English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Native-birth was eligibility for "citizen of the United States", native-birth gave a birthright citizenship resulting in a born citizen, it had nothing to do with natural birthright, which is natural descent consistent with the principles of the naturalization acts subsequent to the 1790 act.

Article II "natural born Citizen" was the eligibility criteria for a birthright or born citizen to be POTUS via natural descent, with the ultimate intention to protect the office of POTUS from foreign influence or allegiance.

i.e. "natural born Citizen" was not a citizenship eligibility requirement.

The subsequent naturalization act of 1795, which repealed the act of 1790, excluded "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States" from being "considered as natural born Citizens", and defined them instead as "citizens of the United States", which is the same class as the 14th Amendment "citizens of the United States" of the born variety, they not being either of those "persons born or naturalized in the United States", yet they were born citizens by natural descent.

Why do you suppose the definition for the children born off-shore was changed from "natural born citizen" to "citizen of the United States"?

Was it because the Framers, who were still active in the legislature, realized that if they made natural born citizens of those born off-shore it compromised the imperative to minimize the risk of foreign influence on the office of POTUS?

Clearly jus sanguinis was not enough to make a natural born citizen, as similarly jus soli was not enough either.

It was the combination of both qualities which the Framers had originally required for POTUS eligibility, which was never an eligibility requirement for "citizen of the United States", and which was a security measure for a person who was already required to be a born "citizen of the United States".

 

All that says is that the Frenchman was a subject, (which I have already proven umpteen times with verbatim quotes straight from Calvin's case) and as a subject his native-born child was a natural born subject.

Try again, this time "seriously".

So we are still at this stage ........

Why can no one show where precisely in an English law case that it was (allegedly) held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

oh, and seriously, you also avoided to answer this one too...

And why is it so hard to say which "common law" the US Supreme Court was referring to in the Minor v Happersett case, where native-birth was clearly rejected as being sufficient to make a natural born citizen of the US, and not only that, but the Supreme Court judiciary even doubted if native-birth alone was even sufficient to make a citizen at all?

By virtue of this holding of the Supreme Court judiciary in the Minor court (as described above) it is clear that, given that native-birth was the only thing common between the two entities being discussed by the court, that being born to US citizen parents is what made ALL THE DIFFERENCE between what the court held was a natural born citizen and what the court held was probably not a citizen at all.

What "common law" was it, the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar, that doubted if native-birth was sufficient to even make a citizen at all?

 

Sure, that's why Australia was a Jus Soli nation till around 2003 same as Ireland was till 2002. We both never continued that concept from English common law. And stunningly, the new Irish law took care to confirm that anyone born in Ireland prior to 2002 (with some minor exceptions of which Obama Sr would not have counted) was an Irish citizen.

MichealN, getting the law of his own country completely wrong as well as the law of the US. Still, you have got to admit that having arrogance and stupidity in a post at the same time is pretty efficient.

 

Wrong. You have that exactly backwards.

it does not say that the child would be a natural born subject because of the father's status. It says that the way we know the Frenchman was a "natural subject" merely by his presence there is that we already knew that children been born there were "natural born subjects" again, merely because of the location of their birth.

It says that since birth within the territory of the King is powerful enough to create permanent allegiance a fortiori, then mere presence must be enough to create temporary allegiance. The allegiance of each is independent of the status of the other, but both are dependent on the location of the person. The allegiance of each is independently determined by their presence within the king's realm. Sherley wouldn't even have needed to be present in England at his child's birth (and thereby no longer a subject under ligeantia localis) for that child to be a natural born subject.

You really need to take up another hobby. One simple enough for you to understand.

 

1. The Minor case (unlike Wong Kim Ark) has never once been cited by any subsequent court as precedent regarding the definition of "natural born citizen." This is of course because it was a suffrage case, not a citizenship case.

2. It never rejects "native birth" as being sufficient to grant natural born citizenship. That alleged "rejection" is a figment of your imagination.

3. It is a trivial issue to determine what "common law" was relevant to the Minor case, since there is no common law relevant to any US legal decision other than Anglo-English common law.

Smith v. Alabama, 1888

 

Read the Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

In that decision the Supreme Court established that natural born citizenship was based upon the criteria of jus soli (the Right of Soil) by the 14th Amendment where it established that "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excluded ANY infringements by Statutory law.

