutional provision; it does not use the standard enacting imperative term, “shall be” to declare who will be citizens prospectively. Instead, it avoids any challenge of being ex post facto, and guarantees its application to people born before it was enacted, by using a term which is retrospective, current, and prospective in regard to those persons to whom it applied, applies, and will apply. That term is the word, “are”, used by the way only three times in the whole Constitution including amendments.

    Those who never noticed it before, look again here:”Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    The word covers all persons Section 1 conditionally describes, including those whose circumstantial status “was”, “is”, or “will be” in accordance with Section 1’s descriptive terms.

    So the 14th Amendment does not use the imperative enacting term, “shall be” to create a new kind of citizen going forward; it uses the term “are” to reaffirm the kind of citizenship which already existed, and in so doing, in particular, assert the the prospective unconstitutionality of denying citizenship status to African-Americans by any legal means other than a later Constitutional amendment.

  296. ballantine says:
    April 29, 2013 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    Benji Franklin:

    That is a good point. I have seen many, many authorities say the Amendment was declaratory in form, even critics of Wong Kim Ark, and never knew what that was supposed to mean. But I think you hit on it. I will add that to my paper on this that I probably will never finish.

    From the legislative history, there were basically 3 groups from the 39th Congress. The majority group containing all the major players (Howard, Trumbull, Wilson) was that the freed blacks were already natural born citizens following James Kent’s view that native born slaves were natural born citizens under the disability of slavery who became natural born citizens when freed. A second group thought native born blacks should be citizens but thought the amendment necessary to over-rule Dred Scott. Only a handful of congressmenn thought they were changing the law in that they were taking away from the states the power to define native citizenship, though I think most of these people still thought jus soli the universal rule.

    Another thing is that some of these congressment said they were clarifying who could be president, a proposition no one challenged. Birthers can’t understand this. Of course, they don’t recognize that nearly every important person in the debates said the president must be a native-born citizen and such Amendment, of course, was defining who would be a native born citizen.

  297. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)

    I agree. But the non-crackpots discussing the issue, partisan as some certainly are, have analyzed these various points, different people noting different gradations. Some use those gradations to counter the mutual consent approach advocated by Schuck for instance, or considering ways we might make a new amendment. Domicile would be the broadest version of limited jurisdiction, covering many, including undocumented aliens living here but not tourists just passing through. I mention only as an example.

    Schuck says he would not advocate a new amendment if that was necessary. He speculates it might be possible to narrow the jurisdictional question by statute, creating perhaps something along the lines of the French. I agree with you and so think an amendment would be necessary.

    But for me this is beside the point, not only for the reasons you mention. I started to discuss another structural aspect to all this that is important for other reasons. Getting off the train now, so when I get a chance, I’ll come back to that.

    ballantine: True.But the intention to reside, domicile or the status of the parents is irrelvant to the issue of whether one is subject to the jurisdiction of a nation.

  298. Paper says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:29 pm  (Quote)

    That’s what I said previously, yes. So I agree most vigorously. More in a bit

    But your example, though severe, is a good one. I was in too much of a hurry to think of a good one, but yours makes the point incisively.

    Rickey: I would add that it is not jurisdiction over the parents which controls, but jurisdiction over the child.

    …

    The idea that Barack Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction when he was born is ludicrous on its face. Let us imagine that Stanley Ann Dunham died in childbirth and Barack Obama the father was no longer in the U.S. when the birth occurred. In that case, the State of Hawaii would have taken custody of the child, at least temporarily, because the baby was subject to its jurisdiction. If that had occurred, Hawaii likely would have granted custody of the baby to the Dunhams, and the State would have been able to do so because it had jurisdiction over the child.

  299. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:58 pm  (Quote)

    Wong Kim Ark 4.

    “Justice Gray, writing for the Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly *geographic sense* in which the term “jurisdiction” was used. He further noted that it was impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section;…”
    That statement contains an amazingly stupid claim. Or maybe it was Gray who made the stupid claim about jurisdiction being predominately related to geography in the citizenship clause. There is no basis whatsoever to characterized its use as being anything so describable.

    How possibly can using the word in two completely different senses one time each make one use predominate over the other? That’s moronic.
    Then he compounded his stupidity by claiming that the actual specific meaning of being in subjection to a specific government entity (the executive branch of the U.S. central government,) can’t be viewed as being less broad than the sense of territorial jurisdiction connected to the full massive expanse of state lands! He says it can’t be “less comprehensive”. So the political jurisdiction that was meant to relate to a very narrow group of people (slaves and sons of immigrants) over whom it had never previously applied, is in fact as broad as the breadth of state territories of immense size (like Texas)? That’s delusional. What an ignoramous. One is characteristically narrow while the other is as broad as the borders of the states.

    He continues…[it was impossible] to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Unbelievable! Indians in states, and Gypsies, were not subject to the federal government since they maintained their own leadership and never joined American society.

    He foolishly and deliberately conflated two very separate issues. One being state territorial boundaries within which the state exercised its authority, and the other being the non-territorial authority of the central government bestowed by the Constitution and put into law by Congress.

    He attempted to blur the distinction between them. But the use of one word to describe two things does not lead to them being the same thing nor even similar.

    He continued: “[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States”
    I was about to lambast his lack of understanding of what jurisdiction entails until I noticed the use of the word “domiciled”. That word changes everything!
    Your guests who come to your home and stay a few days or a couple of weeks even, are not domiciled in your home. They have not set of households inside of your house!

    They are transient visitors, (non-immigrant aliens) and are not required nor expected to be responsible for the upkeep or defense of your home. That is a responsibility that falls only on the shoulder of those domiciled in your home. In the example of a nation, that would have been the adult, able-bodied men who were fit to defend the nation, (and in past times, sustain and maintain its government structure and operation).
    continuing: “As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, [*historical* meaning political policy tradition, -not legal tradition] -bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance,”

    What I’m try to make clear is that principles of sovereignty and allegiance were involate and absolutely binding on any grown-up, educated, knowledgeable government that was aware of its foundational structure being based on natural rights and natural national rights.
    Governments expect other governments to respect the sovereignty they hold over their own citizens, including while visiting other nations. Their citizens do not fall under the jurisdiction of foreign governments simply by being present within their borders.
    Foreign governments have no right to conscript the citizens of another nation who happened to be visiting or vacation within their borders.
    Their citizens remain under the political jurisdiction of their homeland, -not the United States government. Just because all people are required to obey civil laws and not break criminal laws does not translate to them also being “under” or “subject to” a nation’s political orders and powers.

    Concluding, he finally gets it right: “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment “jurisdiction” can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).
    The key to the truth of that statement is found in the use of the word “resident”. If you are a resident, then you are a member of the society, and all members bear a responsibility to protect their own society, -and that translates to the government therefore having the rightful authority to compel the selfish to fulfill their natural obligation.
    Geographic territoriality relates to rightful government authority over those within it, but rightful authority absolutely has its limits when it comes to non-resident foreigners, -and they do not begin and end with foreign ambassadors.

  300. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 10:23 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: “If this nonsense were true why have there been bills proposed in Congress to exclude the so-called “anchor babies” from citizenship?” Because the power of the institutionalized error pervades all of the legal system. No one has the authority to overturn it except the executive branch which applies it. Congress may try to eliminate the inherent ambiguity of the 14th Amendment by choose one side over the other, -the other being that which was institutionalized by Attorney General Griggs in 1898.

    “They are citizens based on the 14th amendment, and your fantasies about what it means are not shared by the courts.”

    My fantasy is based on an actual immutable principle of natural law, while the current policy embraced by all is based on a misunderstanding due to the policy enforced by English dictators who spread the umbrella of royal authority over everyone, subject and alien alike, with no regard for the sovereignty of foreign nations.

    Keith wrote: “The issue that was before the court was whether or not the District Court ruling was in error or was not in error.
    The District Court is a Trial Court, where evidence is weighed, and facts determined. The ruling of the District Court included, among other things, the finding of fact that WKA was a natural born citizen. ”
    That is false and no doubt worse than false. I’ll put it in the “lie” category. It it were true you would have cited the proof. The facts of the case were not related to the opinion as to citizenship. Both sides agreed as to what the facts were. The facts were never tried because they were not in dispute. The matter of citizenship was not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion. In their opinion, he was a “citizen of the United States”. Nothing more.

    “The Supreme Court found that the District Court was absolutely correct in every particular, including the finding that WKA was NBC.” I have to conclude that that is a flat out lie also. And what’s worse, it’s deliberate since you know what the court said. Here is their opinion. You’ll see in it exactly what I’ve been pointing out. The A.G. that misinterpreted it ignored the fact of residency being required :

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a PERMANENT DOMICIL and RESIDENCE in the United States, and are there carrying on business…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of *opinion* that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    Order affirmed.”

    The case of American citizenship was decided based solely on the permanent domicil and residence of the parents. The nationality of the parents was irrelevant. But birth within the United States was mandatory per the 14th Amendment. It seems to me that Gray mischaracterized the question before the court by calling it a “single question” when in fact it could hardly have been more compounded, being rife with ands and buts. The true “single question” was one that would ignore all the details except those that were relevant; place of birth, and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction due to residency. Those two were the requirements of the 14th Amendment and his situation met them.

    The unexpected up-shot is that U.S. born children of illegal immigrants would met them as well because the parents are members of American society. But the government could dispute that if they were living here covertly. Then they would be invisible and therefore not subject.

  301. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 29, 2013 at 10:36 pm  (Quote)

    The problem with natural law is that “natural law” is merely individual prejudice wrapped up in a bow. That is why we are governed by a Constitution rather than what each individual things is right in their own eyes.

    But if there were every a universally accepted principle of natural law, it is the sovereignty of a nation within its borders.

    A.R. Nash: My fantasy is based on an actual immutable principle of natural law, while the current policy embraced by all is based on a misunderstanding due to the policy enforced by English dictators who spread the umbrella of royal authority over everyone, subject and alien alike, with no regard for the sovereignty of foreign nations.

  302. nbc says:
    April 29, 2013 at 10:42 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: That statement contains an amazingly stupid claim. Or maybe it was Gray who made the stupid claim about jurisdiction being predominately related to geography in the citizenship clause. There is no basis whatsoever to characterized its use as being anything so describable.

    ROTFL, calling the decision ‘stupid’ is hardly a convincing argument, especially given that the Case has been cited countless times, approvingly.

    You really should read the complete ruling my friend

    He continued: “[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States”
    I was about to lambast his lack of understanding of what jurisdiction entails until I noticed the use of the word “domiciled”. That word changes everything!
    Your guests who come to your home and stay a few days or a couple of weeks even, are not domiciled in your home. They have not set of households inside of your house!

    Irrelevant, by virtue of being on our soil (our house) they have to abide by our rules and fall completely under our jurisdiction (our courts). Sorry my friend but it is clear that domicile is not a requirement but a sufficient condition.

  303. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 11:14 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine wrote: “SInce the 14th Amendment was *deemed* to be declaratory or pre-existing law under the original Constitution, [Wait! deemed by who and for what purpose? Was it deemed to be so by the Wong case court. Why would it matter to them? It would be irrelevant! Natural citizenship was not an issue in Wong, it was legal citizenship]…it was necessary to look at what it was declaratory of, hence the defining of “natural born citizen” in Article II the original Constitution as the basis of birthright citizenship prior to 1866.”

    That is sophistical logic. It was no more necessary to construe nbc in Wong that it was in Happersett, but the court decided to do it anyway just for the heck of it. Minor was not about the meaning of nbc or citizenship in general. It was solely about whether or not women in America, in the states, possessed the right to vote from the founding of the nation via rights granted in the Constitution.

    Nothing about citizenship needed to be construed. Only the status of women was central to its issue. Being a citizen of any sort whatsoever changed nothing. The court overstepped its rightful bounds by ruminating on the subject of her citizenship.
    Same in Wong. All that needed construing was the meaning of being born subject to the jurisdiction of Washington, since he indisputably was born in the U.S. It’s understandable by a 5th grader.
    And speaking of the Wong citizenship history exploration; it’s chock full of nuggets I didn’t notice the first time I read it a year or two ago. I’ve come across nugget after nugget that *proves* what I’ve been relating. I’ll be giving examples eventually. I can hardly believe that people have totally missed what is right in front of their eyes. It must be bias blindness. Well, prepare for your blinders to be blasted off.
    http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

  304. nbc says:
    April 29, 2013 at 11:16 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: The A.G. that misinterpreted it ignored the fact of residency being required :

    It’s not a requirement but rather part of the case’s history. Domicile has no relevance to the actual ruling.

    But that expects you to have read the full ruling and realize that domicile is not required. Rather what is required is birth and under jurisdiction… The court goes through great length to explain what this means.

    TIme to read it? Just a suggestion

  305. A.R. Nash says:
    April 29, 2013 at 11:51 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Total and complete nonsense as to foreign visitors.

    That does it! Eat this from Wong! 😉
    73

    Undoubtedly, all persons born in a country are presumptively citizens thereof, but the presumption is not irrebuttable.
    174

    In his Lectures on Constitutional Law (page 279), Mr. Justice Miller remarked: ‘If a stranger or TRAVELER passing through or TEMPORARILY RESIDING in this country, who has not himself been naturalized, and who claims to owe no allegiance to our government, has a child born here, which goes out of the country with its father, such child is NOT A CITIZEN of the United States, because it was NOT SUBJECT to its jurisdiction.’ !!!!
    175

    And to the same effect are the rulings of Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen in the matter of Hausding, and Mr. Secretary Bayard in the matter of Greisser.
    176

    Hausding was born in the United States, went to Europe, and, desiring to return, applied to the minister of the United States for a passport, which was refused, on the ground that the applicant was born of Saxon subjects TEMPORARILY in the United States.
    Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr. Kasson, our minister: ‘You ask, ‘Can one *born a foreign subject*, but WITHIN the United States, make the option after his majority, and while still living abroad, to adopt the citizenship of his birthplace?’

    It seems not, and that he must change his allegiance by emigration and legal process of naturalization.’ Sections 1992 and 1993 of the Revised Statutes clearly show the extent of existing legislation; that the fact of birth, under circumstances implying ALIEN SUBJECTION, establishes of itself NO RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP and that the citizenship of a person so born is to be acquired in some legitimate manner through the operation of statute.
    No statute contemplates the acquisition of the declared character of an American citizen by a person not at the time within the jurisdiction of the tribunal of record which confers that character.’

    Greisser was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.’ 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399.
    [ His parents WERE NOT IMMIGRANTS.

    “‘Can one *born a foreign subject*, but WITHIN the United States…” You though that was impossible, but it is perfectly normal due to parents not being subject to the U.S. government. It doesn’t matter what their job is. All must fulfill the second requirement of the 14th Amendment.]

    The words ‘not subject to any foreign power’ do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, NEVERTHELESS, they may be subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
    In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, are citizens.
    180

    The allegiance of children so born is NOT THE LOCAL allegiance arising from their parents merely being DOMICILED in the country; and it is single, and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of DOUBLE NATIONALITY, has NO PLACE in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.
    181

    But it is argued that the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power’ should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute ONLY the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.
    182

    Was there any necessity of excepting them? [NO!] And, if there were others described by the words, [Children of immigrants] why should the language be construed to exclude them?
    [their fathers can be deemed to be subject by reason of permanent residency. but those who the language does not describe (alien visitors) why should the language be construed to INclude them?

    See, I’m not the one making things up. I’m just relating the facts, not the misconceptions of institutionalized error.

    Point Proved.

  306. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 12:19 am  (Quote)

    nbc: It’s not a requirement but rather part of the case’s history. Domicile has no relevance to the actual ruling.

    …realize that domicile is not required. Rather what is required is birth and under jurisdiction… The court goes through great length to explain what this means.

    I can hardly believe I have to explain something as elementary as this. Ok, listen class. No foreigner is subject to nor born subject to the political jurisdiction of the executive branch unless they either live in the United States or were born in the United States. If they live outside of the U.S., or were born outside, then they are subject to a foreign power and not American authority.
    What does “live in the United States” mean? Does it mean a two hour stop-over in Hawaii while delivering a baby? So it mean a day trip across the border into the U.S. during which time one gives birth? Does that constitute subjection to Washington’s authority?

    If you answer “No!” you are correct. 5 gold stars.
    What is the borderline between subjection and no subjection? Simple. A Green Card which conveys permanent residency.
    Without it, jurisdiction is not recognized by law, but could be by policy. It’s all up to the President or A.G.
    Anyone with a Green Card who is between 18 and 25 can be drafted and sent to war. They are part of the latent spine of the nation when it comes to resisting tyrannical invasion.

    Why would a dirt-poor ex-slave illiterate unskilled laborer who is male, have the right of citizenship while a wealthy, educated, well-traveled, financially powerful wife of a President have fewer civic rights and obligations than the ex-slave?

    A man’s answer might be that it’s because she does not bear the responsibility of being assigned the role of being a human target for enemy guns. She is not subject to the full jurisdiction of her government. She is in a special protected class. And the men are those who do the protecting. They are fully subject, whether citizen or immigrant.

    But visitors are not. They are excluded because they are subject to a foreign power.

  307. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 12:38 am  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: I know. Cheney got five deferments until he was no longer eligible for the draft. Plus, Cheney has two DWI felony convictions.

    I wonder how he got away with all of it.

    No one’s going to bother to mention the scofflaw evasion of George W. Bush during National Guard days? Well, he was just young and irresponsible, like all of the children of the elite with their extended adolescence. Except for the two royal sons who serve like men. It’s good that they are a good example.

  308. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 1:01 am  (Quote)

    quoting nash: ” Your guests who come to your home and stay a few days or a couple of weeks even, are not domiciled in your home. They have not set up households inside of your house!

    nbc
    Irrelevant, by virtue of being on our soil (our house) they have to abide by our rules and fall completely under our jurisdiction (our courts).

    You make two gigantic errors. One is that jurisdiction is not about our courts. It is about the executive authority of the President in carrying out either or both of his roles to enforce the mandates of Congress or his duties as Commander-in-Chief.
    His authority to execute the will of the nation, and manage the military is the authority that the Congress was not even cognizant of when authoring and passing the 14th Amendment. (even though the nation had just gone through the great Civil War)
    They, in their elite and insulated bubble existence had no idea of what real life was for those 100 stories below the Penthouse suite. It was all theoretical to them, the moneyed American aristocrats. Military service? What was that? Combat in foreign wars? Unthinkable. They were an ignorant bunch due to lack of experience.

    But George Washington knew. Thomas Jefferson knew. Their necks were on the chopping block for a long, long time.

    Second: “by virtue of being on our soil…they have to abide by our rules” No they do not. They have to abide by our laws that pertain to them. Our political laws to NOT pertain to them. We cannot and do not order visitors, guests, to register with the Selective Service, nor to not do business with countries against which we have sanctions even while living outside of the U.S. We do not and have not ever conscripted foreign tourists into our military forces.
    We do NOT order our guests to go out back and butcher a hog, gut it, hang it, and prep some of the meat for our meal. But those of our own household may be subject to that duty.

  309. Keith says:
    April 30, 2013 at 1:55 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Keith wrote: “The issue that was before the court was whether or not the District Court ruling was in error or was not in error.
    The District Court is a Trial Court, where evidence is weighed, and facts determined. The ruling of the District Court included, among other things, the finding of fact that WKA was a natural born citizen. ”
    That is false and no doubt worse than false. I’ll put it in the “lie” category. It it were true you would have cited the proof. The facts of the case were not related to the opinion as to citizenship. Both sides agreed as to what the facts were. The facts were never tried because they were not in dispute. The matter of citizenship was not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion. In their opinion, he was a “citizen of the United States”. Nothing more.

    Since this case has been chewed to death so many times I didn’t think you would be so ignorant of the facts of the case.

    I am not a lawyer, and do not have access to the transcript of the District Court case, perhaps someone with better resources than me can flesh this out more (I believe, but cannot demonstrate that the Judge Morrow actually used the words ‘Natural Born Citizen’).

    I can only reprise the summary of the finding as reported in Wikipedia:

    Wong visited China in 1890, and upon his return to the United States in July 1890, he was readmitted without incident because of his U.S. citizenship. In November 1894, Wong sailed to China for another temporary visit, but when he returned in August 1895, he was detained at the Port of San Francisco by the Collector of Customs, who denied him permission to enter the country, arguing that Wong was not a U.S. citizen despite his having been born in the U.S., but was instead a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese.
    …
    With the assistance of legal representation by the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association,[74] Wong Kim Ark challenged the refusal to recognize his birth claim to U.S. citizenship, and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on his behalf in federal district court.[75][76] The arguments presented before District Judge William W. Morrow[77] centered around which of two competing interpretations of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Citizenship Clause should govern a situation involving a child born in the United States to alien parents.[78] Wong’s attorneys argued that the phrase meant “‘subject to the laws of the United States,’ comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws”—an interpretation, based on the common law inherited by the United States from England, that would encompass essentially everyone born in the U.S. via the principle of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth). The U.S. government claimed that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States”—an interpretation, based on international law, which would exclude parents and their children who owed allegiance to another country via the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from a parent).
    …
    Wong’s attorneys cited the Look Tin Sing case, and the district judge agreed that in the absence of clear direction from the Supreme Court, this case definitively settled the question of citizenship for Wong and others like him as far as federal courts in the Ninth Circuit were concerned.[85][86] The judge saw the Look Tin Sing holding reaffirmed in the Gee Fook Sing case and noted further that another part of the Supreme Court’s Slaughterhouse Cases opinion said that “it is only necessary that [a man] should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.”[87] Concluding that the Look Tin Sing decision constituted a controlling precedent in the Ninth Circuit, Judge Morrow ruled that subject to the jurisdiction thereof referred to being subject to U.S. law (the first of the two proposed interpretations). On January 3, 1896,[88][89] the judge declared Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen because he was born in the U.S.

    So these are the District Court findings of fact, determined after hearing all the arguments on both sides:

    Fact (1) Wong was born in the U.S. to parents who were not, and could not become citizens according to U.S. Law. (fact stipulated by all parties; not argued)
    Fact (2) Wong was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning subject to U.S. Law. (and this was the crux of the case).
    Fact (3) From (1) and (2) it follows that Wong was born a citizen.

    Ruling: Application for Habeus Corpus granted.

    “The Supreme Court found that the District Court was absolutely correct in every particular, including the finding that WKA was NBC.” I have to conclude that that is a flat out lie also. And what’s worse, it’s deliberate since you know what the court said. Here is their opinion. You’ll see in it exactly what I’ve been pointing out. The A.G. that misinterpreted it ignored the fact of residency being required :

    The appeal to the Supreme Court centered on whether or not the District Court erred in Fact (2) and therefore Fact (3). The challenge was to the definition of ‘jurisdiction’.
    The Supreme Court ruling was that the District Court had got it exactly right, and went into great detail explaining exactly why the District Court had got it exactly right, and how that was the exact understanding in American law exactly because it was the understanding in the mother source of American law, namely the English Law, for over 400 years. Nothing in the District Court decision was contradicted, the granting of Habeus Corpus was confirmed as correct, and the precedent was established for the entire country, not just the 9th Circuit. It has been settled law for over 100 years.

    OK, the facts show that SCOTUS did not find that Wong Kim Ark was a born citizen, the District Court did. SCOTUS ‘merely’ agreed that the District Court got it right (‘granted cert’ – ‘certified it’ – isn’t that an interesting word? Its almost like it might have some meaning elsewhere in this blog). But It is the SCOTUS decision that set the precedent for the entire country, that is why the Supreme Court decision is the more important one.

    You are perhaps hung up on the difference between the goal of a particular case and its import. The goal of the District Court case, and the point of the arguementation, was to decide whether or not to grant the Habeus Corpus, and release Wong. The crux of the issue was whether or not he was born subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Law. Nothing more, nothing less.The ruling of the court is that “subject to the jurisdiction” is not dependent in any way on the citizenship of the person being examined. Non-citizens, like Wong’s parents, were, while physically in the United States, just as subject to American law as you or your next door neighbor (assuming neither of you are foreign diplomats or members of an invading army).

    The goal of the Supreme Court case was to determine whether or not the District Court got it right,because it had importance to the entire country, not just Wong and not just California. As it happens, SCOTUS agreed with the District Court, completely, and set the precedent for the entire country.

    Only after that is understood can you analyze the import that that case has when applied to similar circumstances and how far it can be generalized. When reading the case, you have to keep in mind the specific purpose the case is deciding. The case was not trying to decide if WKA could run for President, that was only a ‘side effect’, a consequence of the logic. A consequence that the Government appellant foresaw, because whether or not the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ was used, the phrase ‘born citizen’ most certainly was, and EVERYONE understood that those two phrases were EXACTLY equivalent.

    And we know that to be the case because, if you are a citizen, and you are not naturalized, you must have been born a citizen. Unless the founders meant to exclude persons born by Cesarean Section (surely they could not have foreseen test-tube babies) there is only one possibility.

    In the WKA case the import is that anyone, not just Wong Kim Ark, but anyone, born in the United States under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, is a born citizen regardless of the citizenship status of his/her parents. WKA had zero citizen parents and was a born citizen, therefore someone else in his circumstance, say, the American born child of an undocumented immigrant is also a born citizen.

    Furthermore someone born in America with only one Citizen parent is also a born citizen, because if you agree that someone born with 2 citizen parents is a born citizen, and SCOTUS says that someone with zero citizen parents is a born citizen, then those ‘in the middle’ must also be born citizens.

    You can claim that they got it wrong 100 years ago and you are the one person chosen of God to see the truth and to deliver that message, but in fact, both the District Court and the Supreme Court heard all your arguments with any substance rejected them at the time. You have nothing substantive what-so-ever to add to those arguments, and therefor you have no reason for anyone to review, much less overturn, 115 years (or so) of settled law.

    Everyone of the points I make here have been made by others, mostly better. Your continued failure to grasp these ideas is not mere ignorance of them, it is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance to see the plain meanings of a text laid out in front of you, in preference to arguing about the importance of a misplaced comma, or the word choice of a person dead for 200 years. It is weak minded and intellectually dishonest

    If a director of a 1950’s movie explains to you that the scenes of oceans waves pounding the beach and skyrocket fireworks exploding in the night sky after a passionate kiss between two lovers are meant to be symbolic of the extasy of sexual intercourse, who are you to call him a liar and say that what he really meant was that illicite hanky panky was going to get you punished by flood and fire, else why wouldn’t he just show the intercourse because, you know, ‘Last Tango in Paris’ and ‘Short Bus’ did.

    Finally, please learn how to use the quote feature. It would make your posts a lot easier to read and easier to find which bits are aimed at whom. And yes, it is easy to multiquote.

  310. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:11 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, disagrees with this silly notion.

