Main Menu

Donofrio has made fools of you all

I suspect that it is no small source of personal pride to Leo Donofrio that a novel legal theory he put forward three years ago that US Presidents must have two US Citizen parents now has millions of followers, some even with false memories of having learned it in school (no Civics text with this theory has ever been found). Today Donofrio shares with Phil Berg the dubious distinction of providing the primary theoretical underpinning of the birther movement.

It appears that “being right” is a powerful motivator for Mr. Donofrio, and as a result he periodically revises history by scrubbing the content of his web site and starting over, erasing his prior mistakes and arguments refuted. He censors arguments pointing out his mistakes and so by carefully controlling the content of his site, he creates the false impression of consensus and  even, dare we say, infallibility. His most recent web gambit is to only allow lawyers who publish their real names to comment on his blog.

Wussy_scotuswuss1
Scrubbed image from Donofrio web site

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Initially, Donofrio put forward the claim that the US Supreme Court erred in US v. Wong when they called the children of aliens natural born citizens. However, Donofrio sometimes puts forward theories hastily, and in this case too hastily; cracks quickly formed.

The first crack was the fact that President Chester A. Arthur had the same parentage situation as Barack Obama. The Arthur precedent  was a devastating blow to Donofrio’s theory and he went into attack mode to divert attention from his big faux pas. Donofrio tries to rewrite American history by claiming that President Arthur wasn’t eligible either.  Donofrio made all sorts of nonsensical arguments to smear Arthur and created a big lie: Arthur knew he was ineligible and tried to cover it up. Donofrio said that Arthur lied about his age to cover it up. (Revisionist birther history claims that Donofrio “discovered” that President Arthur was born a dual US/Irish citizen, but no less than US President Theodore Roosevelt mentioned Arthur’s Irish citizenship in 1916.) It is true that in one report Arthur made himself one year younger than he really was. However, that one year did not change the fact that his father was an Irish subject when Arthur was born (the elder Arthur not naturalizing for over a decade). Whether out of error or vanity, Arthur’s misstatement about his age doesn’t bear on eligibility. Donofrio then said that Arthur hid his ineligibility by burning his papers. Arthur did burn his papers after he left office, but that hardly covered up his status while he was running for office.

The second huge crack in Donofrio’s theory was the discovery of an 1844 New York case, Lynch v. Clarke, where in dicta Vice Chancellor Sandford commented that the children of aliens could be President:

By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

Why would a New York lawyer like Chester A. Arthur believe that he was ineligible when his own state Chancery Court said otherwise? Obviously he wouldn’t.

The third huge crack came from the discovery that the English translation of Emerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations that Donofrio relied upon for historical support for his definition of “natural born citizen” at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, did not exist in 1787, and that the contemporary translation did not contain that term.

To make himself seem to be a serious researcher, Donofrio published a picture of a book by A. P. Hinman, a contemporary of Arthur, named How a British Subject became President of the United States. The picture was probably from Google Books. However, it’s obvious that Donofrio had never seen or read the actual book because Hinman, who wrote the book to prove Arthur was ineligible because he was born in Canada, opened it by saying:

The Constitution of the United States requires that both the President and the Vice-President should be native born.

Even Arthur’s bitterest foe understood the equivalence of native and natural born. Other information in that book suggests that Hinman was fully aware of the naturalization of Arthur’s father after his birth, but did not consider that fact a bar to eligibility.

Continuing the diversionary attack, Donofrio then came up with the idea that the Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong was itself a cover-up for the fact that Arthur appointed the justice who wrote the opinion, supposedly with the idea that if Arthur wasn’t President, then Gray wasn’t chief justice. However, even without Gray, a solid majority of the court concurred with the opinion. Further, if as Donofrio argues, no one knew the naturalization status of Arthur’s father, then Justice Gray couldn’t have known it and could not have been influenced by it. The idea that Arthur told Gray on his deathbed the terrible secret is  too fantastical to take seriously since there is nothing whatever to suggest that it’s true. (The link is to a new Donofrio article, but the smear on Gray goes back at least a year.)

Dual Citizen

Donofrio launched into another crank attack on Obama, trying to show that the President was today a dual citizen of the US and the UK, but again his hasty research did him in, not discovering that the section of the law he was relying on for UK citizenship had been repealed.

Conclusion

Donofrio puts forward theories, then covers them up with deletion. He makes claims and then creates fanciful historical narratives (that crack under examination) to support them. In the final analysis, Donofrio has no credentials as a constitutional expert. He is a lawyer, sometimes, but he lost his case trying to contest the 2008 election process. His success, however, is marked by the millions of people whom he misled into thinking he is something special.

He has made fools of you all.

Other articles at Obama Conspiracy Theories:

Print Friendly

, ,

157 Responses to Donofrio has made fools of you all

  1. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

    “Other information in that book suggests that Hinman was fully aware of the naturalization of Arthur’s father after his birth, but did not consider that fact a bar to eligibility.”

    Yet dr. Con fails to provide a quote to support his contention.

    “Even Arthur’s bitterest foe”

    Really? Like Orly Taitz is Obama’s bitterest foe? Hinman avoided the issue of Arthur’s father the same as Taitz is doing…by keeping the focus on something else. If you ask me, Hinman and Taitz have served their masters well.

    Dr. Con has not taken any of the arguments in Donofrio’s recent article to task. Instead, he did what he usually does…attack the messenger while avoiding the message.

  2. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    Horace: I will repeat the challenge. Please show a record of someone born in the US who naturalized. Since 1788 there have been many millions of children born in the US to immigrant parents who had not yet naturalized (and might never have naturalized) so, if they exist, you should have no problem finding them.

  3. avatar
    richCares January 18, 2012 at 1:40 pm #

    “attack the messenger while avoiding the message”
    whatever!

  4. avatar
    J. Potter January 18, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    Horace: …attack the messenger while avoiding the message.

    I believe what Dr. C is trying to say here, Horace is: “Consider the source.”

  5. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    Scientist:
    Horace:I will repeat the challenge.Please show a record of someone born in the US who naturalized.Since 1788 there have been many millions of children born in the US to immigrant parents who had not yet naturalized (and might never have naturalized) so, if they exist, you should have no problem finding them.

    Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence.

    Elk v Wilkins (Nov. 1894). In that case the court stated;

    “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

    The one needing evidence is you, Scientist. I suggest you get to work.Find the naturalization papers for an alien who child was born in the U.S., and dwelling here when the father was naturalized, and demonstrate that the child is not listed on the naturalization papers. You can search through “millions”. Maybe you should find more than one instance…just to be sure.

  6. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    BINGO!

    J. Potter: I believe what Dr. C is trying to say here, Horace is: “Consider the source.”

  7. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm #

    For the benefit of scientist, here’s what Chester Arthur had to say in his fourth State of the Union Address;

    “An uniform rule of naturalization” such as the Constitution contemplates should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization…A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting its citizens abroad and would pave the way for the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries.”

    Chester is undoubtedly saying that his own citizenship was still in question. If his own citizenship was in question, so was the citizenship of all those who were born here of parents subject to a foreign power. IT is also clear by reading Authur’s message that simply declaring an intent to become a citizen did not unquestionable determine that the children born here were citizens.

  8. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    Horace: Absence of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absence.Elk v Wilkins (Nov. 1894). In that case the court stated;“Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

    Are you retarded? Justice Gray in Elk was comparing indians he said were deemed to be born in a foreign/indian nation to children of aliens born in a foreign nation. He compares these indians to:

    “children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government”

    I though Apuzzo was the only one dumb enough to not understand what being born within the domain of a foreign government meant. Duh.

  9. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Another excellent write-up, Dr. C! Well said!

    These gullible tools endlessly fall for every charade that Leo aka “Paraclete” pulls on them …

    Obviously, Leo is partially driven by his own ego. But I’ve always wondered, based on his past history, how much of his act is also some Andy Kaufman style attempt at performance art…

  10. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    Horace: For the benefit of scientist, here’s what Chester Arthur had to say in his fourth State of the Union Address;“An uniform rule of naturalization” such as the Constitution contemplates should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization…A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting its citizens abroad and would pave the way for the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries.”Chester is undoubtedly saying that his own citizenship was still in question. If his own citizenship was in question, so was the citizenship of all those who were born here of parents subject to a foreign power. IT is also clear by reading Authur’s message that simply declaring an intent to become a citizen did not unquestionable determine that the children born here were citizens.

    Again, pure ignorance. The “subject to a foreign power” language came from the 1866 Civil Rights Act which everyone in the debates admitted would make citizens of children of aliens, including the author of such statute. Such statue was only interpreted once before your quote of Arthur and such case said it re-stated the English jus soli rule. I think Arthur was educated in the law and you are not.

  11. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Horace: YOU are the one coming here making claims that children born in the US were naturalized prior to Wong. So YOU are the one who must back up your case with data-not speeches or court rulings, but data (actual records showing a US-born person being naturalized). I am making no claims and bear no burden. That is how science works-if I wish to claim something I show the data; I don’t get away asking those who disagree with me to prove the contrary.

  12. avatar
    tes January 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm #

    Your quote provides no support for your contention. What Chester Arthur is addressing in the second part of the bolded text addresses is the citizenship of (ALREADY BORN) minor children of naturalized fathers. I.e., when Bob moves from Italy and brings his minor children with him, then becomes naturalized — what happens to his children? Are they also naturalized, or must they go through the process themselves.

    In the first part, he’s addressing the issue what Wong Kim Ark later made crystal clear. At the time of his 1884 address, the Chinese Exclusion laws (and other exclusion laws) were still in place.

    Next?

    Horace:
    For the benefit of scientist, here’s what Chester Arthur had to say in his fourth State of the Union Address;

    “An uniform rule of naturalization” such as the Constitution contemplates should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization…A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting its citizens abroad and would pave the way for the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries.”


    Chester is undoubtedly saying that his own citizenship was still in question. If his own citizenship was in question, so was the citizenship of all those who were born here of parents subject to a foreign power. IT is also clear by reading Authur’s message that simply declaring an intent to become a citizen did not unquestionable determine that the children born here were citizens.

  13. avatar
    bovril January 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    Poor Horace, FAIL as always, the case was about an INDIAN (Native American) and his status via the sovereignty of HIS nation. Nothing whatsover to do with a NON Indian (Native American) NOT born in a sovereign (Indian) state)

    Here is the ONLY relevant piece you need to remember

    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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

  14. avatar
    ellen January 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    I agree that Donofrio is wrong on the definition of Natural Born Citizen.

    However, there is one good thing to say for him, and it is important.

    Donofrio has ceased being “not born in Hawaii” birther and has, in fact, pointed to a key fact that substantiates the others, that the US INS investigated Obama’s place of birth in the 1960s and early 1970s, and found that Obama was born in the USA, and that in fact Obama’s father was in fact in Hawaii on August 3, 1961–making it extremely unlikely that his mother was outside of Hawaii when she delivered Obama.