It is true that the 14th Amendment did NOT change foundation for the term "natural born citizen" that existed when the Constitution was written and the Supreme Court delved deeply into the foundation for "natural born citizen" based upon English common law at the time the Constitution was ratified. As is well documented the Right of Natural Born Citizenship is established by the 14th Amendment and a Right can never be based upon anyone other than the individual. In short, as previously mentioned, citizenship based upon jus sanguinis (the Right of Blood) cannot be an inalienable Right of the Person as it is dependent upon another person (i.e. parent or parents). Jus sanguinis citizenship is only established under statutory law and is not an inalienable Right of the Person.

Yes, it is true that some of those that advocated the 14th Amendment did hold the belief that they were only addressing African-Americans with the ratification of the 14th Amendment because they were the people who's inalienable Right of Citizenship had been aggregeously violated by the institution of slavery but the Supreme Court ruled that this limited purpose was unsupported and that it addressed everyone born within the United States in the Kim Wong Ark decision and it was indeed based upon the English common law that established:

This "common law" of England established the basis for the 14th Amendment (i.e. born in the United States) as well as the two notable exceptions (i.e. subject to the jurisdiction thereof) where the children of diplomats and of children of foreign parents that were a part of a hostile military occupation which were "not subject" to the authority of the government were not natural born citizens.

It can be noted that jus sanguinis and jus soli were both addressed in the case of Kim Wong Ark as his parents were Chinese citizens and under the criteria of jus sanguinis he would have been a Chinese citizen and not a citizen of the United States. The opposite criteria was jus soli because he was born in California, a State, and that at birth he was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as he did not fall into either of the two exceptions where he wouldn't have been subjected to the authority (jurisidiction) of the United States.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument of "jus sanguinis" and embraced the argument of "jus soli" in declaring Kim Wong Ark a natural born citizen of the United States exempt from statutory laws that would have prevented him from owning land in the United States. The Supreme Court's decision, as noted, was based upon the English common law that existed as legal precedent in the United States prior to the 14th Amendment and the specific wording of the 14th Amendment that established the criteria of "jus soli" as the Right of Citizenship of the Person in the United States. There was no fundamental difference between the English common law establishing when a person was a natural born "subject" of the King and a natural born "citizen" of the United States. Citizenship based upon jus sanguinis in England was a matter of statutory law, not a Right, just as it is in the United States today.

Let me point out one more fact. US citizenship based upon "jus sanguisis" is established by statutory law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

As statutory law this provision can be amended or repealed based upon simple Congressional action but the criteria of the 14th Amendment cannot be changed based upon Congressional action. In short. Congress can repeal this provision at any time and it does not represent "natural born citizenship" as Congress cannot redefine the criteria of citizenship established by the 14th Amendment. If this Subsection c is repealed then citizenship based upon jus sanguisis does not exist in the United States. It is statutory citizenship established by Congress under the authority of Article I Section 8 which delegates the role of Congress to estalish uniform laws of "naturalization" for the United States. Any citizenship based upon an act of Congress is based upon naturalization and is not a natural born Right.

 

I know that decision (and the dissent) like the back of my hand.

An "infringement" on birthright citizenship by statutory law is a completely unrelated issue to whether or not birthright citizenship could be "extended" by statutory law. Wong Kim Ark concludes only that birth on US soil and subjection to US jurisdiction are "sufficient" to establish natural-born citizenship. It says nothing about whether they are "necessary" to establish it.

Neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis citizenship are unalienable rights. Both are rights secured by law... the first by common law and the second by statutory law. Both can, in admittedly the very rarest of circumstances, become forfeit. And neither are universally available to all persons, but only to specific certain persons who meet specific certain discriminating criteria. Unalienable rights are universal. National citizenship is not.

Again... the 14th Amendment establishes no right of "natural-born citizenship" whatsoever, let alone an unalienable right. It simply secures a preexisting right to a certain class of people who previously had been considered property rather than persons.