    The court did not write the Constitution, nor live in the era when it was written. Nor did it disagree with the notion that women did not have the constitutional rights of men, aside from citizenship and other civil rights, (not duties or privileges).
    If your claim were true, the court would have ruled that Minor had a constitutional right to vote. Why didn’t it do that? See my quote again. It speaks the actual truth.
    In 1787, non-whites, illiterates, illegitimate persons of low repute were not part of the meaning of “person” -as in “No person except…” That is not a legal fact. It is a sociological fact. And it determined the policy of society.
    The eligibility clause was all about EXclusion.

    nbc quoted Ricky: “In the past Nash has pushed the ludicrous argument that foreign tourists, foreign residents, foreigners here on student visas, etc. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    That indeed is hilarious but even children born to illegal aliens were found to be subject to the jurisdiction of the US

    response: You’ve failed to pay attention or grasp what you’ve read. I have always maintained that children of immigrants are U.S. citizens by the authority of the 14th Amendment. But…”illegal aliens” are another story. Why? Because the term is nondescript. The government doesn’t use it because it doesn’t differentiate between illegal immigrants and illegal migrants. Migrants are not domiciled in the U.S. anymore than are homeless people. But immigrants, even illegal immigrants are. They are not legal permanent residents but they are permanent residents. The status of their children rightfully belongs under the authority of Congress via its naturalization law authority.

    nbc:
    Wong: “In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws.” Sooo, the appellant was the United States government. Stupid government 🙁 The gods of the courts are supreme! All hails the black robes! The Attorney General and the President are nincompoops!
    Or…there was a matter of unlitigated ambiguity and both sides had a fair amount of tradition and principle on their side. The courts had to decide which position was more rightful. It decided in favor of the children, -inclusion as opposed to exclusion.

    But it didn’t decide anything about the children of non-immigrant foreigners and it didn’t have to since Wong was the child of resident immigrants and not foreign transients who owed the U.S. government no allegiance nor obedience to its political dictates.

  311. nbc says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:23 am  (Quote)

    Keith: I am not a lawyer, and do not have access to the transcript of the District Court case, perhaps someone with better resources than me can flesh this out more (I believe, but cannot demonstrate that the Judge Morrow actually used the words ‘Natural Born Citizen’).

    No he did not. The Government presented the question as: Did the lower court err in finding Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. I discussed the case on my website. I found a scribd

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79813556/In-Re-Wong-Kim-Ark-71-Fed1-382-US-Dist-Court-Northern-Dist-California-No-11198-3-Jan-1896

    The Court describes the case

    “The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month (September, 1884), and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Citing Lynch v Clarke

    fter an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen;

    Concluding

    Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases. But these observations are, obviously, addressed to the policy of the rule, and not to its interpretation. The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, but this consideration will not justify this court in declaring it to be the law against controlling judicial authority. It may be that the executive departments of the government are at liberty to follow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship which arise between this and other countries, but that fact does not establish the law for the courts in dealing with persons within our own territory. In this case the question to be determined is as to the political status and rights of Wong Kim Ark under the law in this country. No foreign power has intervened or appears to be concerned in the matter. From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment.

  312. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:29 am  (Quote)

    Dr. C. wrote: “But if there were ever a universally accepted principle of natural law, it is the sovereignty of a nation within its borders.”

    My pointer is aimed at the overlooked fact that that sovereignty has natural limits. It is not limitless. The Law of Nations and mutual comity are civilization’s protection for people on foreign soil. Respect must be had by the government for their human and civil rights. They have no political rights except in their own nation, but that is quite unimportant to them. They are not members of a land where they are visiting, and feel no right to vote in their elections. They have no right to meddle and no obligation for the defense of a land that they are merely visiting. That being a universal truth, government claims no jurisdiction over their right to leave or stay as they see fit within the bounds granted them. They may be restricted from areas of national security concern, but otherwise are free to travel, and free to not be drafted into the foreign nation’s army and sent into war against their will. Presenting an image of unlimited sovereignty is an inaccurate image because no government claims such sovereignty.

  313. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:46 am  (Quote)

    So, as we’ve been discussing, the jurisdiction in question involves the children born here, not the parents. On the one hand, it doesn’t matter, as ballantine has noted. On the other, it is quite structurally elegant that an amendment that realigns the constitution to strengthen individual rights keeps the focus. The child will grow up, but until then, still a child. Wouldn’t it have been easy to throw the parents in there? They instead knowingly gave the child birthright citizenship even in some cases before the parents were naturalized. On reflection, that is kind of bold. It emphasizes the relationship between the government and the individual, between the constitution and the individual, even given priority over family, and yes priority over the states.

    Let us keep in mind that this amendment also realigns state power, not only incorporating the constitutional rights against the states, but in doing so putting the individual above the states.

    What certain people begrudge is federal power, but this amendment in large measure is about ensuring a republican government, as promised in the body of the constitution, to all the people. Yes, that means a republican government is indeed a government. But this amendment reaffirms, boldly and forcefully, that that government is there for the people equally, citizens and even non-citizens. It does so in word but also in its structure.

    It might be all the same if jurisdiction related to the parents, as they too would fall under the same jurisdiction. But of course people in the last couple decades have looked to wedge a crack in that jurisdiction given their concerns, some legitimate, about the parents’ actions. Should such behavior be rewarded, they ask, and thus crack open our legitimate concern for fair play. But hold on, the amendment taps its finger quietly, the fair play question is to be directed to the citizen in question. Perhaps the parents are not citizens. You can take that up with them. This one is. Let’s stay focused.

    The amendment could have had the same jurisdictional effect by referencing parentage, but it would not have had the same empowering structure. A similar equivalence, for example, was rejected by the Senate when Trumbull, for one, says sure, the phrase Indians not taxed, may have the same effect but I do not want to tie citizenship to property (taxed).

    We no longer are going to play games about how many fifths of a person counts; we no longer are going to treat people as less than persons. We are not a country of nobility, where such privilege is legally structured by family or otherwise. We are not a country where our betters *graciously* condescend to allow us rights. We are the people who “built that” constitution, first in the wake of a revolution, and then rebuilt it, reconstructed it in the wake of a civil war.

    And anyone born here, subject to our jurisdiction, is our fellow citizen from the second of their birth. We are not going to mince around. We’re talking to you. Yes, you. No, not your parents. You.

    Paper:

    In the interests of equality and preserving rights, I find the fourteenth amendment elegant and clear.

    More to say in this regard, but I need to rush off.

  314. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 3:11 am  (Quote)

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a meta-cognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

    The Dunning–Kruger mirror effect is a cognitive bias in which highly-skilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their infallibility much higher than average. This bias is attributed to the meta-cognitive inability of the overly self-confident to recognize their mistakes. It afflicts to the greatest degree those with the highest academic achievements. Particularly scientists, since they are the most certain of all people that their views and theories must be the “truth” because they are the views of the most highly intelligent, -that being themselves.

    nbc: thanks for the Wong District Court quotations. They are a gold mine if you have eyes that can spot gold.
    “Counsel for the United States have argued with considerable force against the common-law rule and its recognition, as being illogical, and likely to lead to perplexing, and perhaps serious, international conflicts, if followed in all cases.”
    That is completely the opposite of what is claimed by Gray, -that jus soli was the settled rule of the common law throughout the United States. Here it is accurately seen as just the opposite. That shows how much faith one should have in what Gray wrote.

    “The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child follows the nationality of the parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place of birth, is undoubtedly more logical, reasonable, and satisfactory, (and American! {pre-wong}) That “doctrine” is the principle of natural membership, the pattern of natural law. It produces natural citizens via natural inheritance. They are the members that create nations and governments.

    “the executive departments of the government are at liberty to follow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship …” Do I hear the echos of my words regarding executive policy? The executive branch is free to do just about anything that it wants that isn’t banned by the courts, Congress, or the Const…., scratch that; they just ignore it.

    This should open the eyes of any day-dreamers that policy and law are one and the same. I proclaim that Obama’s citizenship is purely a thing of executive policy due to an institutionalized error and not a thing of law nor nature. No one can dispute that fact because it is in fact a fact. But I’d like to hear it disputed. I might see a new perspective I’ve missed before. But that’s not likely.

    Obama is a John Griggs citizen. Without his mistake, he could never have run for the presidency because he derived his citizenship neither through the law, nature, nor naturalization; neither through his mother, nor his father, nor the 14th Amendment. That is the Obama conundrum, but essentially no one is aware of it. And that isn’t going to change. He will get away with his usurpation because to undo it would be unthinkable to those who would have to do the thinking.

  315. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 3:23 am  (Quote)

    Rickey: In the past Nash has pushed the ludicrous argument that foreign tourists, foreign residents, foreigners here on student visas, etc. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    JD SUE: “Yeah, I’d like to hear him tell that to the courts! Notably, from time to time, he likes to insert the term “political”, as in his use of the terms “political jurisdiction” and “inherited political nature.”

    Wong Kim Ark http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
    179
    The words ‘not subject to any foreign power’ do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the TERRITORIAL jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

  316. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:00 am  (Quote)

    Author: Dave B.
    Comment:
    All right, A.R.,..what about the U.S. citizen spouses of foreign diplomatic agents? Are they “subject to the political authority of the federal government”?

    The real question is: “Are women subject?” And the ancient answer, long forgotten, is “no”. History is a long continuum, and along it war was the predominate threat to human life. And in addition was the threat of the survivors of the losing side ending up in abject slavery. Men had to fight to defend their people and land. Women did not because they were the ones the men were fighting to defend most of all. What man could tolerate his wife, or mother, or daughters being raped and enslaved? None. So that was reality, and so men were the leaders, -at all levels. The subjugation of women sprang from their dependency.
    But today it’s even far worse for women in places like Saudi Arabia. They are devoid of rights, even to travel alone.
    Those who shouldered the heaviest burden held the greatest authority, and that included civic authority. The two genders were in two very separate classes, and they didn’t mix when it came to matters of state. That sphere belonged solely to men, as was the case with war. So to ask if women were subject to the jurisdiction, you first have to ask; “what did jurisdiction originally mean?” It meant what is seen in the naturalization oath of Allegiance & Renunciation;
    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH & ALLEGIANCE to the same; that I WILL BEAR ARMS on behalf of the United States when required by the law;”

    That oath was ancient, and never included women under its wording. And they could not naturalize on their own. Only by marrying an American man. There’d be no civic gain from naturalization since they still couldn’t vote. They couldn’t vote, nor serve in public office, nor fight. How were they subject? Subject to what? How can one escape coming to the conclusion that subjection to national authority has its root in a past context that didn’t include women? Concepts from the present fail to begin to grasp the realities of the past.

  317. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:03 am  (Quote)

    You will note first of all that the fourteenth amendment citizenship clause is directed at the child, not the parents. It says all persons born here subject to our jurisdiction. It does not say all persons born here whose parents are subject to our jurisdiction.

    A.R. Nash:
    The case of American citizenship was decided based solely on the permanent domicil and residence of the parents.The nationality of the parents was irrelevant.But birth within the United States was mandatory per the 14th Amendment.It seems to me that Gray mischaracterized the question before the court by calling it a “single question” when in fact it could hardly have been more compounded, being rife with ands and buts.The true “single question” was one that would ignore all the details except those that were relevant; place of birth, and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction due to residency.Those two were the requirements of the 14th Amendment and his situation met them.

  318. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:20 am  (Quote)

    Northland10:
    Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (“and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to RESIDE here, and are ” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the same sense as all other aliens RESIDING in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)”)

    You need to adjust your understanding of what “reside” and “residing” mean. If I drop by your house and stay a few days, I am not residing there because it is not my residence. My residence remains my permanent residence. Without permanent residence, no foreigner is residing in the United States. They are merely sojourning, or visiting. Residing = immigrant. Immigrants are members of American society, and thus are subject to the authority of the government because America is their home.

    “In short, those with diplomatic immunity (foreign ministers), and invading armies are not under US jurisdiction.” Why not? Because the foreigners say so? Or because of both the Law of Nations and reality? Those two reasons have nothing in common. That shows that no principle is involved in this theory of why they aren’t subject. That theory is devoid of a stated principle. But there is a principle, and it is the fact that government cannot rightfully exert sovereignty over those who have the right to not be under it, as well as the will.

    No one who is not a member of a society has any obligation toward that society and nation. Invaders are not members of the land they invade. Foreign diplomats are not members either. Neither are foreign visitors. THAT is the principle, but the postulating experts were all too dense to recognize it, blinded by the Divine Right of Kings dogma. They had to conform their thinking to that which was politically correct or they would face unemployment.

  319. nbc says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:37 am  (Quote)

    Paper: You will note first of all that the fourteenth amendment citizenship clause is directed at the child, not the parents. It says all persons born here subject to our jurisdiction. It does not say all persons born here whose parents are subject to our jurisdiction.

    Correct of course. There is no reason to believe that the status of the parents is in any form or manner relevant, beyond the fact that if their status is one of invading military or foreign dignitary, common law excludes them and their children from being under our jurisdiction.

    Simple really

  320. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 5:33 am  (Quote)

    Keith wrote: “The 14th Amendment applies only to children born or naturalized in the United States, not children born overseas, including the Panama Canal Zone. Therefore the only way he (McCain) could be recognized as a citizen is via a law passed by Congress.”

    Your grasp of the continuum of time is lacking. Let’s go back to the year 1865. By what law is McCain a U.S. citizen? Answer; by the same law as all other natural born citizens; None. Laws of citizenship only exist for those who are foreigners and their children. They don’t exist for Americans. But some contain declarations (aimed at the CIS and State Department) meant to protect the birthright of all children of Americans, which is membership in their parent’s nation.

    “McCain derives his citizenship from either of those two laws. And notice that both sections of 8 USC 1403 describe the parental requirement as “whose father or mother or both”. Two citizen parents doesn’t enter into it even though Congress could have made it a requirement.

    Is it therefore your opinion that a person born overseas in Panama with one American citizen parent is a Natural Born Citizen, but a person born in the geographical United States in Hawai’i with one American citizen parent is not?”

    Before I answer, do this thought exercise: If Obama had been born in Panama, and McCain in Hawaii, would that shift have made a difference in the citizenship of either of them?
    Answer: Obama would not have been a U.S. citizen at all because his mother was too young by a few months for her U.S. citizenship to have been deemed to be conveyed to him by law. Were she 19, then he would have been a U.S. derivative citizen through her by law that is less than about 75 years old. While McCain would have had no change is status, -still a natural born citizen.
    If McCain’s mother was Panamanian, then he would not have been an nbc. If his mother was not married to his father, he would have been an nbc because he would not have been born with any divided alternate nationality. He would have been 100% American through his mother…if a foreign father was unknown or had died before his birth.
    But if married to a foreigner, and his mother was over 18, I believe he would have been a provisional citizen, requiring that he live in the U.S. for a certain number of years during his teens.
    If born in Hawaii to a single American mother he would be an nbc because he would have no baggage of a second nationality. His nationality would be 100% American, provided his father was not a living foreigner nor a known foreigner.
    By his mother marrying a foreigner, he could not be born as a natural born citizen because of the baggage of a second nationality. Nationality is convey by natural law through the head of the household. In marriage, that’s the father (by nationality law).
    The problem for Obama is that the laws written to provide citizenship for children like himself only cover births outside U.S. borders. American mothers aren’t covered by domestic naturalization-at-birth law because it doesn’t exist.

    That is because of the assumption that the 14th Amendment covers all such births, and it does except for births to those foreign fathers who are not U.S. residents, meaning immigrants. No one here on a Visa is a resident. That requires a Green Card. His father was strictly a Visa Card visitor, so the 14th amendment wasn’t applicable since only those born to people subject to the full authority of Washington are citizens, and only immigrants and citizens birth children so subject, like them and through them.

    Foreign fathers can’t beget American children unless they are permanent residents, legal or illegal, because they are not subject to any government except their own.

  321. Scientist says:
    April 30, 2013 at 6:04 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: The problem with natural law is that “natural law” is merely individual prejudice wrapped up in a bow. That is why we are governed by a Constitution rather than what each individual things is right in their own eyes.

    But if there were every a universally accepted principle of natural law, it is the sovereignty of a nation within its borders.

    And the right of the people to freely elect their leaders. Americans have died attempting to establish that principle in other countries. Not a single American has ever fought in a war to forbid another nation from electing someone with <2 citizen parents.

  322. The Magic M says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:01 am  (Quote)

    Scientist: Not a single American has ever fought in a war to forbid another nation from electing someone with <2 citizen parents.

    Nor has a single American ever fought in a war to enforce or uphold a two citizen parent requirement.

    Dr. Conspiracy: The problem with natural law is that “natural law” is merely individual prejudice wrapped up in a bow.

    Precisely. The only times I see that pop up in debates over here (and only in debates with people close to crank status) is when some religious zealot wants to justify the superiority of his beliefs to the law without openly admitting he puts his faith above the law. Their argument is always “natural law is superior to any other law, and natural law says: …” followed by whatever they think should be the law.

    In a way, it’s the legal equivalent of Intelligent Design – the latter is religion masquerading as science, the former is religion masquerading as law.

  323. Majority Will says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:38 am  (Quote)

    And farther down the rabbit hole goes the bigoted lunatic.

  324. Keith says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:16 am  (Quote)

    nbc: No he did not. The Government presented the question as: Did the lower court err in finding Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen.

    Thanks for the correction.

  325. The Magic M says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:40 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: If his mother was not married to his father, he would have been an nbc because he would not have been born with any divided alternate nationality.

    That’s a new twist of the insanity, I don’t think I’ve read that claim before. Pray tell me, where do you get this from?

    It can’t be Vattel because he does not mention the relationship status of the parents.

    It can’t be “common sense” because marriage has no bearing on citizenship laws anywhere in the world – if at all, it’s always about the (legal) father, not “the mother’s husband”.

    So what orifice did you pull this new theory from?

    A.R. Nash: If born in Hawaii to a single American mother he would be an nbc because he would have no baggage of a second nationality.

    If British/Kenyan law said that the children of Kenyan fathers are Kenyan/British citizens regardless of the relationship status to the mother, he would still have been a Kenyan/British citizen by birth because it’s up to Britain/Kenya how they define their citizenship.

    The claim that being married to the mother has anything to do with it is outlandish and without any basis in the law.

    A.R. Nash: Nationality is convey by natural law through the head of the household.

    Repeat after me: nature does not know of any “nationality”, that’s a man-made construct.

    A.R. Nash: American mothers aren’t covered by domestic naturalization-at-birth law because it doesn’t exist.

    Even more: no “naturalization-at-birth” laws exist. You’re either naturalized by a process or you’re natural born.

    So tell me, do you know of any child of an American mother and a foreign father that was born in the US and had to naturalize to become a citizen? Just one?

    A.R. Nash: so the 14th amendment wasn’t applicable since only those born to people subject to the full authority of Washington are citizens

    “Subject to the jurisdiction” means the US have legal authority over the person while on US soil. There is no “full authority” requirement. Au contraire, you will notice that earlier language about “not owing allegiance to any other country” was removed from US law. If the lawmakers had meant “subject to the jurisdiction” to mean more than what it means on its face, they obviously would’ve written it in the law (because they have done so before).

    So after all the claims of “natural born” having some secret alternative meaning, here you go claiming “subject to the jurisdiction” also has a secret alternative meaning that lawmakers put in to punk the people.

    Next you’ll claim the true Constitution is written on the backside in invisible ink and the recipe for reading it is in a lost Vattel book buried by the Illuminati under the Washington Monument.
    (Sorry Misha, couldn’t resist, I had to spill the beans here. Hope Soros forgives me.)

  326. Scientist says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:45 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: Next you’ll claim the true Constitution is written on the backside in invisible ink and the recipe for reading it is in a lost Vattel book buried by the Illuminati under the Washington Monument.

    Didn’t Bob Gard take out a trademark on such claims?

  327. Sef says:
    April 30, 2013 at 9:03 am  (Quote)

    Deborah:
    Misha, I think I figured it out. Society is plagued by a God-concept that believes that God punishes innocent members of a group for the crimes of a few people in the group. I have never been able to understand this type of group mentality until someone recently posted on Facebook, “if we had a less level-headed President we would be at war with Chechnya right now.” Yes, that is the American God mentality- punish an entire country for the sins of two men.

    That would be like starting a war with Ireland because some Irish immigrant’s son, born here, committed a crime.

  328. Keith says:
    April 30, 2013 at 9:13 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:Your grasp of the continuum of time is lacking. Let’s go back to the year 1865.

    Let’s not. Neither McCain nor Obama were born then. What is relevant is the state of the law when they were born. Whose grasp of the time continuum is lacking?

    A.R. Nash: Before I answer, do this thought exercise: If Obama had been born in Panama, and McCain in Hawaii, would that shift have made a difference in the citizenship of either of them?
    Answer: Obama would not have been a U.S. citizen at all because his mother was too young by a few months for her U.S. citizenship to have been deemed to be conveyed to him by law.

    Incorrect. 8 USC 1403 has no such age requirement. The only requirement is American Citizenship of at least one parent, without regard to any other critera. Now 8 USC 1401 does list that requirement in one of its scenarios, but 8 USC 1403 does not.

    8 USC 1403 is for the specific case of Panamanian births, while 8 USC 1401 applies to any births anywhere outside the geographic bounds of he US. McCain can derive citizenship from either of those statutes. But they are statutes, and that is what makes the ‘Natural Born’ status of McCain academically hazy.

    If we follow your strawman case of the reversed scenario, Obama would still derive his citizenship from 8 USC 1403, but probably not from 8 USC 1401. That is no matter, because that citizenship would have exactly the same force as McCain’s. If McCain is eligible (and I and the Congress argue that he is), so would be the fanciful Panamanian born Obama.

    A.R. Nash: If McCain’s mother was Panamanian, then he would not have been an nbc.

    Yes he would. 8 USC 1403 says so, explicitly, in plain English. (assuming of course that you are still granting that his father is an American citizen).

    A.R. Nash: That is because of the assumption that the 14th Amendment covers all such births, and it does except for births to those foreign fathers who are not U.S. residents, meaning immigrants.
    …
    Foreign fathers can’t beget American children unless they are permanent residents, legal or illegal, because they are not subject to any government except their own.

    You took great delight in calling me a liar, in an earlier post, not once but twice. I guess you must have confused me with your mirror image, because this assertion is so stupid that even you must know its a lie.

    The first sentence in the 14th Amendment reads:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

    The first three words are “All persons born”. Not “All persons born (except those born to parents that don’t have a green card)”. The only restriction on the word ‘All’ is the ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ clause.

    It defies imagination that you can unilaterally change the words in a 150 year old constitutional amendment from ‘All persons’ to ‘Most persons, but not those that I decide don’t belong’. A 3rd grader can read that sentence and know you are lying about it, its just absurd. You couldn’t lie straight in bed could you?

    There is nothing in the entire Amendment that says anything at all about the status of the parents other than to the degree with which it implies non-jurisdiction to the U.S. legal system. Thus if the child’s parents are foreign diplomats not on holiday or members of an invading army, the child is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system.

    Anyone physically present in the United States, legally or illegally, is subject to the laws of the United States unless they have diplomatic immunity or are an invading army. Obama Sr. was neither of those. It doesn’t matter how long he was here or what his future residency intentions were. he was here, in ‘our’ jurisdiction.

    You would claim that he was not born subject to U.S. law because his father was here on a temporary student visa. Ask yourself this: was Obama Sr. not expected to adhere to the requirements of U.S. law to obtain and keep that visa? Would he not be held accountable in the U.S. legal system if he participated in a bank robbery? Do foreign students, in general, have carte blanche to thumb their noses at American law while taking advantage of our once great education system? If not, then foreign students, including Obama Sr. are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ and so is newly born son.

    That was the entire central point of the ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case. Perhaps you have review my summary above. People here on tourist visa’s or student visa’s or whatever ‘temporary’ visa they may have are all, every single one, subject tot he jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system. That is the definition, that is the fact, and as Patrick Moynahan said:

    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  329. ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 9:33 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    .If born in Hawaii to a single American mother he would be an nbc because he would have no baggage of a second nationality.His nationality would be 100% American, provided his father was not a living foreigner nor a known foreigner.By his mother marrying a foreigner, he could not be born as a natural born citizen because of the baggage of a second nationality.Nationality is convey by natural law through the head of the household.In marriage, that’s the father (by nationality law). The problem for Obama is that the laws written to provide citizenship for children like himself only cover births outside U.S. borders.American mothers aren’t covered by domestic naturalization-at-birth law because it doesn’t exist.

    That is because of the assumption that the 14th Amendment covers all such births, and it does except for births to those foreign fathers who are not U.S. residents, meaning immigrants.No one here on a Visa is a resident.That requires a Green Card.His father was strictly a Visa Card visitor, so the 14th amendment wasn’t applicable since only those born to people subject to the full authority of Washington are citizens, and only immigrants and citizens birth children so subject, like them and through them.

    Foreign fathers can’t beget American children unless they are permanent residents, legal or illegal, because they are not subject to any government except their own.

    Still just making stuff up that no one in american history has ever said. Oh, that’s right, you don’t need authority. You merely stating something makes it a fact because you say so. How delusional. Of course, the Supreme Court has said you are wrong in everything thing you say. Natural born citizen is defined by the English common law. Foreign born children of citizens are aliens unless provided for by statute. And no, no court has ever said alien parents needed to be residents as the court has stated very clearly that only the common law exceptions, with the addition of indians born in indians nations, were to be excluded. That is the law. Now, you may want to change the law if you could convince anyone of your rantings. However, your rantings are not the law and if you think they are, you really need help.

  330. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    April 30, 2013 at 9:59 am  (Quote)

    I will say that there situations where I think the moral thing to do is to break the law. However, should I choose to do that, I would expect to suffer the consequences and I would not expect my sense of morality (conscience) to govern the behavior of others. A good historical example is the Underground Railroad or more recently, the Sanctuary Movement.

    Indeed, our country was founded on the conscientious breaking of the law in a revolution and our Declaration of Independence makes an appeal to natural law. Such appeals are only valid when they are persuasive.

    The individual perspective involved in natural law is sharply contrasted in the contradiction between the “divine right of kings” and the “unalienable right of liberty.”

    The Magic M: Precisely. The only times I see that pop up in debates over here (and only in debates with people close to crank status) is when some religious zealot wants to justify the superiority of his beliefs to the law without openly admitting he puts his faith above the law. Their argument is always “natural law is superior to any other law, and natural law says: …” followed by whatever they think should be the law.

  331. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:22 am  (Quote)

    For Nash, natural born citizen means born of American parents. Anytime he uses those words, he is not referencing the law or the Constitution. Being born of American parents anywhere in the world, and I would guess, anywhere in the universe, is all that matters for him. Those are a priori citizens, in his book.