    These facts Donofrio got from WND, but he plays them up while WND tries to hide them or claims that they are not significant (in one case by saying that the basis for the INS statement that Obama was US-born was not known–as if it were at all likely that the INS would have made such a statement without having seen Obama’s birth certificate).

    In any case, here is Donofrio’s statement on Obama’s birth in Hawaii. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/recent-wnd-inquiries-appear-to-have-established-obamas-birth-in-hawaii/).

  15. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 2:10 pm #

    Scientist: Horace: I will repeat the challenge. Please show a record of someone born in the US who naturalized. Since 1788 there have been many millions of children born in the US to immigrant parents who had not yet naturalized (and might never have naturalized) so, if they exist, you should have no problem finding them.

    Here is a better challenge. Has Donofrio ever interpreted an eligiblity case correctly? I can’t think of any. I can’t even understand what his arguments are on dicta and holding and he ran away from defending his positions on a non-moderated blog as soon as he was challenged. The facts are his actual birther and Carco cases were laughed out of court and he doesn’t even try to defend his positions on a non-moderated blog as he would be embarrassed.

  16. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 18, 2012 at 2:16 pm #

    Curiously, Donofrio embarked upon this novel theory AFTER his failed suit, Donofrio v. Wells, was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. A quick glance over his pleadings in the New Jersey courts and the petition for writ of certiorari finds nary a mention of his two-citizen-parent theory. The petition that he authored for Cort Wrotnowski acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark is binding but argued that the Court should overturn its earlier decision.

    Of course, as you point out, Doc, Donofrio erased these from his own blog. Nevertheless, they live on in the blogosphere.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

    That discussion was in a previous article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/

    But you are correct that didn’t do a point-by-point of Donofrio’s most recent article. I try to avoid being hasty.

    Horace: Yet dr. Con fails to provide a quote to support his contention.

  18. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 2:20 pm #

    EXACTLY! Well said.

    GeorgetownJD: Curiously, Donofrio embarked upon this novel theory AFTER his failed suit, Donofrio v. Wells, was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. A quick glance over his pleadings in the New Jersey courts and the petition for writ of certiorari finds nary a mention of his two-citizen-parent theory. The petition that he authored for Cort Wrotnowski acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark is binding but argued that the Court should overturn its earlier decision.Of course, as you point out, Doc, Donofrio erased these from his own blog. Nevertheless, they live on in the blogosphere.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 2:23 pm #

    You can’t have it both ways: Arthur hiding his citizenship, and Arthur saying his citizenship was in question.

    Horace: Chester is undoubtedly saying that his own citizenship was still in question

  20. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Yes, Indians are born on US soil but because their tribes coexist on the same soil as the US, they are, not born under full jurisdiction of the US. But that does not extend when there is no overlap in territory.

    Understanding the Indian question has been quite a problem for the birthers. Reading the discussions surrounding the 14th Amendment, would help resolve these issues. But somehow, that would put these quotes within their proper context and undermine the position that born on US soil to a foreign parent would not make one natural born. In fact, under this would suggest that noone born on US soil to alien parents could be a citizen and we know that this is not true. The subject to jurisdiction refers to the child being born fully under US law, and we know that this excludes children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military, and in the US also Indians not paying taxes.

    Horace: “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

  21. avatar
    Bernard January 18, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    The citation for the US Supreme Court decision is: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.

    The particular sentence about the Presidency in the NY Chancery decision can be cited as:
    Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc. 1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 at 655, 3 N.Y. Legal Obs. 236 at 246-247, 7 N.Y. Chanc.Annot. 433.

  22. avatar
    H January 18, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    Ballantine: The “subject to a foreign power” language came from the 1866 Civil Rights Act which everyone in the debates admitted would make citizens of children of aliens, including the author of such statute.

    Who suffers from an obvious mental defect? Are you really attempting to say that Chester Arthur was citing a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 twenty-eight years after that Act had been subsequently addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment? Are you saying that Arthur didn’t know about the Fourteenth Amendment?

    Bring that argument to court. We all need a good laugh.

    “During the debates in the senate in January and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.’ Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?’ Mr. Trumbull answered, ‘Undoubtedly;’…Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pt. 1, pp. 498, 573, 574.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 698.

    I’ll repeat it the “effect of naturalizing”. Another failure by Ballantine.

  23. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    You can’t have it both ways: Arthur hiding his citizenship, and Arthur saying his citizenship was in question.

    It’s too bad you can’t provide any evidence of Arthur making the non-citizenship of his father known to the public.

  24. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: The petition that he authored for Cort Wrotnowski acknowledged that Wong Kim Ark is binding but argued that the Court should overturn its earlier decision.

    Ouch.. But did Leo not complain that he did not know of Minor v Happersett because of what he claims, fraudulent actions by Justia? Of course, that hardly helps his case.

  25. avatar
    John January 18, 2012 at 2:33 pm #

    A Guy on Mario’s Blog had interesting insight into the NBC argument:

    By paraleaglenm:

    1) Welcome to smstrauss and drconspiracy.

    2) bdwilcox is correct on Minor’s holding concerning citizenship being a membership of a nation and its society. However, Minor distinguished that membership from voting rights of women, which had to come later under suffrage.

    3) Minor declared as judicial notice that a child born in the United States of two U.S. citizens was, without doubt, a natural born citizen. The question the two camps, jus soli or sanguinis, remains: which determines jurisdiction over nationality at birth, the Soil or the Parentage.

    4) Mr. Apuzzo, and others, herald Minor’s judicial notice as precedent. However, I Shepardized Minor and no subsequent case followed Minor on the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ as it applies to the only law in the land depending on that term of art, Article II. That doesn’t detract from judicial notice of a judge in 1875 being an accurate picture, contemporaneous with the constitution’s original construction.

    5) Let’s go back further and read an authority in Constitutional law and Conflicts of law, Assoc. Justice Joseph Story. His ‘Commentaries’ §1473 (1833) analyzes Article II and the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement.
    One year later, his ‘Conflicts of Law’ §48 describes our ‘conflict’ and debate. He sides with the jus sanguinis relied on in naturalization statute, and the good sense in that. However, he is concerned that ‘public law’ (which I interpret as common law dicta and arogatory holdings in the judiciary) made it impossible to resolve the conflict between the two, the legislature’s plenary power over naturalization law and abuses of the judiciary.

    6) Newt Gingrich nailed it when he declared that the president should extol congress, the lawmaking body, to challenge judicial holdings in conflict with their laws.

    Conclusion: We stipulate that there is a conflict between the jus soli camp and those who read from the First Naturalization Act and onward (correctly I might add) that there is NO JUS SOLI, until Wong Kim Ark totally violated jurisprudence to create it.

    The Sheriff Arpaio ‘Cold Case Posse’ is analyzing this argument and it will come into play when they report on Obama’s ‘forged’ Birth Certificate and what rules of law determine Natural Born Citizen Article II Eligibility for a presidential candidate to qualify for a state ballot.

    Indeed, they can rely on Minor, declaring as judicial notice that it requires a child born on U.S. soil of two U.S. citizens . . . the other conditions being in a state of conflict due to conflicts of law, vis-a-vis Story’s ‘Conflicts’ §48.

    In other words, a candidate who meets Minor’s judicial notice in precedent qualifies; all others are not qualified and the issue is a cause de novo.

  26. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    Horace: It’s too bad you can’t provide any evidence of Arthur making the non-citizenship of his father known to the public.

    It was irrelevant, so why would he speak about it. Not speaking about something is not hiding it. I doubt Arthur talked about which sexual positions he preferred-was he hiding that information or just considered it nobody’s business?

  27. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That discussion was in a previous article:

    I can see why you wouldn’t want to repeat such weak supporting argument.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    No, that is not my message at all. The recent article by Donofrio is not the subject of this article. This is a historical survey on the gullibility of birthers vis-a-vis Donofrio’s tricks and historical revisionism. It’s context is the Georgia administrative hearing during which Donofrio’s theory will be submitted by the challengers. If anything, this article serves to prepare the birthers for their inevitable loss in Georgia.

    In truth, the main motivation for this article was a comment I made yesterday, “Donofrio has made fools of you all.” I thought it sounded so pithy that I wanted to expand that theme into an article. I actually haven’t even read all of the recent Donofrio article.

    If any of the attorneys here would like a shot at Donofrio’ latest, I’m always open to publishing well-written guest articles.

    J. Potter: I believe what Dr. C is trying to say here, Horace is: “Consider the source.”

  29. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    tes:
    Your quote provides no support for your contention.What Chester Arthur is addressing in the second part of the bolded text addresses is the citizenship of (ALREADY BORN) minor children of naturalized fathers.I.e., when Bob moves from Italy and brings his minor children with him, then becomes naturalized — what happens to his children?Are they also naturalized, or must they go through the process themselves.

    In the first part, he’s addressing the issue what Wong Kim Ark later made crystal clear.At the time of his 1884 address, the Chinese Exclusion laws (and other exclusion laws) were still in place.

    Next?

    tes, You’re arriving at a conclusion without the evidence necessary to support it. Arthur’s Address does not state where the children of fathers who had declared their intent but not yet naturalized were born. Just as the Naturalization Acts prior to the Address don’t address where the children were born.

  30. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    H: Who suffers from an obvious mental defect? Are you really attempting to say that Chester Arthur was citing a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 twenty-eight years after that Act had been subsequently addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment? Are you saying that Arthur didn’t know about the Fourteenth Amendment?Bring that argument to court. We all need a good laugh.“During the debates in the senate in January and February, 1866, upon the civil rights bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read: All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.’ Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?’ Mr. Trumbull answered, ‘Undoubtedly;’…Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. pt. 1, pp. 498, 573, 574.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 698.I’ll repeat it the “effect of naturalizing”. Another failure by Ballantine.

    Try reading the actually debates. Trumbull was told that the supreme court said that native born persons could not be naturalized and he then repeatedly stated that children of aliens were citizens. Here, take a look at some quotations from such debates and why the only two courts to address the meaning of the Civil Rights Act said it re-stated the English jus soli rule, and, of course, this doesn’t include the many statement of such Congressment made during the 14th Amendment debates or otherwise:

    “we are passing a law declaratory of what, in my judgment, the law now is…” Senator Trumbull (Senate Judiciary Chairman and author of the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act), Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 574 (1866).

    “birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)

    “And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father.” Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons’s Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).

    “I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”‘ Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

    “The children of Germans parents are citizens; but German are not Chinese.” Sen. Cowen, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)

    “It is competent for Congress to declare, under the Constitution of the United States, who are citizens. If there were any question about it, it would be settled by the passage of a law declaring all persons born in the United States to be citizens thereof. That this bill proposes to do.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, p. 475 (1866).

    “whenever they [indians] are separated from their tribes, and come within the jurisdiction of the United States so as to be counted, they are citizens of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).