You are confusing the purpose of the amendment with the mechanism it employed to achieve its purpose. For starters, you must remember that the 14th Amendment is about more than just the citizenship status of freed slaves. In fact the citizenship clause was a late addition by the Senate to an amendment that was originally written by House members to extend certain federal protections to the states.But yes, the 14th Amendment addressed all persons born here, and in so doing served its purpose of explicitly establishing that freed slaves were included. It is a stretch with no starting point however to assert that in so doing it excluded jus sanguinis as another source of natural born citizenship. Such a stretch is further rendered absurd by the explicit demonstration by essentially the same group of men that they considered children of citizens born overseas to also be NBC in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

Again... it did not change the definition of natural born citizenship at all. It instead made explicit the consequences of the change in the status of freed slaves as full persons rather than property.

Understand that these "exceptions"of which you speak were not exceptions to common law, but were instead already an integral part of the definition of natural born citizen under that common law. Justice Gray makes that most clear in his discussion of the jurisdiction clause. He wrote:

It is only the circumstance of native Americans that Gray declares "unknown to the common law," and of course we know that the common law was familiar with the other two classes since they were also accounted for in Calvin's Case. Further, Parliament had extended natural-born citizenship status to foreign born children via jus sanguinis in a series of incremental steps starting with the children of the King's ambassadors, then extending it to children with two English parents in 1350, and then to children of English fathers in 1772. This statutory extension of natural-born citizenship via jus sanguinis was no less a part of the legal system the early United States inherited from their colonial status than was the common law jus soli criterion.

The court did no such thing. There was no need to "reject" Chinese law regarding jus sanguinis Chinese citizenship since foreign citizenship laws are irrelevant to any determination of US citizenship under US law. The different laws of different countries regarding whom they consider their citizens are completely independent from each other as each is a sovereign state with a unique and inviolable power to answer that question for themselves. The court no more needed to rule that US law trumped Chinese law in order to make its decision than it needed to rule the point in the Pacific where one set of laws ended and the other began. And it did not so rule.

All of this is true. And it is true because the criteria of jus soli citizenship afforded by Anglo-American common law was sufficient (but not necessary) to answer the question before the court. It makes no effort to even pretend to exclude jus sanguinis as another source for natural born status.

Of course it is. But from where does Congress the power to create statutory law, and to what prescribed purpose? Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 18 of The Constitution lays that out for us:

It is the within the power... nay, it is an obligation of the Congress to pass those laws (and thus add the specificity and detail) necessary to operationalize the founding document of the Constitution into laws that can actually be pragmatically applied. The list of things that the Constitution does not mention is vastly long... it is after all a Constitution and not a comprehensive legal code. But when it intends to make an exclusion, it does so explicitly. Sometimes, only tautology can make the appropriate point.

It does not exclude what it does not exclude.

Yes... Congress can alter by statute the criteria for birthright citizenship via jus sanguinis. But it would have exactly no effect on the consequences of the 14th Amendment, nor could it frustrate that amendment's purpose. The 14th Amendment says what its says and stands independently of and unaffected by any Congressional action regarding jus sanguinis.

Nonsense. The authorization of Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization was specifically asserted to solve the recognized problems generated by the non-uniform rules that proliferated under the Articles of Confederation. So too with the immediately attached clause regarding bankruptcy laws. Neither are the source nor a limit on the ability of Congress to define the extent of natural born citizenship via jus sanguinis.

The Constitution recognizes only two classes of citizenship. They are naturalized, and natural born. The similarity in the terms of art is not accidental. There is no third class of "naturalized at birth."

 

Well that's an epic fail for you, and in your desperation you are still relying on fallacy.

Try again.....

Which "common law" was it that the US Supreme Court was referring to in the Minor v Happersett case, where native-birth was clearly rejected as being sufficient to make a natural born citizen of the US, and not only that, but the Supreme Court judiciary even doubted if native-birth alone was even sufficient to make a citizen at all?

What "common law" was it?

If you say that the essence of the following verbatim quotes is different to what I have pointed out, then YOU show, using the very same case (i.e. Calvin’s case) where it was ruled or held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, and that a child born outside the ligeance of a subject was a natural born subject.

Here you go……

“And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”

and

“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the TIME of his birth is chiefly to be considered;”

Bet ya can't and you will avoid confronting this at all costs, because you know that your absurd argument has been demolished.