    So from his point of view, McCain is not relying upon 8 USC 1401
    or 8 USC 1403. McCain has American parents. Obama does not. Enough said. (Cough.)

    With Obama, he goes an extra step, and says Obama shouldn’t even be a citizen at all, forget about natural born citizen, but since we currently are forced to accept the errors of others, Obama then is just a presumptive citizen. At best. I suppose if Obama wanted to get naturalized at this late date, Nash might be magnanimous enough to accept it, if Obama stepped down from the presidency.

    As Nash weaves his personal ideas of what is natural in and out of actual law and the Constitution, it can get confusing. But he has charts!

    Keith:

    8 USC 1403 is for the specific case of Panamanian births, while 8 USC 1401 applies to any births anywhere outside the geographic bounds of he US. McCain can derive citizenship from either of those statutes. But they are statutes, and that is what makes the ‘Natural Born’ status of McCain academically hazy.

    If we follow your strawman case of the reversed scenario, Obama would still derive his citizenship from 8 USC 1403, but probably not from 8 USC 1401. That is no matter, because that citizenship would have exactly the same force as McCain’s. If McCain is eligible (and I and the Congress argue that he is), so would be the fanciful Panamanian born Obama.

  332. ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:26 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    ballantine wrote: “SInce the 14th Amendment was *deemed* to be declaratory or pre-existing law under the original Constitution, [Wait!deemed by who and for what purpose?Was it deemed to be so by the Wong case court.Why would it matter to them?It would be irrelevant!Natural citizenship was not an issue in Wong, it was legal citizenship]…it was necessary to look at what it was declaratory of, hence the defining of “natural born citizen” in Article II the original Constitution as the basis of birthright citizenship prior to 1866.”

    That is sophistical logic.It was no more necessary to construe nbc in Wong that it was in Happersett, but the court decided to do it anyway just for the heck of it.Minor was not about the meaning of nbc or citizenship in general.It was solely about whether or not women in America, in the states, possessed the right to vote from the founding of the nation via rights granted in the Constitution.

    Nothing about citizenship needed to be construed.Only the status of women was central to its issue.Being a citizen of any sort whatsoever changed nothing.The court overstepped its rightful bounds by ruminating on the subject of her citizenship.Same in Wong.All that needed construing was the meaning of being born subject to the jurisdiction of Washington, since he indisputably was born in the U.S.It’s understandable by a 5th grader.And speaking of the Wong citizenship history exploration; it’s chock full of nuggets I didn’t notice the first time I read it a year or two ago.I’ve come across nugget after nugget that *proves* what I’ve been relating.I’ll be giving examples eventually.I can hardly believe that people have totally missed what is right in front of their eyes.It must be bias blindness.Well, prepare for your blinders to be blasted off.
    http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

    Sorry, you have no understanding of what dicta and holding is. The court didn’t spent 21 pages telling us what the common law rule was for nothing. If you don’t understand what it mean to be declaratory of pre-existing law, you are simply stupid. Minor wasn’t talking about Virginia Minor but was pointing out that women had always been citizens. Yes, sorry it is simply an historical fact that women have always been citizens. English, you should try and read it. I know, you don’t look at historical authority, you just make up your own history inside your head. Anyway, I really don’t have time to explain holding to you but it doesn’t matter if you understand as any modern court will and their opinion counts not your self-deluded facts.

    And no matter how many time you repeat it, Justice Gray makes clear that domicile is not required. He plainly points out it was not required under the common law and plainly points out that all visitors except the exceptions he mentioned are subject to our jurisdiction. He does not define “political jurisidiciton” in this case or Elk, however he unambiguously defined “subject to the jurisidiciton.” You can stomp your feet all you want, but the people who make the laws understand.

    “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

    It is so sad you can’t understand such simple language.

  333. The Magic M says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:30 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: Now, you may want to change the law if you could convince anyone of your rantings.

    And even then it wouldn’t apply retroactively. I don’t think civil rights provide an opportunity for Congress to strip US citizens off their citizenship, unless you change the Constitution in such a way that its ideals are perverted (by that logic, it’s also no problem to change the Constitution in such a way as to return to “slavery good, women’s rights bad” times).

    Dr. Conspiracy: I will say that there situations where I think the moral thing to do is to break the law.

    Yes, but it’s still “breaking the law”, technically. And it doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to ignore laws that they simply don’t agree with.

    The German Constitution provides for the right to resist any attempt to change the foundation of the country (“free democratic basic order” in our lingo), yet Constitutional scholars agree that this provision (enacted with the terror of the Nazi regime in mind) is mostly declaratory.
    If a regime violates your rights and you fight it, you cannot exculpate yourself pointing to that Constitutional right because the regime will not care about the Constitution anyway (if it hasn’t abolished it outright already).
    If the regime is removed, nobody is going to take you to court for having tried to help remove it, either.

    There may be cases where the provision may apply, e.g. for people who kill regime agents and need it to avoid murder trials after the Constitution is reinstalled.

    In any other situation, it’s something often misunderstood and totally useless. I’ve seen cranks claim the provision applies because “the judge in my case did me wrong, therefore the Constitution has been taken away for me, therefore I have a right to armed resistance”.

    For the same reason, moral reasons to ignore laws are mostly declaratory and usually highly subjective (and often abused to serve as a foil for “what I really want”).

  334. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:47 am  (Quote)

    So we are back to fathers again? Give it up.

    America is not interested in your idea of natural law regarding its citizens. We could, on an idle day, speculate about your notions with regards to natural born citizens and the presidency, just to explore the logic, but it’s never going to happen at all with your ideas about how natural law impinges upon citizenship at large.

    To your last point there, I wonder why such a law doesn’t exist. Hmmm, what could it be. Why have they let that one slip through the cracks? Somebody should write their representatives and point this out. I’m sure they will appreciate the heads up and fix it lickety split. Still, there must be a reason, why after all this time, they haven’t written a domestic naturalization-at-birth law.

    I hesitate to say it, but, you know, there is the fourteenth amendment.

    A.R. Nash: Nationality is convey by natural law through the head of the household. In marriage, that’s the father (by nationality law).
    The problem for Obama is that the laws written to provide citizenship for children like himself only cover births outside U.S. borders. American mothers aren’t covered by domestic naturalization-at-birth law because it doesn’t exist.

  335. JD Reed says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:48 am  (Quote)

    If I understand Mr. Nash correctly, he is arguing that natural law would have forbidden the drafters of the constituion to have explicitly defined natural born citizen to mean citizen by virtue of one’s birth in the United States. Instead, he seems to be arguing, there cannot be a definition of natural born citizen that conflicts with his own notion of natural law, so in this regard, the founding fathers were not totally free to specify exactly what the qualifications of the president would be.

  336. ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:54 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:

    Your grasp of the continuum of time is lacking.Let’s go back to the year 1865.By what law is McCain a U.S. citizen?

    The naturalization act of 1855. if born before such act, he was an alien. Sorry, such are facts as no legal authority has ever said he would be a citizen because of his parents or some natural law rule of descent. These are simple historical facts based upon the controlling authorities of the time. Your coming up with your own definition of citizenship 150 years later that you can’t cite a single person agreeing with is irrelevant to such historical fact. Again if only you could read:

    “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”

    See, that is the law. It has always been the law. It is an historical fact that the nation has followed, and continues to follow, such rulings. We see that all you can do now is filibuster by repeating your assertions over and over, never pointing to any actual authority but your own opinions. We have seen that before from your type before.

  337. Sef says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:55 am  (Quote)

    Doc, the “Turning The Scale” link at the bottom of the page needs to be updated. I think it is now http://turningthescale.tumblr.com .

  338. Sef says:
    April 30, 2013 at 11:02 am  (Quote)

    JD Reed:
    If I understand Mr. Nash correctly, he is arguing that natural law would have forbidden the drafters of the constituion to have explicitly defined natural born citizen to mean citizen by virtue of one’s birth in the United States. Instead, he seems to be arguing, there cannot be a definition of natural born citizen that conflicts with his own notion of natural law, so in this regard, the founding fathers were not totallyfree to specify exactly what the qualifications of the president would be.

    Birthers fail to comprehend that Natural Born Citizenship is about WHEN citizenship is attained, not HOW or WHERE. If one is born a citizen, even if there is some quasi-naturalization-at-birth, it is still NBC. Of course, if this citizenship is not controlled by the 14th, then Congress can change the rules.

  339. ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 11:37 am  (Quote)

    JD Reed:
    If I understand Mr. Nash correctly, he is arguing that natural law would have forbidden the drafters of the constituion to have explicitly defined natural born citizen to mean citizen by virtue of one’s birth in the United States. Instead, he seems to be arguing, there cannot be a definition of natural born citizen that conflicts with his own notion of natural law, so in this regard, the founding fathers were not totallyfree to specify exactly what the qualifications of the president would be.

    That pretty much is it. While it an historical fact that children of aliens were always treated as citizens, it doesn’t count. It was just that the people making those decisions were not as smart as Nash as only he understands who is a citizen. To bad no one will every listen to him.

    Of course, if one is interested in facts, the facts are that the founders were educated in law reading Loke Coke who said the law of nature was jus soli and no founder or legal authority of the period said the law of nature was anything else. Those are the historical facts which, I know, simply don’t count.

  340. Scientist says:
    April 30, 2013 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    JD Reed:
    If I understand Mr. Nash correctly, he is arguing that natural law would have forbidden the drafters of the constituion to have explicitly defined natural born citizen to mean citizen by virtue of one’s birth in the United States. Instead, he seems to be arguing, there cannot be a definition of natural born citizen that conflicts with his own notion of natural law, so in this regard, the founding fathers were not totallyfree to specify exactly what the qualifications of the president would be.

    Nash is out to lunch on even understanding what natural law is. It is laws that are universal to all mankind. So how many countries require 2 citizen parents to make the child a citizen? None. Some require 1 citizen parent (China, Switzerland), some require one parent to be a legal resident (the UK, Australia) and some require only that the child be born there (the US, Canada and virtually the entire Western Hemisphere). But 2 citizen parents? None.

    Nash’s trash is not natural law, it is unnatural law.

  341. Thomas Brown says:
    April 30, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Nash’s trash is not natural law, it is unnatural law.

    Sure it is. It’s not natural to have a US President whom Mr. Nash doesn’t like, silly!

  342. nbc says:
    April 30, 2013 at 1:42 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: Nash’s trash is not natural law, it is unnatural law.

    Even Vattel accepts that it is the right of every nation to determine for itself who are its (natural) born citizens and who can become its citizens through naturalization.

    Of course, many of Nash’s ‘arguments’ were fully rejected in the Court in Re: Wong Kim Ark as well as US v Wong Kim Ark. Funny how they government raised much of the same arguments and the courts were not impressed.

  343. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:11 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Your grasp of the continuum of time is lacking. Let’s go back to the year 1865. By what law is McCain a U.S. citizen? Answer; by the same law as all other natural born citizens; None. Laws of citizenship only exist for those who are foreigners and their children. They don’t exist for Americans. But some contain declarations (aimed at the CIS and State Department) meant to protect the birthright of all children of Americans, which is membership in their parent’s nation.

    You ignorant ass, look up “”An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof,” (10 Stat.604), enacted February 10, 1855; and subsequently codified as Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes.

    A.R. Nash: Before I answer, do this thought exercise: If Obama had been born in Panama, and McCain in Hawaii, would that shift have made a difference in the citizenship of either of them?
    Answer: Obama would not have been a U.S. citizen at all because his mother was too young by a few months for her U.S. citizenship to have been deemed to be conveyed to him by law. Were she 19, then he would have been a U.S. derivative citizen through her by law that is less than about 75 years old. While McCain would have had no change is status, -still a natural born citizen.

    A.R., if President Obama had been born, like Senator McCain, in the Panama Canal Zone, he would still have been a U.S. citizen at birth; the Canal Zone was the only place outside the United States where no prior physical presence or residence in the U.S. was required in order to transmit citizenship. Duh.

    A.R. Nash: The problem for Obama is that the laws written to provide citizenship for children like himself only cover births outside U.S. borders. American mothers aren’t covered by domestic naturalization-at-birth law because it doesn’t exist.

    That is because of the assumption that the 14th Amendment covers all such births, and it does except for births to those foreign fathers who are not U.S. residents, meaning immigrants. No one here on a Visa is a resident. That requires a Green Card. His father was strictly a Visa Card visitor, so the 14th amendment wasn’t applicable since only those born to people subject to the full authority of Washington are citizens, and only immigrants and citizens birth children so subject, like them and through them.

    Foreign fathers can’t beget American children unless they are permanent residents, legal or illegal, because they are not subject to any government except their own.

    Even for you, that’s exceptionally stupid.

  344. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:15 pm  (Quote)

    No, you big chicken, the real question is the one I asked. Why are you afraid of it?

    A.R. Nash:
    Author: Dave B.
    Comment:
    All right, A.R.,..what about the U.S. citizen spouses of foreign diplomatic agents?Are they “subject to the political authority of the federal government”?

    The real question is: “Are women subject?”And the ancient answer, long forgotten, is “no”.History is a long continuum, and along it war was the predominate threat to human life.And in addition was the threat of the survivors of the losing side ending up in abject slavery.Men had to fight to defend their people and land.Women did not because they were the ones the men were fighting to defend most of all.What man could tolerate his wife, or mother, or daughters being raped and enslaved?None.So that was reality, and so men were the leaders, -at all levels.The subjugation of women sprang from their dependency. But today it’s even far worse for women in places like Saudi Arabia.They are devoid of rights, even to travel alone.Those who shouldered the heaviest burden held the greatest authority, and that included civic authority.The two genders were in two very separate classes, and they didn’t mix when it came to matters of state.That sphere belonged solely to men, as was the case with war.So to ask if women were subject to the jurisdiction, you first have to ask; “what did jurisdiction originally mean?”It meant what is seen in the naturalization oath of Allegiance & Renunciation;
    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH & ALLEGIANCE to the same; that I WILL BEAR ARMS on behalf of the United States when required by the law;”

    That oath was ancient, and never included women under its wording.And they could not naturalize on their own.Only by marrying an American man.There’d be no civic gain from naturalization since they still couldn’t vote. They couldn’t vote, nor serve in public office, nor fight.How were they subject?Subject to what?How can one escape coming to the conclusion that subjection to national authority has its root in a past context that didn’t include women?Concepts from the present fail to begin to grasp the realities of the past.

  345. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:20 pm  (Quote)

    A.R., you’re absolutely a stark, raving IDIOT! You’re citing the dissent. The side that, like you, lost.

    A.R. Nash: That does it!Eat this from Wong!
    73

    Undoubtedly, all persons born in a country are presumptively citizens thereof, but the presumption is not irrebuttable.
    174

    In his Lectures on Constitutional Law (page 279), Mr. Justice Miller remarked: ‘If a stranger or TRAVELER passing through or TEMPORARILY RESIDING in this country, who has not himself been naturalized, and who claims to owe no allegiance to our government, has a child born here, which goes out of the country with its father, such child is NOT A CITIZEN of the United States, because it was NOT SUBJECT to its jurisdiction.’!!!!
    175

    And to the same effect are the rulings of Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen in the matter of Hausding, and Mr. Secretary Bayard in the matter of Greisser.
    176

    Hausding was born in the United States, went to Europe, and, desiring to return, applied to the minister of the United States for a passport, which was refused, on the ground that the applicant was born of Saxon subjects TEMPORARILY in the United States.Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr. Kasson, our minister: ‘You ask, ‘Can one *born a foreign subject*, but WITHIN the United States, make the option after his majority, and while still living abroad, to adopt the citizenship of his birthplace?’

    It seems not, and that he must change his allegiance by emigration and legal process of naturalization.’ Sections 1992 and 1993 of the Revised Statutes clearly show the extent of existing legislation; that the fact of birth, under circumstances implying ALIEN SUBJECTION, establishes of itself NO RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP and that the citizenship of a person so born is to be acquired in some legitimate manner through the operation of statute.No statute contemplates the acquisition of the declared character of an American citizen by a person not at the time within the jurisdiction of the tribunal of record which confers that character.’

    Greisser was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.’ 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399. [ His parents WERE NOT IMMIGRANTS.

    “‘Can one *born a foreign subject*, but WITHIN the United States…”You though that was impossible, but it is perfectly normal due to parents not being subject to the U.S. government.It doesn’t matter what their job is.All must fulfill the second requirement of the 14th Amendment.]

    The words ‘not subject to any foreign power’ do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, NEVERTHELESS, they may be subject to the POLITICAL JURISDICTION OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, are citizens.
    180

    The allegiance of children so born is NOT THE LOCAL allegiance arising from their parents merely being DOMICILED in the country; and it is single, and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of DOUBLE NATIONALITY, has NO PLACE in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.
    181

    But it is argued that the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power’ should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute ONLY the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.
    182

    Was there any necessity of excepting them?[NO!] And, if there were others described by the words, [Children of immigrants] why should the language be construed to exclude them?[their fathers can be deemed to be subject by reason of permanent residency.but those who the language does not describe (alien visitors) why should the language be construed to INclude them?

    See, I’m not the one making things up.I’m just relating the facts, not the misconceptions of institutionalized error.

    Point Proved.

  346. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:25 pm  (Quote)

    Having a little trouble keeping your stories straight, A.R.?

    A.R. Nash: Foreign fathers can’t beget American children unless they are permanent residents, legal or illegal, because they are not subject to any government except their own.

    A.R. Nash: What is the borderline between subjection and no subjection? Simple. A Green Card which conveys permanent residency.

  347. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:39 pm  (Quote)

    A.R., I’m going to do you another entirely undeserved favor, not that I figure you’ll be smart enough to make anything of it. Take a look at paragraph 121 on that Open Jurist page. See how it says “Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, with whom concurred Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.” What follows is Chief Justice Fuller’s dissenting opinion. Have someone familiar with your limitations explain to you what that means.

    A.R. Nash:
    Rickey: In the past Nash has pushed the ludicrous argument that foreign tourists, foreign residents, foreigners here on student visas, etc. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    JD SUE: “Yeah, I’d like to hear him tell that to the courts!Notably, from time to time, he likes to insert the term “political”, as in his use of the terms “political jurisdiction” and “inherited political nature.”

    Wong Kim Ark http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
    179
    The words ‘not subject to any foreign power’ do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the TERRITORIAL jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the POLITICAL jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

  348. nbc says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: A.R., you’re absolutely a stark, raving IDIOT! You’re citing the dissent. The side that, like you, lost.

    ROTFL…

    Perhaps someone should help Nash figure out how to properly read a legal ruling? Somehow I see it as a waste of time though

  349. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm  (Quote)

    And A.R., have that person who understands your limitations explain to you what “derivative citizenship” is, too.

    A.R. Nash: Were she 19, then he would have been a U.S. derivative citizen through her by law that is less than about 75 years old.

  350. nbc says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:58 pm  (Quote)

    Interesting

    This is the filing obtained by ORYR of the Alabama Amicus Curiae submission by Ragsdale.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/138651681/mcinnish-v-chapman-amicus-curiae-brief-obtained-from-alabama-democratic-party-4-23-2013

    It does not show the diamond pattern. Was this generated by the watermark?

    Is someone messing with the birthers 🙂

    ROTFL

  351. ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:03 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    A.R., you’re absolutely a stark, raving IDIOT!You’re citing the dissent.The side that, like you, lost.

    Pretty funny. Of course, Nash doesn’t notice that the dissent says he disagrees with the majority’s conclusion that children of foreigners just passing thorugh should be natural born citizens. Of course, Fuller can read English a bit better than Narsh.

    Fuller starts out his dissent, like most dissents, summarizing the majority opinion by quoting and paraphrasing the majority:

    “The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule “was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;” and “that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.” Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

    That, of course, is exactly what the majority opinion said. Natural born citizen is to be defined in light of the English common law jus soli rule and the 14th Amendment is held to be simply declaratory of the same common law rule except that it makes it colorblind. Fuller then tells us what the English common law rule was:

    “The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that “every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them) or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.”

    Again, very clear. The rule applies “whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country.” Fuller then says he thinks it is unreasonable that such rule define who is natural born like the majority said:

    “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

    That the dissent found the majority opinion unreasonable is of little note as the losing argument is meaningless. Fuller and all modern courts have no trouble understanding that Gray defined natural born by the English common law which provided no exception for children of temporary sojourners. Fuller also thought it unreasonable that Gray say children of citizens born overseas were aliens without statute. Again, of little note.

  352. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been….would APPEAR to have been to exclude,

    1. Native Americans. 2. Children of foreign diplomats. 3. NOT children of hostel enemies. What occupying enemies in 1866? NONE. It does NOT appear to have been one of the reasons for the subjection clause (pure imagination!!!) but 4. is, children of NON-Subject aliens! (visitors, guests, tourists, merchants, churchmen, entertainers, scholars, etc.

    [children of members of the Indian tribes, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State]

    “- both of which,…had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

    Point 1. He was delusional to claim that jus soli was a “fundamental rule of citizenship” in any of the colonies. It was merely allowed in one or more. He had no concept of what the word “fundamental” means. There is no FUNDAMENTAL CONNECTION between LIFE and dirt or borders.

    Point 2. You fail to grasp the tenuousness of his logic since he did NOT say they were the ONLY exceptions. That shows that he was not delineating any principle at all!..just parroting what everyone had always assumed and repeated and repeated and repeated…
    There are NO EXCEPTIONS in principles. The presence of exceptions is evidence of the nature of the “rule”, it is nothing more than a POLICY.
    Like ObamaCare, with its 2,000 or so exemptions. No principle is governing. Its all human fiat. You resist accepting the fact that principle was not involved in the three exceptions because that de-legitimizes the whole scheme, and then place-of-birth is seen as the naked fake that it is, -it’s nothing more than a royally enforced form of enslavement. Prove me wrong with logic. Oh, there isn’t any.

    Point 3. It is false (as I discovered to my shock) that native-born children of foreign diplomats are exempt from U.S. citizenship. They are declared by federal policy, (if not federal law) to be U.S. citizens. It is insane. Only children of actual ambassadors are exempt.
    All other foreign employees gain U.S. citizenship for their native-born children while serving here. Explain the logic of that! It springs from ignorance, -ignorance of the principle of NATURAL MEMBERSHIP. Ignorance pervades the whole government and legal system and law schools.
    It time you woke up and smelled the coffee. Misconceptions hold just as much weight as truth.
    Here’s an email I received that you’ll find will correct your misconceptions:

    I am truly honored that you included a reference to my Primer/Tutorial
    in your article.

    It is true that, in 18th century England, municipal citizenship
    (freemanship) at birth always derived from one’s father, never from
    one’s birthplace. But keep in mind, English municipal citizenship was
    based on a larger internationally-recognized pattern regarding
    citizenship in general.

    Citizenship (unlike subjecthood) was always understood to be
    people-based relationship between a citizen and his fellow citizens. In
    contrast, subjecthood is a land-based relationship between the
    individual (a subject who wishes to acquire a permanent license to live
    and work on a piece of land), and the king who owns that land.

    Since subjecthood is a land-based relationship, it may be acquired from
    the land on which you were born. But citizenship, being a people-based
    relationship, can ONLY be acquired from the people that your citizenship
    would tie you to.

    In the literature dating from ancient Greece and Rome, up to the writing
    of the US Constitution, dealing with the concept of “citizenship” in
    general, whenever citizenship is acquired by birth, it is always
    inherited from a parent, never from one’s place of birth. In the
    writings of Aristotle, Bodin, Pufendorf, Wolff, Vattel, etc.,
    citizenship-at-birth always comes from a parent, never from one’s
    birthplace. (See Section 4.4 and footnote 20 in my Tutorial).

    Furthermore, in England, the term “natural born” had both a factual
    meaning and a legal meaning. With very few exceptions, all English
    subjects were natural-born subjects in the eyes of the law. Naturalized
    subjects, foreign-born subjects, and nearly all persons born on English
    soil had the status or legal position of a natural born subject. But
    only those persons who were born within the king’s realm, of parents
    owing actual obedience (allegiance) to the king, were natural-born
    subjects in fact; all other so-called natural-born subjects were merely
    deemed to be so by a “fiction of law”. (See Question 19 in my Tutorial).

    Keep up the good work.
    – Stephen

    Stephen Tonchen

  353. Majority Will says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:34 pm  (Quote)

    Moon Landing Faked!!!—Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories

    (excerpt) Did NASA fake the moon landing? Is the government hiding Martians in Area 51? Is global warming a hoax? And what about the Boston Marathon bombing…an “inside job” perhaps?

    In the book “The Empire of Conspiracy,” Timothy Melley explains that conspiracy theories have traditionally been regarded by many social scientists as “the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe,” often inspired by what the late historian Richard Hofstadter described as “the paranoid style of American politics.” Influenced by this view, many scholars have come to think of conspiracy theories as paranoid and delusional, and for a long time psychologists have had little to contribute other than to affirm the psychopathological nature of conspiracy thinking, given that conspiricist delusions are commonly associated with (schizotype) paranoia.

    Yet, such pathological explanations have proven to be widely insufficient because conspiracy theories are not just the implausible visions of a paranoid minority.

    More: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories

  354. Majority Will says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    Birther Nash citing fellow birther Tonchen is like Ted Bundy citing Jeffrey Dahmer on why serial killing and torture is o.k.

  355. ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:53 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    ballantine: “The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been….would APPEAR to have been to exclude,

    You are becoming unreadable. You just ramble on and on and on. Gray says it was intended to exclude the ancient exceptions. He later says “subject to the jurisdiction” has to be interpreted by Marshall’s opinion in The Exchange which says all visitors are subject to our jurisdiciton unless one of the established privileges of extraterritorlialty. His conclusion clearly states what the sole exceptions are. At this point you are simply a lier who can’t handle the truth. Tonchen is almost as big an idiot as you. Even temporary residents are subjects as all that term means is to owe temporary allegiance. Again, there is the most influential treatise on public law in 1866:

    “To be resident within the territory of a Nation is to be subject to its Jurisdiction; but Nations, from considerations of mutual Comity, do not apply the same Laws in all matters to persons who are only temporarily resident, as to persons who are permanently resident within its territory. The discretion, however, of a Nation as to the particular Law which shall be administered in its Courts is absolute, and it may decline to allow its Courts to give any effect to Foreign Law: the other hand, if it allows its Courts to administer Foreign Law in disputes between foreigners, or otherwise, it adopts tacitly the Foreign Law as its own for the settlement of such disputes.” Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations, pg. 260 (1861)

    All aliens a fully subject to the jurisdiciton of a nation. However, through mutual comity, they usually don’t exercise the jurisdiction the same, though that is entirely in their discretion. Learning anything yet?