    “This provision [the citizenship clause of the Civil Rights Act] is simply declaratory of what the law now is.” Rep. Wilson, (House Judiciary chairman and House Manager of the Civil Rights Act) Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115 (1866).

    “Blackstone says ‘The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.’ The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

    “It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

    “On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows: ‘Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.’ I quote this not to claim that it was written concerning a colored persons, but for the purpose of showing how broad the rule is that Mr. Marcy affirmed. Every person born in the United States must include negroes, for they are persons born in the United Sates; and I submit that, under the rule thus laid down, all such persons must be considered to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1116 (1866).

    “As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone … Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision – of course they made none – for the naturalization of natural born citizens…. Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration….” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

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

    “What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens. That never was so before. Although I have said that by the fundamental principles of American law all persons were entitled to be citizens by birth, we all know that there was an exceptional condition in the Government of the country which provided for an exception to this general rule.” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

    “It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or nor. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866)

    “As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary….What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).

    “Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?” Rep. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).

    “The bill [the Civil Rights Act] proposes two things: 1. To declare who shall be citizens of the United States, and declares that all shall be citizens without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, who are, have been, or shall be born within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States…” Mr. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).

    “Now that we are fixing the law on the subject, why not declare every man born in the United States to be a citizen of the United States, irrespective of race or previous condition?….Why not give him the rights of United States citizenship if he is not connected to a tribe and thereby quasi a foreigner owing allegiance to a quasi foreign power.” Senator Henderson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 5711 (1866).

    “The substitute which I have offered declares – That all person born, or herinafter to be born, within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be deemed and considered, and are hereby declared to be, citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such.” Mr. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).

    “This bill provides that all persons born within the United States, excepting those that do not owe allegiance to the United States government, as children of ambassadors of foreign powers, and such are not subject to our laws… Rep. Cook, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1124 (1866)

    “It has been assumed here by various gentlemen, and I believe by my learned and most respected friend from Maryland, that any person, be he of what race or color be may, born within the United states, is by the effect and operation of the constitution made a citizen.” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 597 (1866).

    “But I go on; I beg pardon for this digression. I maintain that a negro cannot be made a citizen by congress; he cannot be made a citizen by any naturalization laws because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone….Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution…Then, if a negro is a citizen of the United States at all, he is a citizen by birth and by operation of the Constitution..” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 598 (1866).

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)

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

    “Now if you pass this bill you will allow the negroes of this country to compete for the high office of President of the United States, because if they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letter of the constitution of the united states, which allows all natural born citizens to become candidates for the Persistency…” Rep. Rogers, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1122 (1866).

    “I want to make another extract from the speech from the gentleman from New Jersey. He said ‘If you pass this bill you will allow negroes to compete for the high office of President of the United States.’ As for the fear which haunts the gentleman from New Jersey, if there is a negro in the country who is so far above all the white men of the country that only four million of his own race can elect him president of the United states over twenty six million of white people, I think we ought to encourage such talent in the country.” Rep. Windham, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1158 (1866)

    “This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is by the bill made a citizen of the United States.” President Johnson’s Veto Message, William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 252 (1868).

    “How is it that every person born in these United States owes allegiance to the Government? Every thing that he is or has, his property and his life, may be taken by the Government of the United States in its defense, or to maintain the honor of the nation. And can it be that our ancestors struggled through a long war and set up this Government, and that the people of our day have struggled through another war, with all its sacrifices and all its desolation, to maintain it, and at last that we have got a Government which is all-powerful to command the obedience of the citizen, but has no power to afford him protection? Is that all that this boasted American citizenship amounts to? Go tell it, sir, to the father whose son was starved at Andersonville; or the widow whose husband was slain at Mission Ridge; or the little boy who leads his sightless father through the streets of your city, made blind by the winds and the sand of the Southern coast; or the thousand other mangled heroes to be seen on every side, that this Government, in defense of which the son and the husband fell, the father lost his eyes, and the others were crippled, had the right to call these persons to its defense, but has no right to protect the survivors or their friends in any right whatever in any of the States. Sir, it can not be. Such is not the meaning of our Constitution. Such is not the meaning of American citizenship. This Government, which would go to war to protect its meanest–I will not say citizen–inhabitant, if you please, in any foreign land, whose rights were unjustly encroached upon, has certainly some power to protect its own citizens in their own country. Allegiance and protection are reciprocal rights.” Senator Trumbull, William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 255 (1868)

    “What I said then I say now, that as far as the United States are concerned, all persons born within the limits of the United States are to be considered as citizens, and that without reference to the color or the race; and after the abolition of slavery the negro would stand precisely in the condition of the white man….Now, what does this bill propose? All born within the United States are to be considered citizens of the United States, and as such shall have in every State all the rights that belong to any body else in the State as far as the particular subjects stated in the bill are concerned. ” Senator Johnson (Message supporting President Johnson’s Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. ___ (1868)

    “Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity. That is the common law, that is the law of the civilized world, that he would is born in a country, and not made a slave at the moment of birth by any municipal law, becomes, by virtue of his birth, a citizen…” Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1776 (1866).

    “This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)(House reply to Johnson’s veto).

    “The freedmen of the United States are citizens of the United States; not citizens under the naturalization law, not citizens by virtue of any treaty, but citizens because they are born native to the soil.” Sen. Lane, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 741 (1866)

    Feel dumb yet?

  31. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 2:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The recent article by Donofrio is not the subject of this article (it’s hardly mentioned since there’s nothing new in it).

    Can you even say that with a straight face? Nothing new? Where was Chester Arthur’s fourth State of the Union Address previously discussed? That’s just a start.

  32. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    Horace: tes, You’re arriving at a conclusion without the evidence necessary to support it. Arthur’s Address does not state where the children of fathers who had declared their intent but not yet naturalized were born. Just as the Naturalization Acts prior to the Address don’t address where the children were born.

    And, of course, the Supreme Court and all legal authority prior to such speech had said that native born persons could not be naturalized. Such is one reason we have the 14th amendment as it was pointed out to Trumbull and the rest of Congress that, by definition, “naturalization” only applied to the foreign born. No legal authority of any significance in the early republic disagreed including Madison. For example:

    “The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. at 417

    “It appears, then, that the only power expressly granted to Congress to legislate concerning citizenship, is confined to the removal of the disabilities of foreign birth.” Justice Curtis, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 478 (1857)

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    “Mr. Madison did not think that Congress, by the constitution, had any authority to readmit American citizens at all. It was only granted to them to admit aliens.” Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856: From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress; from their Register of debates; and from the official reported debates, by John C. Rives, pg. 556 (1860)

    ” I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress ; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they arc made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868)

    NATURALIZATION. The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America. Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 189 (1843)

    ALIEN, persons. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, who has not since been naturalized under their constitution and laws. To this there are some exceptions, as this children of the ministers of the United States in foreign courts. See Citizen, Inhabitant. Bouvier Law Dictionary (1856)

    Naturalization. That process by which an alien becomes a citizen. Analysis of Civil Government, By Calvin Townsend, pg. 325 (1869)

    An alien is one who is born in a foreign country. Analysis of Civil Government, By Calvin Townsend, pg. 325 (1869)

    NATURALIZATION. [Lat. naturalizatio.] The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native or natural-born subject or citizen.* Co. Litt. 129 a. 1 Bl. Com. 374. 2 Kent’s Com. 64—67. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 737 (1851)

    Alien: In american Law. One born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 81 (1871)

  33. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    Horace: Arthur’s Address does not state where the children of fathers who had declared their intent but not yet naturalized were born.

    Because it was obvious to everyone that he was referring to those born outside the US.

    Horace: Just as the Naturalization Acts prior to the Address don’t address where the children were born.

    Again, because it was obvious that naturalization does not apply to those born in the US.

    You are wasting time-where is that mythical child born in the US and later naturalized?

  34. avatar
    J. Potter January 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, that is not my message at all.

    In returning for my speaking out of place, you have my apologies, Dr.

  35. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Yep, as I pointed out on another topic… what we have here today is the Cult of Donofrio in full effect.

    Go head Horus, bow down and worship your Paraclete! All hail the mighty poker player who dabbles at law and only gets his @ss handed to him by the courts when he does so…

    Horace: Can you even say that with a straight face? Nothing new? Where was Chester Arthur’s fourth State of the Union Address previously discussed? That’s just a start.

  36. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Remember that the 1866 Act was in fact a naturalization act as it was passed under Congress’s power to provide for uniform rules of naturalization. Since it was clear that any Congress could undo this, the 14th Amendment was passed which once and for all outlined clearly the meaning of the Constitution declaring anyone born on US soil, subject to our jurisdiction, to be a citizen.

    US v Wong Kim Ark concluded that this meant that a child born on our soil, to two alien parents was still a natural born citizen.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 2:54 pm #

    Arthur died not long after. I always appreciated this assessment of Arthur:

    “No man ever entered the Presidency so profoundly and widely distrusted, and no one ever retired … more generally respected.”

    One must be always cautious trusting obscure quotations from birthers. So here is a link to the Arthur December 1884 message.

    The section is introduced: “Our existing naturalization laws also need revision.” Arthur couldn’t have been talking about himself, since the context is “naturalization” and Arthur was not a naturalized citizen.

    Horace: fourth State of the Union Address;

  38. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 2:55 pm #

    Sorry, Ballentine! You can either make your sources available to the public, or you can consider them dismissed. The fact that the Congressional Debates have been wiped from free view, when they should be public domain, is evidence of something far more nefarious.

    Like the Masked Jackal, you take quotes out of context; make use of so many of them at once that no one can possibly address them all at once, and then think you have made a convincing argument??? Sorry, not gonna fly.

  39. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 2:56 pm #

    It’s funny how often people confuse the debates surrounding the 1866 Civil Rights Act with the debates around the 14th Amendment.

    People may want to read Defining “American”Birthright Citizenship and the Original
    Understanding of the 14th Amendment
    by James C. Ho

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    Do you have links really handy? I don’t have them on this site. If they are not really handy, I’ll go looking.

    GeorgetownJD: Of course, as you point out, Doc, Donofrio erased these from his own blog. Nevertheless, they live on in the blogosphere.

  41. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Horace: Sorry, Ballentine! You can either make your sources available to the public, or you can consider them dismissed. The fact that the Congressional Debates have been wiped from free view, when they should be public domain, is evidence of something far more nefarious.Like the Masked Jackal, you take quotes out of context; make use of so many of them at once that no one can possibly address them all at once, and then think you have made a convincing argument??? Sorry, not gonna fly.

    Gibberish. The quotes contain citiations you are free to look up as such debates are a matter of public record. If you are too lazy to find out what Congress said, that is your problem. The links I had were all broken for some reason.

  42. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Horace: The fact that the Congressional Debates have been wiped from free view, when they should be public domain, is evidence of something far more nefarious.

    Funny I can still access them and they do not support your position.

