I’ve been reading the comments over at the Columbus Ledger Enquirer. I got entangled with ksdb, someone I seem to recall is banned here. ksdb was arguing that Minor v. Happersett was a precedent making Obama ineligible, because his father wasn’t a citizen, and also said that Virginia Minor was ruled NOT a 14th Amendment citizen by the Court. I replied:
The court didn’t say Minor wasn’t a 14th amendment citizen. That’s absurd. What they said was that the 14th amendment, didn’t create a right to vote. Before the 14th Amendment, the Constitution was silent on who was and who was not a citizen (except through the definition of natural born citizen based on English Common Law, which the Court in Smith v Alabama said was where to look for definitions of terms not defined in the Constitution, common law that said natural born subjects were those born in the country without regard for the status of the parents).
If you read Minor, the court said that based on the Constitution there were exactly two classes of citizen: natural born and naturalized. The court said that it was unquestionably so that those born of citizen parents in the country were natural born citizens. It then said that whether the children of aliens born in the country were citizens or not was in dispute. Since it was not necessary to consider the case of the children of aliens, the court didn’t go there. However, the distinction remains, either natural born or naturalized. Virginia Minor was natural born because she met the undoubted criteria of being born in the country to citizen parents.
[The] Supreme Court, in US v Wong in 1898 decided that the children of aliens born in the country ARE US citizens, and so by the two citizenship classes [in] Minor, they must be natural born, since they aren’t naturalized.
I guess that I must mention that every legal scholar in history has said the same thing. Before the crank theory of Leo Donofrio, no one in the history of the United States ever said that someone born a citizen in the United States was not a natural born citizen. Some, before Wong, argued that they were not citizens, but all understood that if they were, they could run for President.
That guy is clinging to that board with a white-knuckle death grip.
“That guy is clinging to that board with a white-knuckle death grip.”
arguing with a birther is like teaching pigs how to fly
.
reminds me of John Woodman’s debate on the BC fraud, what a waste.
these people don’t even know when they are being made fun of
I was reading some of the comments over there. It’s bizarre how often Birthers can lose and be all like “Any day now! We’ve got the usurper on the ropes!” I can’t help but think of The Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
“If you read Minor, the court said that based on the Constitution there were exactly two classes of citizen: natural born and naturalized”.
Nice try. You can continue to read into things, that which makes you feel good, but it doesn’t make it true.
Here’s a challenge: Try quoting Minor.
When you’re done, you can move on to learning what words mean.
Justice Waite said;
“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.”
Really, Justice Waite. Do we have a term for those citizens?
“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Why thank you, Justice Waite. Now we know what natural-born citizen meant. Are there any other people born in this country who are citizens?
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts,”
Gee! Thanks Justice Waite. Will you resolve those doubts for us today, so that we may include that class as citizens?
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
OK. Thanks for your help Justice Waite. Now I understand. The natural-born citizens are citizens, and those born within the jurisdiction, of parents who are aliens, might also be citizens. That would mean that we, as you have clearly identified, that we might have two classes of citizens who were born here; the natural-born citizens, and those born here of alien parents. Some people will still not get it. When I say “these are my parents” or “these are my eyes”, they will always say that these might be some too. Maybe they think you said “these (and some others) are the natives or natural-born citizens”. I bet someday that is how people will read what you wrote.
I guess teaching people to read is a lot easier than teaching them to understand what was said.
Dr. Conspiracy,
“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.”
Please enlighten us all and demonstrate where in the common law of England it says that.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/constitutional-expert-says-arguments-over-barack-sr-strong/
CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT SAYS ARGUMENTS OVER BARACK SR. STRONG
‘That alone is evidence he was not born to two American citizen parents’
[I certainly don’t dispute that Barack Obama’s father was an alien; however, citing ANYTHING from WorldNetDaily is a waste of time as far as I’m concerned. Doc.]
“Children entering the park must be accompanied by their parents.” So, let’s say Dad is away, can Mom take the kids to the park? If you understand what was said, you know that “parents” means one or both.
One last question Justice Waite. Why did the Court bother to determine whether Virginia Minor was a citizen?
“Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record.”
Thanks again Justice Waite. I doubt that will stop people from calling the determination of Virginia’s citizenship “dicta”.
This has been interesting.
I’m trying to repond (futily I might add) to someone who keeps on bringing up so-called analyses of the PDF on the WH website as a fake. I keep on pointing to the Savannah Guthrie photos and segment on NBC News where she talks about handling the original document, and this guys keeps on accusing me of evading his question.
Then there’s some guy who insists that John McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born on a US military installation, and that being born in an embassy would also be considered US territory for citizenship purposes. I think I’ve reposted a about a half-dozen times with citations and links to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual that state that overseas US military installations and US embassies, consulates, or diplomatic facilities aren’t considered US territory. It’s like talking to an echo that keeps on repeating the same thing, and he’s trying to convince me I’m wrong even with consistent citations and links to government information that contradicts him.
BTW – I was looking into the Panama Canal Zone. It think it was considered US territory, but a special case when McCain was born there. The only thing automatic there would be US nationality, but not US citizenship. Only American Samoa and Swains Island have a similar situation these days. A non-citizen US national can freely travel in the US indefinitely, but can’t vote unless they get naturalized. It’s also strange that the US Dept of Homeland Security is the vital records issuer in American Samoa.
Jammer, you’re new around here. If you had been around for a while, you would have already known the answer to the question. It’s in Calvin’s Case.
Probably the best source of remedial reading on Calvin’s Case so you can catch up to where we are almost 3 years into the discussion is to look at the Supreme Court decision in US v Wong that cites it, or the Congressional Research Service report here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement
For a more scholarly treatment of Calvin’s Case as it applies to American citizenship concepts, look at Kettner’s book, The Development of American Citizenship. You can get a copy on Amazon.
Wrong! Calvin’s case says nothing about natural-born citizens, or “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also”.
You can try again.
I’m not sure I appreciate that remark. You seem to be implying that you haven’t read Minor for yourself, and yet you have the temerity to challenge me on my reading of it.
That says you’re too lazy to do your own work to raise a challenge, but are perfectly happy to demand that someone else work to satisfy you.
It’s clear that you’re in way over your head, and are trying to assert something that you don’t understand.
So, let me start your journey towards self-reliance by telling you that you can find the text of Supreme Court cases at several locations, including law.cornel.edu or supreme.justia.com. You can also find a link to most of the important historical cases including Minor under the menu on this web site under Bookmarks | Lawsuits.
You’re going to have to find the link for yourself. After all this is all for YOUR education.
For the benefit of other folks, here’s the citation.
Good effort. However, Justices of the Supreme Court are know to choose their words wisely. The same cannot be said of people who make the signs for a park or playground. Had Justice Waite considered one parent to suffice, he would have said “all children born in a country of a parent who was its citizen became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also”. That’s not what the Justice said.
Sorry, I misread your comment, missing the part about parents. No that’s not in English common law. It’s not anywhere that I am aware of. Certainly the Supreme Court in Wong didn’t recognize such a common law definition and I don’t know where Waite got it. Indeed it is a mystery what Waite’s doubts were based on. He never says. Perhaps you will enlighten us.
Jammer,
Learn about the Calvin Case from Leo Donofrio:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/
I guess I need to assign you some remedial grammar homework. However, it really doesn’t matter whether it is singular OR plural, since the holding provides a sufficient condition but doesn’t make it necessary.
Nevermind. I’m talking to a brick.
How come you didn’t mentioned any recognized authority? Is that the best you can do?
How can I STOP doing something that I’ve never STARTED doing? Methinks you are making a straw man argument. You are the ONLY PERSON in this thread that used the word “dicta.”
As expected, the quote you provided is not in agreement with your previous misguided notion that “the court said that based on the Constitution there were exactly two classes of citizen: natural born and naturalized”.