  356. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 5:25 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, 00Bob Gard thought Tonchen was the bees’ knees, too. Now honestly, who would call the kind of nonsense and utter ineptitude (“Eat this from Wong!”, indeed) you’ve been spewing here “good work”?

    A.R. Nash: Keep up the good work.
    – Stephen

  357. ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 5:51 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Yeah, 00Bob Gard thought Tonchen was the bees’ knees, too.Now honestly, who would call the kind of nonsense and utter ineptitude (“Eat this from Wong!”, indeed) you’ve been spewing here “good work”?

    Yeah, Tonchen lost me when he essentially re-writes English nationality law in a rambling, incoherent fashion and then goes downhill from there.

  358. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 5:53 pm  (Quote)

    May I presume your citations from Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent are among those “nuggets”? Now why is it that I have no trouble at all believing you totally missed what was right in front of your eyes there?

    A.R. Nash: And speaking of the Wong citizenship history exploration; it’s chock full of nuggets I didn’t notice the first time I read it a year or two ago. I’ve come across nugget after nugget that *proves* what I’ve been relating. I’ll be giving examples eventually. I can hardly believe that people have totally missed what is right in front of their eyes. It must be bias blindness.

  359. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 5:54 pm  (Quote)

    Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…

    ballantine: Yeah, Tonchen lost me when he essentially re-writes English nationality law in a rambling, incoherent fashion and then goes downhill from there.

  360. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 5:56 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: “”A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,…or by authority of Congress,…as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,..”

    See, that is the law. It has always been the law. It is an historical fact that the nation has followed, and continues to follow, such rulings.
    ~~~~
    Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of the word “law”. A person’s opinion of what the law is does not make it the law, nor does the Supreme Court’s opinion change the law. They issue an opinion which is their view of what the law should mean.

    It is up to the executive branch to enforce it or not enforce it based on whether or not the President places their opinion ahead of his view of its constitutionality. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not an oath to defend the SC’s opinion of what something means.
    The majority either gets it right or it gets it wrong. All too often they’ve gotten it wrong, because just like everyone else, they are fallible, along with their viewpoints and priorities.

    But you mis-characterize the truth about the naturalization statutes by believing the error of the quote above..,” enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,..”

    If you were capable of original thought and reason unbent by bias you might grasp the falsity of that assertion. The reason you didn’t quote any statute that every did what that statement says is because none exists. All the statutes do is declare to U.S. government officers and magistrates the truth about the status of Americans born beyond U.S. borders.

    The first time that the founders did that they declared Americans born abroad to be what in fact they are; natural born American citizens. They wrote it, they passed it, they believed it, they knew it. They weren’t the idiots. The idiots are all who would disagree with them and make themselves out to greater authorities that those who created our nation!

    Naturalization statutes in fact, in reality, in actuality do *not* CONFER anything. They are Declaratory in nature, (like the 14th Amendment)-not Proclamatory.
    A hypothetical. If I were a leader of a manly group, and all members were members because they were men, but you, my brother and fellow member, one day return to the group all dressed in women’s clothing. Everyone or someone might reject you. But I, wanting to protect your rights, and assert the fact that you are still a man, make a declaration to the group that you are still a man regardless of you wearing women’s clothing.

    Have I conferred a new nature on you? Have I changed you from a woman to being a man? Without my declaration would you not rightfully be a member? Did my declaration alter anything except the perception of some of the members? Is not your right of membership based on the result of Life (by making you what you are (male / American) rather than dress (birth location)? Does not natural law make off-spring what they are and determine what group they belong to? Is status not something that is “naturally inherited”?

    Ask the untouchables in India. Is not nationality a type of status? Is not aristocracy a type of status? Do not nobles inherit their noble status? Do not heirs-to-the-throne inherit their royal status?
    Do not Saudis inherit their Saudi status? Do not Sioux inherit their Sioux nation status? Do not Americans inherit their American status? Was not the American-ness of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson a thing of great interest and attraction to the Parisians of the late 17th Century?
    Would the sons born to them there have been French subjects of the French King and not Americans? Would the fact that the Constitution did not yet exist nor the United States government mean that their foreign-born children could not possibly be Americans also?

    By what authority would they have been Americans? By the authority of Natural Law. The sons and daughters are what the HEAD of the household is. If he or she is an American, so are the children. One national identity, one nation, one citizenship, one allegiance, one government, one Constitution.
    In nature there is no such equivalent to nationality so sameness is strictly an inheritance from both identical-species parents. Similar to same-nationality parents.

    Nature reigns. If children of Americans born abroad are not natural citizens then natural citizenship does not exist.
    That would mean that natural membership does not exist. That would mean that membership / citizenship is a gift that can only come from the god-like authority of government, along with all other unalienable rights, including the right to live.

    If the unalienable right of national membership (natural citizenship) did not exist then 97% of the American population would not be citizens since their citizenship springs from no law whatsoever.
    If it did not exist then no government could ever be created because the people that would create it would need the permission of the government to first be citizens and thus have the right to form a government that would then bestow on them their citizenship. Wow! What a Catch-22! No natural national membership? Then no government and no citizens.
    Is anyone here capable of grasping such simple fundamental facts?

  361. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 6:13 pm  (Quote)

    1) Why are you so shocked? Why do you need the logic explained to you? It’s the fourteenth amendment all over again. Everywhere you turn. We’ve told you many times.

    Their children are subject to our jurisdiction and thus fall under the fourteenth amendment. Regarding foreign employees, only the children of accredited foreign diplomatic officers are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is fairly clear.

    See here, if you haven’t already: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-34615/0-0-0-34645.html

    2) It is not ignorance; it is *rejection.*

    Your idea of natural membership has been roundly rejected. We all may associate with anyone, our own cultural, national, social communities, or with those who are different in assorted ways, but we are not going to base our country on the weakness of some such insufferable “natural” membership. We are a thriving country of immigrants, of all kinds. That is what makes us strong.

    When it comes to how we structure our society, America doesn’t care about such notions of natural membership. America *rejects* them.

    A.R. Nash: Point 3. It is false (as I discovered to my shock) that native-born children of foreign diplomats are exempt from U.S. citizenship. They are declared by federal policy, (if not federal law) to be U.S. citizens. It is insane. Only children of actual ambassadors are exempt.
    All other foreign employees gain U.S. citizenship for their native-born children while serving here. Explain the logic of that! It springs from ignorance, -ignorance of the principle of NATURAL MEMBERSHIP. Ignorance pervades the whole government and legal system and law schools.
    It time you woke up and smelled the coffee. Misconceptions hold just as much weight as truth.

  362. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 6:14 pm  (Quote)

    Last time I was at the Statue of Liberty, I could swear the plaque read:

    Give me your tired, your poor, and your non-ambassadorial children.

  363. nbc says:
    April 30, 2013 at 6:38 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of the word “law”. A person’s opinion of what the law is does not make it the law, nor does the Supreme Court’s opinion change the law. They issue an opinion which is their view of what the law should mean.

    ROTFL…

    Sooo clueless…

  364. nbc says:
    April 30, 2013 at 6:39 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Is anyone here capable of grasping such simple fundamental facts?

    GIGO? Sorry my friend but you failed again to follow our laws and Constitution…

  365. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    Wow man, Nash needs to seriously lay off the Toilet Duck.

  366. Ballantine says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:04 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    ballantine: “”A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,…or by authority of Congress,…as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,..”

    See, that is the law.It has always been the law.It is an historical fact that the nation has followed, and continues to follow, such rulings.
    ~~~~
    Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of the word “law”.A person’s opinion of what the law is does not make it the law, nor does the Supreme Court’s opinion change the law. They issue an opinion which is their view of what the law should mean.

    It is up to the executive branch to enforce it or not enforce it based on whether or not the President places their opinion ahead of his view of its constitutionality.He swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not an oath to defend the SC’s opinion of what something means.The majority either gets it right or it gets it wrong.All too often they’ve gotten it wrong, because just like everyone else, they are fallible, along with their viewpoints and priorities.

    But you mis-characterize the truth about the naturalization statutes by believing the error of the quote above..,” enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,..”

    If you were capable of original thought and reason unbent by bias you might grasp the falsity of that assertion.The reason you didn’t quote any statute that every did what that statement says is because none exists.All the statutes do is declare to U.S. government officers and magistrates the truth about the status of Americans born beyond U.S. borders.

    The first time that the founders did that they declared Americans born abroad to be what in fact they are; natural born American citizens.They wrote it, they passed it, they believed it, they knew it.They weren’t the idiots.The idiots are all who would disagree with them and make themselves out to greater authorities that those who created our nation!

    Naturalization statutes in fact, in reality, in actuality do *not* CONFER anything.They are Declaratory in nature, (like the 14th Amendment)-not Proclamatory.A hypothetical.If I were a leader of a manly group, and all members were members because they were men, but you, my brother and fellow member, one day return to the group all dressed in women’s clothing.Everyone or someone might reject you.But I, wanting to protect your rights, and assert the fact that you are still a man, make a declaration to the group that you are still a man regardless of you wearing women’s clothing.

    Have I conferred a new nature on you?Have I changed you from a woman to being a man?Without my declaration would you not rightfully be a member?Did my declaration alter anything except the perception of some of the members?Is not your right of membership based on the result of Life (by making you what you are (male / American) rather than dress (birth location)?Does not natural law make off-spring what they are and determine what group they belong to?Is status not something that is “naturally inherited”?

    Ask the untouchables in India.Is not nationality a type of status?Is not aristocracy a type of status?Do not nobles inherit their noble status? Do not heirs-to-the-throne inherit their royal status?Do not Saudis inherit their Saudi status?Do not Sioux inherit their Sioux nation status?Do not Americans inherit their American status?Was not the American-ness of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson a thing of great interest and attraction to the Parisians of the late 17th Century?Would the sons born to them there have been French subjects of the French King and not Americans?Would the fact that the Constitution did not yet exist nor the United States government mean that their foreign-born children could not possibly be Americans also?

    By what authority would they have been Americans?By the authority of Natural Law.The sons and daughters are what the HEAD of the household is.If he or she is an American, so are the children.One national identity, one nation, one citizenship, one allegiance, one government, one Constitution.In nature there is no such equivalent to nationality so sameness is strictly an inheritance from both identical-species parents.Similar to same-nationality parents.

    Nature reigns.If children of Americans born abroad are not natural citizens then natural citizenship does not exist.That would mean that natural membership does not exist.That would mean that membership / citizenship is a gift that can only come from the god-like authority of government, along with all other unalienable rights, including the right to live.

    If the unalienable right of national membership (natural citizenship) did not exist then 97% of the American population would not be citizens since their citizenship springs from no law whatsoever.
    If it did not exist then no government could ever be created because the people that would create it would need the permission of the government to first be citizens and thus have the right to form a government that would then bestow on them their citizenship.Wow!What a Catch-22!No natural national membership?Then no government and no citizens. Is anyone here capable of grasping such simple fundamental facts?

    Seriously, can’t you ever have a short post without rambling on and on? What the courts have said for 220 years is the law and they have never said you are right. The courts have said abortion is legal and that is the law no matter what some idiot on the Internet says about natural law. Sorry, children of citizen fathers today are still treated as aliens when not covered by statute. There was a case last term on that and the suggestion that citizenship descended without statute was dismissed out of hand. It is simply a fact such persons are not citizens

    In the 1790 naturalization act, Congress said they needed to provide that foreign born children of citizens like Parliament had done. This was after stating that we followed English law on this subject and they essentially said they were copying English Statutes that made certain persons natural born subjects. Accordingly, both England and America recognized statutes were needed for the foreign born. No one suggested such persons were citizen without statute. Sorry that our entire history says you are wrong. Oh, I forgot, history does’t count. Only you amateur opinion counts.

  367. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:11 pm  (Quote)

    Never mind trying to parse your inadequate glosses of history, the answer is yes, woman *are* subject to our jurisdiction.

    We *broke* with such views. I”m not going to try and sift your views about the history of women. I’m just going to note we are not held to a past with which we have broken. We are not going to apply that past to our present. Where something is grounded in such a past, *it* then fails in the present.

    We have rejected the subordination of women. Cut. Get up to speed already.

    A.R. Nash:

    The real question is: “Are women subject?”And the ancient answer, long forgotten, is “no”.
    …

    How can one escape coming to the conclusion that subjection to national authority has its root in a past context that didn’t include women? Concepts from the present fail to begin to grasp the realities of the past.

  368. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:12 pm  (Quote)

    I swear, A.R., you come up with the dumbest hypotheticals I’ve ever seen outside a schoolyard.

    A.R. Nash: A hypothetical. If I were a leader of a manly group

  369. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:16 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Do not Americans inherit their American status?

    What, exactly, is this “American status”?

  370. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:21 pm  (Quote)

    America has rejected them, Mr. Nash. We understand very well. We just collectively as a country have said, no. We also have said that no those are not facts. Those are views that make us weak, and we want no part of them.

    A.R. Nash: Is anyone here capable of grasping such simple fundamental facts?

  371. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:24 pm  (Quote)

    And bear in mind that A.R. posted that diatribe to evade answering a very simple question with yes or no.

    Paper:
    Never mind trying to parse your inadequate glosses of history, the answer is yes, woman *are* subject to our jurisdiction.

  372. Scientist says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:30 pm  (Quote)

    I wonder if there is a Mrs Nash. In the unlikely event there is, she has my sympathies.

  373. J.D. Sue says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: No, you big chicken, the real question is the one I asked. Why are you afraid of it?
    A.R. Nash:
    Author: Dave B.
    Comment:
    All right, A.R.,..what about the U.S. citizen spouses of foreign diplomatic agents?Are they “subject to the political authority of the federal government”?
    The real question is: “Are women subject?”And the ancient answer, long forgotten, is “no”.

    —-

    Well, Dave B., I guess it’s a good thing I answered the question for you, even though I might have scared the fish.

    And how ironic that, when he recasts the question into “Are women subject?”, he doesn’t answer that either. Instead, he merely references an ancient “long forgotten” practice. (Who has forgotten?)

    So, what is he afraid of?

  374. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    A great many things, I would imagine, but I’d be inclined to presume women are near the top of the list, even above giving straight answers.

    J.D. Sue: —-

    Well, Dave B., I guess it’s a good thing I answered the question for you, even though I might have scared the fish.

    And how ironic that, when he recasts the question into “Are women subject?”, he doesn’t answer that either.Instead, he merely references an ancient “long forgotten” practice.(Who has forgotten?)

    So, what is he afraid of?

  375. Dave says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm  (Quote)

    Forgive me if this is already posted, but we have another giant Carl Gallups relevation of giant breaking news … of a vague nature that will happen real soon. This story is at ORYR with the headline Update: Sheriff Joe’s Obama Identity Document Fraud Investigation Headed For Prosecution?, question mark and all.

    So, is it headed for prosecution? Well, the big news is that Zullo presented his evidence to a “large group of VIPS.” But wait, he then presented his evidence to two more groups of VIPS. That’s comes to, let me see, three groups of VIPS. However, if you order now, Zullo will also present his evidence to “yet ANOTHER group of some of the most powerful VIPS yet.”

    Wow. With four groups of fully briefed VIPS, I guess it’s all over for Obama. If you follow the link back to the original PPSIMMONS article, you will not be surprised to learn that “Obamabots are going crazy over all this. They are in a panic.”

    And the panicked Obots are the reason why, as you have no doubt already guessed, that Gallups is not actually telling us anything. And, also, everybody should send more money.

  376. J.D. Sue says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:16 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of the word “law”. A person’s opinion of what the law is does not make it the law, nor does the Supreme Court’s opinion change the law. They issue an opinion which is their view of what the law should mean.

    —-

    Hmmm. I’ll remember that next time I’m in court and the judge says “It is so ordered”. And, then I’ll just expect the federal marshals or county sheriffs to wait to hear from the President or Governor for word as to whether the marshal/sheriff should enforce that order. But, hey, if things get rough for me, maybe I could just grab the first foreign non-resident fella I can find and marry him…. Not.

  377. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:19 pm  (Quote)

    No. We do not inherit our status as Americans, or rather, our citizenship.

    Again, the beauty and elegance of the fourteenth amendment is at work. (At least for most citizens.)

    My relationship with my government is between me and that government. My ancestors immigrated here, and then my parents met and gave birth to me here. They gave me a referral, so to speak. I am grateful. I am beholden to them for many things, but not my citizenship. It didn’t come from them. My friend brought me to his doctor. That doctor is now mine. Though my friend made it possible, I did not inherit my friend’s doctor.

    As a citizen, I stand as equals with my parents.

    This is one of the great strengths of America. It is very much in keeping with our constitutional bias against nobility, for example.

    If that is not in accord with your version of natural law, then that is to the disadvantage of your version of natural law.

    A.R. Nash: Do not Americans inherit their American status?

  378. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:25 pm  (Quote)

    I would say he answered it. He said the answer *is* no.

    J.D. Sue: And how ironic that, when he recasts the question into “Are women subject?”, he doesn’t answer that either.

  379. Majority Will says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)

    Paper:
    No.

    Again, the beauty and elegance of the fourteenth amendment is at work.(At least for most citizens.)

    My relationship with my government is between me and that government.My ancestors immigrated here, and then my parents met and gave birth to me here.They gave me a referral, so to speak.I am grateful.I am beholden to them for many things, but not my citizenship.It didn’t come from them.My friend brought me to his doctor.That doctor is now mine. Though my friend made it possible, I did not inherit my friend’s doctor.

    As a citizen, I stand as equals with my parents.

    This is one of the great strengths of America.It is very much in keeping with our constitutional bias against nobility, for example.

    If that is not in accord with your version of natural law, then that is to the disadvantage of your version of natural law.

    Well put and zero chance that this birther gets it.

    None, nil, zilch, nada. It’s like talking to a monkfish.

  380. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 8:45 pm  (Quote)

    You’re flying with your very pregnant wife from Manchuria to South Korea. She goes into difficult premature labor. The pilot decides to land in North Korea in order to preserve her life. You child is delivered in a N. Korean hospital and mother and child are fine. A few days later as you are at the airport to leave, you are informed that you have permission to leave but the North Korean doesn’t. What North Korean? The one your wife gave birth to.

    Why is your baby a North Korean? Because they do not follow natural law and natural descent. They follow the policy of royal dictators. By that policy, everyone born within the borders of the state belongs to the state. It is said that it is a perfectly wonderful policy and that you should become familiar with it. You reply that you are already very familiar with it and therefore have no problem with the authorities assuming ownership of your child. It does not rightfully belong to you even though it is of you. Because it was born within the borders of the nation it belongs to North Korea, -for life.

    You can’t and don’t disagree because you know that North Korea considers all of its subjects to be natural born subjects because they have the authority to label them anyway that they choose. Your child is therefore a legal “natural born subject” of North Korea even though not factually a natural born North Korean, therefore he will grow up to one day be eligible to be the supreme leader of the Korean people, even though he is not one of them. That fact doesn’t matter. All that matters is what the government labels him, and they choose to label all subjects with the same label. That way there is no discrimination. Everyone is equal (even if they are very different). Everyone in North Korea agrees that that makes perfect sense. The People can’t be wrong, plus all of the government authorities agree as well. It is after all, state policy.

    You shake hands satisfied and happily board the plane. Your wife gets to the top of the boarding stairs and then throws herself to the tarmac in an attempt to end her life.

    Jus Soli; at its heart: a dogma of dictators, a spider web that entraps both subjects, citizens, servants, serfs, and plantation slaves; -a doctrine of devils, -if your wife gives birth in Hell, your child then belongs to Satan because he is the sovereign there and all things born within his domain belong to him. All of the sycophants (authorities) of the King / Satan/ agree since it is always in their best interest to agree with the dictator. Principle can’t trump pure power. Policy that is backed by pure power is therefore the universal law of the land.

  381. A.R. Nash says:
    April 30, 2013 at 11:26 pm  (Quote)

    scientist: “Nash is out to lunch on even understanding what natural law is. It is laws that are universal to all mankind.” As usual, you got it wrong, again. Natural Law consists of the principles of Natural Rights, and the principles universal to all higher forms of life, mankind being only one of them. Off-spring are the same at their parents. They are of the same species and group. The group is perpetuated by new members that are born into it. (Not naturalized into it.) Their membership is natural membership, -NOT membership by permission.

    “So how many countries require 2 citizen parents to make the child a citizen? None.”

    It is clear that you have either had too many drinks or you are out-right attempting to deceive the gullible with falsehood. Citizenship is not the same as *natural born* citizenship, which you know perfectly well, but you are so empty of factual ammo that you now have to resort to fictional ammo. But congratulations, you really gave that straw man a good beating.

    DaveB: ” if President Obama had been born, like Senator McCain, in the Panama Canal Zone, he would still have been a U.S. citizen at birth; the Canal Zone was the only place outside the United States where no prior physical presence or residence in the U.S. was required in order to transmit citizenship. Duh.”

    Transmit citizenship? From whom? Transmit via what? Soil and borders? Panamanian borders? Jus Sanguinis is the law of natural citizenship. Only legal citizens rely on jus soli or statute. Obama would not have “inherited” his mother’s citizenship from birth in a Panamanian hospital because she was too young. A few more months and he would have. That would have been jus sanguinis derivative citizenship by blood connection via legalizing statute, not by nature.

  382. Dave B. says:
    April 30, 2013 at 11:38 pm  (Quote)

    Just when I think your hypotheticals can’t get any dumber, you knock a hole in the floor. We’re not talking about hell, or North Korea; we’re talking about the United States of America. Why do you hate America so much?

    A.R. Nash: Jus Soli; at its heart: a dogma of dictators, a spider web that entraps both subjects, citizens, servants, serfs, and plantation slaves; -a doctrine of devils, -if your wife gives birth in Hell, your child then belongs to Satan because he is the sovereign there and all things born within his domain belong to him. All of the sycophants (authorities) of the King / Satan/ agree since it is always in their best interest to agree with the dictator. Principle can’t trump pure power. Policy that is backed by pure power is therefore the universal law of the land.

  383. Paper says:
    April 30, 2013 at 11:52 pm  (Quote)

    Hey, that’s a great example for why a pregnant Ann Dunham wasn’t galivanting around the world, to Kenya, or who knows where, certainly not North Korea. Didn’t know you had it in you.

    A.R. Nash:
    You’re flying with your very pregnant wife from Manchuria to South Korea.She goes into difficult premature labor.

  384. A.R. Nash says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:37 am  (Quote)

    Keith: “If McCain is eligible…so would be the fanciful Panamanian born Obama.” When he was born the law required that his mother had lived in the U.S. for five years after the age of 14 for a birth outside the U.S. She was too young to convey jus sanguinis citizenship to her child. He would have been Kenyan only.

    ballantine: “you have no understanding of what dicta and holding is.” That is a thoughtless assumption.
    ” The “holding” of a case states the “rule of the case”, meaning it has been decided (“held”) to favor one side or the other because of the rule. A “dictum” refers to just about anything else mentioned in the opinion of the court that made the ruling, but does not establish the rule itself. ”
    Two observations: That definition appears to be incorrect since it uses the word “opinion” in reference to the entire statement from the court when the “opinion of the court” is only its conclusion, its holding, its ruling, its decision.

    You, astonishingly, wish to pretend that anything and everything that you quote is part of the holding or opinion or decision and therefore carries the full weight of the authority of the court, while only the final judgement conclusion is backed by the authority of the court. Everything that you’ve quoted was dicta, and everyone knows it but says nothing. Why? How stupid to you have to be to think that everyone else is so stupid as to fall for that?

    The holding of the court contains no definition of anything. It merely affirms the opinion of the lower court that Wong was a citizen of the United States. Nothing else was “decided” or “defined” and nothing else was a subject of adjudication.

    Following that opinion, the Attorney General was then tasked with determining what principle emerged from that ruling that would apply to the administration of law, and he mis-conceived what the principle was. He chose the wrong side of the coin, -that side was one that thought it covered all children of all foreigners except diplomats. That was erroneous!

    It covered only children of IMMIGRANTS. Wongs parents WERE NOT TOURISTS! They were permanently domiciled. They were not subject solely to their own government as transients are. Their permanent residency made the father fully subject to the authority of Washington. The words of the court’s opinion do not support the interpretation of A.G. Griggs in any way, shape or form. And you couldn’t show that they do if your life depended on it. Immigrants are not tourist. Family members are not house guests, and being a house guest does not make one a family member.

    “Justice Gray makes clear that domicile is not required.” Required for exactly what? Required in order for the King to grant himself the authority to call every and all souls born within his borders anything that he chose? What he chose had no bearing on what the legislatures of all 13 colonies chose when they wrote their constitutions and passed their naturalization laws.

    Are you so dense as to suppose that the colonies and new states went naked of any laws governing who would be allowed to obtain citizenship among their people? English common law did not exist in the presence of positive law, and there was plenty of that in regard to such an important subject. You couldn’t for the life of you provide an example of a colony or state that had no citizenship provisions. If Gray claimed or inferred otherwise, then he was an ass for doing so. Which appears to be the case since people like you take all of your cues from such nonsensical errors.

    “he unambiguously defined “subject to the jurisidiciton.” That is worse than wrong. It’s deliberate deception. Like I told Apuzzo, “you have no comprehension of what ‘defined’ even means”. Look it up on Wikipedia and have your mind opened for once. It would be a very enlightening revelation. Google this: definition of definition.

    “The court didn’t spent 21 pages telling us what the common law rule was for nothing.”
    That means nothing, the court was not writing the new official version of all terms, policies, practices, edits, interpretations, definitions, and philosophies about citizenship for encoding into the foundation of American law.]

    “If you don’t understand what it means to be declaratory of pre-existing law,…” The government appealed Wong because pre-existing federal law did not exist. There was only its policy, and that policy was the effective law of the land.

    The 14th Amendment was not the law of the land because no one was certain as to what being subject to the jurisdiction meant. The government continued to believe that it meant subject solely to the American authority and not some distant foreign nation as well.

    The court’s ruling meant that that view would no longer be the law of the land. From thenceforth, immigrants, -resident aliens, were also subject, as well as their children who therefore conformed to the requirements of the 14th Amendment.

  385. Paper says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:37 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:
    Jus Soli; at its heart:a dogma of dictators, a spider web that entraps both subjects, citizens, servants, serfs, and plantation slaves; -a doctrine of devils, -if your wife gives birth in Hell, your child then belongs to Satan because he is the sovereign there and all things born within his domain belong to him.

    Thank goodness then that the Reconstruction Congress, the same Congress behind the fourteenth amendment, instituted voluntary expatriation, saving us from Satan.*

    *Note to self: tell wife she should avoid giving birth in hell.

    Second note to self: if you tell her that, you will wish you were born in hell.

    Third note to self: stop taking advice from birthers.

  386. nbc says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:57 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Why is your baby a North Korean? Because they do not follow natural law and natural descent. They follow the policy of royal dictators. By that policy, everyone born within the borders of the state belongs to the state.