  43. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:00 pm #

    The quotes contain citiations you are free to look up as such debates are a matter of public record. If you are too lazy to find out what Congress said, that is your problem.

    You mean you are suggesting that Horace does some actual research… The shock..

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    For completeness, I should mention Risenhoover’s argument that Hawaii is not a state but an occupied Indian nation.

    Ballantine: Are you retarded? Justice Gray in Elk was comparing indians he said were deemed to be born in a foreign/indian nation to children of aliens born in a foreign nation. He compares these indians to

  45. avatar
    Rickey January 18, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    Horace:

    Like the Masked Jackal, you take quotes out of context; make use of so many of them at once that no one can possibly address them all at once, and then think you have made a convincing argument??? Sorry, not gonna fly.

    The irony meter just exploded.

  46. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Arthur couldn’t have been talking about himself, since the context is “naturalization” and Arthur was not a naturalized citizen.

    Are you now trying to redefine naturalization to suit your own needs?

    Naturalization: The Act of adopting an alien into a nation, and clothing him with all the rights possessed by a natural-born citizen.

    No reference is made to the birth place. Could not someone born in a country who relies on jus sanguinis be born in that country and in need of naturalization to become a citizen?

  47. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

    Ballantine: The links I had were all broken for some reason.

    Imagine that; broken links. How convenient. We wouldn’t want the general public to read things in context. Would we?

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    And your claim that they have been wiped is what? The nicest word I can think of is “spurious.”

    Go to the Library of Congress web site:

    http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html

    Search the 39th Congress, the Congressional Globe, for the word “amendment”. That will get you there.

    Horace: The fact that the Congressional Debates have been wiped from free view, when they should be public domain, is evidence of something far more nefarious.

  49. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    NBC: Remember that the 1866 Act was in fact a naturalization act as it was passed under Congress’s power to provide for uniform rules of naturalization. Since it was clear that any Congress could undo this, the 14th Amendment was passed which once and for all outlined clearly the meaning of the Constitution declaring anyone born on US soil, subject to our jurisdiction, to be a citizen.

    Wait a minute! You and Doc better get your arguments straight. Doc doesn’t seem to think that people who were born in the U.S. could be naturalized.

  50. avatar
    J. Potter January 18, 2012 at 3:15 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Risenhoover’s argument that Hawaii is not a state but an occupied Indian nation.

    Are those the exact words he uses? “An occupied Indian nation?” I’ll have to look this guy up later. See if he has any opinions on Oklahoma, an Native American reservation “occupied” by a bunch of non-Native squatters :P

  51. avatar
    J. Potter January 18, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    Horace: Imagine that; broken links. How convenient. We wouldn’t want the general public to read things in context. Would we?

    Predictable faux-wit.

  52. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:16 pm #

    Scientist: Again, because it was obvious that naturalization does not apply to those born in the US.

    I guess I should have added scientist to my last comment. Gotta luv how you guys attempt to change definitions to suit your own conclusions.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    The United States doesn’t rely on jus sanguinis. The principle author of the US Constitution, James Madison said:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.” Madison then said: “I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was absolved from a secondary allegiance that he had owed to a British sovereign.”

    Horace: No reference is made to the birth place. Could not someone born in a country who relies on jus sanguinis be born in that country and in need of naturalization to become a citizen?

  54. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Horace: Imagine that; broken links. How convenient. We wouldn’t want the general public to read things in context. Would we?

    Now that is irony my friend… But as I have already pointed out, the references are sufficient to find the relevant documents in minutes. What’s your excuse?

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:19 pm #

    Irony meter explodes.

    Horace: Gotta luv how you guys attempt to change definitions to suit your own conclusions.

  56. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Curiously, Donofrio embarked upon this novel theory AFTER his failed suit, Donofrio v. Wells, was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. A quick glance over his pleadings in the New Jersey courts and the petition for writ of certiorari finds nary a mention of his two-citizen-parent theory.

    That’s because Donofrio’s initial claim had to do with the SoS not doing their job. One of the persons on the ballot was not even a citizen. See “Roger Calero”.

  57. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:22 pm #

    Horace: Wait a minute! You and Doc better get your arguments straight. Doc doesn’t seem to think that people who were born in the U.S. could be naturalized.

    Which is why the 14th Amendment was passed as it extended citizenship to all those born on US soil, under its jurisdiction. Since birth on soil under the US Constitution is what guarantees citizenship, with minor exceptions, Dr C is correct. Of course, we do know that some Indians who left their tribe could become citizens and the same would apply in principle to children born on soil but not subject to our Jurisdiction.

  58. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The principle author of the US Constitution, James Madison said:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.” Madison then said: “I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was absolved from a secondary allegiance that he had owed to a British sovereign.”

    No mention of citizenship there, Doc. Only allegiance. Not even permanent allegiance. –Another failure by reading into it what you want it to be.

  59. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:24 pm #

    Horace: Wait a minute! You and Doc better get your arguments straight. Doc doesn’t seem to think that people who were born in the U.S. could be naturalized.

    So now that i have informed you of the circumstances, could you address them or are you hiding behind your out of context quotes? Remember that people here have in fact done their research. No hiding behind carefully constructed quotes that in context do not support your position.

  60. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    NBC: Ouch.. But did Leo not complain that he did not know of Minor v Happersett because of what he claims, fraudulent actions by Justia? Of course, that hardly helps his case.

    Wrotnowlski’s application for stay may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/78677810. The NBC argument begins at page 28.

  61. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    Let’s get this established as fact. To this there is no debate:

    Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no federal municipal law of the United States with regard to the citizenship of those born on U.S. soil.

    If you disagree, please provide the federal municipal law that you consider to be controlling.

  62. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    Horace: Could not someone born in a country who relies on jus sanguinis be born in that country and in need of naturalization to become a citizen?

    Yes, if a country relied on jus sanguinis. But not if they rely, as the US does, on jus soli.

    Let’s see if you can discuss a particular example. Patrick and Mary O’Leary arrive in New York from Ireland in 1830. Mary is pregnant and little Sean is born 2 months later. Patrick and Mary never naturalized-perhaps they dreamed of returning to Ireland some day or perhaps they were illiterate and the paperwork intimidated them. Regardless, they died of cholera in 1846. Are you contending that Sean is not a US citizen? That he would have to naturalize? If so, there should be many thousands like him. Where are the records? Where are their stories?

  63. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    Horace: No mention of citizenship there, Doc. Only allegiance. Not even permanent allegiance. –Another failure by reading into it what you want it to be.

    You are missing the point, it shows that birth on soil provides the allegiance, laying to rest the claim that a child born on US soil is not owing allegiance to our Nation. Understanding the meaning of these terms will go a long way to understanding why your claims lack in merit.
    The US indeed is one of Jus Soli, where Congressional Acts have added Jus Sanguini rules for children born to US citizens while abroad. Allegiance is defined by the location of birth and any child born on US soil owes full allegiance to the United States, even if his parents only owe temporary allegiance due to their stay in our Nation.

  64. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

    It looks like the Obots have come out in full force. Did someone make a phone call, send an email? Tweet?

    Be honest.

  65. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:29 pm #

    Horace: Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no federal municipal law of the United States with regard to the citizenship of those born on U.S. soil.

    True, no law was needed as it was a Constitutional right that those born on soil were in fact Natural Born citizens. Even afterwards there was no municipal law either, there was a Constitutional provision which clarified the definition of citizenship.

    Your point?

  66. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    NBC: The US indeed is one of Jus Soli, where Congressional Acts have added Jus Sanguini rules for children born to US citizens while abroad. Allegiance is defined by the location of birth and any child born on US soil owes full allegiance to the United States, even if his parents only owe temporary allegiance due to their stay in our Nation.

    So says the person who thinks we created a monarchy.

    Tell me, how and when this jus soli became the federal municipal law of the United States.

  67. avatar
    gorefan January 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

    Horace: Address does not state where the children of fathers who had declared their intent but not yet naturalized were born.

    Tes is not the only one who arrived at that conclusion. In 1904, Frederick Van Dyne said the same thing about President Arthur’s fourth annual address to the the Congress.

    “…Suppose an alien emigrates to the United States, bring minor children with him, and in due time declares his intentions to become a citizen, but fails to take out his final papers, what is the status of the children when they reach majority?”

    “President Arthur in his annual message in 1884, referred to this question, and recommended that Congress should “clearly define the status of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens, but have failed to perfect their naturalization.””

  68. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Horace: It looks like the Obots have come out in full force. Did someone make a phone call, send an email? Tweet?
    Be honest.

    How about you show us how Sean O’Leary was not a citizen? Show us how he naturalized.

  69. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Let’s remember US v Wong Kim Ark

    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. … To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have
    always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.37

    From James C Ho’s excellent paper.

  70. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    NBC: True, no law was needed as it was a Constitutional right that those born on soil were in fact Natural Born citizens. Even afterwards there was no municipal law either, there was a Constitutional provision which clarified the definition of citizenship.

    Try and tell that to a foreign government when coming to the aid of one of your citizens.

    I’m getting a real kick out of seeing you claim that an Amendment to the Constitution is somehow a “provision” and not “law”. –Maybe you should look up what a “municipal law” is.

  71. avatar
    Predicto January 18, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    Horace is one of the best trolls I have ever seen.

    You, sir, are a master at your craft.

  72. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 18, 2012 at 3:35 pm #

    Not a word about Vattel. Not a single mention of Minor v. Happersett.

    The application was an effort to persuade the Supreme Court to PRONOUNCE the two-citizen-parent to be the law. Here is the conclusion, where Leo/Cort prays for the high court to rule:

    “CONCLUSION

    For all of the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that a natural born

    Citizen – as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the Constitution of the

    United States – is a person born in the United States to parents who are both

    citizens of the United States, and as such Barack Obama would not be eligible to be

    president.”

    “it is respectfully submitted that XYX” is very different from concluding that “this Court has previously held that XYZ is the law.”

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:43 pm #

    Any article that touches on the topic of “natural born citizen” seems to bring out comments fast and furious, this one no exception.

  74. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    Horace: Imagine that; broken links. How convenient. We wouldn’t want the general public to read things in context. Would we?

    If you are not smart enough to look up citations, I can’t help you. If you had read the debates you would know what was said. Why would you comment when you haven’t read what they said? Because you really don’t care what they said or what our courts actually said.

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    There is no reason for Arthur to mention it, since it is irrelevant to anything. Arthur and his father were estranged anyhow.

    But Donofrio is the one claiming that no one knew it, and so he has the burden of proof to show that is the case. Hinman almost certainly knew it because he researched Arthur’s background extensively. Contemporary newspapers describe Arthur as “our Irish President”).

    But you were the one, just now, that said Arthur was CLEARLY referring to his own citizenship, so you have provided the proof. If that’s what Arthur was CLEARLY referring to , then Congress would have CLEARLY understood it.

    Horace: It’s too bad you can’t provide any evidence of Arthur making the non-citizenship of his father known to the public.