If you would pay close attention to what the Court said in Minor, you would have noticed that the Court said (when speaking of those born in the U.S. of parents who were aliens) “As to this class there have been doubts”.
It is clear, by any intelligent reading of the Court’s opinion, that it had identified two classes of people born in the U.S. It identified one of those classes as the citizens known as natural-born citizens. The citizenship of the second classification of people born within the jurisdiction was not resolved.
Don’t doubt the sufficiency of my knowledge regarding the subject material. I have no need to point out your deficiencies. I am most capable of demonstrating them.
“I’m not sure I appreciate that remark.”
I doubt that you appreciate anyone who disagrees with you. I have no problem engaging in a respectful exchange of ideas. Can you and your brethren do the same?
Do you have a time machine? Where does Justice Waite clarify that? Do you have a citation? or is it just your opinion/interpretation.
Jammer:
I’m impressed by your passion.
And you are??
The Indiana Court of Appeals disagrees with you.
us, the Court [Minor v. happersett]left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
So I wonder who the Courts will take as authoritative and persuasive, the Indiana Court of Appeals or you.
There is also this from Marquette University School of Law:
“To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen” is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court’s 1874 decision in that case.”Associate Professor J. Gordon Hylton
Professor Hylton teaches Constitutional Law at Marquette University Law School
*BOOM!* There’s goes another shipment of irony meters!
Why do self-styled experts insist on adopting the verbal stylings of supervillains?
Silly birfer, cherrypickin’s fer kids. What were those doubts? What did they decide about those doubts in Minor? Umm, nothing, they intentionally set them aside as not being pertinent to the case at hand: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” That was left to later decisions specifically dealing with the children of aliens (WongWongWong). No, what was it you said again? Oh yes:
Jammer,
You can learn about the Calvin Case hear also. A rather bit more reliable the Leo:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SzlFAAAAYAAJ&dq=The+reports+of+Sir+Edward+Coke,+calvin&source=gbs_navlinks_s
The “Born on a military base” can’t work or else women would be sneaking on bases to give birth to citizens. That can’t happen as it’s not the location of birth that matters. That’s how I debate that topic.
I know this is off topic, but let me present something for you to consider:
The Democrat Party governor of Hawaii pledged to find the Kenyan Marxist homosexual’s birth certificate…
…but…
…he…
…couldn’t…
…find…
…it!
[Didn’t happen. Doc]
Barely related, but there’s a whole subculture of Japanese women going to Okinawa just to try and land American military boyfriends. I guess the most controversial are known as the “Kokujo” – or women who are specifically looking for black servicemen. They apparently even try to look darker, braid their hair into cornrows, and dress like trashy women in rap videos. I thought it must have been some sort of strange joke, but apparently it’s real.
There are of course thousands of children born each year with American servicemen as their fathers. I guess that’s one way they get around the citizenship thing. However, I understand that often the fathers skip town and it’s a bit hard to get that Consular Report of Birth Abroad without the cooperation of the father..
You’re making this demonstration too easy. 🙂
Jammer,
Obots decieve you:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-obamas-enablers-mislead-public-on.html
[Somebody wake me up when Apuzzo convinces a judge. Doc.]
The Minor Court left open a lot of things. They also left open the issue of whether the moon is made of blue cheese. I doubt that any attorney worth his or her salt would ever attempt to supply the dictum of the Indiana Court as support for much of anything.
As for the blog comment allegedly left by Hylton; It leaves much to be desired. The blog indicates that one post allegedly came from “Joseph Hylton” and another from “Gordon Hylton”. It’s hard to give much credence to the unsupported blog post of someone who can’t even remember their own name.
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/10/14/president-chester-a-arthur-and-the-birthers-1880%E2%80%99s-style/
Prolific, serial posting birther bigots must think quantity makes up for lack of quality or reason or history or common sense . . .
Well if you refuse so see what’s right in front of you, there is nothing I can do for you.
Further on in Minor, Waite says: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. ” again not allowing for any third type of citizen. Waite is saying one is either a natural born citizen or born a foreigner. Right?
Elk v Wilkins 10 years later used the same argument associating natural born citizen with citizen by birth:
The two-class division is again referenced by the court in Luria v. United States: “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.”
Again in Sugarman v Dougall: “I do not believe that it is irrational for New York to require this class of civil servants to be citizens, either natural born or naturalized.”.
If I had allowed lower court decisions, the list is even more impressive.
But it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. What matters is what the courts think, and the Indiana Court of Appeals has already previewed what the courts think: Obama is a natural born citizen based on US v Wong. And please don’t say that the Indiana court got it wrong. To you say that you know the law better than a three-judge appeals court would be barking insane.
Naturalization can include citizens who become instantly naturalized at birth because of birth on US Soil. But those persons are not natural born citizens. This is essentially the mechanism of the 14th Amendment and any acts passed by Congress. Natural Born Citizen does not depend on any of these and is baseda natural law and holding that a person born on the soil by citizens or parents of that soil.
[This is the United States of America, not the United States of Switzerland. Doc.]
Interesting discussion on the obiter dictum in Minor v. Happersett (1875):
Holdings, Dicta, And Stare Decisis
(excerpt) Consider the example found in Minor v. Happersett (1875), a Supreme Court case dealing with the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordains: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” The following passage is from J. Waite’s opinion:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims the reference to the natural-born citizen clause in this passage is part of the holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this reference as obiter dictum.
source: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/23/holdings-dicta-and-stare-decisis/
1,347 comments and counting.
Right back at ya, Doc. Right back at ya. 🙂
You’ve managed to lock your mind on one thing, and the result is that you only see what you choose to see. One day you’re going to wake up to find
Chevrolet and Toyota both make cars in the U.S. As such, they both produce “domestic” vehicles. One is, as they say “All American” (being owned by a U.S. corporation and manufactured in the U.S.). The other is domestically produced, but it is not considered an American brand.
Then we have the imports.
The citizenship laws of New York are not the citizenship laws of the United States. The U.S. never adopted the common law of England. New York did.
Take the time to read Tucker’s Blackstone.http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm
You demonstrate all talk and no walk. You wont be here for long. You will leave like the others when it gets too hot.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Looky! Looky! He’s trying El Putzo’s failed argument.
What do you mean by “all talk and no walk”?
Since Obama was born in Hawaii, New York’s common law adoption is useless.
“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.”
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html
You got that right! 🙂
Oh! Oh! Oh! Looky! Looky! He’s trying El Putzo’s failed argument.
“instantly naturalized at birth”
that’s funny, really silly
.
by the way, my parents were born in Poland, I was born in America, I don’t have any naturalzation papers, there is no such thing as “instantly naturalized at birth” except in the mind of some silly birther.
Sure. Let’s start by you identifying a single history textbook, civics textbook, or Constitutional law textbook which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.” – Sandra Day O’Connor
Unfortunately, there is the Rogers v. Bellei decision, but that’s only meaningful for births outside the US to citizen parent(s).
I guess your saying, according to this Interpretation, that Obama’s mother lost citizenship when she married Barack Sr? hence the title “Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage. ”
Good luck with that.
Thats a tall order to prove without any documentation
How can a couple of putative attorneys from New Jersey who never got published in any law review claim to know more about Constitutional law and U.S. history than every respected legal authority including SC Justices?
And how convenient that this amazing revelation first appeared in 2008.
ther are a lot of sites on Minor v.Happersett , here’s just one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett
.
Virginia Minor, a leader of the women’s suffrage movement in Missouri, alleged that the refusal of Reese Happersett, a Missouri state registrar, to allow her to register to vote was an infringement of her civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
.
evrything Doc wrote, comports with all the sites I visited
I might add, a category into which I think McCain fits. But IANAL and no one else cares about my opinion.