    ROTFL. I guess that means that the US follows the policy of royal dictators as well, or more likely, your ‘argument’ is based on a flawed premise.

    Sigh… You still have failed to raise any logical and reasoned argument beyond these strawmen.

  387. misha marinsky says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:00 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: You’re flying with your very pregnant wife from Manchuria to South Korea. She goes into difficult premature labor. The pilot decides to land in North Korea in order to preserve her life.

    That is the most preposterous hypothetical I have read.

    “You’re flying with your very pregnant wife from Manchuria to South Korea. She goes into difficult premature labor. The pilot decides to land on the moon in order to preserve her life.”

    FIFY

    BTW, your maturity level is 16 – and I’m being generous.

  388. nbc says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:03 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: Understand these facts: without birth within the national territory there is no citizenship for children of aliens; but even WITH birth within the national jurisdiction there is NO CITIZENSHIP without full subjection to national jurisdiction, i.e., the full political authority of the government over both citizens and immigrants.

    Nope all that is required is that the child is born subject to the jurisdiction of our nation. And he is indeed born as such. The court in US v Wong Kim Ark addressed the meaning of the term and rejected your position.

    Should you not take some time and read the ruling?

    The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

    Surprise…

    and

    This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word “jurisdiction” in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

    Total surprise

    Oh and for good measure

    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

    Oh well

    It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution, and their children “born in the United States” cannot be less “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    You get the idea…

  389. nbc says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:06 am  (Quote)

    ROTFL… Poor Nash…

    Paper: *Note to self: tell wife she should avoid giving birth in hell.

    Second note to self: if you tell her that, you will wish you were born in hell.

    Third note to self: stop taking advice from birthers.

  390. Paper says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:08 am  (Quote)

    Safer. True.

    Not to mention, there’s an American flag there, too.

    misha marinsky:

    “You’re flying with your very pregnant wife from Manchuria to South Korea. She goes into difficult premature labor. The pilot decides to land on the moon in order to preserve her life.”

    FIFY

  391. nbc says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:08 am  (Quote)

    Oh and

    But the Congress which passed the Civil Rights Bill cannot be justly charged with such senseless legislation, and that act is not susceptible of any such construction. The words “subject to any foreign power,” are not the equivalents of ” subjects of any foreign power.” One may be the subject of a nation and not subject to it. An alien, though the subject of another nation, is, nevertheless, subject to thje authority and laws of the nation in whose territory he may be, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of his own nation.

    Thomas P Stoney

  392. nbc says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:36 am  (Quote)

    Finally (sic)

    The 1866 Civil Rights Act likewise offers no support. Enacted less than two months before the Senate adopted the Howard amendment, the Act guarantees birthright citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”32 Repeal proponents contend that all aliens are “subject to a[] foreign power,” and that this is relevant because the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to ensure the Act’s validity.

    But in fact, proponents and opponents of birthright citizenship alike consistently interpreted the Act, just as they did the Fourteenth Amendment, to cover the children of aliens. In one exchange, Cowan, in a preview of his later opposition to the Howard text, “ask[ed] whether [the Act] will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” Trumbull replied: “Undoubtedly. … [T]he child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.”33

    Source: James Ho, Defining “American”: Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment

  393. A.R. Nash says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:50 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.
    Just when I think your hypotheticals can’t get any dumber, you knock a hole in the floor. We’re not talking about hell, or North Korea; we’re talking about the United States of America. Why do you hate America so much?

    It’s all about illuminating the principle by which citizenship is convey as opposed to how it is bestowed. One is by life and one is by law. The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship by law because without it there was no constitutional authority by which children of immigrants possessed federal citizenship. It was not previously the law of the United States government, even if it was the policy for individual states. But the nation had no settled legal policy until the Civil Rights Act of 1866. All citizenship statutes only dealt with foreign births or naturalization.
    Without it, and the amendment, the policy which supported strict avoidance of foreign influence by barring foreigners and their children from being de facto citizen, served a minor purpose while providing national membership for children of America with foreign fathers was a far more important purpose to achieve for the sake of national interest. Those children were Americans and only Americans in the real world, even though connected to a foreign power via their subjection to a foreign father.

    But that was not sufficient reason to deny them the same status as other children, -the natural born children of America. It was against national interest to have them be categorized and treated as sub-Americans, second-class members of society. Other nations had class systems but that was anathema to American ideals and to natural attachments that form in life, to friends, neighbors, fellow countrymen.
    We saw how fanatical religion destroyed the attachments of the Boston bombers to their new home, -a home that fanaticism led them to reject and attack. Strengthening ties to one’s countrymen, government, history, and culture is a far higher purpose than that of isolating them because of their foreignness and the potential for harm it might theoretically pose.
    Were I a justice deciding the Wong case, I also would have “erred” on the side of public and national interest because I couldn’t have been making an unconstitutional choice since the matter was not addressed in the Constitution, nor unambiguously addressed in the 14th Amendment’s words. It was a matter of one policy tradition clashing with another policy tradition but only one could be declared as the winner. They sacrificed a tiny speck of pride in the exclusiveness of American citizenship for the sake of American inclusiveness. It was the best choice even though the government viewed it as not the “right” choice. But sometimes just one or two judges can move the rudder of the entire nation and the whole ship of state changes direction -sometimes for for the better, and sometimes, for the worse.

  394. A.R. Nash says:
    May 1, 2013 at 2:35 am  (Quote)

    “Birthers fail to comprehend that Natural Born Citizenship is about WHEN citizenship is attained, not HOW or WHERE. If one is born a citizen,..it is still NBC.” This nonsense is only true after you remove the central word “natural”. Born citizens becomes citizens AT birth, while natural citizens becomes citizens BY birth.

    “If one is born a citizen…” Those words contain a mountain of ambiguity. “born a citizen”? How? By nature or by law? A citizen by birth, or a citizen by borders? How is one’s origin known in such a fog of ambiguity? If you wanted to profile the two types of born citizens, what would your criteria be? Color of hair? Or parentage?

    “The words “subject to any foreign power,” are not the equivalents of ” subjects of any foreign power.” One may be the subject of a nation and not subject to it. An alien, though the subject of another nation, is, nevertheless, subject to the authority and laws of the nation in whose territory he may be, and is not subject to the jurisdiction of his own nation.”
    Thomas P Stoney
    That seems like a logical assumption, but it misses the truth about reality. In fact the issue isn’t whether or not a particular individual is subject to his homeland or not, it is whether or not the entire class or a nation’s overseas citizens are subject or not. As a matter of law, they are. You cannot go to other nations and commit crimes that are federal violations and be immune from criminal prosecution just because the crime didn’t occur on U.S. soil. Few examples are counterfeiting, conspiring with and working with terrorist, child porn, treason, money laundering, drug trafficing, and trading or selling to countries with U.S. sanctions against them.

    One is definitely subject to his own nation while abroad. That includes aliens while in the U.S. They are subject to the same concription authority as their brethren back home. Though living in the U.S. they can be drafted into their nation’s military, just as the U.S. government can do with its citizens living abroad, of which there are 5 million.
    So when you read the statements of self-appointed authorities, know that they may be totally confident in their own opinions and yet be totally wrong. It probably happens way too often. It sure has throughout history.

  395. A.R. Nash says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:15 am  (Quote)

    Wong: Abridged version: The question presented is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth…have a permanent domicil and RESIDENCE in the United States, and are there carrying on business, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States…”
    Permanent residence is at the heart of the issue. Without it, foreign parents are not deemed to be truly subject to the U.S. government and indeed owe it no allegiance and are not under its political authority because they are here today, gone tomorrow.
    -And the hegemonic greed of English dictators did not dictate American citizenship issues since we did not declare that our guests are our fellow slaves to the authority of our national government. Wouldn’t that be a great policy to encourage tourism? Hey! Guess what English lass? You’ve been drafted! Your Miami vacation is over sister, you’re in the Army now!

    “But in fact, proponents and opponents of birthright citizenship alike consistently interpreted the Act, just as they did the Fourteenth Amendment, to cover the children of aliens.”

    For our debate, the point isn’t whether they did or didn’t. The point is whether or not the executive branch had an unmistakeable law on the books to guide its policy. Were children of very alien Asians intended to be included under the 14th Amendment in the face of the Chinese Exclusion Act? Or not? Were those parents truly subject to the authority of Washington when it was impossible for them to become citizens? Should the children to placed in a separate category from their parents? By what precedent? Confusion reigned, just as it does today regarding the true meaning of natural citizenship.

  396. Majority Will says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:57 am  (Quote)

    *smh* Is anyone surprised that a lunatic can keep sinking lower and lower into full on insanity?

  397. A.R. Nash says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:25 am  (Quote)

    “Are women subject?” And the ancient answer, long forgotten, is “no”.
    It appears I was not unambiguous. So…The Modern answer is…no one knows because no one knows what jurisdiction is anymore. Has the definition changed in our era? No, because it has not been addressed. It has been wrongly assume that it means something that it does not mean. Its real meaning was lost to the mist of ancient history, (until I uncovered it). If you truly want to understand it, you’ll need to read one or more of my expositions on the subject, the first and most major one is about 12 pages: BEARING ARMS, TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE.

    Paper: ” Regarding foreign employees, only the children of accredited foreign diplomatic officers are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is fairly clear.”
    It seems we were both not on the bullseye. Not just children of ambassadors but also children of the top tier of foreign reps are excluded. As for all the other foreign government employees:

    (b) Child born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
    A child born in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is a United States citizen if the…child [is] born in the United States to one of the following FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS or employees:

    (1) Employees of foreign diplomatic missions whose names appear in the State Department list entitled “Employees of Diplomatic Missions Not Printed in the Diplomatic List,” also known as the White List;
    Employees of foreign diplomatic missions accredited to the United Nations or the Organization of American States;

    (2) Foreign government employees with limited or no diplomatic immunity such as **consular officials** named on the State Department list entitled “FOREIGN CONSULAR OFFICERS in the United States” and their staffs.

    The majority of these individuals enjoy certain diplomatic immunities, but they are not “foreign diplomatic officers” as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-34615/0-0-0-34645.html

    “We are a thriving country of immigrants, of all kinds. That is what makes us strong.”
    You aren’t living in the real world. 96-97% of Americans are natural born citizens, -born of American parents. The percentage of children born to immigrants is a tiny fraction of the number of births. Most babies are born to Americans. In Japan it’s probably around 99.99% of births being to Japanese citizens.

    “When it comes to how we structure our society, America doesn’t care about such notions of natural membership. America *rejects* them”
    Natural membership / natural citizenship are irrelevant to American life. It is only relevant to four things. 1. The Presidency. 2. Who is allowed to guard the President. 3. Who is allowed the highest Top Security clearances. 4. Who is allowed access to and launch authority over nuclear bombs. That excludes 99.9999999% of us. So what’s there to reject?

  398. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:28 am  (Quote)

    You ignorant ass, look up “”An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof,” (10 Stat.604), enacted February 10, 1855; and subsequently codified as Sec. 1993 of the Revised Statutes.

    My mistake; I wasn’t clear and erred when I wrote: “Laws of citizenship only exist for those who are foreigners and their children. They don’t exist for Americans.” [I meant American couples, married parents, the usual source of children] “But some (laws) contain declarations…meant to protect the birthright of all children of Americans, which is membership in their parent’s nation.”

    See there, I put the apostrophe *before* the “s” instead of where it belonged; after the “s”. See what a huge difference a little ambiguity can make. It confuses an issue and some will pick-up a meaning that wasn’t intended.
    Parents’…plural, not parent’s, singular.
    A singular American parent of a child born abroad, produces a child that falls under naturalization law. Married American parents produce children that fall under natural law. They are said to “transmit” their citizenship to their child.
    Government cannot transmit citizenship because it isn’t a living entity. It can only bestow, or grant, or allow, or authorize citizenship by authority of law, not by process of natural political transmission via the life process of producing a new member of a citizenship group.

    The transmission of citizenship is governed by law unless both parents are Americans. If both are not, then their child is under government regulation regarding a requirement of residency during teen years+. That does not result in them becoming citizens, it results in them remaining citizens. They, the off-spring of one American parent, are what I’ve labeled provisional citizens.

    “In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not **descend** unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America….”
    Such a provisional citizen could also be called a semi-citizen, or limbo citizen because their citizenship-by-descent, -their “right” isn’t finalized except by fulfilling the provisions of the statute, prior to which they possess provisional citizenship and yet have to take the oath of allegiance & renunciation as if they were not citizens. That is because they received by transmission and connection of blood the foreign nationality of a foreign parent along with their American parent’s citizenship by descent.

    If descent does not descend from only a single nation, then there is a conflict of nationalities competing for preeminence. There is no such conflict when both parents are from the same nation. Their off-spring will be a natural born citizen of their nation because they are citizens of one and only one nation. Children with parents of mixed nationality are statutory citizens who must conform with the naturalization act statutes. They received a citizenship transmission from two sources instead of just one. Like receiving a blood infusion from two different blood types. It’s not natural.

    The children of American married couples are not covered under any **naturalizing authority** because they are born recognized and declared in naturalization statutes to be Americans by transmission, by blood connection, -not by Congressional mandate.

    7 FAM 1131.4 Blood Relationship Essential
    1 Establishing Blood Relationship
    (a.
    The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent [not through Law]have always contemplated the existence of a blood relationship between the child and the parent(s) through whom citizenship is claimed….Absent a blood relationship between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired.
    ~ ~ ~
    The main mention of children of married Americans is only for the purpose of declaring the citizenship with which they were born. They are Americans without regard to U.S. residency requirements. They are not provisional citizens; they are permanent natural citizens. They are not “foreign-born”; they are instead American born on foreign soil.

    Their citizenship, their American status, cannot be taken from them under any circumstance because it is not something that they have. It is something that they are. That is why citizenship cannot be revoked once it is given. Once given one becomes by a fiction of law, a new natural citizen, becoming not one *having* U.S. citizenship, but one *being* a citizen. Law cannot undo a change that is deemed to have altered your nature, -your political nature.

  399. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:46 am  (Quote)

    Author: Dave B.
    Having a little trouble keeping your stories straight, A.R.?

    “Nash: Foreign fathers can’t beget American children unless they are PERMANENT RESIDENTS, legal or illegal, because they are not subject to any government except their own.”

    “Nash: What is the borderline between subjection and no subjection? Simple. A Green Card which conveys PERMANENT RESIDENCY.”

    No, but clearly you are having trouble keeping your thinking straight. But that’s what happens when thinking on a biased superficial level.

  400. Scientist says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:57 am  (Quote)

    Interestingly, Mr Nash is as misinformed about North Korean citizenship laws as he is about everything else. North Korea practices jus sanguinis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_in_North_Korea
    In fact, that baby would not be a North Korean citizen unless one its parents was one (or the parents were unknown, which they would not be in his example).

    The idea that jus soli is a practice of dictatorships is absurd, unless you consider the US and Canada to be dictatorships. Nor is sanguinis associated with any particular form of government, since, as noted, North Korea follows sanguinis, as does Iran. But so do France and the Netherlands.

    In fact, the division is one of hemispheres. The Western Hemisphere is almost entirely jus soli, whether coming out of English, French, Spanish or Portuguese colonization. The Eastern Hemisphere is largely sanguinis. This map makes things very clear
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jus_soli_world.png

    Why would this be? Likely because jus soli provides a way for societies built by immigrants. like the US, Canada or Argentina, to rapidly assimilate the second generation.

  401. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 7:40 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: “Again, there is the most influential treatise on public law in 1866: [NOTE: Description as Influential, -NOT INFALLIBLE! Again you descend to the elementary school ploy of citing “authority” supported by no principle or facts whatsoever.] When will you grasp that the contest isn’t about what the law is assumed to be, it is about what the truths of the issues actually are. I don’t need convincing about what the erroneous views are that are controlling in our warped legal world today.

    “All aliens are fully subject to the jurisdiction of a nation. However, through mutual comity, they usually don’t exercise the jurisdiction the same, though that is entirely in their discretion.?” What a jackass statement! Again, another fool who did not have a clue as to what jurisdiction means. What his ignorant view meant was that all aliens are subject to the POWER of a nation. Duh! Jurisdiction is not Power, it is Authority.

    In dictatorships that can mean corrupt, immoral, human-rights violating authority. But in a free democratic republic, it had better mean morally defensible authority. No moral government asserts the authority to conscript or kidnap its guests, throw them into bootcamp, train them til they drop, and then send them to their death in battle. But it can do that to its own members. What’s the difference? The guests are not under an authority that the government does not assert, nor even claim, nor even sanction. An authority that the government of the People even condemns.

    You would also if next time you visit Cuba they drag you off the beach and throw your tourist behind into their military. Even Cuba does not claim any such authority. Show me one civilized nation on earth that does. No tourist in the civilized world is subject to the full political jurisdiction of a foreign nation that they are visiting. When will that fact get through to you?
    No jurisdiction? Then no citizenship for your native-born alien child. That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject. Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations. Without them nations would fall to conquest and subjugation and enslavement. Only those whose lives can be put on the line are subject. Subjection has NO OTHER MEANING. It means to bear arms, true faith and allegiance, and to be prepared to die doing so. It is very simple but very profound. Think about it long and hard and you’ll begin to grasp just how far we’ve drifted away from our roots.

  402. Majority Will says:
    May 1, 2013 at 7:40 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    Author: Dave B.
    Having a little trouble keeping your stories straight, A.R.?

    “Nash: Foreign fathers can’t beget American children unless they are PERMANENT RESIDENTS, legal or illegal, because they are not subject to any government except their own.”

    “Nash: What is the borderline between subjection and no subjection? Simple. A Green Card which conveys PERMANENT RESIDENCY.”

    No, but clearly you are having trouble keeping your thinking straight.But that’s what happens when thinking on a biased superficial level.

    Nash, go away. Take your idiotic racism elsewhere.

  403. ballantine says:
    May 1, 2013 at 8:06 am  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash:

    One long rant after another all essentially offering nothing but you saying you are right because you say you are right and everyone else is wrong. You really don’t have a life, do you.

    Your post on holding is gibberish. i suggest you go to a lawyer and have him explain what the holding is in Wong as you have no clue. The holding is not only the disposition of the case but the ratio decindendi as well, i.e., the necessary and sufficient propositions on the decisional path to the disposition. Sorry to tell you, there is no dispute that the adoption of the common law in both the natural born citizenship clause and the 14th Amendment is part of the holding and has been followed for the past century. Those are the fact.

    The notion that there was no law of citizenship prior to 1866 is dumb. There were many executive and judicial opinions on the subject and they all said we followed the common law. The drafters of the 14th Amendment generally thought there was no dispute that the common law was already the rule and thought the Amendment unnecessary, but some thought it necessary to make clear blacks were included.

    The Civil Rights Act has always been interpreted as declaratory of the comon law as the person who wrote it said it was. He also said over and over that it made children of chinese aliens citizens. It doen’t say “subject of a foreign power” but “subject to a foreign power” as in subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power which is what its author said it meant. The only people on US soil subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power are ambassadors and other covered by extraterritoriality. Public law 101.

    The person who introduced the 14th Amendment said it meant born “subject to our law” and said it also restated the common law. The debates also made clear native born children of Chinese aliens were included.

    Your nonsense about “full subjection to national jurisdiciton” is re-writing the Amendment and is generally the type of interpretation made by the losing side in Wong Kim Ark which held the phrase was simply intended to exclude the common law exceptions. OF course, it is also wrong because under English law and American law prior to 1866 as well as any treatise on Public Law, native born children of aliens were fully subject to the national jurisdiction and owed their full polical obligations to the nation. For example, in the Civil War draft, aliens were generally exempted. However, native born children of aliens were not an no one suggested they should be. Several such persons with British parents applied for protection from the British and the British told them they owed their political obligation to the United State.

    AT this point, it is clear that pretty much everything you say is wrong as you have just made up your own law and history in your head. The executive department has correctly interpreted Wong Kim Ark as they read English and understand law much better than you.

    Now, we know you will just post more long rants saying you are right over and over as it seems you have little else to do.

  404. Ballantine says:
    May 1, 2013 at 8:30 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    ballantine: “Again, there is the most influential treatise on public law in 1866: [NOTE: Description as Influential, -NOT INFALLIBLE!Again you descend to the elementary school ploy of citing “authority” supported by no principle or facts whatsoever.]When will you grasp that the contest isn’t about what the law is assumed to be, it is about what the truths of the issues actually are.I don’t need convincing about what the erroneous views are that are controlling in our warped legal world today.

    “All aliens are fully subject to the jurisdiction of a nation.However, through mutual comity, they usually don’t exercise the jurisdiction the same, though that is entirely in their discretion.?”What a jackass statement!Again, another fool who did not have a clue as to what jurisdiction means.What his ignorant view meant was that all aliens are subject to the POWER of a nation.Duh!Jurisdiction is not Power, it is Authority.

    In dictatorships that can mean corrupt, immoral, human-rights violating authority.But in a free democratic republic, it had better mean morally defensible authority.No moral government asserts the authority to conscript or kidnap its guests, throw them into bootcamp, train them til they drop, and then send them to their death in battle.But it can do that to its own members.What’s the difference?The guests are not under an authority that the government does not assert, nor even claim, nor even sanction.An authority that the government of the People even condemns.

    You would also if next time you visit Cuba they drag you off the beach and throw your tourist behind into their military.Even Cuba does not claim any such authority.Show me one civilized nation on earth that does.No tourist in the civilized world is subject to the full political jurisdiction of a foreign nation that they are visiting.When will that fact get through to you?No jurisdiction?Then no citizenship for your native-born alien child.That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject.Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations.Without them nations would fall to conquest and subjugation and enslavement.Only those whose lives can be put on the line are subject.Subjection has NO OTHER MEANING.It means to bear arms, true faith and allegiance, and to be prepared to die doing so.It is very simple but very profound.Think about it long and hard and you’ll begin to grasp just how far we’ve drifted away from our roots.

  406. Paper says:
    May 1, 2013 at 9:12 am  (Quote)

    We are a country of immigrants. Our families all came from somewhere. It is part of our social fabric and consciousness.

    Maybe not yours. I wouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. I should have expected that you would ignore all that, and focus on how many immigrants are coming right this second, while ignoring our immigrant *nature,* that we come from immigrants.

    As you know, we not only came from somewhere else. We, as a country, took it away from others who lived here before us.

    Most people in my experience are aware of our immigrant nature, and while aware that they are indeed American, frequently ask each other, what are you, or, where did you come from? The answers invariably are not “American” or “America.”

    As I said, we are a country of immigrants.

    Take note of the word “of” and the way we Americans use that English word. But while we are at it, even our language belonged to someone else, before we made it our own, and that language itself incorporates a plethora of words from other languages.

    A.R. Nash:

    Paper: “We are a thriving country of immigrants, of all kinds. That is what makes us strong.”

    Nash: You aren’t living in the real world.96-97% of Americans are natural born citizens, -born of American parents.The percentage of children born to immigrants is a tiny fraction of the number of births.Most babies are born to Americans.In Japan it’s probably around 99.99% of births being to Japanese citizens.

  407. donna says:
    May 1, 2013 at 9:15 am  (Quote)

    where are the birthers?

    Cruz 2016

    Cruz isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem. Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisers are confident that they could win any legal battle over his eligibility. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and he considers himself to be a natural-born citizen.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347052/cruz-2016

  408. Paper says:
    May 1, 2013 at 9:51 am  (Quote)

    I don’t seem to have time for you today.

    But in short: women serve in the military, women take the oath of allegiance, women vote, women are charged with crimes, women serve time and serve on juries, women hold office, women even own property. Women participate in every important political and civil activity. Just like men.

    Women also can have babies. Men can’t. If you want to talk about jurisdiction!

    A.R. Nash: “Are women subject?” And the ancient answer, long forgotten, is “no”.
    It appears I was not unambiguous. So…The Modern answer is…no one knows because no one knows what jurisdiction is anymore. Has the definition changed in our era? No, because it has not been addressed. It has been wrongly assume that it means something that it does not mean. Its real meaning was lost to the mist of ancient history, (until I uncovered it). If you truly want to understand it, you’ll need to read one or more of my expositions on the subject, the first and most major one is about 12 pages: BEARING ARMS, TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE.

  409. Majority Will says:
    May 1, 2013 at 9:51 am  (Quote)

    Paper: We are a country of immigrants. Our families all came from somewhere. It is part of our social fabric and consciousness.

    40 Percent of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children

    (excerpt) A new report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Eighteen percent (or 90) of the 500 companies had immigrant founders. The children of immigrants started another 114 companies.

    One reason these figures are remarkable is that, according to the report, the foreign-born population of the United States has averaged 10.5 percent since 1850. That means immigrant entrepreneurs are overrepresented on the list of founders of Fortune 500 companies. As the report notes, “The revenue generated by Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants of children of immigrants is greater than the GDP (gross domestic product) of every country in the world outside the U.S., except China and Japan.” These Fortune 500 companies had combined revenues of $4.2 trillion in 2010, $1.7 trillion which from immigrant-founded companies.

    The report also notes,” Many of America’s greatest brands – Apple, Google, AT&T Budweiser, Colgate, eBay, General Electric, IBM, and McDonalds to name just a few – owe their origin to a founder who was an immigrant or the child of an immigrant.”

    The list accompanying the research carries some surprising information, Steve Jobs, the famous co-founder of Apple, is a child of an immigrant parent from Syria. Walt Disney also was the child of an immigrant (from Canada), as well as the founders of Oracle (Russia and Iran). IBM (Germany), Clorox (Ireland), Boeing (Germany) 3M (Canada) and Home Depot (Russia).

    More: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/

  410. ballantine says:
    May 1, 2013 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:
    ballantine: “Again, there is the most influential treatise on public law in 1866: [NOTE: Description as Influential, -NOT INFALLIBLE!Again you descend to the elementary school ploy of citing “authority” supported by no principle or facts whatsoever.]When will you grasp that the contest isn’t about what the law is assumed to be, it is about what the truths of the issues actually are.I don’t need convincing about what the erroneous views are that are controlling in our warped legal world today.

    “All aliens are fully subject to the jurisdiction of a nation.However, through mutual comity, they usually don’t exercise the jurisdiction the same, though that is entirely in their discretion.?”What a jackass statement!Again, another fool who did not have a clue as to what jurisdiction means.What his ignorant view meant was that all aliens are subject to the POWER of a nation.Duh!Jurisdiction is not Power, it is Authority.