You are either in denial of the truth and squirming like a worm in the face of the truth with your political agenda to water-down the security measures for the office of POTUS and have crooks and traitors in power in the US, or you are genuinely delusional ............. or both.

 

I remember asking a rather unpleasant Birther called Kenyabornobama if she was correct about naturalized at birth how come there were no immigration or naturalization offices in Maternity hospitals. She replied "There will be when we win!" It was pretty much a facepalm moment.

 

actual legal experts, in a court of law, calling bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your made up idiocy.............

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

 

But Lord Coke DID RULE that the Frenchman was a SUBJECT due by local ligeance and because he was a SUBJECT he was indictable for treason as a SUBJECT, and further, due to being a SUBJECT, his native-born child would be a natural born subject.

Lord Coke then goes on to say, to emphasize the principle, that a native-born child to an alien father who was not a subject (giving an example of an enemy invader without any local ligeance) could not be a subject BECAUSE "HE WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT".

i.e.

Native-born to a subject father = natural born subject

Native-born to non-subject father = not a subject at all, alien-born

you said....

Garbage!

It says that birth in the realm to a subject, albeit with local allegiance, is strong enough to make a natural born subject, and that birth on the Kings soil and under his meridian to a father without any ligeance, does NOT make a natural born subject.

It's all about the ligeance of the father and little to do with place if at all.

Here it is again, with NO MENTION whatsoever of the Frenchman's absence from the realm at the time of birth................. in your desperation, you resort to making things up.

i.e. it is NOT the PLACE, but the local ligeance of the father, who by such local ligeance is a SUBJECT, that makes the subject born, for if the father of the native-born, was without local ligence and thus NOT a SUBJECT, then the native-born child could not be a natural born subject or a subject of any kind, BECAUSE the child was "not born UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT.

Ergo: native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject, unless the father was a subject.

More from Calvin's case, which shows how wrong you are.....

There is no doubt that the friendly alien, visiting the realm was a subject.

There is no doubt that native-birth did not suffice to make a natural born subject.

There is no doubt that a native-born child, born to a non-subject was NOT a natural born subject.

Unlike the English practice of embracing visiting friendly aliens as subjects, the republic of the US requires aliens who seek citizenship to naturalize.

So IF it were true that the Framers were strongly guided by the 17th century English rule, then for a US native-born child to be a natural born citizen, that child would have to be "born under the ligeance" of US citizen father or parents (given that at the time of the Framing, the wife took the citizenship status of the husband)

In closing, I will point out just one of your glaring desperate attempts to twist the true meaning....

What complete and utter garbage!

It actually says that birth within the dominion of the King AND to parents who are under the actual obedience of the king (aka ligeance, which means the parents are subjects, by any of the four types of ligeance) AND at a time when the king has actual possession, is powerful enough to create a permanent allegiance in their off-spring who would be a natural born subject.

Parents + Place + Time of birth = natural born subject

Game, set and match.

 

More nonsense.

The reality is that the US Constitution provides for two means to citizenship, they being native-birth and naturalization of alien-born.

Article II "natural born Citizen" is not a means to US citizenship, it is rather a term of art to describe a class of native-born citizens with the highest possible allegiance to be eligible for the high office of POTUS, with the aim of excluding one class of native-born citizens from eligibility for POTUS due to the serious national security concerns in the Framing period where the imperative was to minimize as far as possible any foreign influence, loyalty, coercion, persuasion, allegiance and claim on the POTUS.

For the office of POTUS, there was less risk of foreign influence with a person born in US and to US citizen parents than there was for a child only native-born.

The Minor court also made it clear, giving reference to a "common law", that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born citizen, this was when the court introduced doubts if a native-born child to alien parents was a citizen at all, and also the court gave merit to the doubts by stating that these doubts had yet to be legally resolved.

Native-birth to alien parents of dubious allegiance was certainly not the recipe for securing the office of POTUS from foreign influence.

The notion that it was, is absolutely ABSURD and merely a ridiculous assertion of those useful idiots with an airy-fairy political agenda, bent on watering-down the national security of the US in pursuit of their warm and fuzzy utopian fantasy kumbaya world.

 

Meanwhile- in the real world....

Natural born citizen means anyone born in the United States and President Obama has been elected twice now.