  76. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    Full force??? Did you suddenly forget where you are posting?

    This isn’t some safely censored little Birther bubble forum to protect you.

    Nor is this some random site, not familiar with the con games you are trying to peddle.

    You’ve walked into turf where your slick tricks won’t fly and you will get challenged and called out on it.

    Welcome to the real world.

    Horace: It looks like the Obots have come out in full force. Did someone make a phone call, send an email? Tweet?Be honest.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:51 pm #

    I recall reading early Donofrio writing that he was attempting to make “new law” with his historical discoveries, and to overturn Wong Kim Ark. Early on, Donofrio never suggested that he was advocating any prior judicial consensus.

    GeorgetownJD: “it is respectfully submitted that XYX” is very different from concluding that “this Court has previously held that XYZ is the law.”

  78. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    I meant that the contention that Gray was covering up for Arthur (and himself) is not new.

    Horace: Can you even say that with a straight face? Nothing new?

  79. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

    Horace: So says the person who thinks we created a monarchy.

    Tell me, how and when this jus soli became the federal municipal law of the United States.

    We did not create a monarchy but we did accept large parts of the English Common Law and made it our own. The Constitution refers to natural born citizenship but does not define it so the definition must be found in our common law tradition. Under common law tradition, starting before the revolution and continuing since, natural born mean born on soil, owing allegiance by being born under our jurisdiction, which excludes by the fewest words the common law exception of children born to foreign dignitaries and invading military.

    When the Courts failed to acknowledge the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was introduced which basically restated the Constitutional requirements and made it binding on all States.

  80. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    Considering that the rash of trolls over the past two months have truly been scraping the bottom of the barrel, Horace is easily several steps up from them.

    He’s nothing but a dupe of the Cult of Donofrio, but still, quite a refreshing improvement from the prior kooks.

    Predicto: Horace is one of the best trolls I have ever seen. You, sir, are a master at your craft.

  81. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    Horace: Let’s get this established as fact. To this there is no debate:Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no federal municipal law of the United States with regard to the citizenship of those born on U.S. soil.If you disagree, please provide the federal municipal law that you consider to be controlling.

    Justice Gray and most pre-amendment authority of any significance said the English common law was incorporated into the Constitution. Thus, there was no statute or Amendment necessary. The other theory was that the state determined native citizenship but the states all adopted the English common law after 1776 so there was little difference between the theories. This view was generally rejected by the 14th Amendment Congress though a few member argued it. Most members of the 14th Amendment Congress said jus soli was already the law and the Amendment was unnecessary. For example:

    “This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)(House reply to Johnson’s veto).

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

    “It simply declares who shall be citizens of the United States. But the fact that certain persons are citizens, and the number of them, and the definition of citizenship or of its constituent elements, were just the same before the ratification of the fourteenth amendment that they are now. Neither is more certain or better settled than it was before. The thirteenth amendment had made all persons of color citizens of the United States if they were not hitherto. Then the body of the citizens is in no way materially changed by this fourteenth amendment. On this point I do not wish to stand without great and worthy authority; and I shall therefore incorporate in my remarks an extract from Chancellor Kent directly sustaining my position in reference to this provision: “Citizens, under our Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.” Rep. Kerr., Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 47 of appendix (1871).

    “As matter of law, does anybody deny here, or anywhere, that the native-born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone … Sir, he has forgotten the grand principle both of nature and nations, both of law and politics, that birth gives citizenship of itself. this is the fundamental principle running through all modern politics both in this country and in Europe. Everywhere where the principle of law have been recognized at all, birth by its inherent energy and force gives citizenship. There for the founders of this government made no provision – of course they made none – for the naturalization of natural born citizens…. Therefore, sir, this amendment, although it is a grand enunciation, although it is a lofty and sublime declaration, has no force or efficiency as an enactment. I hail it and accept it simply as a declaration….” Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

  82. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    Horace: Try and tell that to a foreign government when coming to the aid of one of your citizens.

    Tell them what? A foreigner on US soil is under full US jurisdiction even though they may owe temporary allegiance, their children, born on our soil were born owing complete allegiance and were born under our full jurisdiction.

    I’m getting a real kick out of seeing you claim that an Amendment to the Constitution is somehow a “provision” and not “law”. –Maybe you should look up what a “municipal law” is.

    If you want to call it municipal law then fine, the 14th Amendment is just declaratory of our Constitution which recognized the natural born citizen.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Interesting question. The FIRST person to comment on the article was (drum roll) you. So being the first person to see the article and comment on it, perhaps you can explain how YOU found out about it. I would actually really be interested in the answer to that question. The answer might be instructive as to how other people found it.

    To answer your general question, any new article posted here goes out on the Dr. Conspiracy twitter feed. I have 203 followers on Twitter. Some people subscribe to the RSS feed from the site. You can get both new articles and comments that way. Also, articles are syndicated by the Before It’s News service. New articles also go out through an article notification process that connects to search engines, so people with search engine alerts might get notified. Obviously, people who want to know what goes on with this web site are able to keep up.

    I was a little surprised myself by the number of attorneys (at least 3) who commented in such a short time.

    Horace: It looks like the Obots have come out in full force. Did someone make a phone call, send an email? Tweet?

  84. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Horace: Be honest.

    I just noticed your poorly argued postings here. Does it really matter how people arrive here to rebut your foolish utterances?

  85. avatar
    Ballantine January 18, 2012 at 4:03 pm #

    Horace: Try and tell that to a foreign government when coming to the aid of one of your citizens.I’m getting a real kick out of seeing you claim that an Amendment to the Constitution is somehow a “provision” and not “law”. –Maybe you should look up what a “municipal law” is.

    Prior to 1866, the US never recognized any foreign nations claim of allegiance or right to protect with respect to our native born. In fact, I am not aware any foreign nation even tried to made such a claim. During the Civil War, foreign nations tried to protect their aliens subject in the US from the draft. They did not try to protect their children on US soil. England told such persons they owed their allegiance to the US and would only be treated as English subjects if they returned to England. You clearly have not studied the state of public law in such period either.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    One of the essential tools of the effective troll is smug arrogance. It appeals to a broad spectrum of people (negatively). The goal of the troll is to stir up the community (like poking an ant hill).

    Predicto: Horace is one of the best trolls I have ever seen.

  87. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 18, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: One of the essential tools of the effective troll is smug arrogance. It appeals to a broad spectrum of people (negatively). The goal of the troll is to stir up the community (like poking an ant hill).

    Plus they know “just enough” about the subject, but ignore all the corrections purposefully.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

    Mr. Daneman starts off OK, but goes out of orbit misreading the naturalization act of 1790.

    John: By paraleaglenm:

  89. avatar
    Horace January 18, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    Thank you all for playing. I wanted to see how well you all could defend your position. Fortunately, your stale arguments won’t hold up against recently discovered, yet currently unreported, information.

    Here’s a hint; Arguments like “there was no statute or Amendment necessary” don’t hold up very well when your side is the one arguing that citizenship is controlled by municipal law, not international law. Do you really think telling the Court “Well, we think we must have relied on this, but can’t find where we ever adopted it” is going to hold up in where limited power was granted to the federal government? -If that’s your argument, I will tell you now, I will be able to easily defeat it.

    If I can defeat it, why not do it here and now? Why? So you can distort it? We’ll leave the argument for Court. That way, I can watch the expression on the faces of those defending Obama. It will be fun.

    Now you can go back to attacking “Horace”.

  90. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Horace: Thank you all for playing. I wanted to see how well you all could defend your position.

    Given your failure, I understand why you are leaving… Unable to defend his own position… What a hoot

  91. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    Horace: Here’s a hint; Arguments like “there was no statute or Amendment necessary” don’t hold up very well when your side is the one arguing that citizenship is controlled by municipal law, not international law. Do you really think telling the Court “Well, we think we must have relied on this, but can’t find where we ever adopted

    Have you heard of precedent? You know how the Court in WKA looked at preceding rulings? If you need to see a good example let me know. Lynch v Clarke…. hint hint

  92. avatar
    GeorgetownJD January 18, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    Horace: That’s because Donofrio’s initial claim had to do with the SoS not doing their job. One of the persons on the ballot was not even a citizen. See “Roger Calero”.

    Thank you for conceding my point.

  93. avatar
    borderraven January 18, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    Native and natural born citizenship are defined by the circumstances at the very moment of birth — when a child comes into self-existence — not by what happens during the following minutes, hours, days or years afterwards. The location where the birth occurred, governs territorial jurisdiction, under laws and treaties of the land, while the nationalities of the parents affect the nationality of the child. Governments extend jurisdiction under treaty, by authorizing embassies and consulates to represent aliens present in a country not their own. Where you call home is your domicile and you can only live at one place. When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return. Barack Obama Sr, a UK Citizen, was domiciled in Kenya, while he was on a student visa in the US — he was a non-immigrant alien. A student visa would only be possible under a diplomatic treaty, in this case a treaty signed in 1951 by president Truman. A child born to Obama Sr., was granted UK citizenship by decent, under the British Nationality Act of 1948. If Barack Hussein Obama II, was not born in the USA to two US citizens, then nothing occurring after the birth could bless, change or convert him into a natural born citizen. By his birth circumstances, Barack Hussein Obama II, was native born in the USA to one US citizen, and a non-immigrant alien, who owed foreign allegiance. Barack Hussein Obama II, is not a natural born citizen. He is not constitutionally eligible to be a US President. He was erroneously put into the 2008 Presidential Election. He can take a 25th Amendment resignation.

  94. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    It appears that Horace’s argument is that there was no explicit law defining the meaning of the term citizen or natural born citizen. While this is true, the Constitution recognizes the term Citizen, and Natural Born Citizen and, as the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark explained, since the term natural born was not defined in the Constitution, its meaning had to be found in Common Law. Under Common Law, the Court showed, the meaning was ‘born on soil” where the term subject to jurisdiction or owing allegiance was used to indicate the common law exceptions of children born to foreign dignitaries or invading military.

    Thus the term citizen which includes both Natural-born and Natural-ized citizens was a term which indicates jus soli as the guiding principle.
    Children not born on soil to US citizen parents were taken care of under the Congress’s power to define uniform rules for naturalization.

    The suggestion that there was no ‘municipal law’ defining the terminology is not going to fly well.

  95. avatar
    Northland10 January 18, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Horace: Fortunately, your stale arguments won’t hold up against recently discovered, yet currently unreported, information.

    Oooh, the super sekrit defense will show everybody… any day now.

    For the record, I decided to check on one of Ballentine’s citations, and found it in a few minutes and even read the parts before and after the quote. {Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)(House reply to Johnson’s veto).}

    Interesting, the next line after the part quoted above goes, “This was the common law of England…”

  96. avatar
    Northland10 January 18, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

    borderraven: When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return.

    Huh? Would you care to give a source (link or physical book?)