    Seriously, do you go on medical blogs and tell doctors that medical terms are not what they think they mean but what you think they mean? “Jurisdiction” is a legal term of art and jurisdiciton over persons is one of the fundamental maxim of public international law. It is probably the first thing you would learn in a course in public law. Any 19th century treatise on public law states exactly who is subject to the jurisdiction of a nation as did our Supreme Court both in McFadden v. The Exchange and again in Wong Kim Ark. Indeed, there are many cases around the world on this issue of public international law. I am sorry you cannot understand this but it is a fact. Any alien is subject to the full legal authority or jurisidiction of the nation they are in though it may in accordance with comity or custom decide not to fully exercise such jurisdiction. That is the law.

  411. Keith says:
    May 1, 2013 at 11:20 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: You would also if next time you visit Cuba they drag you off the beach and throw your tourist behind into their military. Even Cuba does not claim any such authority. Show me one civilized nation on earth that does. No tourist in the civilized world is subject to the full political jurisdiction of a foreign nation that they are visiting. When will that fact get through to you?

    You would be surprised about the flourishing and peaceful tourist trade going on in Cuba. I know several people who have been there. By all reports, it is a beautiful country. Especially if you are a fan of vintage cars.

    As for the definition of the word ‘jurisdiction’, as it appears in the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark decision defined it as ‘subject to the legal system of the United States’, nothing more and nothing less. It has been settled law for over 100 years. When will that fact get through to you?

    Every country on Earth claims jurisdiction over every individual, citizen or foreigner, within its borders in exactly the same way as the United States. Show me one civilized country that does not.

    This is an example of ‘the law of nations’ that I suspect M. de Vattel probably had a fairly useful comment on. If it were otherwise, foreigners could impose themselves on a country, rape, murder, steal, etc, etc, and they could not be held to account in that country’s judicial system. Do you really think you can go to Mexico and get away with murder?

    Tourists and other ‘temporary’ foreign visitors in America are subject to the Jurisdiction of American Law while they are in the country. It cannot be otherwise.

    You are, like your newly adopted nom-de-plume, all wet.

  412. Scientist says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: No moral government asserts the authority to conscript or kidnap its guests, throw them into bootcamp, train them til they drop, and then send them to their death in battle.

    A meaningless argument because we are not talking about whether the visiting parents are citizens (they are not), but whether the CHILD is. And you are damned right that the US asserts the right to draft that US-born child when they reach 18 even if the visitor parents remove it from the US the day after the birth and never return. For practical reasons, the US would be unlikely to send officers to the country that the 18 year old citizen is living in to impress them into service, but if the kid showed up at a US port of entry they certainly might draft him on the spot. This has actually happened in the real world. And nothing in the law precludes drafting females (as Israel and some other countries do). It’s something the US has chosen not to do, but Congress could change that tomorrow.

  413. Rickey says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:13 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject.Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations.Without them nations would fall to conquest and subjugation and enslavement.Only those whose lives can be put on the line are subject.Subjection has NO OTHER MEANING.It means to bear arms, true faith and allegiance, and to be prepared to die doing so.It is very simple but very profound.Think about it long and hard and you’ll begin to grasp just how far we’ve drifted away from our roots.

    I have thought long and hard about it, and I have concluded that you have drifted far from reality.

    As I said before, you belong in a padded cell with Bob Gard and Jedi Pauly. Gordon Epperly should join you as well. The four of you could spend the rest of your lives fruitlessly arguing about your equally asinine definitions of natural-born citizen.

  414. Rickey says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:29 pm  (Quote)

    Keith: You would be surprised about the flourishing and peaceful tourist trade going on in Cuba. I know several people who have been there. By all reports, it is a beautiful country. Especially if you are a fan of vintage cars.

    It is so bizarre that Dennis Rodman can visit North Korea but I am prohibited from visiting Cuba. The good news is that there is growing sentiment for resuming at least the tourist trade with Cuba.

  415. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:41 pm  (Quote)

    misha marinsky: That is the most preposterous hypothetical I have read.

    I don’t know, this one’s hard to beat:

    A.R. Nash: A hypothetical. If I were a leader of a manly group

  416. ballantine says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:41 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: A meaningless argument because we are not talking about whether the visiting parents are citizens (they are not), but whether the CHILD is.And you are damned right that the US asserts the right to draft that US-born child when they reach 18 even if the visitor parents remove it from the US the day after the birth and never return.Forpractical reasons, the US would be unlikely to send officers to the country that the 18 year old citizen is living in to impress them into service, but if the kid showed up at a US port of entry they certainly might draft him on the spot.This has actually happened in the real world.And nothing in the law precludes drafting females (as Israel and some other countries do).It’s something the US has chosen not to do, but Congress could change that tomorrow.

    Absolutely. The politcal obligations of the parent are not the same as the child under US law or public law. Secretary of State Fish:

    “The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father. The same principle on which such children are held by us to be citizens of the United States, and to be subject to duties to this country, applies to the children of American fathers born without the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitles the country within whose jurisdiction they are born to claim them as citizen and to subject them to duties to it,” Secretary of State Fish, Opinions of the Executive Departments on Expatriation, Naturalization and Allegiance (1873).

    Very simple, the native born child has duties that do not attach to the father and the Amendment is speaking of the jurisdiction over the child. Hence, children of citizens born oversees are subject to duties to his native land that do not attach to the father and the reverse is true here. The Civil War is a fine example as aliens were not subject to the draft unless that had declared their intention to become citizens. Numerous nations of Europe protested and the US agreed to give them 60 days to leave or be drafted. The nations of Europe then dropped their protest. Their was no exception for children of aliens born on our soil. As I said above, some sought protection at the British embassy but England refused to offer such protection the position of England being one owed his allegiance to his native land even if a British subject through one’s parents.

    The important point under public law was not that aliens were not subject to our full jurisdiction, they were, but as a matter of mutual comity and custom, aleins were not generally subjected to military service even if domiciled in the nation. However, this comity was discretionary though it one failed to grant such exemption, other nations would not grant exemptions from their service. The language of public law did not recognize the concept of partial jurisdiction. One is either under the jurisdiction of the United States or one is not.

  417. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:46 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: It’s all about illuminating the principle by which citizenship is convey as opposed to how it is bestowed. One is by life and one is by law.

    A.R., you have less light with which to illuminate the subject than a firefly has to rival the sun.

    A.R. Nash: Were I a justice deciding the Wong case, I also would have “erred” on the side of public and national interest because I couldn’t have been making an unconstitutional choice since the matter was not addressed in the Constitution, nor unambiguously addressed in the 14th Amendment’s words.

    Geez, why not wish for a pony, too? So why do you hate America so much?

  418. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:54 pm  (Quote)

    All that nonsense, and you still haven’t come up with a simple yes or no answer to the question:
    Are the U.S. citizen spouses of foreign diplomatic agents “subject to the political authority of the federal government”?

    A.R. Nash:
    “Are women subject?”And the ancient answer, long forgotten, is “no”.
    It appears I was not unambiguous.So…The Modern answer is…no one knows because no one knows what jurisdiction is anymore.Has the definition changed in our era?No, because it has not been addressed.It has been wrongly assume that it means something that it does not mean.Its real meaning was lost to the mist of ancient history, (until I uncovered it).If you truly want to understand it, you’ll need to read one or more of my expositions on the subject, the first and most major one is about 12 pages: BEARING ARMS, TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE.

    Paper: ” Regarding foreign employees, only the children of accredited foreign diplomatic officers are not subject to our jurisdiction. It is fairly clear.” It seems we were both not on the bullseye.Not just children of ambassadors but also children of the top tier of foreign reps are excluded.As for all the other foreign government employees:

    (b) Child born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.A child born in the United States is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and is a United States citizen if the…child [is] born in the United States to one of the following FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS or employees:

    (1) Employees of foreign diplomatic missions whose names appear in the State Department list entitled “Employees of Diplomatic Missions Not Printed in the Diplomatic List,” also known as the White List;Employees of foreign diplomatic missions accredited to the United Nations or the Organization of American States;

    (2) Foreign government employees with limited or no diplomatic immunity such as **consular officials** named on the State Department list entitled “FOREIGN CONSULAR OFFICERS in the United States” and their staffs.

    The majority of these individuals enjoy certain diplomatic immunities, but they are not “foreign diplomatic officers” as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-11261/0-0-0-34615/0-0-0-34645.html

    “We are a thriving country of immigrants, of all kinds. That is what makes us strong.”You aren’t living in the real world.96-97% of Americans are natural born citizens, -born of American parents.The percentage of children born to immigrants is a tiny fraction of the number of births.Most babies are born to Americans.In Japan it’s probably around 99.99% of births being to Japanese citizens.

    “When it comes to how we structure our society, America doesn’t care about such notions of natural membership. America *rejects* them” Natural membership / natural citizenship are irrelevant to American life.It is only relevant to four things.1. The Presidency.2. Who is allowed to guard the President.3.Who is allowed the highest Top Security clearances.4.Who is allowed access to and launch authority over nuclear bombs.That excludes 99.9999999% of us.So what’s there to reject?

  419. ballantine says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:59 pm  (Quote)

    Some more interesting stuff from the executive department:

    “The 4th section of the act of April 14, 1802 (Rev. Stat., 2172) (making children of naturalized persons citizens, and extending citizenship to children born abroad to citizens), “is only a municipal law, and can have no effect beyond the jurisdiction of this country, and especially in Holland, if it should be in conflict with the local law of that country. If, therefore, Johannes (whose citizenship was contested) voluntarily placed himself within Dutch jurisdiction, his rights and his obligations must be measured by the laws of Holland and not by the laws of the United States.” Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Wendell, Sept. 7,1854. MSS. Doni. Let.

    So, our law making children of citizens born overseas had no effect beyond the jurisdiction of this country. Attorney General Hoar agrees:

    “If, therefore, by the laws of the country of their birth, children of American citizens born in that country are subjects of its government, I do not think that it is competent to the United States, by any legislation, to interfere with that relation or, by undertaking to extend to them the rights of citizens of this country, to interfere with the allegiance which they may owe to the country of their birth while they continue within its territory, or to change the relation to other foreign nations which, by reason of their place of birth, may at any time exist. The rule of the common law I understand to be that a person “born in a strange country, under the obedience of a strange prince or country, is an alien” (Co.Lit. 128b), and that every person owes allegiance to the country of his birth.” Attorney General Hoar, 1869.

    So children of citizens born overseas are aliens except as provided for by statute, but even if made a citizen by statute, we didn’t treat them as citizens when in the lad of their birth. England followed the same rule for its foreign born subjects.

  420. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:00 pm  (Quote)

    Natural born citizen, Cruz, discussion at National Review:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347052/cruz-2016

  421. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:02 pm  (Quote)

    A.R. Nash: DaveB: ” if President Obama had been born, like Senator McCain, in the Panama Canal Zone, he would still have been a U.S. citizen at birth; the Canal Zone was the only place outside the United States where no prior physical presence or residence in the U.S. was required in order to transmit citizenship. Duh.”

    Transmit citizenship? From whom? Transmit via what? Soil and borders? Panamanian borders? Jus Sanguinis is the law of natural citizenship. Only legal citizens rely on jus soli or statute. Obama would not have “inherited” his mother’s citizenship from birth in a Panamanian hospital because she was too young. A few more months and he would have. That would have been jus sanguinis derivative citizenship by blood connection via legalizing statute, not by nature.

    A.R., I don’t like to go on about somebody’s mental insufficiencies– I think it’s unkind, and I think it’s important to remember that each of us is subject to error. In your case, however, I’ve obviously been moved to make a well-earned exception. Is there no limit to your stupidity?
    What I stated is a fact. Once again, I have no frame of reference upon which to construct an explanation of what a fact is, which I have any reason to believe would be comprehensible to you. Is there no one who knows what particular kind of idiot you are who can interpret such concepts for you?

  422. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:06 pm  (Quote)

    Now you’ve done it, you’re going to have A.R. hating the moon, too!

    Paper:
    Safer. True.

    Not to mention, there’s an American flag there, too.

  423. sfjeff says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:07 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:>: Show me one civilized nation on earth that does.No tourist in the civilized world is subject to the full political jurisdiction of a foreign nation that they are visiting.When will that fact get through to you?No jurisdiction?Then no citizenship for your native-born alien child.That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject.Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations.Without them nations would fall to conquest and subjugation and enslavement.Only those whose lives can be put on the line are subject.Subjection has NO OTHER MEANING.It means to bear arms, true faith and allegiance, and to be prepared to die doing so.It is very simple but very profound.Think about it long and hard and you’ll begin to grasp just how far we’ve drifted away from our roots.

    Ridiculous. Seriously ridiculous.

    Prior to national conscription in the U.S.- there was no conscription at all. When conscription became law the law defined who could be conscripted. It makes sense not to conscript temporary visitors from other lands- because they have no allegiance to the U.S.- but Congress could decide to change the law conscript any and every 18 year old- or 60 year old in the U.S. and it would be just as legal.

    Meanwhile- non-U.S. citizens have proudly served in the U.S. military.

    “Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations”

    They are subject because legislators- who were by and large older men- chose not to have conscription laws that they would themselves be subject to.

    So how did they determine ‘jurisdiction’ before conscription laws in your opinion?

  424. sfjeff says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:13 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey: It is so bizarre that Dennis Rodman can visit North Korea but I am prohibited from visiting Cuba. The good news is that there is growing sentiment for resuming at least the tourist trade with Cuba.

    I think technically you are not forbidden to visit Cuba- but that you are forbidden to spend any money(as an American citizen).

    I think prohibitions on travel to U.S. citizens is really antithetical to the beliefs of our country, and is a poor reflection on the influence of the Cuban American lobby.

  425. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 1:26 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: See there, I put the apostrophe *before* the “s” instead of where it belonged; after the “s”. See what a huge difference a little ambiguity can make. It confuses an issue and some will pick-up a meaning that wasn’t intended.

    A.R., it’s going to take a lot more than moving an apostrophe for you to start making sense.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The transmission of citizenship is governed by law unless both parents are Americans. If both are not, then their child is under government regulation regarding a requirement of residency during teen years+. That does not result in them becoming citizens, it results in them remaining citizens. They, the off-spring of one American parent, are what I’ve labeled provisional citizens.

    “In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not **descend** unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America….”
    Such a provisional citizen could also be called a semi-citizen, or limbo citizen because their citizenship-by-descent, -their “right” isn’t finalized except by fulfilling the provisions of the statute, prior to which they possess provisional citizenship and yet have to take the oath of allegiance & renunciation as if they were not citizens. That is because they received by transmission and connection of blood the foreign nationality of a foreign parent along with their American parent’s citizenship by descent.

    I apologize to ignorant asses everywhere for calling you one. Do you have any idea where you would find the CURRENT nationality laws of the United States?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: The children of American married couples are not covered under any **naturalizing authority** because they are born recognized and declared in naturalization statutes to be Americans by transmission, by blood connection, -not by Congressional mandate.

    7 FAM 1131.4 Blood Relationship Essential
    1 Establishing Blood Relationship
    (a.
    The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent [not through Law]have always contemplated the existence of a blood relationship between the child and the parent(s) through whom citizenship is claimed….Absent a blood relationship between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired.
    ~ ~ ~
    The main mention of children of married Americans is only for the purpose of declaring the citizenship with which they were born. They are Americans without regard to U.S. residency requirements. They are not provisional citizens; they are permanent natural citizens. They are not “foreign-born”; they are instead American born on foreign soil.

    A.R., is that parenthetical insertion of yours supposed to make any sense at all?
    And may I direct your attention, about the value of which I harbor no illusions, to the words “a blood relationship between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own claim is based”. That applies in any circumstance of birth by which citizenship is transmitted outside the United States– whether one parent is a citizen, or both; and whether the parents are married or not.
    There most certainly is a requirement of prior U.S. residence for parents of “children of married Americans. But then again, that’s one of those things we call “facts”, and I really don’t expect you to understand it.

  426. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 2:33 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t have to put a whole lot of thought into it to see how far you’ve drifted from reality.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject. Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations. Without them nations would fall to conquest and subjugation and enslavement. Only those whose lives can be put on the line are subject. Subjection has NO OTHER MEANING. It means to bear arms, true faith and allegiance, and to be prepared to die doing so. It is very simple but very profound. Think about it long and hard and you’ll begin to grasp just how far we’ve drifted away from our roots

  427. Yoda says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:01 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: No jurisdiction? Then no citizenship for your native-born alien child. That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject. Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations. Without them nations would fall to conquest and subjugation and enslavement. Only those whose lives can be put on the line are subject. Subjection has NO OTHER MEANING. It means to bear arms, true faith and allegiance, and to be prepared to die doing so. It is very simple but very profound. Think about it long and hard and you’ll begin to grasp just how far we’ve drifted away from our roots.

    I have stayed away from this thread because I have gotten to the point where arguing with people who think that there is any merit to the deVattel nonsense is no long that much fun and pretty much useless. But I had to respond to this, but before I do, I need the answer to one question–are you retarded? I don’t mean that in a mean way, I really don’t, but I do not think that I can respond to you fairly unless I know whether you suffer from retardation. So let me know and then I will give you my response to your “thoughts”.

  428. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm  (Quote)

    English common law does not exist in the presence of American state statutes and constitutional mandates regarding who is and isn’t a member of the state. They never co-exist. It’s one or the other. Like alpha males and their territory. Two alpha males do not share the same territory. Like two laws in contradiction, -one state, one federal. Only one will be followed. You can’t follow both simultaneously. Like marijuana laws. Only state laws permitting it are enforced or only federal laws that forbid it. It can’t be both.

    So it’s an asinine brain-dead assertion that English common law controlled state citizenship because all of the colonies and states had their own law which displaced it. Common law was only resorted to in matters for which there was no positive law.

    There was no positive law regarding jus soli citizenship in any state that has been identified except Virginia. If no one can met the challenge of showing that many more, or even most states allowed jus soli citizenship in their constitutions or state laws, then everyone has no business not dropping the assertion that Gray stupidly made that is was the practice in the United States as if the states were too stupid to know how to pass fundamental laws. What an insult and probably a flat out lie.

    I will be convinced by facts that prove otherwise, but anticipate that very few will be found or even exist. But even in the case of Virginia, it did not follow English common law because it followed its own jus soli law. You simply can’t square the two situations co-existing because that would require the impossible since state citizenship laws couldn’t exist where English jus soli subjecthood was allowed due to the absence of any state law.

    So claiming that American citizenship was determined by the philosophy of a distant royal dictatorship is ridiculous on its face. After the Revolution (note that all of the colonies joined in it and formed new sovereign states) every state wrote and passed its own constitution, and its unthinkable that the important subject of state citizenship was not a part of such documents.

    State constitutions ended the reign of English common law in regard to every subject they covered. Poof! Common Law vanished in a flash. Jus soli went the way of the dinosaur.
    Prove otherwise and vanquish my near certainty. I dare you to try. You’ll lose, and then you’ll have a serious zeitgeist crisis because the up-shot will be that Obama’s supposed natural born citizenship will also vanish, and will then be seen to be based on falsehood.
    Here’s a news flash that shows just how everyone can be wrong because of wide-spread misconceptions; what’s the name of the Mexican city just across the border below San Diego? Is it Tiajuana? Would you not say that that is correct? Well you’d be wrong. The river there is the Tiajuana river but the city is Tijuana. There are only two “a”s, not three. Tee–hawna; not tia–hwana.
    Same goes for that American island in the Caribbean. There is no such place as Porto Rico. There is only Puerto Rico. Doh!

  429. Dr Kenneth Noisewater says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:15 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.: I don’t have to put a whole lot of thought into it to see how far you’ve drifted from reality.

    Obviously his whole belief system is based entirely on the book/film Starship Troopers. I used to know someone who thought we should base our entire society on the military controlled society in that book.

  430. Rickey says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:31 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Natural born citizen, Cruz, discussion at National Review:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347052/cruz-2016

    I hope that Cruz runs. Rubio and Jindal, too. Birther heads everywhere will be exploding.

  431. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:33 pm  (Quote)

    Yoda: “I do not think that I can respond to you fairly unless I know whether you suffer from retardation. So let me know and then I will give you my response to your “thoughts”.

    Your response, along with my thoughts, are irrelevant to what the truth is. The facts are what they are, regardless of whether or not they are recognized and acknowledged. That has been the history of all forms of knowledge. You should learn from history.
    But then your thoughts are god-like, so I’m sure I’ll be enlightened cause you’ve “seen the light”, and it’s what everyone says before you. All faithful followers, just like the dear North Koreans. Whatever Authority says is true. The dear Leader sunk 9 holes-in-one the first time he played a round of golf! It must be true because the leadership told us so. Mindless, like you. No original thought capacity. smug, self-satisfied, and over-confident in your own wisdom and the infallibility of others in black robes. A recipe for blindness.

    DaveB: “There most certainly is a requirement of prior U.S. residence for parents of “children of married Americans.”

    And that fact makes no point whatsoever, which is because you have no point that you can make. No contest of facts, no debate of principles because they don’t exist in your government-is-everything world.

    Americans who have never lived in America will not be viewed as being very American so their children born and raised abroad just like them are not Americans by natural law. They are new members of their (foreign) homeland.

    “So how did they determine ‘jurisdiction’ before conscription laws in your opinion?”
    By the Law of Nations and by natural laws of natural responsibility. Some are responsible (members of a society), and some aren’t, (foreigners). But don’t overlook the fact that subjection didn’t need to be determined because of state laws controlling citizenship.

    Only the words of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment brought the issue into focus in regard solely to native-born children of foreigners, -some of whom were not American immigrants but merely foreign visitors.

  432. J.D. Sue says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:36 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: No jurisdiction? Then no citizenship for your native-born alien child. That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject. Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations.

    —
    You are essentially saying that only children born of “reasonably fit men of military age” can father a citizen, because that is his privilege–and his privilege alone?

  433. J.D. Sue says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:43 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: No jurisdiction? Then no citizenship for your native-born alien child. That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject. Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations.

    —
    You are essentially saying that only children born of “reasonably fit men of military age” can father a citizen, because that is his privilege–and his privilege alone?
    —-
    I wrote that wrong, I’ll try again:

    You are essentially saying that only “reasonably fit men of military age” can father a citizen, because that is his privilege–and his privilege alone?

  434. Paper says:
    May 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm  (Quote)

    Quick break:

    Well, we reject this, too.

    The military can invoke rules within its ranks, but America also rejects your notions about natural membership as it applies to the presidency or commander-in-chief. The military reports to civilian authority, not the other way around.

    There is no parentage requirement for natural born citizenship. The founders never discussed such. There is no historical source for your argument.

    You are left with your notions of natural law in which America has no interest. It is not that we don’t comprehend; it is that we as a country want nothing to do with it.

    A.R. Nash:
    Paper: “When it comes to how we structure our society, America doesn’t care about such notions of natural membership. America *rejects* them”

    Nash: Natural membership / natural citizenship are irrelevant to American life. It is only relevant to four things. 1. The Presidency. 2. Who is allowed to guard the President. 3. Who is allowed the highest Top Security clearances. 4. Who is allowed access to and launch authority over nuclear bombs. That excludes 99.9999999% of us. So what’s there to reject?

  435. scott e says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:02 pm  (Quote)

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamabots-going-crazy-over-birth-certificate-announcement/

    this is off topic i know, but i’m curious what you think about this kevin ??

    [Moved to the Open Thread. Doc.]

  436. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:06 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Your response, along with my thoughts, are irrelevant to what the truth is.

    Well, you finally got one right. Your thoughts are most certainly irrelevant to what the truth is.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: DaveB: “There most certainly is a requirement of prior U.S. residence for parents of “children of married Americans.”

    And that fact makes no point whatsoever, which is because you have no point that you can make. No contest of facts, no debate of principles because they don’t exist in your government-is-everything world.

    Americans who have never lived in America will not be viewed as being very American so their children born and raised abroad just like them are not Americans by natural law. They are new members of their (foreign) homeland.

    That fact merely illustrates how disconnected from facts your ravings are. And I see you’re beginning to qualify your position. How’s about you turn that qualification of yours the other way around and see what happens?

  437. Yoda says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: our response, along with my thoughts, are irrelevant to what the truth is. The facts are what they are, regardless of whether or not they are recognized and acknowledged. That has been the history of all forms of knowledge. You should learn from history.
    But then your thoughts are god-like, so I’m sure I’ll be enlightened cause you’ve “seen the light”, and it’s what everyone says before you. All faithful followers, just like the dear North Koreans. Whatever Authority says is true. The dear Leader sunk 9 holes-in-one the first time he played a round of golf! It must be true because the leadership told us so. Mindless, like you. No original thought capacity. smug, self-satisfied, and over-confident in your own wisdom and the infallibility of others in black robes. A recipe for blindness.

    You are correct, which is why I am letting 200+ years of jurisprudence speak for me. It is not that I believe that the justices on the Supreme Court are infallible; it is that the Supreme Court, as a body is infallible. That does not mean that they do not make mistakes, but much like the Pope, what they says, goes. It becomes the law of the land unless or until Congress acts to overturn the decision legislatively or another case comes along which allows the Supreme Court to reverse itself. It is a matter of respecting the Supreme Court decisions, something which birthers will never figure out. As I have said all along, if, per chance, the Supreme Court were ever to agree with your interpretation of NBC, I might disagree, I might encourage Congress to act, but I would accept it as the law. On the other hand, birthers would whine about corruption.

    Put it bluntly, you are wrong on the law as established by precedent. I don’t care what the original intent of the founders was because it is irrelevant once the SCOTUS rules on an issue or interpretation of the Constitution. Your “opinion”, as retarded as it is, establishes one more time that birthers hate the Constitution. And by the way, apparently the answer to my question is that yes, you are retarded.

  438. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:19 pm  (Quote)

    I think it’s a bit silly. Anonymous endorsements are nothing, and people saying so isn’t news either.

    The only thing of informational value is the admission of ppsimmons that he’s deleting large numbers of comments, but the unwillingness of Zullo and his supporters to engage any kind of debate isn’t news either.

    scott e:
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamabots-going-crazy-over-birth-certificate-announcement/

    this is off topic i know, but i’m curious what you think about this kevin ??

    [Moved to the Open Thread. Doc.]

  439. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:48 pm  (Quote)

    And that forbidden comment he posted by way of example was sooo deranged, wasn’t it? As compared, of course, to the perfectly sane, rational comments that were allowed; none of which could, of course, be characterized as “mindless, uniformed, and panicked responses.” My favorite is this one:
    “It is a circus. What with this announcement and WND’s article, they are in an absolute tizzy. It’s funny to watch them repeat each others words and talking points, Same presentation of statements as facts, quotes from the same liberal tools (no matter which party they hail from). Just the uproar proves guilt.”
    Now just remove the word “liberal”, or substitute some other, uh, association with it, and what have you got?

    Dr. Conspiracy: The only thing of informational value is the admission of ppsimmons that he’s deleting large numbers of comments, but the unwillingness of Zullo and his supporters to engage any kind of debate isn’t news either.