Michael is so wrong, he is outside the tennis courts, across the street and on top of his van yelling 'game set match'.

 

Oh I see, like the Wong Kim Ark was a "citizen of the United States" case under the 14th Amendment, not an eligibility for POTUS case?

Get real!

 

Ah, here lies the crux of the problem because not understanding what an inalienable Right is and the criteria for inalienable Rights is inherently problemmatic for understanding the differences between the common laws of England and the United States.

In England a person was a "subject" and was granted "privileges" as the authority for government originated with the Crown of England. A person did not have inalienable Rights in England because it was a monarchy where the monarch had supreme authority granted by god.

In England the person is the subject of the government which was the King appointed by god.

The United States was founded upon the belief that a person was a citizen (not a subject) with inalienable Rights and the person was the supreme authority for government. A citizen is not a subject. The natural born citizen was the supreme authority for government as government was created by the natural born citizen and all powers of government originated with the citizens of the nation. The person, not the government, had supreme authority.

In the United States the government is the subject of the person which is a citizen.

The difference between is between a government founded upon the Divine Right of Kings and the United States government established upon the ideology expressed in the Declaration of Independence which rejected the Divine Right of Kings.

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

As noted the Divine Right of Kings was rejected by the founders of the United States as the following was the ideological foundation for government in the United States.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The government cannot ultimately determine who the "People" are that consent to be governed and who provide the consent for the very existance of the government.

The core group of the "People" are the natural born citizens of the nation which can, by the creation of statutory laws of naturalization (which is authorized in the Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution), allow others to become citizens of the nation. Remember though that anything granted under statutory law can be revoked under statutory law but a "natural born citizen" cannot have their citizenship revoked by statutory law because there citizenship is an inalienable Right of the Person.

We do need to apply the criteria of "inalienable Rights" when addressing if a child has an inalienable Right of Citizenship. It must be that which is inherent in the person that does not infringe upon the inalienable Rights of Others. Citizenship based upon jus soli meets this criteria but citizenship based upon jus sanguisis does not.

Citizneship based upon jus soli is established by the birth of person (which is the very first moment when a person becomes a person) based upon where they are born and it is inherent because it is not subject to any considerations of other persons. Where the child is born when personhood begins is the sole criteria for natural born citizenship. It is the Right of Soil which is the translation of jus soli. A natural born citizen cannot have their citizenship stripped from them or the Rights and Immunities of citizenship denied. A natural born citizen, for example, cannot be expelled from the United States nor can they be denied the Right of Return to the United States.

Citizenship based upon jus sanguisis is not inherent in the person but instead is dependent upon the parents and does not meet the criteria of an inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person. It is authorized under the statutory laws of the United States but can be denied or even revoked by statutory law. Nothing prevents Congress from stripping the citizenship of any person who became a citizen based upon statutory law. We actually have laws that strip a naturalized person of their citizenship and where they can be expelled from the country but no such laws exist for the natural born citizen.

Compare this to the authority of the King of England that could expell any subject or refuse to grant them the ability to return to the nation at anytime under the Divine Right of Kings. Any decree by the King was absolute as all of the people were subjects of the King and not citizens of the nation.

The Right of Citizenship is a inalienable Right of a natural born citizen and is established based upon the birth of the child in the United States (jus soli) and is not subject to any statutory laws. It is protected by the 14th Amendment from infringement by the statutory laws of government. Citizenship based upon the nationality of the parents (jus sanguisis) is based upon statutory law and can be denied or even revoked based upon the statutory laws of the nation. It is not an inalienable Right of the Person. Jus sanguisis citizenship under the law is "native born citizenship" because it can be granted under the law "at birth" while jus soli citizenhship is established (not granted) "by birth" of the person.

One final note, citizenship based upon jus sanguisis must be applied for but citizenship based upon jus soli does not have to be applied for under the laws of the United States. This is exemplified by the case of 95 year old Leeland Davidson who was the son of two natural born citizens of the United States and a WW II veteran but he was born in Canada and Leeland Davidson was not a US citizen because his parents never applied for him to be granted citizenship under the statutory laws of the United States.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/23/world-war-ii-vet-finds-citizen/

 

There is actually a subtle difference between "native born" (i.e. citizenship established at birth) and "natural born" (i.e. citizenship established by birth) that many, including some legal scholars, don't seem to understand.