New York did and South Carolina did and I don’t know how many others did. The text you cite is interesting and in particular Blackstone’s opinion. There is a whole chapter in Kettner’s boon on this point. One of the causes of the American Revolution was the colonies’ assertion that the English Common Law was their birthright as Englishmen and the denial of that by England.
But that’s just an interesting side note and not relevant here because I am not arguing that the English Common was adopted in America (except in the states where it was) but that undefined terms in the Constitution are to be understood according to English common law definitions. That is because the folks who wrote the Constitution were in the main lawyers trained in the English Common Law. There are many terms undefined in the Constitution that only have meaning through the English Common Law.
However, it doesn’t matter what I think, or what you think, but what the Courts think and the Supreme Court has already spoken on that matter in Smith v Alabama:
That case is cited by the Supreme Court in US v Wong. Of course you might say that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Wong. That doesn’t matter. The law TODAY is that Barack Obama is eligible and he will remain eligible until you persuade the Supreme Court to reverse itself. That is not going to happen between now and the November election and I daresay never.
SEF “Unfortunately, there is the Rogers v. Bellei decision, but that’s only meaningful for births outside the US to citizen parent(s)”.
Here’s a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei
Rogers v. Belleihis was about automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, so your point is close but no cigar (if born in USA)
Rickey: Sure. Let’s start by you identifying a single history textbook, civics textbook, or Constitutional law textbook which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.
.
they never seem to answers this, can anyone say why?
Birther proselytizers citing Birther prophets as authoritative. 😉
It already is a cult!
Next to turn up will be a collection of birther manuscripts, ordered without regards to chronology*, numbered chapter and verse for easy reference…sprinkled throughout will be numerous, birtherized, cherrypicked constitutional, congressional, and legal citations … all (synthetically) leatherbound. It’ll be referred to by the faithful as a “bible”.
NAH! just kidding. It’ll be a ragtag collection of nth-generation photocopies, print-outs, and legal pad scrawls, all smudged and coated with crayola scribbles. Bound with drool and stained with tears.
* The sequence of the writings might betray a collective tendency to bullsh*t.
As I think about the silliness of the birther movement, I wonder what it is that they lost? What is it that they are missing? I mean, Blues alleged Bush stole the Presidency from Gore, and often bashed Bush with assertions of how a Gore Presidency would have played out. I have yet to hear a birther (well, any Red for that matter!) opine for the lost McCain Presidency.
So, if the central stimulus was not the political defeat, then what was it? hmmmm. What else was lost by the election of Barack Obama? What other alternate history are teh birthers mourning? Hmmm.
What indeed.
That’s what “naturalization at birth” means (automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth). I specifically indicated that this only had relevance for birth outside the US.
To clarify.
The text in Minor v. Happersett that is relevant to this discussion is as follows:
” … The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. …”
Conclusions:
(1) There have been doubts about whether children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents, are citizens.
(2) There have never been doubts about children born within the jurisdiction to parents who are citizens. These children are definitely citizens. In fact they are natives or natural-born citizens.
Implications of this for Obama:
(1) There have been doubts about whether Obama is a citizen.
(2) There have been serious doubts about whether Obama is a natural born citizen.
The Fourteenth Amendment and US vs Wong Kim Ark may have fixed Obama’s citizenship status, but his natural born citizenship is still in serious doubt.
Note that the decision in US vs Wong Kim Ark deals with a case where the parents were Chinese. To the best of my knowledge Obama’s parents were not Chinese. So even if, for the purpose of this discussion, we extend US vs Wong Kim Ark to non-Chinese parents, US vs Wong Kim Ark only establishes Obama’s citizenship, not his natural born citizenship.
I’m not saying that I completely agree with you, Dr. Conspiracy, but in the spirit of debate, I’ll accept your contention for the time being and ask;
What revision of the common law of England is to be used when looking for the meaning of terms contained in the Constitution? In other words, do we look to the common law of England as it exists today? Or only that which existed in 1789? Or 1776?
What do we do when the term contained in the Constitution does not exist in that revision of the common law of England?
Please support the reasoning behind your conclusion.
Jammer,
Minor left it open. Wong closed it. Simple.
Turns out, the Fuller court settled the matter in Wong for all time by ruling that regardless of what kind of cheese culture from which it came—blue, swiss or Velveeta—the moon itself, constitutionally speaking, is nonetheless still cheese, a priori, and that all cheese is eligible to be eaten by any American, including the president.
Little did they know that their ruling would be so relevant in 1979 for the Burger Court in Keysing v. Armstrong. The Burger court ruled that any cheese brought back from the moon by an American astronaut, a posteriori, is by definition American cheese.
BEGIN SNARK
His name is not Wong Kim Ark, so the decision cannot possibly have any relevance to him.
END SNARK
No, it isn’t.
Only for those who think the Dred Scott decision is still the law of the land.
Correction: the conclusions part should read as follows:
Conclusions:
(1) There have been doubts about whether children born in the country within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents, are citizens.
(2) There have never been doubts about children born in the country within the jurisdiction to parents who are citizens. These children are definitely citizens. In fact they are natives or natural-born citizens.
His name in his biography is J. Gordon Hylton (I wonder what the J. stands for?) and since he is the author of the article about Chester Arthur and moderates the comments I suppose he would know if he wrote the comment or not.
It’s is funny you cite the dicta in Ankeny as meaningless but the dicta in Minor is somehow precedent.
Here is what Justice Marshall wrote about dicta,
“It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the Court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.” Cohens v. Virginia 100 U.S. 1
And the only question before the Court in Minor,
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here.” Justice wiat, Minor v. Happersett
There was no question about her citizenship and no need to investigate it.
We can also look to the definition of dicta from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
instead of asking what the word “dictum” means we can ask what reasons there are against a court’s giving weight to a passage found in a previous opinion. There are many. One is that the passage was unnecessary to the outcome of the earlier case and therefore perhaps not as fully considered as it would have been if it were essential to the outcome. losely related reason is that the passage was not an integral part of the earlier opinion–it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion, so it was a redundant part of that opinion and, again, may not have been fully considered. Still another reason is that the passage was not grounded in the facts of the case and the judges may therefore have lacked an adequate experiential basis for it; another, that the issue addressed in the passage was not presented as an issue, hence was not refined by the fires of adversary presentation. All these are reasons for thinking that a particular passage was not a fully measured judicial pronouncement, that it was not likely to be relied on by readers, and indeed that it may not have been part of the decision that resolved the case or controversy on which the court’s jurisdiction depended (if a federal court).” United States of America v. John Allan Crawley, 837 F.2d 291
Even if the Minor court held that Minor was a citizen, it did not need to decide if she was natural born and the single sentence about the definition of natural born “can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion”.
Try it for yourself,
“as never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Now take out the what you say is the definition of NBC.
“as never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. ..Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
Nothing in the decision changes, Minor is still a citizen, and some authorities still go further. The “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” was ” sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion”.
You just can’t help giving your bias away: why insert the word ‘serious’ in 2), but not 1) ? You do so to set up your erroneous conclusion re: Wong, but the Minor quote you provide indicates no cause for distinction between your 1) and 2). If anything, when considered along with the preceding paragraph*, omitted by you here, indicates against the distinction you are presenting, by use of the word “born”.
* “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. “
Why are birthers so arithmetically challenged that they do not comprehend that the WKA decision in 1898 came AFTER the Minor decision (1875) and erased any of those doubts?
Without additional context, I don’t know what the writer meant, but it’s not legislation and it’s not a court decision, and so it has no precedential value in a court.
Your citation lists three groups. Which group would you use for persons who are born overseas to US citizen parents and thereby become US citizens at birth. Are you calling them “native,” “natural born” or “naturalized?”
If you call them native, then we have an explanation for native being separate. If you call them natural born, that blows your definition claim from Minor. I guess that leaves you with “naturalized” which brings its own set of problems since there is no naturalization process for them.