  440. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: “We are a country of immigrants. Our families all came from somewhere. It is part of our social fabric and consciousness.
    Maybe not yours. I wouldn’t be surprised, I suppose.”
    Please disabuse yourself of that false notion by visiting the family ancestry gallery I recently made which details a fascinating foreign history going back to the Revolutionary War.

    ballantine: “Any 19th century treatise on public law states exactly who is subject to the jurisdiction of a nation as did our Supreme Court…”

    Your frame of reference is wrong. Jurisdiction is a matter of natural obligation and government perception regarding who has a natural national obligation and who doesn’t.

    Subjection to the authority of law is not political jurisdiction at its primal level, to which only citizen and immigrant males are subject. The fact that authorities were unaware of truths that preceded their generation does not change those truths.

    You need to go back further in time to understand the principles that govern natural and organized groups. If one doesn’t know something then one can’t include it in what he writes since it won’t be a part of what he thinks. But your lack of knowledge does not result in knowledge you lack not existing. It is real regardless of your unawareness.

    My point is that the “authorities” were unaware of fundamental principles contained in the foundation of nations. They didn’t live and think on that fundamental level.

    “Any alien is subject to the full legal authority or jurisdiction of the nation they are in though it may in accordance with comity or custom decide not to fully exercise such jurisdiction. That is the law.”

    That view is rife with error. First, custom is NOT law. Peoples that found nations on ideals of liberty do not accept the proposition that their government has unlimited power. It is totally, and completely unAmerican to think otherwise.

    Free nations reject unlimited government power, including unlimited power over foreign guests. They *must* be treated in accord with respect for their free choice to serve only their own nation and not submit to the political authority of a foreign government.

    That quoted statement is a swamp of ambiguous, undefined terminology which comes with no definition of what it is talking about. If you search for the specifics of what full political jurisdiction means you will find no answer except the one that I gave. That’s because it is virtually unknown.

    No one has defined it, -or has defined it superficially and incorrectly. There is no law that authorities can’t get things wrong, because they do, especially when it comes to the big picture that they can’t see. Don’t be afraid of stepping out from under their broad shadow and seeing the big picture, seeing the entire forest instead of just the legal trees contained within it.

  441. gorefan says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:56 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think it’s a bit silly

    This was interesting,

    “The following example is the exact wording of a post from one of the major and national leaders of the Obamabot disinformation campaign.”

    “COMMENT POST BY OBAMABOT:
    Wow, by now you have at least 10 groups of VIPs, none of whom can be named. … “

    So how would they know that “Obamabot” is a one of the major and national leaders? Is it because he/she is posting under the name “OBAMABOT”? No one but one of the major national leaders can use that name.

    And it’s fascinating that they have to fantasize that the opposition is some kind of huge national organization. Does it make their defeats easier to take? “It can’t be our fault or because of our ideas that we keep losing, it must be because of the large national organized Obamabots!”

    BTW, if you go to the PPSimmons website that comment appears to have been deleted. LOL

  442. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 1, 2013 at 4:58 pm  (Quote)

    If all of this is but a matter of perception, then the majority who perceive Obama as President must be right.

    PFFT.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Your frame of reference is wrong. Jurisdiction is a matter of natural obligation and government perception regarding who has a natural national obligation and who doesn’t.

  443. Yoda says:
    May 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm  (Quote)

    I am fascinated by the extreme right wing mindset. Although I am a republican, I am not in denial. I just heard Michael Savage say that 55% of the Country hates Obama and wants him removed as President. Is it my imagination that there was an election approximately 6 months ago in which the President was re-elected in very convincing fashion?

    Where do these stats come from?

  444. Majority Will says:
    May 1, 2013 at 5:19 pm  (Quote)

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Obviously his whole belief system is based entirely on the book/film Starship Troopers.I used to know someone who thought we should base our entire society on the military controlled society in that book.

    Johnny Rico: “Someone asked me once if I knew the difference between a civilian and a citizen. I know now. A citizen has the courage to make the safety of the human race their personal responsibility. Dizzy was my friend. She was a soldier. But most important, she was a citizen of the Federation.”

    Jean Rasczak: “Why are only citizens allowed to vote?”

    Student: “It’s a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.”

    Jean Rasczak: “No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”

  445. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 5:25 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: “Any 19th century treatise on public law states exactly who is subject to the jurisdiction of a nation as did our Supreme Court…”

    Your frame of reference is wrong. Political jurisdiction is a matter of natural obligation and government perception regarding who has a natural national obligation and who doesn’t.
    Subjection to the authority of law is not political jurisdiction at its primal level, to which only citizen and immigrant males are subject. The fact that authorities were unaware of truths that preceded their generation does not change those truths.

    You need to go back further in time to understand the principles that govern natural and organized groups. If one doesn’t know something then he can’t include it in what he writes since it won’t be a part of what he thinks. But one’s lack of knowledge does not result in knowledge one lacks not existing. It is real regardless of one’s unawareness.

    My point is that the “authorities” were unaware of fundamental principles contained in the foundation of nations. They didn’t live and think on that fundamental level.

    “Any alien is subject to the full legal authority or jurisdiction of the nation they are in though it may in accordance with comity or custom decide not to fully exercise such jurisdiction. That is the law.”

    That view is rife with error. First, custom is NOT law. Peoples that found nations on ideals of liberty do not accept the proposition that their government has unlimited power.
    It is totally, and completely unAmerican to think otherwise. Free nations reject unlimited government power, including unlimited power over foreign guests. They *must* be treated in accord with respect for their free choice to serve only their own nation and not submit to the political authority of a foreign government.

    That quoted statement is a swamp of ambiguous, undefined terminology which comes with no definition of what it is talking about. If you search for the specifics of what full political jurisdiction means you will find no answer except the one that I gave. That’s because it is virtually unknown. No one has defined it, -or has defined it superficially and incorrectly.
    There is no law that authorities can’t get things wrong, because they do, especially when it comes to the big picture that they can’t see. Don’t be afraid of stepping out from under their broad shadow and seeing the big picture, seeing the entire forest instead of just the legal trees contained within it.

    Keith wrote: “As for the definition of the word ‘jurisdiction’, as it appears in the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark decision defined it as ‘subject to the legal system of the United States’, nothing more and nothing less. It has been settled law for over 100 years. When will that fact get through to you?”
    In fact you err totally. The Wong “decision” was nothing other than the opinion that he was a citizen by birth to resident parents. Nothing more was part of the Wong decision. No definition was contained in that opinion of the court. Nothing that was not part of the ruling in the case is a part of “settled law”. I thought you would be the one informing all of us of that fact and yet you are oblivious to it. Pathetic.

    But, the bigger point is that a nation called the United States existed before any SC opinion existed regarding citizenship or an explanation for a term used in an amendment far in the distant future from the time when the nation was founded.

    The truth as to what jurisdiction actually means, -not what it supposedly legally means based on a definition that was not part of a SC ruling, -that truth is unchanging regardless of the perceptions or misperceptions of authorities.
    The debate isn’t about what “the law” is assumed to be, but what the truth actually is. What is the truth? Is it whatever people say it is regardless of reality? Or is it independent of human opinion bandied about in a distant and ignorant age?

  446. ballantine says:
    May 1, 2013 at 5:34 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    ballantine: “Any 19th century treatise on public law states exactly who is subject to the jurisdiction of a nation as did our Supreme Court…”

    Your frame of reference is wrong.Jurisdiction is a matter of natural obligation and government perception regarding who has a natural national obligation and who doesn’t.

    Subjection to the authority of law is not political jurisdiction at its primal level, to which only citizen and immigrant males are subject.The fact that authorities were unaware of truths that preceded their generation does not change those truths.

    Sigh. “Jurisdiction” has been defined by our Supreme Court and courts all over the world as I have defined it. You saying there is a higher proof based upon your word does not change those laws. As much as you desire, you opinions about truth that you support with nothing but your own opinion are not law anyplace but in your head.

    “Any alien is subject to the full legal authority or jurisdiction of the nation they are in though it may in accordance with comity or custom decide not to fully exercise such jurisdiction. That is the law.”

    That view is rife with error. First, custom is NOT law. Peoples that found nations on ideals of liberty do not accept the proposition that their government has unlimited power. It is totally, and completely unAmerican to think otherwise.

    You saying what our Supreme Court, courts around the world, the practice or nations for centuries and the unquestioned rule of international law is wrong again means nothing. Stop the presses, a uneducated blogger thinks unquestioned rule of international law is wrong and hence we must re-write the nationality laws of all nations. At this point I think you are yanking our chain as no one could really think that saying he is right and everyone in history is wrong over and over is going to convince anyone.

    The bottom line is that the millions of children of citizens born overseas that do not fall under a statute are aliens. Neither the United States nor any other nation has or is going to treat them as citizens. That is a fact no matter what you say. At the same time anchor and vacation babies are natural born citizens under our established law and are eligible for all the benefits of such citizenship. Again, that is a fact. Sorry you can’t deal with such facts. Calling your own invented law of citizenship the actual law when no one in the world agrees with you is delusional. Seriously, seek help.

  447. ballantine says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:14 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    And you can keep repeating “fully subject to the political jurisdiction”but

    (1). That is not what the amendment says

    (2) Such term were not part of public law which had no separate jurisdiction for policial obligations

    (3) No one involed with the amendment used such term

    (4) Your construction of the term was the losing side’s argument in Wong

    (5) What ever you think the undefined use of the term meant in Elk, such was superceded by Wong’s clear definition of “subject to the jurisdiction”

    (6). The amendment speaks to the jurisdiction of the child and no legal authority has exempted native born children of aliens from military obligations.

    Those are the facts. Now you can say the supreme court was wrong and try to over-rule its definition. Until then, saying its decision is not law is delusional. Why don’t you ignore its decisions on criminal law and see what happens to you.

  448. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:33 pm  (Quote)

    Joe Montgomery has been throwing Luria at me, even though it absolutely undermines his wacky interpretation of Minor. He’s focused like a laser on Justice Van Devanter’s citation of Minor (along with Osborn v. Bank and Elk v. Wilkins) and makes a big deal out of Minor being cited and not Wong. Never mind that he’s entirely missing the point of the citations, now he’s going on about how Elk backs him up. He can’t seem to make up his mind whether he wants to be a strict Vatteloid or a not-subject-to-the-jurisdictionoid. So I go to Wong, where the same Justice Gray who wrote the opinion in Elk said:
    “The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.”
    Of course, Joe says Justice Gray was just “walking back” the earlier decision.

    ballantine: (5) What ever you think the undefined use of the term meant in Elk, such was superceded by Wong’s clear definition of “subject to the jurisdiction”

  449. arnash says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:35 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist wrote: “we are not talking about whether the visiting parents are citizens (they are not), but whether the CHILD is”

    No, we are talking about whether or not the parents are “subject to the jurisdiction”. If they are not, -and visitors are not, then the 14th Amendment has no avenue through which to reach their child because it can only apply through them.
    If the head of the family is not subject, then the family is not subject. Exemption is not piecemeal, it is all or nothing.
    Free nations’ laws and policies do not include an authority directly over the children of free citizens nor foreign citizens. All authority is over the parents directly, and indirectly though them to the children. If Dad isn’t subject to the political authority of a visited nation, then neither is junior. Junior is only subject to Senior, -Not to uncle Sam. Children are…not…directly…Subject! (they can’t be drafted, -not until they are no longer children. Adults bear the responsibility to obey the authority of national governments and to defend nations, not minors. Minors are not subject.)

    Secretary of State Fish: “The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.”
    If that was written after 1898, it was an accurate reflection of our erroneous policy (not law) thanks to Attorney General Griggs. If written before then it would be inaccurate because he made an utterly ambiguous statement by not differentiating between children of alien immigrants and children of alien tourists.
    He didn’t speak with alien tourists in mind. He was referring to foreign immigrants. Their children were born with the same latent responsibility to defend their homeland as natural citizens.
    “…that aliens were not subject to our full jurisdiction, they were, but as a matter of mutual comity and custom, aliens were not generally subjected to military service even if domiciled in the nation”

    Until the Griggs misinterpretation of the Wong opinion, the fathers were not under that obligation and were exempt from conscription. But by declaring their children to be citizens, the Supreme Court had made a shadow ruling that the fathers are indeed subject to the full political authority of the U.S. government, and were therefore subject to military service even though they were foreigners.
    That being due to the fact that if the child is subject, then the father is also because subjection flows through him, -the head of the family.

    The philosophical talk of comity is based on the Law of Nations considerations, but they are not actual law. The United States government never acknowledged nor asserted that it possessed such authority, -the power to draft foreigners. But that changed when the high court declared their alien-born children to be United States Citizens.
    Then, if the child is born with the latent responsibility to defend his homeland, then that responsibility was also one of his father who was the natural defender of his family, and community.

    One can’t be a part of the community of a nation and claim exemption from the fundamental obligation of its members by claiming that “I wasn’t born here so I’m exempt”. BS. You are responsible to defend the defenseless and to defend against enslavement. No slackers and shirkers allowed. There is a place where you can protest your resistance to inclusion in the defense of your new country and that is in federal prison. That became the new Unites States policy due to the Wong opinion’s side effect.

    But if the Griggs error were followed to its logical conclusion, then tourist fathers of U.S. born children could also be drafted because their child is supposedly a U.S. Citizen through their subjection to the political authority of Washington. Well if the foreign-tourist baby is subject, then so is his father. Draft him as payback for naturalizing his child at birth. The government could do it if it followed the logic of the Griggs error.

    “No difference between immigrant fathers who are members of American society, and tourist fathers who are not. Draft both of them. Warning to all tourist fathers! Don’t let your baby be born on U.S. soil unless you are ready to be drafted! That’s the price of your child’s U.S. citizenship.”
    Why should that *not* be the law? Because the whole system of citizenship by birth alone without subjection is a perversion of sane policy and correct interpretation.

    http://nnjjob.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/home/ my family ancestry website; a fascinating read that you’ll enjoy as a child of immigrant ancestors.

  450. Slartibartfast says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:37 pm  (Quote)

    Foggy admitted to being the author of said post (under the name “Foggy”) a couple of days ago on the Fogbow (to see if they were still moderating), and inasmuch as there are “major national leaders” of the obots, I think it’s fair to call him one.

    Which doesn’t change the fact that the birthers colossal overestimation of their own importance leads them to assume that their “enemies” are part of a massive diabolical organization as the only explanation that they can envision as to why there hasn’t been any frogmarching as of yet…

    gorefan: This was interesting,

    “The following example is the exact wording of a post from one of the major and national leaders of the Obamabot disinformation campaign.”


    “COMMENT POST BY OBAMABOT:Wow, by now you have at least 10 groups of VIPs, none of whom can be named. … “

    So how would they know that “Obamabot” is a one of the major and national leaders?Is it because he/she is posting under the name “OBAMABOT”?No one but one of the major national leaders can use that name.

    And it’s fascinating that they have to fantasize that the opposition is some kind of huge national organization.Does it make their defeats easier to take?“It can’t be our fault or because of our ideas that we keep losing, it must be because of the large national organized Obamabots!”

    BTW, if you go to the PPSimmons website that comment appears to have been deleted. LOL

  451. nbc says:
    May 1, 2013 at 6:58 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Your frame of reference is wrong. Jurisdiction is a matter of natural obligation and government perception regarding who has a natural national obligation and who doesn’t.

    Being subject to jurisdiction is, as the Court in Wong Kim Ark explained, being within its jurisdiction, citing the use of the two terms in the 14th and how one cannot be more restricted than the other. It is clear that the drafters of the 14th Amendment fully understood what was meant by subject to jurisdiction or not subject to any foreign jurisdiction, both of which exclude a small group of common law exceptions to the jus soli rule.

  452. Yoda says:
    May 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm  (Quote)

    Dave B.:
    Joe Montgomery has been throwing Luria at me, even though it absolutely undermines his wacky interpretation of Minor.He’s focused like a laser on Justice Van Devanter’s citation of Minor (along with Osborn v. Bank and Elk v. Wilkins) and makes a big deal out of Minor being cited and not Wong.Never mind that he’s entirely missing the point of the citations, now he’s going on about how Elk backs him up.He can’t seem to make up his mind whether he wants to be a strict Vatteloid or a not-subject-to-the-jurisdictionoid.So I go to Wong, where the same Justice Gray who wrote the opinion in Elk said:
    “The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.”
    Of course, Joe says Justice Gray was just “walking back” the earlier decision.

    Luria and the other similar cases conclusively prove the deVattalistians wrong. Clearly SCOTUS was using native and natural born interchangeably.

  453. Arthur says:
    May 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm  (Quote)

    As reported by Talking Points Memo, more evidence that a significant percentage of Americans are drawn to conspiracy thinking and fantasies of a coming civil war:

    “Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.” In the survey, people were asked to respond to the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” Twenty-nine percent agreed.

    Moreover, “25 percent of voters believe the American public is being lied to about the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by people seeking to promote a political agenda.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/armed-rebellion-poll.php?ref=fpb

  454. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm  (Quote)

    Ballantine: “So, our law making children of citizens born overseas had no effect beyond the jurisdiction of this country.”
    Wow! Reality just isn’t getting through to you. No law in American history has made children of Americans born abroad U.S. citizens. All declarations in statutes do is declare the fact of the citizenship of American children due to blood connection (providing natural citizenship transmission) because bonehead officers and magistrates might not understand reality, which is clearly the case. Without seeing by the light of natural principles you must resort to seeing by the light of law instead, and it’s full of erroneous beliefs, conflicting opinions, and misguided policies.

    “Attorney General Hoar agrees:

    “If, therefore, by the laws of the country of their birth, children of American citizens born in that country are subjects of its government, I do not think that it is competent to the United States,…by undertaking to EXTEND TO THEM THE RIGHTS of citizens of this country, to interfere with the allegiance which they may owe to the country of their birth…”

    WOW! What unmitigated ignorance of natural law. The American government has no authority to extend nor not extend that over which it has no authority. It has no authority over their American citizenship because the Constitution grants no such authority. It granted authority only to write a uniform rule nation-wide for states to naturalize their foreign immigrants.
    Children of married American parents are not under any authority of Congress, nor even the Constitution. Their citizenship is not an allowance of government. It is a naturally transmitted status which is an unalienable RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP. A right is not a privilege given by government.
    “which they may owe to the country of their birth…” BS Pure BS. American children do not owe allegiance to any nation on earth because they are children. They have a latent responsibility toward America and develop one toward the land where they grow up, -not because they were born there, but because they become acculturated as part of that society.

    “…while they continue within its territory,” “The rule of the common law, I understand [ AN OPINION] to be that a person “born in a strange country, under the obedience of a strange prince or country, is an alien” (Co.Lit. 128b), and that every person owes allegiance to the country of his birth.” Attorney General Hoar, 1869.

    What an ignoramus. It must have been the zeitgeist in which he was educated. Falsely lead to believe that Natural Law does not exist, and government policy is supreme, as if positive law is non-existent.

    If your pregnant wife delivered your first born just over the Mexican border, would it be your attitude that your son or daughter is a Mexican alien? The connection to you and your wife means not a damn thing? It has no RIGHT to American citizenship inherited from you? That would be a scary world. One in which government policy is all powerful.
    But don’t overlook the context of that utterly outdated view: “under the obedience of a strange PRINCE”. That says it all. A mandate by the selfish authorities of a selfish royal dictator. Natural Rights be damned!

  455. Northland10 says:
    May 1, 2013 at 7:43 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Your frame of reference is wrong. Jurisdiction is a matter of natural obligation and government perception regarding who has a natural national obligation and who doesn’t.

    I am going to repeat myself from earlier:

    Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886):

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

    “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
    …

    The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0118_0356_ZO.html

    That is all there is. There is nothing more. You are not understanding Wong, you are just plain Wrong.

  456. Dave B. says:
    May 1, 2013 at 7:56 pm  (Quote)

    I was pointing out to Montgomery that the “doubts” Chief Justice Waite referred to in Minor were primarily about the children of slaves and other non-white persons, as evinced by the Court’s own history in Dred Scott and later in Wong. So Joe says to me, referring to Justice Daniel’s opinion in Dred Scott, “Did you not see the court cite Vattel approvingly?”

    Yoda: Luria and the other similar cases conclusively prove the deVattalistians wrong.Clearly SCOTUS was using native and natural born interchangeably.

  457. arnash says:
    May 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm  (Quote)

    Regarding the nations of the Western Hemisphere and jus soli citizenship, an important fact was overlooked. They are not on an equal footing with the nations of Europe and elsewhere. Why not? Because every single one of them was a daughter of an imperial dictatorship which enforced its power via the jus soli doctrine in the new world while not following it in their own country.

    Those kings were the absolute owners of their New World territories, and anyone born within them belonged to his royal highness The King because they were born on his land.
    Jus Soli was about ownership, even enslavement in the case of the children of slaves, -not about inclusion in a positive way. It was inclusion in a royal selfish way.

  458. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 8:37 pm  (Quote)

    Northland10

    I wrote: Jurisdiction is a matter of natural obligation and government perception regarding who has a natural national obligation and who doesn’t.

    You fail to grasp the difference between “Rights” and national obligations, human responsibilities, civil duties.
    The rights of citizens and aliens are a completely separate and irrelevant issue to the issue of who is subject to the full authority of the central government.
    You have a right to breath. You do not have an obligation to breath. You have a right to be free, but only until your obligation interferes with that right and you are called to defend your nation whether or not you are agreeable. Obligation trumps rights because survival trumps freedom. Without obligation being obeyed, nations are conquered and end. Then there is no more freedom for anyone. Obligation comes first.

  459. Keith says:
    May 1, 2013 at 9:17 pm  (Quote)

    Majority Will: Johnny Rico: “Someone asked me once if I knew the difference between a civilian and a citizen. I know now. A citizen has the courage to make the safety of the human race their personal responsibility. Dizzy was my friend. She was a soldier. But most important, she was a citizen of the Federation.”

    Jean Rasczak: “Why are only citizens allowed to vote?”

    Student: “It’s a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.”

    Jean Rasczak: “No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”

    “Star Ship Troopers”?

  460. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 10:16 pm  (Quote)

    J.D. Sue asked: “You are essentially saying that only children born of “reasonably fit men of military age” can father a citizen, because that is his privilege–and his privilege alone?”

    Good question! Let me think….The answer is an equivocal no. Why? Because of the natural obligations of members of any group, or tribe or nation. Rights are shared by even those who don’t quality to be warriors. They qualify by virtue of “equal treatment” which they are entitled to as members of the group and as contributors to society. The young can’t be leaders, thinkers and planners, etc. Some abilities and qualities come with age and experience.

    The military can’t be providers of their own necessities like food and ammunition and clothing and medical care. So the right of others to pass their membership to their children is not based solely on current nor past military service but on being responsible, and theoretically, contributors to society.
    A nation is like a family business. It needs everyone to share in its labor and obligations. But not all equally because just as women are not able to shoulder the same physical load as men, so some men can’t shoulder the same load as younger and fitter men.
    How does that solidly connect to jurisdiction in our past and present world? It can’t be claimed that the meaning of the word is even understood today. Its origins are in the dark. distant, dangerous and deadly past.
    Off-hand, I’d guess its roots in ancient England, -perhaps even Roman England, and would be found in the rights and obligations of the nobility. (the equivalent of “warlords” today) Their knights and militias were the guardians of the nation. Privilege was earned by them for their devotion, sacrifice, and obligation for present and future duty.

    They are likely the original template for Freeman who didn’t look to nobility to protect them but assumed that burden themselves. Think Braveheart. That was not a King’s army fighting a King’s army.

    The class of citizens that bore the burden of war was the male class, so without distinction, they are pretty much equal when it comes to privileges. All could vote no matter how poor or poorly educated. So the hair of which men were military capable was never split.

  461. G says:
    May 1, 2013 at 10:40 pm  (Quote)

    Agreed. Well said and summarized, in both instances.

    The Magic M: Dr. Conspiracy: The problem with natural law is that “natural law” is merely individual prejudice wrapped up in a bow.

    Precisely. The only times I see that pop up in debates over here (and only in debates with people close to crank status) is when some religious zealot wants to justify the superiority of his beliefs to the law without openly admitting he puts his faith above the law. Their argument is always “natural law is superior to any other law, and natural law says: …” followed by whatever they think should be the law.

    In a way, it’s the legal equivalent of Intelligent Design – the latter is religion masquerading as science, the former is religion masquerading as law.

  462. Jim says:
    May 1, 2013 at 10:55 pm  (Quote)

    ballantine: Calling your own invented law of citizenship the actual law when no one in the world agrees with you is delusional.Seriously, seek help.

    Sometimes, I just come here to see if ballantine has made a comment…I almost always learn something and I’m always entertained. Thanks Bally! 😀

  463. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 1, 2013 at 11:22 pm  (Quote)

    Paper: “There is no parentage requirement for natural born citizenship. The founders never discussed such. There is no historical source for your argument.”
    Actually there is a historical source, and that is the English language and the meaning of its words. You see, they haven’t really changed over two centuries. Citizens still means citizen; born citizen still means born citizen, and natural citizen still means natural citizen. It can’t be argued that one of more of those do not exist and never have. That would be preposterous.

    Nash: “Your response, along with my thoughts, are irrelevant to what the truth is.
    DaveB: “Your thoughts are most certainly irrelevant to what the truth is.
    Nash: Hey look! The parrot can talk!

    Yoda: “I don’t care what the original intent of the founders was because it is irrelevant once the SCOTUS rules on an issue or interpretation of the Constitution.”
    That view is fine…if you are in the third grade. But adults know better about the centrality and supremacy of the Constitution. You failed in two regards. First, what the court rules is irrelevant to what truth is. Their ruling cannot change reality from what is true to what their interpretation believes.
    Second, your view is not only wrong but it is dangerous. It makes possible the rise of a dictator as no one dares counter or disobey an unconstitutional ruling giving unconstitution power to the President. You fail to understand the very system you think you are defending.

    Many thousands of public servants, law enforcement officers, court officers and military personnel must swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. Or something like that. Is that right? I think that must be right in your America. But in the real world, that would be treason to the Constitution which they all swear to support.

    Those who swear the real oath have an absolute sworn duty to disobey court rulings that violate the Constitution. That was why the founders required them to swear allegiance to the Constitution and it alone, and not the rule of the courts, nor Congress, nor the President.

    All branches of government are meant to be a counter to the others. Sometimes that may require the executive branch to ignore unconstitutional rulings of the ever divided court. Just as it’s the duty of the court to strike down unconstitutional executive orders, as they did recently by 8 or 9 to zero.
    Even Obama’s own appointees ruled against his fake “recess appointees” and thereby threw a monkey wrench in all the decisions they handed out in over a year of illegal service. Did you hear much mention of that in the three-monkeys media?