  97. avatar
    Scientist January 18, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

    borderraven: When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State

    Hey borderraven, why don’t you try an experiment? Go to London, break the law and claim that the UK has no jurisdiction over you because you are a US ciitizen. If you hurry, you might be able to catch the last flight pf the evening. If you promise not to come back, I’ll chip in for a one-way ticket.

  98. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    For the United States only one thing is relevant: Was President Obama born on US soil and not one of the excepted classes? While other countries may lay claim to Obama’s citizen when outside the US, within the US Obama was born under our full Jurisdiction. It’s that simple as the courts realized

    The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution ? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

    Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

    Borderraven has failed once again to support his amusing musings.

  99. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    Northland10: Huh? Would you care to give a source (link or physical book?)

    Borderraven is somewhat confused as to the meaning of consular jurisdiction

  100. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    Of course, you’ve failed to satisfy your very own “if”. You’ve made some arguments, but haven’t won anything and the only one trying to distort things here is you.

    Yes, we will leave the argument for the Courts. Only the deluded can’t bring themselves to admit how this is going to predictably turn out – yet another defeat for the Birthers to add to their unbroken string of defeats…

    Simple as that. Enjoy your loss in court. That’s all you have to look forward too.

    Horace: If I can defeat it, why not do it here and now? Why? So you can distort it? We’ll leave the argument for Court. That way, I can watch the expression on the faces of those defending Obama. It will be fun.

  101. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

    FAIL. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Born in the US is all that is needed for him to be NBC. He wasn’t the child of an invading army or foreign diplomat, so sorry, but no exclusions to NBC status via mere birth on US soil applies.

    Parentage is simply not a factor in this situation at all.

    borderraven: If Barack Hussein Obama II, was not born in the USA to two US citizens, then nothing occurring after the birth could bless, change or convert him into a natural born citizen. By his birth circumstances, Barack Hussein Obama II, was native born in the USA to one US citizen, and a non-immigrant alien, who owed foreign allegiance. Barack Hussein Obama II, is not a natural born citizen. He is not constitutionally eligible to be a US President. He was erroneously put into the 2008 Presidential Election. He can take a 25th Amendment resignation.

  102. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 18, 2012 at 8:48 pm #

    Doc, here’s another historical record that indicates Arthur’s so-called “dual-citizenship” was widely known, and for determining Natural Born Citizenship, was not a disqualifier.

    I’d bet Leo found this and said nothing..

    In 1916 Teddy Roosevelt, who scoffed at the notion that the so-called dual-citizenship of American citizens resulting from the laws of foreign nations, compromised one’s United States Citizenship in any way, reported in the widely read Metropolitan Magazine, and in the many published editions of his book, “Fear God And Make Your Own Way” (read pages 284-294 at http://tinyurl.com/7lsad4d ) that The Department Of State replied to a citizenship-status inquiry from Mr. P.A. Lelong on April 2 ,1915, who was born in New Orleans in 1880 of an French Citizen father who was not naturalized until 33 years later. They wrote: “Under the14thAmendment to the Constitution, all persons born in the United States and subject-to-the-jurisdiction-thereof are citizens of the United States. Section One, ArticleVII of the French Civil Code, states that the following are Frenchmen: “Every person born of a Frenchman in France or abroad.” It thus APPEARS (they wrote) that you were born with a dual-nationality…”

    NOTE it’s stated as an OBSERVATION, not a LEGAL DETERMINATION by the State Department, which goes on to suggest France could impress him into military service within her borders.

    Teddy R. saw that response as wimpy – and sarcastically began enumerating implications (insulting to the U.S. in his view) of giving any credibility to other nation’s claims on OUR citizens. He wrote:”…According to this doctrine there are in our country very many citizens—and, as a matter of fact, this ruling would apply to millions of citizens—who are “born with a dual nationality.”

    Teddy then points out Germans naturalized here were all dual citizens.

    Teddy wrote that the United States Government should officially “decline to recognize or acquiesce in the principle of such a dual citizenship or a dual nationality; .. [but he lamented] Such action was not taken. [Instead we] hold that men born here of foreign parentage, …if they visit the countries in which their parents were born ..can be … made to serve in the army.”

    Teddy then casually reveals Chester Arthur’s so-called dual-citizenship WAS UNREMARKABLY WELL-KNOWN as he matter-of-factly lists the implications of the forgoing, for well-known children of non-citizens:” If Admirals Osterhaus & Schroeder had gone to Germany they could have been forced to serve under Admiral von Tirpitz in the German Navy. If General Barry should visit England he could be seized and sent to the trenches in France. …. and President Arthur would have been in the same plight”

    Teddy continues:”… in point of rights, Mr. Lelong stands exactly level with the men whom I have thus instanced. … Mr. Lelong was born in this country… He is eligible to the Presidency of the United States.”

    ….Teddy concludes with some common sense that escapes the birthers, who in their hatred for Obama, espouse a willingness to let other nations’ laws rule over United States law in saying who can be our President, a willingness they would surely have likened to “treason” for any other purpose.

    He wrote:”We should assert in the face of all the nations of the world, of France and England, of Russia, Austria and Germany, the principle that we ourselves determine for ourselves the rights of citizenship of our citizens…. as against any foreign power which claims any allegiance whatsoever from them.”

    Benji Franklin

  103. avatar
    JoZeppy January 18, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    borderraven: When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return.

    Perhaps you should ask Mexican citizens Humberto Leal Garcia, Jose Medellin, under whose jurisdiction they were while in the US. Oh wait…we executed them. Never mind. Not only did we exert the ultimate form of jurisdiction, by taking their lives, we did so after failing to notify thier consulate, or informing them of their rights to contact their consulate, which we are required to by treaty.

    BTW there are currently 132 foreigners from 34 countries currently on death row in the US. So much or that “consular jurisdiction.”

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 9:08 pm #

    I appreciate the fantastic reference to Arthur by Theodore Roosevelt. Thanks! I think Arthur’s dual citizenship was indeed well known. Newspapesr referred to him as “our Irish President.” However, Arthur would have been an Irish citizen whether his father had naturalized in the US or not. He could have claimed Irish citizenship through his grandparents. This citation doesn’t prove that his father’s naturalization status at the President’s birth was widely known.

    Benji Franklin: Doc, here’s another historical record that indicates Arthur’s so-called “dual-citizenship” was widely known, and for determining Natural Born Citizenship, was not a disqualifier.

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Or burn a US flag in front of the embassy and see if they come out and arrest you.

    Scientist: Hey borderraven, why don’t you try an experiment? Go to London, break the law and claim that the UK has no jurisdiction over you because you are a US ciitizen. If you hurry, you might be able to catch the last flight pf the evening. If you promise not to come back, I’ll chip in for a one-way ticket.

  106. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 9:15 pm #

    Oh, but I can show you several places where it was adopted, but I will keep them secretly hidden among the 1,700 articles on this blog, so you can’t find them and prevent being embarrassed on the 26th.

    Horace: Here’s a hint; Arguments like “there was no statute or Amendment necessary” don’t hold up very well when your side is the one arguing that citizenship is controlled by municipal law, not international law. Do you really think telling the Court “Well, we think we must have relied on this, but can’t find where we ever adopted it” is going to hold up in where limited power was granted to the federal government? -If that’s your argument, I will tell you now, I will be able to easily defeat it.

  107. avatar
    G January 18, 2012 at 9:17 pm #

    Excellent find, Benji! Well done!

    Benji Franklin: Teddy then points out Germans naturalized here were all dual citizens.

    Teddy wrote that the United States Government should officially “decline to recognize or acquiesce in the principle of such a dual citizenship or a dual nationality; .. [but he lamented] Such action was not taken. [Instead we] hold that men born here of foreign parentage, …if they visit the countries in which their parents were born ..can be … made to serve in the army.”

    Teddy then casually reveals Chester Arthur’s so-called dual-citizenship WAS UNREMARKABLY WELL-KNOWN as he matter-of-factly lists the implications of the forgoing, for well-known children of non-citizens: ” If Admirals Osterhaus & Schroeder had gone to Germany they could have been forced to serve under Admiral von Tirpitz in the German Navy. If General Barry should visit England he could be seized and sent to the trenches in France. …. and President Arthur would have been in the same plight

    Teddy continues:”… in point of rights, Mr. Lelong stands exactly level with the men whom I have thus instanced. … Mr. Lelong was born in this country… He is eligible to the Presidency of the United States.”

  108. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 9:25 pm #

    Maybe he cribs from better sources. I was not impressed.

    G: Considering that the rash of trolls over the past two months have truly been scraping the bottom of the barrel, Horace is easily several steps up from them.

  109. avatar
    JoZeppy January 18, 2012 at 9:41 pm #

    Horace: Thank you all for playing. I wanted to see how well you all could defend your position. Fortunately, your stale arguments won’t hold up against recently discovered, yet currently unreported, information

    Funny…birthers are always big on predictions, yet they are always wrong…yet when we make predictions about what will happen in court, we’ve been right 100% of the time (well, except in predicting sanctions).

    Horace: Here’s a hint; Arguments like “there was no statute or Amendment necessary” don’t hold up very well when your side is the one arguing that citizenship is controlled by municipal law, not international law. Do you really think telling the Court “Well, we think we must have relied on this, but can’t find where we ever adopted it” is going to hold up in where limited power was granted to the federal government? -If that’s your argument, I will tell you now, I will be able to easily defeat it.

    You don’t seem to understand how this court thing works, do you. You see, when a court makes a ruling, they write these things we call opinions. These opinions are the law, just like a statute. These opinions make up what we lawyer type people call the “common law.” So when we point to all these cases that say NBC comes from Natural Born Subject and the English common law going back centuries, there actually is no statute necessary. In fact, a statute would be invalid, because you cannot redefine by statute a term in the Constitution. An Amendment would only be necessary if you wanted to change that definition. So despite all your bluster, I will tell you right now, the court would simply nod and agree with us, and would treat your arguments the same way every other birther argument has been to date. By laughing you out of the courtroom.

    Horace: If I can defeat it, why not do it here and now? Why? So you can distort it? We’ll leave the argument for Court. That way, I can watch the expression on the faces of those defending Obama. It will be fun.

    But you see, you haven’t defeated anything. Apparently you just don’t know anything about how our legal system works, so you don’t realize how incredibly stupid your points are, or that every real lawyer who has read Donofrio’s work things it’s utter garbage. There is a reason why he posts this fluff on blogs rather than submitting it for publication in a journal. It’s so bad it doesn’t have a prayer of being published.

    As for leaving arguments for court….well, just how many victories do birthers have so far? Seems every case is “the one” that will get President Obama frog marched out of office…and yet he’s still mocking you guys from the White House….I wonder why that is? Oh yeah, because your arguments totally lack any support in the law.

    Horace: Now you can go back to attacking “Horace”.

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, stop being ridiculous.