Do we have any immigration attorneys reading that might offer some context?
I’ll repeat this because you obviously missed it. I’ll even point out the relevant sentence:
One last question Justice Waite. Why did the Court bother to determine whether Virginia Minor was a citizen?
“Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record.”
Thanks again Justice Waite. I doubt that will stop people from calling the determination of Virginia’s citizenship “dicta”.
Their problem is that they misread Minor and claim the ratio decidendi in Wong is dicta.
There goes my straw man argument argument.
This also implies, by your reasoning, that a court would not have jurisdiction over non-citizens in the U.S. Hogwash!
I’m calling them naturalized. The point of law was settled in Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
What part of “Hawaii is the 50th State of the United States” do you not understand?
Obviously the English Common Law today is no relevance to what the framers thought. Personally I would pick 1787 when the Constitution was written. I don’t think the precise year matters since the English common law was pretty well settled in this area (see Kettner).
As for how to define an undefined legal term in the Constitution NOT in the English Common Law, I would first ask whether there are any. And if there are, then my answer is that I don’t know. I presume that a court would look to the notes of the constitutional convention, colonial laws and charters and to the ratification convention debates.
I can guess that you MIGHT be going towards a claim that natural born citizen is not a term in the English Common Law, which uses Subject. However, that wouldn’t fly since the Supreme Court in Wong already legitimized the equivalence of subject and citizen. Also you will find several state laws using the terms interchangeably. And if we went to the state laws, you would find that natural born applies to the children of aliens. South Carolina, of course, included the English Common Law in its 1776 Constitution (by stating all prior colonial laws were valid until changed, and a previous colonial law had established the English Common Law).
Clarification:
The text of the decision in WKA is as follows:
“… 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, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, 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.
It describes very clearly what the case was all about.
Q: Based on this decision, what do you do in a case where the parents are say short term visitors from South Korea?
Mr. Jammer, try finding other cases from the Minor era in which citizenship was debated. Under your theory, most Supreme Court cases would have a section about citizenship. And interestingly, despite your insistence that Minor’s citizenship was essential to justify the Suprene Court in deciding cases, there is not a word about Happersett’s citizenship. Happersett could have been a Hottentot for all the Supreme Court cared.
Why is that?
Thar’s because your argument concerns the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts, that is, disputes between citizens of different states. That is not the exclusive basis of Suprene Court jurisdiction. Ms. Minor’s case is not a dispute between citizens of different states. Both Ms. Minor and Mr. Happersett were citizens of Missouri. The appeal is from the Missouri Supreme Court and has nothing to do with diversity jurisdiction. Ms. Minor was appealing the decision by the highest court in mIssouri arguing that the Missouri Supreme Court misapplied the federal Constitution.
But thank you for stopping by.
I’m calling them naturalized. The point of law was settled in Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) EXPLAIN
.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.
‘
The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.
The South Carolina Constitution of 1776 was ruled invalid by the South Carolina Supreme Court. It was not a ratified constitution, but a simple act of legislature.
If you want to use something from Kettner, you are free to do so. A specific passage is acceptable under the fair use doctrine
Contrary to what you want it to be, the precise date does matter. For example: the common law holding in Calvin’s case was not made part of the law in Virginia. Calvin’s case was 1608. Virginia only adopted the common law of England prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First.
If you re going to ask Justice Wait question have the honesty to print his entire answer and not edit it for your own ends.
“From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.”
“But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States.”
“But if more is necessary” not simple “More is Necessary”
Determining her citizenship wasn’t necessary as she was native born.
What did you do? Did you go to Wikipedia for a quick education? That’s the only thing that would make sense. You read the words without understanding what you were reading!
The Supreme Court ruled against Bellei. They reversed the lower court decision that held the statute to be unconstitutional. The SCOTUS ruled that a person who obtained citizenship via the naturalization act could lose their citizenship for failure to perform a subsequent act.
The fact that the act in question was later repealed has no effect on the decision or the authority of Congress to create it.
A Birther misquoting a court decision? An event even more unlikely than Lou Gehrig catching Lou Gehrig’s disease. I mean, what are the odds?
The observation that the judicial power extends to disputes between citizens of different states is interesting but only dicta in Minor, as Ms. Minor and Mr. Happersett were both citizens of Missouri, and neither sought to invoke the diversity jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts.
(Apologies to William E. Crystal. Mr. Jammer, do you wish to see Mr. Crystal’s birth certificate, or will IMDB do?)
But, once again, Rogers v. Bellei only has relevance for persons born outside the U.S. President Obama was born IN the U.S.
Then I’m sure you be happy to point to the previous Court holding that determined women born in the U.S. were citizens.
The citizenship status of women was a case of first impression in Minor.
Obviously, Minor is not relevant, because President Obama is not a woman.
You picked a good case. I don’t see where it specifically says that Mr. Bellei was a naturalized citizen but it’s late and I’m sleepy and I might have missed it.
The dissent in the case said:
But that was the dissent and we are still left with no context for your USCIS link. I can give you any number of references, by the way, where courts have used native and natural-born citizen interchangeably, and authorities that say native citizens can be president. That’s why your citation seems odd and why I’m at a loss to understand it.
John,
If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with the Court. The quote I presented came from the Court’s opinion in Minor.
If you want to see misquotes, I think you’ll find plenty in the CRS memo allegedly penned by Jack Maskel.
Dr. C, I’m sleepy, too, it’s after midnight, so I’ll make one more observation.
There are two types of citizens, natural born (sometimes called native born), and naturalized. Naturalized citizens are those who were originally born elsewhere. There is no doubt that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen. If you are born abroad, on a military base or simply as your folks are gliding through Venice on a Gondola, and one or both of your parents are American citizens, Congress can, by law, make you a natural born citizen.
Mr. Jammer, you may not like that result, but my guess is if asked Congress will say, 100-0 in the Senate and 432-3 in the House that Sen. McCain, Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jundahl are all natural born citizens. If such a case ever got to the Supreme Court, that determination would be affirmed at least 8-1. Who knows what Justice Thomas will do? The Senate has already said unanimously that Sen. McCain is a natural born citizen even though he was not born here. These rules are not designed to make eligibility to be President an exclusive club, but rather as broad as possible without actually including Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger or Arnold Scharzennegger.
Folks: let us not go in circles. Here is the relevant text of the decision in WKA:
“… 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, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, 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. …
And here is the relevant text in Minor (regarding the natural born citizenship):
” … The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. …”
Where exactly does the WAK decision invalidate the observation in Minor that a child born to parents who are citizens is a natural born citizen? And where is the text in WKA that stipulates sufficient requirements for a citizen to be a natural born citizen?
So am I. I’ll revisit your site in the morning. If the commentary hasn’t descended to intolerable levels I’ll resume my participation in the discussion.
Mr. Jammer, if you think Mr. Maskell misquoted something, you will set it forth.
Gorefan set forth your misquote of Minor.
In any event, I do not agree with Mr. Maskell or a great many people on this blog. I believe that the only people who can determine a President’s eligibility are the electors and the Congress. In 2008-2009, no one challenged Mr. Obama on eligibility grounds from among the electors or Congress. That’s the process. I voted for Sen. McCain (in the first election I voted in) and I made a sizable campaign contribution. My side lost. My side did not lose to someone who was not eligible. We lost fair and square. And we are going to lose fair and square again, to Dr. C’s delight, if people keep setting a moving bar for President Obama to achieve to be eligible.
You just don’t get it. This is not invalidated. But it is not the only way that a person becomes NBC. WKA only said that it was not necessary to include the parental requirement. Jus soli is all that is necessary, if under jurisdiction.
John, you need some rest.
Fact: Sally was born in New York city in 2007.
Q: Is she a natural born citizen of the USA?
A: If we don’t know anything about here parents, we cannot answer this question.