  464. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 2, 2013 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: “You saying there is a higher proof based upon your word does not change those laws. As much as you desire, you opinions about truth that you support with nothing but your own opinion are not law anyplace but in your head.”

    Seriously, you need to learn how to pay attention or how to think. You invent in your own imagination an assumption that I claim that truth is the law. When in truth I claim that truth is NOT the law. And, the law is not reflective of the truth. The truth should be the law but there is no foreseeable way for that to come about without some major national political upheaval like is essentially impossible.

    “children of citizens born overseas that do not fall under a statute are aliens. Neither the United States nor any other nation has or is going to treat them as citizens. That is a fact no matter what you say.”
    That is a flat out falsehood. Jus Sanguinis is the land of the land all across the globe. But even if you were correct, I would say that I agree they are not “going to treat them as citizens”.
    What you can’t get through your biased thick head is that that is irrelevant to what they actually are by natural law. If you are a Prince and go incognito as a peasant, and everyone treats you as a peasant, does that make you a peasant? How one is viewed and treated is not relevant to who one actually is. -This is like third grade stuff.

    “Calling your own invented law of citizenship the actual law when no one in the world agrees with you is delusional. Seriously, seek help.”
    Your saying that I’m saying what I’m in fact not say is “wrong again and means nothing.”

    What’s delusional is your own invented fanatasy that I have ever once proclaim that the truth is recognized by and incorporated in the actually the law. So let me be clear for the children who can’t understand. THE TRUTH IS NOT THE LAW. The erroneous assumptions and policies that men have erroneously embraced are the law. The truth is not embraced. It is unknown and unrecognized. Are we clear now?
    [a voice crying in the wilderness is heard by a few, but only a few, and even fewer understand. Those who hear and understand won’t accept because they are already innoculated with their own embraced false version of truth. such is reality in a world of men with closed minds.]

  465. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 2, 2013 at 12:37 am  (Quote)

    This might be an argument in favor of the right of expatriation, but not for one source of citizenship over another. Only a system where a child at majority could choose any citizenship they wanted is fully free. Being a slave to the country of ones birth isn’t any different from being a slave to the country of ones parents.

    But if you had read Kettner, and understood Calvin’s case, you would know that jus soli citizenship is based on mutual obligations between subject and sovereign. If this rubs you the wrong way, you’re always entitled to petition Congress to amend the Constitution.

    Consider this: perhaps folks here don’t have closed minds, but rather you are completely inept at expressing your opinion. At least for my part, you write so much that I don’t take the time to read more than a few words.

    arnash: Those kings were the absolute owners of their New World territories, and anyone born within them belonged to his royal highness The King because they were born on his land.
    Jus Soli was about ownership, even enslavement in the case of the children of slaves, -not about inclusion in a positive way. It was inclusion in a royal selfish way.

  466. G says:
    May 2, 2013 at 12:38 am  (Quote)

    Ah. Beware of false prophets as the saying goes… But then again, in your mind, everyone else’s “truth” is wrong…and yet, you’ve somehow stumbled on some mysterious mystical secret “truth” that everyone else is missing…

    Seriously, at what point are you incapable of looking in the mirror and not seeing the “false prophet” before you? Look up the definition of a crank and honestly, how can you not see that you fit that too a tee?

    Sorry, but your “truth” and whole concept of “natural law” is nothing but some creative positing of how you WISH the world and society behaved and has no bearing to how it actually operates. There is nothing truly “natural” about citizenship at all. These are man-made constructs, as is everything about the practical operation and interactions within and between human societies.

    You clearly have a poor grasp of science as well as being unable to distinguish between what “citizenship” and “parentage” is. Please stop conflating the two or making ignorant analogies about cats and dogs and other such nonsense. You just come across sounding increasingly insane and ignorant with every post. Your little security blanket of delusional arrogance isn’t fooling anyone but yourself.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: What’s delusional is your own invented fanatasy that I have ever once proclaim that the truth is recognized by and incorporated in the actually the law. So let me be clear for the children who can’t understand. THE TRUTH IS NOT THE LAW. The erroneous assumptions and policies that men have erroneously embraced are the law. The truth is not embraced. It is unknown and unrecognized. Are we clear now?
    [a voice crying in the wilderness is heard by a few, but only a few, and even fewer understand. Those who hear and understand won’t accept because they are already innoculated with their own embraced false version of truth. such is reality in a world of men with closed minds.]

  468. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 2, 2013 at 12:59 am  (Quote)

    ballantine: “You saying there is a higher proof based upon your word does not change those laws. As much as you desire, you opinions about truth that you support with nothing but your own opinion are not law anyplace but in your head.”

    Seriously, you need to learn how to pay attention or how to think. You invent in your own imagination an assumption that I claim that truth is the law. When in truth I claim that truth is NOT the law. And, the law is not reflective of the truth. The truth should be the law but there is no foreseeable way for that to come about without some major national political upheaval like is essentially impossible.

    “children of citizens born overseas that do not fall under a statute are aliens. Neither the United States nor any other nation has or is going to treat them as citizens. That is a fact no matter what you say.”

    That is a flat out falsehood. Jus Sanguinis is the law of the land all across the globe. But even if you were correct, I would say that I agree they are not “going to treat them as citizens”.
    What you can’t get through your biased thick head is that that is irrelevant to what they actually are by natural law. If you are a Prince and go incognito as a peasant, and everyone treats you as a peasant, does that make you a peasant? How about if you dress up as a peasant girl? Would that make you a girl? How one is viewed and treated is not relevant to who one actually is. -This is like third grade stuff.

    “Calling your own invented law of citizenship the actual law when no one in the world agrees with you is delusional. Seriously, seek help.”
    Your saying that I’m saying what I’m in fact not say is “wrong again and means nothing.”

    What’s delusional is your own invented fantasy that I have ever once proclaimed that the truth is recognized by and incorporated in the actually the law. So let me be clear for the children who can’t understand. THE TRUTH IS NOT THE LAW. The erroneous assumptions and policies that men have erroneously embraced are the law. The truth is not embraced. It is unknown and unrecognized. It stands alone. No one is its friend. Are we clear now?
    The truth is like the non-geologist who very carefully studied the earth like no other scientist, and eventually realized something that no one believed. Something unbelievable. The theory that the continents actually floated! On tectonic plates that moved. Ridiculous! No scientist of any reputation failed to not embrace his “truth”. Guess what? They were all wrong. The truth is independent of authority, including legal authority.

  469. nbc says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:13 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: HE TRUTH IS NOT THE LAW

    Well, your truth is not the law but the law is binding on all of us. It’s that simple. That you do not like the law does not make it more or less truthful.

    In our country the truth is that birth on soil, regardless of the status of the parents, with minor common law exceptions, is sufficient to make one a natural born citizen.

    The end… Anything else is wishful thinking on your part and you are not going to convince any judge that your position is the better one. In fact, I have seen little effort to even put forth a well reasoned opinion that is not based on your personal beliefs but rather on issues of law.

    As such, it comes as no surprise that your side will continue to lose in the courts as you fail to understand the foundation of our Nation.

  470. nbc says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:15 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Those who swear the real oath have an absolute sworn duty to disobey court rulings that violate the Constitution.

    Sadly enough you and I do not get to decide what is or is not unconstitutional and as Lakin found out, such foolish behavior can come at significant cost.

    Sorry my friend but you do not understand the foundations of this nation. Are you a foreigner by any chance? That would explain a lot.

  471. nbc says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:17 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Paper: “There is no parentage requirement for natural born citizenship. The founders never discussed such. There is no historical source for your argument.”

    Actually there is a historical source, and that is the English language and the meaning of its words. You see, they haven’t really changed over two centuries. Citizens still means citizen; born citizen still means born citizen, and natural citizen still means natural citizen. It can’t be argued that one of more of those do not exist and never have. That would be preposterous.

    The English language shows that the term natural born under common law means birth on soil under jurisdiction. Furthermore it is not natural law but municipal law that determines who is and is not such a citizen but rest assured in the Calvin case, it was argued that its conclusion was also founded in natural law.

    Of course, natural law is as flexible as any kind of law.

  472. arnash says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:19 am  (Quote)

    somehow I posted part 1 of this reply twice. let’s delete the first copy.

    ballantine: “you can keep repeating “fully subject to the political jurisdiction”but
    (1). That is not what the amendment says ”

    Tsk, tsk…what the amendment says? The amendment does not say a lot of things but that does not block the Attorney General from interpreting implications of the ruling’s effect and drawing conclusions about the principle in play. Griggs drew the conclusion that I’ve described already regarding subjection, and it was an erroneous conclusion since it included children not subject to federal jurisdiction along with all those who were.
    Immigrants and their children were presumed to be subject, while visitors and their children also were presumed to be subject even though they are not, and that was his error because he did not have the knowledge of what jurisdictions implies.
    He failed to recognize that the government which could put immigrant fathers under its jurisdiction could not do the same for tourist fathers. They would always remain off-limits and protected by the Law of Nations and treaties and tradition. Yet he, on his own unconstitutional authority declared their children to be Citizens of the United States, without any legal backing from the Congress nor the Court, from any statute or court opinion. And his error is almost certainly never going to be corrected.

    If you want to get on a soap box and tell the world the A.G. Griggs was INFALLIBLE, like the POPE, then go right ahead. He set the policy, NOT the court. (that’s known as separation of powers boys and girls)

    “(6). The amendment speaks to the jurisdiction of the child and no legal authority has exempted native born children of aliens from military obligations”
    The amendment speaks to the jurisdiction of children? Okay, but how exactly does that work in your fantasy world? Are federal custodians stationed in every child’s home? Get this straight, no baby ever born was subject to any power other than the urge to suck its mothers breast!

    Get our head out of the philosophical theoretical fantasy realm and observe the actual real world for a change. Children are only subject through their fathers! ! ! ! ! or head of the family. Learn to grasp abstract concepts that control reality. Learn to perceive implications where they are inescapable. Wong was rife with implications beyond the issue of his citizenship. Why? Because of the principles of natural social & national obligations, and how government decides who is rightfully subject to the responsibility for national defense.

    “no legal authority has exempted native born children of aliens from military obligations”
    You speak ambiguously because you think ambiguously. Which Aliens? I don’t know which ones you mean. Do you mean immigrant aliens or non-immigrant aliens, -as the government classifies them, which you would know if as knowledgeable as you think you are.

    Immigrant aliens are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. No one on earth can explain why non-immigrant aliens would be subject. What right would the North Koreans have to claim your baby just because it was born while in their country? Rights, unalienable Rights do not spring from soil, nor location, nor borders, nor laws, nor policies. They spring from Primal Rights.
    I’ll be releasing my most recent exposition tomorrow. Its something the likes of which you’ve never read. It’s titled Primal Rights & Primal Obligations, or something like that. Its a huge eye opener which covers the subject in a non-haphazard manner.

  473. Arthur says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:21 am  (Quote)

    The Atlantic declares Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-born-in-canada-and-still-become-president-of-the-us/275469/

    Only problem is, even Republicans consider him, to use Sarah Palin’s words, an ass-clown.

  474. gorefan says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:22 am  (Quote)

    Tonight’s Jon Steward show did a segment on Senator Cruz – at the end he brings up Canada birth, birthers and Donald Trump.

    No link yet.

  475. h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:44 am  (Quote)

    Dr.C.: “jus soli citizenship is based on mutual obligations between subject and sovereign. If this rubs you the wrong way, you’re always entitled to petition Congress to amend the Constitution.”

    That’s an amazing thing to say. I wish you’d point out to me where in the Constitution I can find the American sovereign so I can ask Congress to dump his butt. The fallacy of your point lies in the fact that such a system has not existed in the U.S. since 1776. The only thing sovereign here came about in 1787, namely the Constitution. It is sovereign but few want to enforce it nor abide by it even though they take lying oaths to do so.

    “mutual obligations between subject and sovereign”. Clearly that means all subjects, right? That would include all women since they are subjects also, right? They had an obligation to wield sword and bow, lance and shield to defend the King? You don’t agree? Why not? Weren’t they under the obligation to their sovereign?

    And those mutual obligations must be fulfilled by new born babies as well since they are subjects also, right? So who exactly is NOT subject? Anyone? Octogenarians? Why should they be exempt? They have an obligation…

    A bunch of monarchist self-serving, nobility enshrining cow clap. (which isn’t easy for me to write since my imagination idealizes the nobility, thinking of them as more…..noble.)

  476. Majority Will says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:45 am  (Quote)

    Keith: “Star Ship Troopers”?

    “Would you like to know more?”

  477. Paper says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:47 am  (Quote)

    Yet something else we as a country reject. On multiple levels.

    Reasonably fit men are NOT the foundation of nations, certainly not the American nation. I come from a military family. I know you served. But “they also serve who” do any number of other things, or even just “stand and wait.”

    Just for starters, where do you think guns come from? From a long line of inventors, scientists, designers, including artists. But beyond weapons, the necessities or foundations of survival are food and shelter. Women have always shared in those activities, and battles or wars of any kind are only subsets of such endeavors, sometimes invoked and sometimes not. You can’t protect what you don’t have. Before you worry about the dangers of conquest, you need to worry about starvation. Then, even when the military is invoked or on hand as threat or standing defense, diplomacy plays an important role, and any number of people beyond “reasonably fit men” have played a role there.

    The fourteenth amendment was ratified to put an end to all such claustrophobic, narrow views of citizenship. To reject such nonsense. To ensure not only the privileged were secure in their citizenship.

    There are so many things wrong with your notions here that I feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface. Suffice it to say, America said, enough. They didn’t misunderstand. They understood all too well. They wanted none of it. And we certainly don’t today.

    h2ooflife: No jurisdiction? Then no citizenship for your native-born alien child. That privilege is reserved for fathers and mothers who *are* fully subject. (although as I’ve explained, no mother is subject, no teenager is subject, no old person is subject, no disabled person is subject, no obese person is subject, no sick person is subject, no dying person is subject. Only reasonably fit men of military age are subject, because only they are the foundation of nations. Without them nations would fall to conquest and subjugation and enslavement. Only those whose lives can be put on the line are subject. Subjection has NO OTHER MEANING. It means to bear arms, true faith and allegiance, and to be prepared to die doing so. It is very simple but very profound. Think about it long and hard and you’ll begin to grasp just how far we’ve drifted away from our roots.

  478. Majority Will says:
    May 2, 2013 at 1:54 am  (Quote)

    “THE TRUTH IS NOT THE LAW”

    Good luck in prison.

    Here’s some interesting reading:
    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens

  479. Majority Will says:
    May 2, 2013 at 2:03 am  (Quote)

    Note to arnash, Bob Gard and Apuzzo:

    Quantity does not guarantee quality.

  480. Dave B. says:
    May 2, 2013 at 2:21 am  (Quote)

    Man, you just can’t get it right, can you? I’ll just point out the example of Mexico, which didn’t adopt the principle of jus soli until its revolutionary Constitution of 1917.

    arnash: Regarding the nations of the Western Hemisphere and jus soli citizenship, an important fact was overlooked. They are not on an equal footing with the nations of Europe and elsewhere. Why not? Because every single one of them was a daughter of an imperial dictatorship which enforced its power via the jus soli doctrine in the new world while not following it in their own country.

  481. Paper says:
    May 2, 2013 at 3:15 am  (Quote)

    Never mind that the Constitution doesn’t define natural born citizen, neither do the dictionaries.

    Earlier you said all three words were necessary. Now you break them out into to different groupings to claim there is a historical source in the English language. However that may be, that source is not your idea of “natural citizen.”

    If you want to use the phrase “natural born citizen” you will have to look to how it was taken from “natural born subject” and rephrased to be used in a country where the citizens ratified their own constitution. That is the English language source for which you seek.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Paper: “There is no parentage requirement for natural born citizenship. The founders never discussed such. There is no historical source for your argument.”
    Actually there is a historical source, and that is the English language and the meaning of its words. You see, they haven’t really changed over two centuries. Citizens still means citizen; born citizen still means born citizen, and natural citizen still means natural citizen. It can’t be argued that one of more of those do not exist and never have. That would be preposterous

  482. Scientist says:
    May 2, 2013 at 6:44 am  (Quote)

    arnash: Regarding the nations of the Western Hemisphere and jus soli citizenship, an important fact was overlooked. They are not on an equal footing with the nations of Europe and elsewhere. Why not? Because every single one of them was a daughter of an imperial dictatorship which enforced its power via the jus soli doctrine in the new world while not following it in their own country.

    To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” Keeping your perfect record of error and contrafactual argument. I am no expert on Latin American history, but I’m pretty sure the Spanish and Portuguese colonies did NOT have jus soli imposed on them by the kings of Spain and Portugal. Quite the contrary, in fact. While they were colonies, they followed the laws of Spain and Portugal, which were jus sanguinis. Citizenship was reserved for those who came from the mother country and their descendants and denied to the native peoples who formed the great majority in countries like Mexico and Peru.

    Only after the Bolivarian revolutions, when they became independent republics, did they adopt jus soli, which made all their peoples citizens (even if the reality was that whites still held the reigns of economic and political power). Why did they adopt that? Because, like the US and Canada, they wanted to attract and rapidly integrate immigrants.

    Like it or not, you cannot get around the following facts:
    1. There is no association between freedom and soli vs sanguinis. North Korea and France are both sanguinis; Venezuela and Canada are both soli.
    2. The US practices soli and always has. It both derived from English common law and is well suited for a nation of immigrants, as shown by its use in other nations of immigrants, like Argentina, Chile and Brazil, that don’t even follow common law.

  483. Scientist says:
    May 2, 2013 at 6:47 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Actually there is a historical source, and that is the English language and the meaning of its words.

    Natural born in plain English = from birth

    Natural born killers = killers from birth
    Natural born musician = musician from birth
    Natural born ballplayer = born to play ball

    No statement about the parents is made or implied.

    So natural born citizen = citizen at birth

    Simple

  484. Majority Will says:
    May 2, 2013 at 7:32 am  (Quote)

    Speaking of North Korea . . . “North Korea sentences U.S. citizen to 15 years of hard labor”

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/world/asia/north-korea-american-sentenced/index.html

  485. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 2, 2013 at 8:50 am  (Quote)

    Like Vattel’s Law of Nations?

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: A bunch of monarchist self-serving, nobility enshrining cow clap.

  486. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    May 2, 2013 at 9:00 am  (Quote)

    Perhaps I should try addressing you as a third grader, if this is the right grade level for your argument.

    “Prince” is a fiction of law. No genetic marker exists that says “prince.” There is no scientific difference between a prince and a non-prince, beyond a consensus of some group of people that he is a prince.

    There is no law or consensus of sentiment in the United States for your idiosyncratic views on citizenship. Your prince is not a prince.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: What you can’t get through your biased thick head is that that is irrelevant to what they actually are by natural law. If you are a Prince and go incognito as a peasant, and everyone treats you as a peasant, does that make you a peasant? How about if you dress up as a peasant girl? Would that make you a girl? How one is viewed and treated is not relevant to who one actually is. -This is like third grade stuff.

  487. Scientist says:
    May 2, 2013 at 9:09 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Like Vattel’s Law of Nations?

    The attempt by the birthers like Apuzzo and Nash to equate jus soli with monarchy and jus sanguinis with republics is ludicrous, especially in today’s world. All the European constitutional monarchies are sanguinis, as are the absolute monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Meanwhile, virtually all the republics of the New World are soli.

  488. Greenfinches says:
    May 2, 2013 at 9:20 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: All could vote

    wot?

    From which planet do you come, that you think all could vote in ‘ancient’ England? It (just) is less than a century since there was universal male voting here. Furthermore, not a whole lot of voting at all before the 13th century…..before then, yes a royal dictatorship and Might is Right.

    Your credibility on matters US has to be minimal if you can be so very wrong about a simple – and easily verifiable – matter such as this. Not that you come across as very credible anyway with the obsession with the rights of MAN.

  489. Greenfinches says:
    May 2, 2013 at 9:25 am  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: Jus Sanguinis is the land of the land all across the globe.

    There you are, showing your extra terrestrial origins again. Ius Sanguinis is not, repeat not, generally the law of the land on Earth. You can argue that it should be, fine, and I could respect that – but as a matter of fact ‘ius sanguinis’ is not generally the law – again, something that you can easily check.

  490. Arthur says:
    May 2, 2013 at 9:41 am  (Quote)

    Birther and failed politician Alan Keyes still owes over three hundred thousand dollars in campaign bills from his 2000 presidential run:

    “Keyes collected about 5 percent of all votes during the 2000 Republican presidential primary and never seriously challenged neither eventual winner George W. Bush nor Sen. John McCain. His legacy? More than $300,000 in debt owed to a dozen campaign vendors, with about half owed to Virginia- and California-based consulting firm Politechs. Keyes appears to be in little hurry to pay off any of it: A full decade ago, his committee’s debt stood at about $337,000 . . . Keyes aide Carla Michele said campaign officials are ‘doing everything they can’ to retire the debt, although she didn’t have additional details.”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/14_presidential_candidates_who_havent_paid_for_their_campaigns_partners/

  491. Majority Will says:
    May 2, 2013 at 9:42 am  (Quote)

    “If you are a Prince and go incognito as a peasant, and everyone treats you as a peasant, does that make you a peasant?”

    Yes.

    “How about if you dress up as a peasant girl? Would that make you a girl?”

    Technically, you would need extensive surgery and hormone therapy first . . . and then, yes.

  492. Arthur says:
    May 2, 2013 at 10:12 am  (Quote)

    There’s a revealing article at Salon.com about how uber conspiracy theorist Alex Jones makes his money in the world of paranoid right-wingers.

    Alex Seitz-Wald writes that,

    “Jones’ entire ethos is tailor-made for appealing to a die-hard group of core listeners. As Betsy Woodruff wrote at the National Review, Jones is best understood not as as ‘your everyday screed-monger. Rather, he’s an evangelist, and he’s looking for converts, and, judging by the size of his audience, he’s pretty good at making them.’ Jones commands a loyalty that any brand would be envious of, and by casting himself as the sole voice of Truth and salvation in a fallen world where everyone else is corrupted and untrustworthy, he draws his fans deeper into his fold.”

    Seitz-Wald explains that in order to keep building his base of listeners he must “bring some new salacious conspiracy to keep his core fans hooked. This is why every disaster is a ‘false flag’ attack and why every item in the New York Times could be new evidence of the globalists’ nefarious plot.”

    He continues, “To maintain belief, theorists have to constantly expand the number of conspirators as people debunk their theories, and that happens to also be good for the bottom line. Thus you end up with Jones’ vision of a massive worldwide conspiracy involving almost every powerful person in the world . . .”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/alex_jones_conspiracy_inc/

  493. gorefan says:
    May 2, 2013 at 10:33 am  (Quote)

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-1-2013/ted

    Jon Steward on Senator Cruz @ 4:30:

    “Hey Donald, hey Donald call the birther team back from Hawaii, we’re headed to Winnipeg.”

  494. Lupin says:
    May 2, 2013 at 10:48 am  (Quote)

    I have to correect the well-meaning person whoi said that France was jus sanguinis.

    Noit quite.

    While it’s true that being born from a French parent does entit;e you to French citizenship, being born on French soil even from two non-French citizens also entitle you to ask for French citizenship at age 18.

  495. Paper says:
    May 2, 2013 at 10:58 am  (Quote)

    Indeed, as we have discussed so many times before.

    When Nash breaks the phrase out (citizen, born citizen, natural citizen) to make his point, he skips the one pairing that actually is in the dictionary (natural born).

    As you note, natural born this, natural born that. Being an adjective, natural born follows the ancient, natural law of adjectives–make like an electron and pair up with a noun.

    Scientist: Natural born in plain English = from birth

    Natural born killers = killers from birth
    Natural born musician = musician from birth
    Natural born ballplayer = born to play ball

    No statement about the parents is made or implied.

    So natural born citizen = citizen at birth

    Simple

  496. Dave B. says:
    May 2, 2013 at 11:20 am  (Quote)

    Another piece of the puzzle.

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: A bunch of monarchist self-serving, nobility enshrining cow clap. (which isn’t easy for me to write since my imagination idealizes the nobility, thinking of them as more…..noble.)

  497. Dave B. says:
    May 2, 2013 at 11:24 am  (Quote)

    And another…

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/: If you are a Prince and go incognito as a peasant, and everyone treats you as a peasant, does that make you a peasant? How about if you dress up as a peasant girl? Would that make you a girl?

  498. Paper says:
    May 2, 2013 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    Glad you agree then that we are a country of immigrants.

    h2ooflife:
    Paper: “We are a country of immigrants. Our families all came from somewhere. It is part of our social fabric and consciousness. Maybe not yours. I wouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. I should have expected that you would ignore all that, and focus on how many immigrants are coming right this second, while ignoring our immigrant *nature,* that we come from immigrants.”

    Nash: “Please disabuse yourself of that false notion by visiting the family ancestry gallery I recently made which details a fascinating foreign history going back to the Revolutionary War.”

  499. ballantine says:
    May 2, 2013 at 12:06 pm  (Quote)

    h2ooflife.wordpress.com/:

    And those mutual obligations must be fulfilled by new born babies as well since they are subjects also, right?So who exactly is NOT subject?Anyone?Octogenarians?Why should they be exempt?They have an obligation…

    A bunch of monarchist self-serving, nobility enshrining cow clap. (which isn’t easy for me to write since my imagination idealizes the nobility, thinking of them as more…..noble.)

    I’m not sure what he think “subject” meant, but in the real world it simply meant to owe allegiance and subjection to the laws. Such was the definition in England and the United States in the 19th century and applied to anyone in the nation. Aliens owed temporary allegiance and subjection, citizens owed permenant allegiance and subjection unless they expatriated. See, in the real world we don’t get to define terms as we like.

  500. Scientist says:
    May 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin:
    I have to correect the well-meaning person whoi said that France was jus sanguinis.

    Noit quite.

    While it’s true that being born from a French parent does entit;e you to French citizenship, being born on French soil even from two non-French citizens also entitle you to ask for French citizenship at age 18.

    I apologize for over-simplifying. I was trying to keep things simple for the benefit of Mr Nash, whose mind seems unable to grasp complexities. In truth, as you probably know, very few countries today are purely soli or sanguinis. Almost all the soli countries make provisions for the children of citizens born abroad (as the US does) and almost all sanguinis countries make some provision for those born in the country to non-citizens. The one thing it is safe to say is that no country requires 2 citizen parents.

    That is why we all ought to be perfectly happy not to worry about what someone wrote in 1750 or 1788 and focus on today. In today’s world, natural born citizen = citizen at birth. This recognizes the plain English meaning of the adjective pair “natural born” and also recognizes the realities of citizenship in the global context.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.