  110. avatar
    Suranis January 18, 2012 at 9:45 pm #

    Horace: No mention of citizenship there, Doc. Only allegiance. Not even permanent allegiance. –Another failure by reading into it what you want it to be.

    Or you could place it in the context of madisons beliefs, wheich inlike Donifrios (and I suspect you are him) were entirely consistent throughout his life. In this case here is how aliegence squared with natural born citizenship

    James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

    “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

  111. avatar
    Suranis January 18, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Horace: It’s too bad you can’t provide any evidence of Arthur making the non-citizenship of his father known to the public.

    He did, by sending his fathers naturalization papers to the library of congress

    Here’s a picture from the microfiche

    http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/william-arthur-naturalization.pdf

    Not exactly the action of a guilty man.

  112. avatar
    Suranis January 18, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    Horace: tes, You’re arriving at a conclusion without the evidence necessary to support it. Arthur’s Address does not state where the children of fathers who had declared their intent but not yet naturalized were born. Just as the Naturalization Acts prior to the Address don’t address where the children were born.

    They do. From the 1790 act

    And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.

    As for act of 1795

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/us-congress-mr-dowdy-reports-on-the-meaning-of-natural-born/#more-5595

    Mr Dowdy discusses the meaning of Natural Born and explains how the 1790 Naturalization act came to inadvertently use the term natural born when referring to children born abroad to US citizen parents.

    Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.

    The Act of 1795 provides:

    “The children Of citizens BORN OUTSIDE of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    Capitalisation mine

    I’m sorry that you and Denofrio have to lie to prove a point,

  113. avatar
    Sterngard Friegen January 18, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    The Founders were brilliant writers in the English language. Surely they knew how to require a native-born person to have two citizen parents before he could be eligible to be POTUS. But for some reason they did not write it.

    Donofrio, Apuzzo and others want us to think that “natural born Citizen” was magic, secret language, but that’s not what going on at all. The Constitution wasn’t written by men who wrote things only accessible to them. Since the word “natural” meant “native in 1787, it’s pretty clear what the Founders were doing. Beyond that, the sole reason for the NBC clause was to prevent Baron von Stueben from becoming President/King. And the danger of that is long over.

  114. avatar
    NBC January 18, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

    Suranis: I’m sorry that you and Denofrio have to lie to prove a point,

    Well, ignorance is always a defense here.

  115. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    Suranis:
    He did, by sending his fathers naturalization papers to the library of congress

    Do you have a citation that indicates that this document was from President Arthur?

  116. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 18, 2012 at 11:27 pm #

    It is speculated that Orly Taitz’s loss in Georgia will be the 100th failed birther lawsuit. We should have a centennial celebration.

    JoZeppy:
    As for leaving arguments for court….well, just how many victories do birthers have so far? Seems every case is “the one” that will get President Obama frog marched out of office…and yet he’s still mocking you guys from the White House….I wonder why that is? Oh yeah, because your arguments totally lack any support in the law.

  117. avatar
    John Reilly January 18, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

    There is no celebration for stupid. We need better civics education so that our citizens can evaluate statements about matters of public concern critically.

  118. avatar
    JPotter January 19, 2012 at 12:06 am #

    Ballantine: This view was generally rejected by the 14th Amendment Congress though a few member argued it. Most members of the 14th Amendment Congress said jus soli was already the law and the Amendment was unnecessary. For example:

    Ballantine, anybody, have a link to a e-text of the minutes of Congreesional sessions? Now that Horace is gone, I’ll note that scanned archives are online at the Library of Congress, which make great reading, but a pain to cite. I haven’t seen them anywhere in digital form tho! How has this work not been undertaken yet? Or am I a clueless idiot?

  119. avatar
    JPotter January 19, 2012 at 12:11 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: We should have a centennial celebration.

    John Reilly: We need better civics education so that our citizens can evaluate statements about matters of public concern critically.

    Pre-empt the birther summit with a civics summit. Historical re-enactments, model gov’t for kids, group tours of DC …. eh, who am I kiddin’. The best celebration is teaching those around you the history, philosophy, ideals of this country. Knowledge is power.

    With Red Tails coming out Friday, my kid is in for an extra heavy dose of American studies this weekend! He just doesn’t know it yet :D

  120. avatar
    NBC January 19, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    JPotter: Ballantine, anybody, have a link to a e-text of the minutes of Congreesional sessions? Now that Horace is gone, I’ll note that scanned archives are online at the Library of Congress, which make great reading, but a pain to cite. I haven’t seen them anywhere in digital form tho! How has this work not been undertaken yet? Or am I a clueless idiot?

    No easier formats are available. Although Horace appears to believe that they have been removed, you and I can easily find them. They are pretty low quality for OCR. One would expect these government documents to be better searchable and quotable.

    As to you being a clueless idiot, I have insufficient data to help you with answering that concern ;-)

  121. avatar
    JPotter January 19, 2012 at 1:07 am #

    NBC: No easier formats are available.

    Unbelievable! Clearly an immense project, but this omission is amazing. Congress should want to do it for itself … hell, the Library of Congress IS the Library of Congress. Should be high on the priority list! Even Project Gutenberg has skipped it. Just too big? Booo. Maybe that’s how to create a legacy for Anti-Birtherism. Reilly is right on … leave a lasting contribution to civics by empowering citizenship.

    I pop off often, the idiocy was a given. ;)

  122. avatar
    G January 19, 2012 at 2:30 am #

    AGREED +1000 !!!

    John Reilly: There is no celebration for stupid. We need better civics education so that our citizens can evaluate statements about matters of public concern critically.

  123. avatar
    Whatever4 January 19, 2012 at 4:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Interesting question. The FIRST person to comment on the article was (drum roll) you. So being the first person to see the article and comment on it, perhaps you can explain how YOU found out about it. I would actually really be interested in the answer to that question. The answer might be instructive as to how other people found it.

    My theory is Horace is Leo and he has a google alert on his own name.

  124. avatar
    misha January 19, 2012 at 4:26 am #

    Horace: It looks like the Obots have come out in full force. Did someone make a phone call, send an email? Tweet? Be honest.

    My cat whispered in my ear. Then he said, “four legs good, two legs bad.” I now sleep with one eye open.

  125. avatar
    misha January 19, 2012 at 4:51 am #

    borderraven: When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return.

    Scientist: Hey borderraven, why don’t you try an experiment? Go to London, break the law and claim that the UK has no jurisdiction over you because you are a US ciitizen.

    Hey borderraven, try this: Go to Berlin, and heave a rock through a church window. When you are arrested, tell them Germany has no jurisdiction over you because you are a US ciitizen, and what you did was repayment for Kristallnacht. Let me know how it turns out.

  126. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 19, 2012 at 6:34 am #

    misha:
    Hey borderraven, try this: Go to Berlin, and heave a rock through a church window. When you are arrested, tell them Germany has no jurisdiction over you because you are a US ciitizen, and what you did was repayment for Kristallnacht. Let me know how it turns out.

    I have a suspicion how it would work out. The only intervention needed from the US Ambassador would be to provide for legal counsel and collect the necessary financial funds from his relatives (the motehr in whose basement he’s been living for the last twenty years).

    Borderraven may have to be careful in court when he is asked what drove him to do this. There are laws in Germany about incitement of racial hatred and lese-majesté of a foreign head of state. Blaming Obama for it, may land him a few more months in jail.

  127. avatar
    Lupin January 19, 2012 at 6:45 am #

    Excuse the perhaps naive musings of a foreign lawyer… but I’m somewhat surprised by Horace/Leo’s postings here.

    Surely most of this has been more than adequately addressed in that masterful study recently put out by your Congressional Research lawyer?

    So other than mentioning some kind of new, secret evidence allegedly unearthed by his bizarro scooby-do team, is he bringing anything new to the table?

  128. avatar
    Majority Will January 19, 2012 at 6:58 am #

    John Reilly:
    There is no celebration for stupid.We need better civics education so that our citizens can evaluate statements about matters of public concern critically.

    Well said.

  129. avatar
    ballantine January 19, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    NBC: No easier formats are available. Although Horace appears to believe that they have been removed, you and I can easily find them. They are pretty low quality for OCR. One would expect these government documents to be better searchable and quotable.

    As to you being a clueless idiot, I have insufficient data to help you with answering that concern

    Here is the best format available. It is searchable, but you can’t cut and paste.

    http://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/CRSR/

  130. avatar
    ballantine January 19, 2012 at 7:21 am #

    ballantine: Here is the best format available.It is searchable, but you can’t cut and paste.

    http://digital.library.unt.edu/explore/collections/CRSR/

    You need go to the advance search where one of the libraries is the Congressional Globe.

  131. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2012 at 7:44 am #

    Whatever4: My theory is Horace is Leo and he has a google alert on his own name.

    Perhaps Doc can say whether Horace’s ip address traces to the beautiful Garden State

  132. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny January 19, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    Benji Franklin: NOTE it’s stated as an OBSERVATION, not a LEGAL DETERMINATION by the State Department, which goes on to suggest France could impress him into military service within her borders.

    The way France was scraping the whole earth between 1914 and 1918 for anyone with dual or even triune nationality to use as cannon fodder, was disgusting.

    (Teddy Roosevelt may have been aware of the fact that if he wanted French nationality, he would only have had to go to the Embassy and ask for it.)

    Unfortunately for the people who were induced into the French or Italian army, there was no way the USA could stop that. The USA could only protest, and even if a third country allied with France (eg Great Britain) arrested a dual USA citizen to send him to France and Italy for induction, the fact remains that anyone staying in that third country is under the jurisdiction of that third country (in the latter case, the US Ambassdor would have more grounds to protest however: subject to the jurisdiction would mean subject to the laws, so there should be a law in that third country, and countries at war do not tend to vote laws like that).

    In 1920, Carlos Gardel, born in Toulouse, France, (the city archives still prove so) but having lived in Argentina for almost his entire life, applied for an Argentinian passport in order to tour Europe. He lied about his birthplace and provided a Uruguayan baptismal certificate as evidence of his birth in Uruguay. He was not really afraid of being induced into the French army, but afraid of being jailed for desertion during the first World War!

    (although after his death, his will revealed his place of birth and the name of his mother, and a Uruguayan judge granted his mother the Uruguayan part of his property, Uruguayans to this day claim the greatest tango singer of all time was born in Uruguay – a birth controversy caused by the person himslef)

    This is an area where US citizenship and Roosevelt’s attempt to assert it, would have workedt: no way France would have dared to jail a dual USA-French citizen for desertion after World War I. But that is because countries always try to be friendly towards each other in time of peace. Etiquette rather than law.

  133. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 19, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    New York City.

    Scientist:
    Perhaps Doc can say whether Horace’s ip address traces to the beautiful Garden State

  134. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2012 at 8:28 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: New York City.

    I’m guessing some folks in New Jersey could have an isp in NYC, no?

  135. avatar
    joeymac January 19, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Whatever4: My theory is Horace is Leo

    “Horace is probably David Farrar.