To prove this I will use the cases of Leeland Davidson and John McCain as examples of "native born" citizenship.

John McCain was born in Panama on August 29, 1936 of parents that were American citizens. Being born in Panama he did not meet the criteria of "citizenship" established by the 14th Amendment (he was not born in the United States). He was granted citizenship "at birth" because of his parents under the statutory laws of the United States. If the statutory laws did not grant him citizenship based upon the US citizenship of his parents he would NOT have been a US citizen. He was born in a US Naval hospital and his parents had to certify that they were US citizens before his US birth certificate was issued under the statutory laws of the United States. He was granted citizen "from birth" under statutory law but was not a citizen "by birth" in the United States as established by the criteria of the 14th Amendment.

While I don't have an exact date when Leeland Davidson was born it was around 1916. Both of his parents were US citizens and he was born outside of the United States, like John McCain, but in Canada while his parents were visiting there apparently on vacation. He served in the US military during WW II and had lived virtually his entire life in the United States believing he was a US citizen but in 2011, while applying for an enhanced drivers license in WA so he could visit Canada, he found out he was NOT a US citizen and had never been a US citizen, although he would have qualified to be a citizen under the statutory (naturalization) laws that existed at his time of birth. Like McCain he was not a US citizen based upon the criteria established under the 14th Amendment and only statutory laws of the United States could have granted him citizenship.Ironically while we can all agree he should be granted citizenship, and he eventually was, the granting of his citizenship wasn't based upon the fact that his parents were US citizens. He was actually granted citizenship because he'd served in the US military during WW II. Leeland Davidson was not a "native" born (i.e. citizen at birth) citizen as his US citizenship wasn't granted until he was 95 years old.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/25/leeland-davidson-wwii-vet_n_840768.html

All "natural born" citizens are citizens "by birth" and "at birth" under the criteria established in the 14th Amendment and their citizenship is not subject to statutory law. A "native born" citizen can also be a natural born citizen but can also be someone granted US citizenship "at birth" under statutory law. Lacking the statutory naturalization laws of Congress John McCain would not have been granted US citizenship when he was born because he did not meet the criteria established by the 14th Amendment.

 

Poor MichealN is feeling ignored I think.

Anyway, I'm really enjoying the discussion between Shiva and WongKimArk here. Its nice to see an adult discussion. I'm not chipping in because I know WongKimArk knows a heck of a lot about more this than me.

 

meanwhile, actual legal experts, in a court of law, called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your made up idiocy..........

it continues to suck to be a birther.

 

Mr. Davidson was issued a certificate of citizenship shortly after the initial overly dramatic story ran. http://burnpit.us/2011/04/congrats-leeland-davidson-95-year-old-wwii-veteran-and-now-us-citizen

Under 22 U.S.C. § 2705: Documentation of citizenship the US Citizen parent(s) of a child born abroad must apply for Consular Report of Birth Abroad (FS-240). Mr. Davidson's parents failed to do this. That is why he was initially denied an enhanced drivers license. This is just the equivalent of state issued birth certificate for someone born on US soil. You need one of these documents or a certificate of naturalization to obtain a passport or an enhanced drivers license. This says nothing at all to give doubt about the natural born citizen status of children born abroad. They are still US citizens at birth, i. e. natural born. I doubt Mr. Davidson was ever in any danger of being deported. It makes for good TV to suggest that though.

 

Use a simple criteria. If Title 8, which addresses naturalization, did not provide a statutory provision for citizenship based upon the citizenship of the parents, then neither John McCain or Leeland Davidson would be US citizens because they were not born in the United States. Citizenship subject to the naturalization laws of the United States, which is what Title 8 addresses under the Article I Section 8 authority of Congress to create uniform laws of naturalization, does not reflect "natural born citizenship" which is based upon the criteria established by the 14th Amendment. As I've noted any citizenship that is created by statutory law can be revoked by statutory law. Tomorrow, if Congress and the President agreed, then the citizenship of ALL naturalized citizens, including John McCain's citizenship, could be revoked. Citizenship based upon the criteria established by the 14th Amendment cannot be revoked by an act of Congress.