For example, we can confidently say that if Sally was the daughter of the Iranian Ambassador to the USA at the time of her birth, then she is definitely not a natural born citizen of the USA.
John,
That’s not an observation. That’s a declaration, and an unsupported one at that.
As for the Supreme Court, you better think again about Scalia.
“Petitioner Yaser Hamdi, a presumed American citizen”
But I doubt her name would be Sally in that case.
There was no misquote of Minor. It was a direct quote. It was not taken out of context, and it was a case of first impression before the Court.
The ONLY additional question to be asked is whether Sally was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. at the time of her birth.
You continue to confuse “citizen” with “natural born citizen”. WKA decision deals with a citizen . It does not say anything about a natural born citizen”. Can you please quote from the WKA decision the text referring to a natural born citizen?
Bellei wasn’t naturalized. He was born an American citizen, but born outside of the United States. Currently, whether or not someone born outside of America is born American is determined by Congress. The law in effect for his birth made him a citizen at birth. Later, his citizenship was revoked, and finally the Supreme Court ruled that revocation legitimate. This case has nothing to do with someone like President Obama because the fourteenth amendment, as explained in Wong, means anyone born in America (with very few exceptions) is a citizen by birth. The Constitution protects and declares that citizenship. it does not declare and protect the citizenship of those born outside the country, which citizenship however is shaped by Congress. The controversy in Bellei is because he was *born* a citizen according to the law at the time.
Exactly, Sef.
So how exactly do you determine whether Sally was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. at the time of her birth? Do you ask her?
Congress was never granted that authority. I don’t think you understand Marbury v Madison.
Congress can only grant citizenship through their power to define naturalization procedures. The Constitution grants the other kind of citizenship, NBC, by the act of birth on soil under jurisdiction.
I think it’s unsure to some degree.
Hard to say. What if the Iranian ambassador to the USA was a US citizen. Gets rather tricky doesn’t it?
There are cases where those with diplomatic status in the US have fathered children. There’s Jazmin Grace Grimaldi – the illegitimate daughter of Prince Albert of Monaco. Her mother was clearly a US citizen.
The point is that the 14th does not say anything about the parents, only the child.
To make the discussion a bit more interesting, let us ask ourselves:
Exactly Sef. This is precisely why the 14th does not say anything about natural born citizens!!!
In short: let us agree that Obama is a citizen of the USA. The 14th does not say that he is a natural born citizen. And WKA does not say this either.
Exactly y_p_w. It is very tricky.
Sooner or later the US Supreme Court will have to address the “natural born issue”. It is not good for the country that the law is not crystal clear about this issue.
I am sure that you are aware of the fact that if you are a dual citizen, or have close family ties with foreign citizens, then you are ineligible (security clearance) for certain US government positions.
It makes sense to require the President to be eligible (security clearance wise) for these positions.
No distinction between the two has ever been affirmed. There are two kinds of citizens, by birth and naturalized. Natural born has not been made a third category. If you are born in America, you are not naturalized. I refer you back to Dr. C’s post that heads up this thread.
And yet the Constitution says nothing about the ‘security clearances’ as being one of the eligibility requirements.
Why on earth would the Supreme Court have to address this at all? Chief Justice Roberts swore the man in. Chief Justice Roberts I assume is somewhat familiar with the Constitution and I think he would have refused to perform a task that he was certain was clearly unconstitutional.
What you are proposing is a complete change in our understanding in the United States of who is eligible to be President. You are arguing that the will of the voters of the United State be thwarted because you- and a few others- have decided that the interpretation that the rest of us have been using for the last 200 years is wrong.
The law is crystal clear for rest of us.
I think its obvious that they would not have considered any non-white, non-male, non-nominal Christian to be eligible. By the standards of today, the Founding Fathers were universally racist- even the most enlightened of them.
Real, actual, recognized legal experts- the Indiana Court of Appeals says otherwise:
Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama’s father is irrelevant:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
I chose to believe actual recognized legal experts rather than the theories of hack lawyers being promoted on the internet.
Actually we do know the answer to that. Under U.S. law, a foundling- i.e. someone with unknown parentage is assumed to be born in the United States and a citizen.
The onus would be upon you- or the State Department- or anyone else to prove that Sally was not a natural born citizen.
Of course what you are really advocating is a definition that would require DNA testing of all Presidential candidates- and their families. And furthermore, under your definition, any child whose mother refused to identify the father, would be excluded from the Presidency.
No….I don’t think we need that level of government intrusion into our lives, thank you.
I suggest you get a time machine and go back to 1898.
I am afraid, fjeff, that you misunderstood the spirit of my comment. So let me say this. Two steps are necessary right now
1. Recognition that, as things are, the term “natural born” is not sufficiently clear. We need a much better (clearer) prescription (ideally it should be a clear “definition”).
2. The relevant authorities/organizations should determine what is the proper mechanism to fix the bug in the system.
It is a pity that the 14th was not divided into two parts, one dealing with “citizenship” (existing version) and one dealing with “natural born citizenship”. It is time to fix the bug.
The difficulty is that people simply do not accept the fact there is a serious bug in the system.
******** I work for leaving, so I’ll disappear soon. Nothing personal. ********
Dear sfjeff.
Here we go again. It is not that Sally does not have parents. She definitely has. The point is that if you do not know anything about here parents you cannot determine whether she is a citizen.
This is hidden in the term “jurisdiction”.
I understand the constitution lists the naturalization process as a power of Congress in just that way. However, children born out of the country have been considered to be born as citizens, not naturalized. Perhaps some Supreme Court case may change that some day, and say that means children born outside the country can only be considered naturalized, but in the meantime just as one historical example here is a quote from the Naturalization Act of 1790: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
Here we go again.
It is irrelevant with respect to whether or not he is a citizen. Can you please quote the decision and show where it says that it is irrelevant with respect to a natural born citizen?
Here is what the court said in Footnote 14 in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009)(emphasis added):
“We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did notactually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”
Can you read? It is crystal clear.
If you know that her parents are foreign ambassadors, to use your previous example, then you know she is not born a citizen. But if you know nothing about her parentage, then she becomes a citizen, and remains a citizen if no contrary evidence comes out otherwise before her 21st birthday.
“a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
Given that there are only 2 types of citizen, NBC and naturalized, you would need to show that WKA was naturalized for him not to be NBC. Since Chinese could not be naturalized he MUST be NBC.
sfjeff already gave you the quote. That quote from Ankeny also is a conclusion. After all is said and done, that court *concluded* that being born in the United States makes you a natural born citizen regardless of parentage. It is very clear language. Moreover the footnote you mention says the dichotomy between *naturalized* citizens and natural born is irrelevant in the case of Wong Kim Ark, the issue in Wong Kim Ark having to do with his status as someone *born in the U.S.* Thus, issues involving naturalization (such as naturalization vs. natural born) are immaterial. Immediately after making that point in the footnote you reference, they *conclude* that being born a citizen in the United States makes you a natural born citizen.
All very clear. Thus, President Obama’s parentage is irrelevant.
You replied with another quote, a footnote
Who says so?
You confuse two things:
(a) There are two ways to acquire “citizenship” (1) by birth; and (2) by naturalization.
(b) There is no “rule” that a child born in the USA is a natural born citizen of the USA. If you know of such a rule, let me know.
By the way: do you know that according to some USA Government regulations/documents, there is a difference between a “native -born citizen” and a “natural born citizen”?
For example, in Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage, we read
” … The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation. …”
and
‘… 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. …’
and
” … The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss. …”
The last quote refers to three types of citizens.
So don’t confuse the fact that there are two processes to acquire citizenship with the fact that the term “natural born citizen” is not clearly defined.
In most cases, you are ascertained to be under the jurisdiction by being here. The courts have been over this. There are few exceptions, such as foreign soldiers in war, ambassadors and such.