  136. avatar
    Suranis January 19, 2012 at 8:53 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Do you have a citation that indicates that this document was from President Arthur?

    Good question Doc, and to be honest the answer is… yes, if only circumstancial

    This is directly from Leo Denofrios blog http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

    Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.

    About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:

    Leo,

    Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?

    Greg

    I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history.

    So it comes from the Chester Arthur Papers in the Liberary of Congress, by LEO’s own admission. I can see no other reason why they would be there other than Arthur donated them himself. Certainly their presence in the Chester Arthur papers indicates that at no time did the president make any attempt to destroy them like he did other papers he had when his term was concluded.

    But on the wider issue of The smear that Arthur was smeared with not bieng an NBC, thats true, hot as this new york times link from the time indicates http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0C15F8395B1B7A93C0AB1789D95F448884F9 that Hickman never tried to include his fathers nationality in the smear, like he would ahave if NBC meant what Leo thinks it meant. Also there is this, again from Leos blog from the link above.

    From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

    “…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

    Again, no mention of his parents nationality, only Arthus place of birth. All Denofrio has is that Arthur made some errors regarding his fathers age for goodness knows what reason, but none of those errors add up to the 14 years that were between Arthurs birth and his fathers naturalisation.

    “My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

    This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

    On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

    So the longest break Leo has is 7 years, not 14.

    Sorry to dump a long post like this but I read through this pile of poo this morning and it got me all fired up with truthiness.

    Oh yeah, and Leo? I’ve saved the page just in case you change it, again. Sorry and all.

  137. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 19, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    This is excellent. Thanks.

    Suranis: Sorry to dump a long post like this but I read through this pile of poo this morning and it got me all fired up with truthiness.

  138. avatar
    Scientist January 19, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    joeymac: “Horace is probably David Farrar.

    Unlikley. First, Farrar lives in Georgia and Doc says Horace has an ip address that traces to NYC. Second, Farrar used to post a lot on Talking Points Memo and was rarely able to formulate a gramatical sentence, let alone complete paragraphs. Horace may write nonsense, but it is gramatically correct nonsense.

  139. avatar
    J. Potter January 19, 2012 at 9:24 am #

    ballantine: You need go to the advance search where one of the libraries is the Congressional Globe.

    Thanks Ballantine, I see they have the Annals, etc., as well, and a handy citation feature. and it is searchable, nice and clean. Thanks!

  140. avatar
    Keith January 19, 2012 at 9:26 am #

    borderraven: When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return.

    That post was one of the most unreadable word salads I’ve seen in quite awhile. Congratulations, you must really have to work hard to be that incoherent.

    Scientist and Borderavin have suggested some pretty good experiments to test your remarks above, but since you are unlikely to follow through on that, perhaps you could gain some insight from this list of Australians in Foreign Prisons. Australians are in exactly the same legal position as Americans when they leave the country.

    Perhaps you don’t believe my assertion that Aussies and Yanks are in the same position, OK, that is unfounded, but maybe this American in an Indonesian Jail is more to the point. Even the crime may interest you.

    Or maybe you’ll like these women’s stories

    There was a TV show, Banged Up Abroad about this topic even. Ran for 9 seasons so far.

    Maybe a book on the topic will improve your outlook. Here’s one, Nightmare Abroad: Stories of Americans Imprisoned in Foreign Lands that grew out of a TV documentary.

    You really have to have your head up your buried in the sand to imagine that being an American overseas is some magical anything goes existence.

  141. avatar
    Keith January 19, 2012 at 9:27 am #

    Sorry that was supposed to read “Scientist and Misha have suggested some pretty good experiments”.

  142. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Horace:

    Here’s a hint; Arguments like “there was no statute or Amendment necessary” don’t hold up very well when your side is the one arguing that citizenship is controlled by municipal law, not international law.

    It always amuses me when birthers claim that international law trumps U.S. law and the Constitution when it comes to citizenship.

  143. avatar
    Rickey January 19, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    borderraven:
    Governments extend jurisdiction under treaty, by authorizing embassies and consulates to represent aliens present in a country not their own. Where you call home is your domicile and you can only live at one place. When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return.

    You mean like the way the U.S. consulate in Italy claimed jurisdiction over Amanda Knox and had her whisked out of the country?

    Oh, wait…

  144. avatar
    Horus January 19, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    Don’t confuse my name with the ignorant one here.

  145. avatar
    Majority Will January 19, 2012 at 10:44 am #

    Rickey: borderraven:
    Governments extend jurisdiction under treaty, by authorizing embassies and consulates to represent aliens present in a country not their own. Where you call home is your domicile and you can only live at one place. When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return.

    You mean like the way the U.S. consulate in Italy claimed jurisdiction over Amanda Knox and had her whisked out of the country?

    Oh, wait…

    And Joran Van Der Sloot will certainly be relieved. it’s a good thing the pasty, unemployed birther living on a government pension is an expert amateur, unlicensed attorney.

  146. avatar
    Ballantine January 19, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    Majority Will: And Joran Van Der Sloot will certainly be relieved. it’s a good thing the pasty, unemployed birther living on a government pension is an expert amateur, unlicensed attorney.

    One would think he would look up what consular jurisdiciton actually means.

  147. avatar
    J. Potter January 19, 2012 at 11:02 am #

    Horus: Hora

    Not a problem when pronounced as if Italian. ;)

  148. avatar
    jayhg January 19, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    borderraven: Native and natural born citizenship are defined by the circumstances at the very moment of birth — when a child comes into self-existence — not by what happens during the following minutes, hours, days or years afterwards. The location where the birth occurred, governs territorial jurisdiction, under laws and treaties of the land, while the nationalities of the parents affect the nationality of the child. Governments extend jurisdiction under treaty, by authorizing embassies and consulates to represent aliens present in a country not their own. Where you call home is your domicile and you can only live at one place. When you travel to London, you are under consular jurisdiction of the US Department of State, but you have a domicile where you intend to return. Barack Obama Sr, a UK Citizen, was domiciled in Kenya, while he was on a student visa in the US — he was a non-immigrant alien. A student visa would only be possible under a diplomatic treaty, in this case a treaty signed in 1951 by president Truman. A child born to Obama Sr., was granted UK citizenship by decent, under the British Nationality Act of 1948. If Barack Hussein Obama II, was not born in the USA to two US citizens, then nothing occurring after the birth could bless, change or convert him into a natural born citizen. By his birth circumstances, Barack Hussein Obama II, was native born in the USA to one US citizen, and a non-immigrant alien, who owed foreign allegiance. Barack Hussein Obama II, is not a natural born citizen. He is not constitutionally eligible to be a US President. He was erroneously put into the 2008 Presidential Election. He can take a 25th Amendment resignation.

    I know you wish all that birther drivel were true, but it isn’t.

  149. avatar
    jayhg January 19, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    Horace: Thank you all for playing. I wanted to see how well you all could defend your position. Fortunately, your stale arguments won’t hold up against recently discovered, yet currently unreported, information.Here’s a hint; Arguments like “there was no statute or Amendment necessary” don’t hold up very well when your side is the one arguing that citizenship is controlled by municipal law, not international law. Do you really think telling the Court “Well, we think we must have relied on this, but can’t find where we ever adopted it” is going to hold up in where limited power was granted to the federal government? -If that’s your argument, I will tell you now, I will be able to easily defeat it.If I can defeat it, why not do it here and now? Why? So you can distort it? We’ll leave the argument for Court. That way, I can watch the expression on the faces of those defending Obama. It will be fun.Now you can go back to attacking “Horace”.

    But when the courts decide, you birthers put on your full body tin foil and scream FOUL………..OBAMA GOT TO JUDGE [fill in the blank].

  150. avatar
    NBC January 19, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    jayhg: I know you wish all that birther drivel were true, but it isn’t.

    He knows but somehow he is impervious to facts, logic and reason.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 19, 2012 at 11:16 pm #

    If this is true and he had posted under his real name, I would have been nicer.

    joeymac: Horace is probably David Farrar.

  152. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 19, 2012 at 11:22 pm #

    I don’t see any reason that NBC and I should “get our arguments straight”. We’re not members of some debating team.

    But I don’t think we disagree here. No one born a Citizen of the United States in the United States could ever be called a “naturalized citizen.”

    What difference of opinion we have concerns persons born outside the US. I respect his strong argument, but I’m not convinced yet that it’s right.

    Horace: Wait a minute! You and Doc better get your arguments straight. Doc doesn’t seem to think that people who were born in the U.S. could be naturalized.

  153. avatar
    NBC January 20, 2012 at 1:38 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t see any reason that NBC and I should “get our arguments straight”. We’re not members of some debating team.

    But I don’t think we disagree here. No one born a Citizen of the United States in the United States could ever be called a “naturalized citizen.”

    Exactly but I am not sure Horace is trying to understand.

  154. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 20, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    Doc & NBC,

    Technically, a Natural Born United States Citizen could expatriate and then go through the naturalization process and become a “a naturalized citizen” of the United States, but that route has nothing to do with our discussion here.

    But couldn’t they then still be a “Natural Born Citizen” Constitutionally, since that is a condition conferred by birth?

    Benji Franklin

  155. avatar
    Ballantine January 20, 2012 at 10:11 am #

    “Technically, a Natural Born United States Citizen could expatriate and then go through the naturalization process and become a “a naturalized citizen” of the United States, but that route has nothing to do with our discussion here.”

    That seems logical and probably is the law. However, Madison himself said if a person expatriated himself he could not then be naturalized. It seems in those days “naturalization” had a very technically meaning.

  156. avatar
    JD Reed January 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Border Raven, I wouldn’t hold my breath until President Obama takes a 25th Amendment resignation. You continue to ignore the language of the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The two exceptioins have been so well-noted they need no rrepeating except to say that the exceptions do not include aliens here on student visas.

    So a challenge to all birthers: There’s a place where you can validate that you believe what you’re so loudly asserting. It’s called Intrade, and basically it’s a place where you can legally bet on this year’s presidential election outcome. On Friday, I found Mr. Obama trading at 52.9 percent, meaning that the smart money — those who actually put their money where their mouths are irather than simply mouthing off — places Mr. Obama’s chances for re-election at 52.9 percent. If you believe he’ll be kicked off the ballot, his likely replacement would be either Hillary or Joe Biden. Either would have at least a fair chance of winning election, and they’re both trading under 1 percent currently. So you could double your money by betting the incumbent president won’t win re-election, and if you think he won’t be on the ballot, you might reap a huge windfall by placing long-shot bets on Clinton and Biden.

  157. avatar
    misha January 20, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    JD Reed: So a challenge to all birthers: There’s a place where you can validate that you believe what you’re so loudly asserting. It’s called Intrade

    I have Intrade bookmarked, and check it twice daily. They have an accuracy of better than 90%. The only things they were wrong about recently, were Sharron Angle and Tancredo.

    As I write this, Intrade has Obama at 54%.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666