As I also noted Leeland Davidson was not issued citizenship based upon jus sanguisis but instead because he served in the US military during WW II.

 

Always remember that if Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter III › Part I › § 1401 did not exist then only those born within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof would be natural born (and native born citizens) of the United States based upon the 14th Amendment.

Natural born citizenship is NOT established by statutory law but instead is based upon jus soli and is protected by the 14th Amendment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

The 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868. Certainly you would not suggest that the United States went 92 years without natural born citizens?

The framers of the Constitution called BS on that claim in 1790 when they passed the first naturalization Act.

 

The 14th Amendment did not change the definition of natural born citizenship but instead protected it because of violations under the statutory laws passed by Congress. The same is true for other provisions included in the 14th Amendment such as the equal protection clause and for other amendments as well. For example slavery violated the ideals upon which America was founded as expressed by the Declaration of Independence. The 13th Amendment addressed the violations of the inalienable Rights of the Person subjected to slavery under statutory laws in the United States.

When we look at many of the Amendments to the US Constitution they were created because of violations of the inalienable Rights of the Person. The right for women to vote, which had been previously denied, was a fundamental violation of the inalienable Rights of the Person (i.e. the woman). Many time Amendments don't express an inalienable Right but instead protect it. For example the 8th Amendment protects the person from the violation of their inalienable Rights that would exist if unreasonable bail was required or that would occur if a person was tortured. Our government is expressly prohibited from imposing unreasonable bail or from torturing anyone being held under it's authority by the 8th Amendment The 2nd Amendment refers to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but, in fact, the inalienable Right is the Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression by others.

Actually the Naturalization Act of 1790 doesn't address natural born citizens at all and, in fact, has provisions that are not required for a natural born citizen in Second section

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

A natural born citizen of the United States is not required to swear an oath or affirmation that they will support the US Constitution. While we are all under the authority of the US Constitution a natural born citizen is not compelled to swear an oath to it nor can their citizenship be revoked or denied if they don't. Once agian I'll point out that tha US government is the "subject" of the People and the People are not "subjects" of the US government. We, the natural born citizens of the United States, are the supreme authority in the United States. This can easily be proven upon request.

I always find this point interesting because I was drafted during the Vietnam war and a member of the US military, under the law, must swear an oath of alliegence to the US Constitution (not to the US government) so what would have happened if I wasn't willing to do that but was willing to serve? It would have presented an unusual Constitutional question for the Supreme Court but it was never something that was addressed. A person could go to prison for refusing to serve in the US military if they were drafted but what if they were willing to serve but not swear the oath? I don't think they could be sent to prison for refusing to swear the oath but it was never addressed by any court case.

 

Correct on the former, completely and spectacularly wrong on the latter. Again, you have it exactly backwards.

Lord Coke declared the Frenchman a subject because he was present in amity within the King's dominions, since it was already established that the children of aliens born within the Crown Dominions were natural-born subjects. That was the direction of Coke's reasoning in this passage, not the opposite direction that you suggest.

Here let me draw it for you:

1 > 2, not 2 > 1

This is what Lord Coke argued:

1) Because children of aliens born within the King's dominions were natural-born subject, therefore 2) aliens present in amity the King's dominions were natural subjects.

This is what you are arguing, but that cannot be found anywhere within Calvin's case:

1) Because an alien in present in the King's dominions were natural subjects, therefore 2) their children born in the King;s dominions were natural-born subjects.

Your argument is not only something that Coke never says, it's also explicitly not true. To be a natural-born subject, it did not matter if their fathers were subjects or not, since their fathers didn't even need to be in country and they would still be natural-born subjects.

You consistently miss the key detail that it is not the status of the father that determines citizenship under jus soli. It is the status of the child him or herself. The "legiance of a subject" refers to the child, not the father. "Legiance" is part of a reciprocal relationship with the King, in which the subject offers that legiance in return for the King's protection. Children born to an alien invader are not citizens not because their father is not a subject, but because they are not under the protection of the King at birth.

This is neither complex nor controversial.

Like I said... get a new hobby.

 

No. Not like that at all. You again have got it completely backwards.

Eligibility is dependent on natural-born citizenship, not the other way around.