1. Please give me the quote.
2. President Obama’s parentage is perhaps irrelevant with regard to his citizenship.
3. Show me that President Obama’s parentage is irrelevant with regard to his natural born citizenship
WKA does not say so, the 14th does not say so, …. you say so, so what?
Jay, if you’re arguing that the term Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution, then the Supreme Court has directly said that English Common Law is where you need to look for the definition (see Smith v. Alabama, among others).
The British had a term called “Natural Born Subject” which, with few exceptions, included anybody born in Britain, no matter what their parentage. The Supreme Court has said that this term is analogous to “Natural Born Citizen” in America. (See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark).
So, unless you’re stating that Barack Obama’s father was a foreign minister when he was born (therefore directly giving Barack Obama diplomatic immunity at the time that he was born), or that he was a soldier in an invading army in occupied land when Obama was born, then there is no other way that Barack Obama’s parantage would be involved with this.
Show me which court have been through this.
As I showed above, the WKA decision does not deal with “natural born citizenship”.
Here yet another copy for you to read:
“… 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, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, 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. …
Where do you find natural born citizen mentioned here?
Sorry guys/girls, I have to go. I’ll catch up with you later on.
Jay take a look at the argument being made in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Here’s a few choice lines: “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.”
“Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives…”
At the risk of feeding a troll, I’ll respond to this particular set of tripe.
Wrong. It had identified one condition of undoubted citizenship and one condition of uncertain citizenship. Not two classes of people, but two circumstances of birth.
It identified one of those classes as the citizens known as natural-born citizens.
It asserted that people born in one set of circumstances were without doubt, natural-born citizens, yes.
The citizenship of the second classification of people born within the jurisdiction was not resolved.
It asserted that the very citizenship of people who were born in the second set of circumstances was in question, yes. Further, it said that there was no need to pursue that question, because it was irrelevant to the case in front of it, as Miss Minor was clearly born under the first set of circumstances.
What the court absolutely did not do was establish two classes of born citizenship. It asserted only that there was some doubt that people born in the United States to foreign parents were citizens at all. Either they were citizens or they were not, period.
As Doc said, everyone agreed that if they were indeed citizens, then they were natural born citizens as the only alternative would be naturalized citizen, which clearly does not apply.
Wong Kim Ark then settled that doubt in 1898: they are indeed citizens, and therefore natural born citizens.
Naturalization can occur only under the action of a Congressional law.
There is no law in existence that grants naturalization to a child born on U.S. Soil.
For the simple reason that naturalization is not necessary. A child born on U.S. soil is, by definition, a citizen Natural Born.
WKA does not mention natural born, but Ankeny, for one, does. Moreover, why don’t you show us where exactly the supreme court, or any high court, says that someone born in this country is *not* a natural born citizen. Please note the emphasis on the word “not.”
To repeat, sfjeff *already* gave you the quote. It is in Ankeny. Now that is not the Supreme Court. But it is a recent ruling. And it is a quote. And it directly *concludes* that being born in this country, regardless of parentage, makes you a natural born citizen.
Thus, according to this ruling, for starters, President Obama’s parentage is irrelevant. You have been shown.
Yes.
NO. If she is born on U.S. soil, but not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law, she is not a citizen, period. She is not “natural born”, she is not “naturalized”, and she is certainly NOT some mythical third class of citizen that doesn’t exist.
If she is born in America but not under the Jurisdiction of U.S. law she is not a citizen of any kind. Period.
The issue here in this specific topic that I picked up is about “jurisdiction,” not about natural born citizenship. You ask where do I see natural born citizen in your quote from Wong. I don’t, but that was not your question. NBC questions are another level, part of other points raised here. The question you asked was how to determine if Sally is subject to our jurisdiction. Not how do you determine if she is a natural born citizen. What gets done after we determine she is subject to our jurisdiction is another matter.
So, with regards to “jurisdiction,” you can just go look at Wong Kim Ark. Show yourself. The opinion goes on and on about jurisdiction and then states:
“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. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. 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;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,
independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.”
If the Justices of the Supreme Court were “know” to choose their words carefully, why didn’t Justiice Waite say, “all children born in a country of TWO parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also”? If those who wrote the Constitution were “know” to choose their words carefully why didn’t they write, “A child of two citizens”? Did they run out of ink? Was there a paper shortage?
Excellent point.
“All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.”
– US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)
Thanks for clearing that up.
And a further point on a more general basis. Precedent does not mean that anything the Supreme Court says is good for all time. Precedent is deserving of great respect, but is NOT absolute. A current Supreme Court can overturn a decision from the past if it would lead to a result that would be harmful in today’s world. And a court in 2212 would not be absolutely bound by something a court might do in 2012 if that decision no longer makes sense for the conditions that might occur in 2212.
Like something Dred-ful?
It is really sad that there is not a single birther who appears to understand the most basic concepts of law. You are citing the disposition of the case which said a person of WKA’s status was a citizen. However, all the necessary legal propositions on the decisional path to such disposition are also holding or rationale and are precedent. The disposistion didn’t say what kind of citizen or a citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Just a citizen. The rationale is why such was the case. The decision spentt half the decision saying WKA was a citizen under the original Consitution because the English common law definition was incorporated into the NBC clause and spent the second half saying the 14th Amendment was declaratory of the same rule and meant the same thing as a natural born citizen. One simply can’t get to the disposition without recognizing that natural born was defined by the common law definition. The court spent at least 5 pages saying natural born subject meant the same thing a natural born citizne, that they were both defined by being “born in the allegaince,” and stating in great detail that WKA would be considered born in the allegiance under both English or American law. It is holding and is sadly way over your head.
Why can’t birthers find one textbook or lawbook that lists the two-citizen parent requirement?
And how come the honest side has found hundreds that don’t list such a requirement?
Here is a long list:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html
or when you get censored…
understanding the law is apparently not necessary to win an argument against an obot.
but if trolling a hobby blog could prove obama unqualified, then he’d never have been elected in the first place, or once elected, remained in office, or be allowed to run for reelection. the proof is in the pudding, as they say, or in the white house, as is still the case. obots won the argument in jan 2009. for all the electrons birfers have since wasted soiling the internet, it’s not the minds of amateur scholars in the people’s court that they need to conquer. it’s the minds of judges in the court of law. so until that happens, until birfers actually evict the kenyan usurper from the oval office or prevent him from running for his next term, i fart in their general direction.
Was South Carolina the only one? I always thought (and taught) that the breakpoint was 1776, and for 1776-1787 you have to look at the common law and statutes of the individual colonies then become states. But that of course only applies to the 1787 constitution terminology.
Jamestown was founded in 1607. Official government (there is a reason why government and governor are related in the English language) was established in 1609. Calvin’s Case was decided in 1608, but the problem arose in 1603 (hint: there is a hint in the name “Jamestown”), and the case was decided on precedent. Good luck trying to claim that Calvin’s Case is irrelevant in the USA (well, it is actually irrelevant NOW, because of the Wong Kim Ark decision built on it). Oh, and Donofrio recently cited a 19th century newspaper which mentioned that the pre-1776 common law and statutes of … Virginia defined NBC as born in Virginia.
It would be interesting to find out if any colony before 1776 and/or between 1776 and 1787 decided citizenship on ius sanguinis. Birfers are always saying citizenship was not based on English common law, but on local statutes, but where is the beef, the names of the states that diverted? Because so far New York (n’en déplaise Apuzzo), South Carolina and Virginia (thanks, Leo) have been confirmed as on the side of the 1787 constitution.
A nice link for anyone interested in Calvin’s Case:
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm
Copy that.
10-4, Good Neighbor. Keep your shiny side up and your greasy side down.
Ballantine +10 😉
And here we are, thirteen hours later, and Jammer still hasn’t answered it.
Probably boning up on a spin with Puzzy’s tight circle of buddies.
You really should take the time to read the government’s reply brief in Wong Kim Ark.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA
In point of fact, the government acknowledged that the District Court’s ruling said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen:
The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen…(p.2)
The government went on to ask:
Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? (p. 34)
The government would have had no reason to ask that question but for the fact that the government knew that a ruling in favor of Wong Kim Ark meant that he would eligible to be president. The question also shows that the government understood that the only requirement for natural-born citizenship is citizenship by birth.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-2, upheld the District Court ruling without exception. The District Court said that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
I thought I took a shower every day. ;-}
My original thought wasn’t what I intended, but I guess dual-national diplomats make for an interesting distinction. What I was really thinking of was a diplomat who marries or (a male diplomat) who otherwise fathers a child with a US citizen. However, it is interesting. It could happen that some countries don’t require their diplomats to be citizens/nationals of the respective countries. What if we’re talking about a foreign diplomat who only holds US citizenship. I thought that the US will issue diplomatic passports to people who aren’t US citizens in limited cases.
Also – it gets interesting because some states require that a married woman giving birth must list her husband as the father on the birth certificate irregardless of who the biological father is. I wouldn’t be surprised if some foreign diplomat in the US fathered a child with a mother married to someone else. Or perhaps a female diplomat serving in the US giving birth to a child whose father is a US citizen. The standard cites about the children of diplomats or invading armies seem to apply to cases where both parents are nationals of the invading country or both parents are foreigners.
I was looking up cases like that, and here’s an interesting case. The US Ambassador to Vietnam was set to marry a woman who was an Australian diplomat serving in Vietnam. It was further complicated because she was born in Vietnam. That would make for some interesting determination of the citizenship of any of their children should they be born in Vietnam while both were serving in their diplomatic capacities.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1998-01-13/news/9801130467_1_born-in-vietnam-north-vietnam-pete-peterson
But, the REPUBLICAN Governor Linda Lingle testified she had seen Obama’s BC.
Lingle was Governor BEFORE Abercrombie, when the Birther crap started she was Governor.
You’ve got nothing, you’re just a racist.
No different than any other conspiracy.
Conspiracy believers never rely on a professional in that particular field for their information.
Kinda like the Moon Landing conspiracy believers who try to demonstrate knowledge in all things space related, without ever taking a course or seminar on said subject.
Lord Basil, why dio you persist in the pettiness of not calling the Democratic party by its actual name? That says more about you than anythingit says about Democrats.
His daddy was a pistol, and he’s a son-of-a-gun.
Thank you. I’ll be here all week.
Unless it’s George Romney, born in Mexico, to a polygamist. Then it means one or three.
Whenever this discussion of ‘natural born citizen’ versus ‘natural born subject’ comes up it always makes me think of a piece C-Span did last year on the Library of Congress using advanced imaging techniques to examine old documents. Using hyperspectral imaging while examining an early draft of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, they were able to see that he had originally written ‘subjects’ in a certain passage, but later rubbed it out and changed it to read ‘citizens’.
For those in a hurry, the relevant portions starts at the 2:30 mark…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrWK06baBN8&feature=youtu.be
When did you start talking to yourself? I talk to my dog and cat, but that’s a different case.
You also carry on both sides of a conversation at once. I used to see that in the nursing home my bubbe was in. Get help.
Too easy to point out that you haven’t given us any reason to believe that you are the expert you like to portray yourself as?
What credentials do you have? What constitutional law thesis have you published? What constitutional challenges have you won? What chairs do you sit in which Universities?
We rely on actual credentialed experts to formulate our positions. Why should we take your word over theirs?
I’ll ask my Siamese cat. They’re quite intelligent.
Unless it’s George Romney, born in Mexico to a polygamist. Romney ran for president in 1968. Is
WillardMitt Romney a child of two American citizens?Ah, yessss. [Apologies to WC Fields]
An erstwhile lawyer, now a fifth rate poker player.
No, a bag of rocks.
Go to a clothing store on the Lower East Side.
– How about this shirt?
– What? You got nothing newer?
As a matter of fact, I do: http://cavebabble.pnrnetworks.popcornnroses.com/files/2011/09/Time-Machine1.jpg
No, it’s green cheese. Keep up with current events.
I thought we lived in Threenesia: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i39832
My parents were born in Teflondia And Souvlakia:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i41495
Both of Obama’s parents were Chinese.
They had their eyes rounded. [bada-bing]
His name is Bong Kimsein Arbama. [bada-bing]
Juice.
I’ll have the Kimchi, please.
They were obviously not a pre-1776 British Colony, but
Sorry for the oops post above (Doc, you may delete). Darn over-sensitive touch pad. Let’s try this again.
They were obviously not a pre-1776 British Colony, but Louisiana may provide some interesting comparison since their history was not in the English Common Law. The urge of the governors of the colony to increase settlement could find them adjusting their laws allow for easier immigration. I have not studied this so, I do not know what you may find.
Jay- I will go through this once more. It is my belief that you are purposely being obtuse because you refuse to acknowledge anything other than your predetermined conclusion- so once again:
What you said::
Jay: You continue to confuse “citizen” with “natural born citizen”. WKA decision deals with a citizen . It does not say anything about a natural born citizen”. Can you please quote from the WKA decision the text referring to a natural born citizen?
Real, actual, recognized legal experts- the Indiana Court of Appeals says otherwise:
Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Indiana Ct. App. 2009, ). The Ankeny court ruled that the citizenship of President Obama’s father is irrelevant:
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
I chose to believe actual recognized legal experts rather than the theories of hack lawyers being promoted on the internet
I will point out once again what you avoided addressing. Real actual legal experts- in this case the Appeals Court of Indiana- specifically and categorically concluded that citizenship of parents of citizens born in the United States is immaterial.
You refuse to acknowledge what the Court actually said, and go only to what you want to be the only thing the court said.
There is no controversy here- there are a very few people- like yourself- who are pushing this idea. The rest of us- virtually the entire United States knows what NBC is, and is comfortable with it. That is reflected by Obama being elected, Congress confirming him and Chief Justice Roberts swearing him in.
I woke up this morning to a broadcast of an ABC radio (the ‘A’ is for Australian in this case) documentary on Home Schooling in AustraliaOpting out and staying at home. It was a very interesting program if you have the time to listen, I think its about 30 minutes long.
From that broadcast, it seems that while many home schooler families are not necessarily religious purposed (though probably most are), almost all the curriculum materials that are available are from religious publishers. Furthermore, since they are all American based, the Australian families have to make up their own Australian civics content somehow.
It occurs to me that these home schooling curriculum materials may be compromised in their content and further that many home schooling parents can make up the content as they go along.
Having read a discussion on ATS yesterday where a poster claimed adamantly that he was citizen born on U.S. soil but was ineligible to be President because his father was a Russian citizen really made me wonder where they get this stuff from.
Like you say, there are no civics texts that would make that obviously false claim and be approved for use in any managed school system. But could those materials make it into home schooling materials?
And further, is this the vision that Ron Paul has for the future of education in America? Really?
Keith – A very astute observation. I think you are definitely onto something there.
Also – unfortunately, it is most of the GOP that would get rid of public education in America if they could. Not just Ron Paul.
He’s not Justice Waite, he’s not talking to himself. As for the both sides of the conversation, go easy on him will ya? Socrates has been dead for a long time, the skills difficult to pick up without a mentor.
From Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
“British femes covert [married women] residing here with their husbands at the time of our independence and adhering to our side until the close of the war have been always supposed to have become thereby American citizens and to have been absolved from their antecedent British allegiance.”
I have several home-schooling textbooks. Besides being religious, they are right-wing to the extreme. One of them actually calls liberalism a “failed ideology.”
Some states in the U.S. conduct little or no oversight of home schooling, so in those states parents can pretty much teach their kids whatever they want. It therefore is no surprise that ignorance reigns in some parts of the country.
Let us use some logic here. Diplomatic immunity takes away the assumed territorial jurisdiction from the child and therefore the birth is deemed legally to have happened abroad. Does not stop the child from being a US citizen at birth through descent from one, or perhaps even two parents. I see a problem only when the foreign diplomat is the mother, does not have dual US citizenship and is not married to the US father.
A well-known example of how tricky this may become. In 1943, the Dutch royal family was in Canada with the Crown Princess highly pregnant. Not knowing whether the child would be male and thus heir to the throne, the Dutch delegation was astonished to hear that the Princess did not qualify for diplomatic immunity in Canada, only a reigning monarch does. At the time, Dutch nationality was based on ius sanguinis via the father – a child born of a Dutch mother (father Bernhard had abjured German citizenship and was stateless) was only Dutch if that would be the only nationality the child would have.
Rather than making Juliana or Bernhardt diplomats (can you make a stateless person a diplomat?) the Canadian government hit on the idea of declaring the delivery room where the baby would be born non-Canadian territory so that the Dutch would not have to change their nationality laws in a hurry and without parliamentary control, to accommodate their future King.
Two twists to the story:
1) like the two elder sisters, the child again turned out to be a girl, called Margriet for the flower that had become the symbol of the Dutch Resistance
2) in 1957 a British court ruled that all descendants from Sophia, electress of Hanover were British subjects, if born before the new Nationality Act of 1948. This in effect made all members of the Dutch family British subjects at birth, if born before 1948.
Although the Dutch law that got Margriet into this pickle was only changed in 1985, Margriet never lost Dutch citizenship because of the British court decision. So much for retroactively taking citizenship away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands
Plainly, the founders intended to exclude citizens born on US soil from Presidential eligibility without two citizen parents ONLY if they have brown skin or non-Anglo/Germanic-sounding names. Say what you mean, birfers; you’d still be wrong, but at least you’d be frank.
That is extremely depressing. And shameful that such revisionist brainwashing claptrap is allowed to pass for “education” in the 21st century…
Yes, I agree such should be regulated. If home schooled children can’t pass unbiased tests of real history, etc… that is simply not good for them in the bigger, real world. I wish that whatever tests are used to see if they are getting a proper education could screen to ensure that they are not being fed nonsense…
If you think america is divided and polarized now, imagine a future society built on completely decentralized education. One of the main purposes of public education is to produce a citizenry that shares a common upbringing, and a baseline of knowledge and training. The rise of media—in spite of its own divisive forces—has served to further unite and inform (stop laughing, you know what I mean) the populace.
It sounds kinda creepy when put that way … but if you imagine a society in which every sect, clan, ethnicity, tribe, cult, family, individual could raise its young however they saw fit …. yikes. Groups that live in a media bubble would really be out of it. No common culture. No integration. Segregation is human nature, and it would come back with a vengeance.
When I hear attacks on public education, I hear “divide and conquer”.
Agreed. What a chillingly depressing reminder of what is at stake…
According to the State Department, they would be considered US citizens.
Bruce Lee was born in San Francisco while his parents were performers on a tour of a Chinese opera company. His family returned to Hong Kong. He was raised in Hong Kong but came back to the US as a US citizen at the age of 18.
Strangely enough, there’s a thriving business of Chinese nationals who come to the US on tourist visas with the intent of delivering their babies in the US to get US citizenship. There have been several notable cases where large homes had been turned into unlicensed places for the families to hole up, sometimes extremely cramped. I heard of one house in Southern California where the local police found such an unlicensed operation. They found the house wall to wall packed, including several hospital-style bassinets in the kitchen. The women delivered in local hospitals, but they didn’t really have any homes per se to come back to. The housing is provided by the people who brought them and made most of the arrangements.
It all quite unsavory, but legally those kids are US citizens.
Here’s a gedanken experiment for y’all.
Let’s suppose that prior to Aug 4, 1961 Congress repealed all naturalization laws. Since SCOTUS has proclaimed that there are ONLY 2 types of citizen, NBC & naturalized, there could be no naturalized citizens created on 8/4/61. Since we have the 14th Amendment saying that everyone born in the U.S. under jurisdiction is a citizen, and it is impossible to create naturalized citizens, Baby Obama must be NBC. Note that the repeal of naturalization laws in no way changes Obama’s citizenship status. For anyone born in the U.S. this is a non-event.
This has the effect of reducing Obama’s case to a similar status as Wong Kim Ark. He too was born in the U.S. and the naturalization laws then in effect precluded Chinese from being naturalized. The 14th grants him citizenship, and since there are only 2 types of citizen he MUST be NBC.
Many, perhaps most, home schooling parents do not register with the state for that exact reason, they don’t want to be found lacking. In some cases they don’t want to be discovered as child abusers of course, but I have to believe that is a small minority.
It is illegal to home school with out registering (in most states that I am aware of anyway), it is considered “child endangerment”. Somebody was arrested for it recently in Connecticut or somewhere, I heard.
A thing of beauty, Sef.
I mentioned something about birth tourism. While I understand that it’s the reality, I’m not sure that the State Dept shouldn’t do something about it. They could ask a specific question on a visa application, such as whether or not the a women is pregnant, with the possibility of rejection at the port of entry should the mother be clearly pregnant. They could also require that visas only be valid for one entry within 3 months. This isn’t unusual for tourist visas in some countries; it might even be the case with the State Dept for certain countries.
However, once they get here and give birth, the US State Dept says the kids are US citizens. The State Dept makes this very clear.
Oh – and some articles on “birth tourism”:
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8511587-born-in-the-usa-birth-tourists-get-instant-us-citizenship-for-their-newborns
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-03/china-s-birth-tourism-isn-t-about-the-u-s-adam-minter.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-03/china-s-birth-tourism-isn-t-about-the-u-s-adam-minter.html
Granted, I have no particular problem with jus soli citizenship, but I think it’s well understood that there are abuses.
In Germany, home schooling is illegal. Parents have actually been prosecuted there. 18K -20K Israelis have gone to live in Berlin. They are fed up:
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/why-are-israelis-moving-to-germany-1.384831
Michelle Malkin, Filipina married to a neocon – how else did she get a Jewish surname – and
Piyush Howdy DoodyBobby Jindal were anchor babies. Ha, ha.Orly Taitz, that nogoodnik, can suck on that.
Absolutely.
I personally have no problem with Jindal having POTUS/VP eligiblity. However, it’s really strange seeing birthers turn on some GOP stars for fear of sounding like hypocrites.
Also – the other thing about Chinese “birth tourism” is that they’re often doing it to get around the one-child policy. As long as a child isn’t born in China, it doesn’t count as far as the enforcement is concerned. I’ve had coworkers from mainland China, and they have had more than one child in the US. They could conceivably move back with their multiple US-born children, and not face any consequence since they were born in the US.
‘GOP’ and ‘stars’ are mutually exclusive. I think you meant ‘GOP dead batteries.’ See Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.
Note to Republicans who take umbrage at my comment: The Republican party died with Nelson Rockefeller. Sorry.
I mean “stars” amongst the faithful.
At least Jindal already headed of his own party’s birthers at the pass, although I’m thinking he’ll be up for a full on birther assault and analysis of the JPEG image should he be nominated as a VP candidate.
http://media.nola.com/politics/photo/jindal-birth-certificatejpg-0f45528d3269cada.jpg
Not strange at all, just another super-typical, severely short-sighted failure to anticipate how political swill that seemed expedient might take root, grow, and multiply, popping up perfectly positioned to bite them in the ass from numerous angles LOL!
Supernovas!
Nah. Too fleeting.
Brown dwarfs.
Well, Palin actually achieved black hole status. Compressed a whole campaign into nothingness, vacuumed up loads of cash, and has sucked a chunk of the populace clean out of reality.