Main Menu

Reflections on two citizenship papers

I’ve read two significant papers on citizenship today, one from 1896 by Marshall B. Woodworth, Citizenship in the United Sates Under the Fourteenth Amendment, commenting on the District Court decision in US v. Wong, and a brand new paper by Patrick J. Charles, Decoding the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: Unlawful Immigrants, Allegiance, Personal Subjection, and the Law to appear in the Washburn Law Journal (Vol. 51, No. 2, 2012). I wrote an article on the latter.

I’ve been reflecting on these two papers. Both discuss possible change in the status quo. Woodworth sees conflicts between international law and common law, proposing that the United States adopt some form of “election” by which a person born under conflicting citizenship claims of jus sanguinis and jus soli would choose one allegiance upon reaching majority. Woodworth recognizes that this doesn’t solve the inheritance claims of minors where alienage is a disability.

Charles argues that the principle of jus soli applies only with conditions, specifically “allegiance, domicile, and personal subjection.” He argues that Congress could enact laws to define these terms and to exclude the children of some aliens from citizenship, should it choose to do so (in lines with a bill proposed but not enacted in 18741).

I can appreciate the argument that some make that the children of illegal aliens are not (or could be made not) citizens of the United States, an argument based on the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in US V. Wong used the word “domiciled” its decision making Wong a citizen at birth. That said, Wong has never been interpreted to include such exclusions by the government or the courts.

The two problems I have in understanding US v. Wong are first that the courts and US policy since Wong consistently find the children of illegal aliens to be citizens of the United States without regard to domicile, and second that the definitions I see offered of “domicile” don’t jive with the reasoning of the Court in Wong, that uses language like “temporary” and “so long as he remains.”

What came out loud and strong in my reading was the contrast between the generally reasonable, nuanced discussion in these two papers and the naïve and sloppy arguments from the Birthers. It becomes more clear with each historical source I read that no one in the history of our nation (whether it is the most ardent supporter of jus sanguinis, or the most racist of Supreme Court decisions, Dred Scott) that no one has ever hinted that someone could be born a citizen of the United States within the Territory of the United States and not be a natural born citizen. Arguments have been made and are being made as to who should be a citizen, but it was never doubted that if one is a born a citizen in the country, they can run for President. (The Birther misreading of Minor v. Happersett is farcical.)

Even under the premises of  Charles’ paper that argues for a more restrictive interpretation of who is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, it is clear that Barack Obama qualifies as a citizen based underlying principles and understanding of the framers of those documents.

The arguments of Woodworth and Charles do not anticipate the case of a foreign father and a US citizen mother. The discussion portrays two foreign parents visiting the United States and having a child and then remaining indefinitely, or returning to their home country. Some would say that this choice determines the citizenship of the child. Historically such decisions were tied to the father. However, in the case of President Obama, the father was a temporary figure in the family: he came, he fathered, and he departed. The intent,  the domicile, was the decision of the US citizen mother, and it was in the United States. Barack Obama was born and raised in the United States, and never established any other domicile (in the sense of an intent to remain indefinitely) anywhere else. The Government, in opposition to Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship, made my case for me here:

The alien father owing local allegiance, his child born on British soil was deemed to be born within that allegiance, and therefore a natural-born subject of the King. The same rule applied where the father had never been within the Kingdom; in that case the local allegiance of the mother was deemed sufficient.

— George D. Collins
US Govt. Appellant Brief in US v Wong

Under no situation would a court rule that Barack Obama was not a citizen of the United States, nor would they ever rule that he was not a natural born citizen.

1CONG. REC., 43rd Cong., 1st Sess. 3279 (1874).

, , , ,

39 Responses to Reflections on two citizenship papers

  1. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm #

    That’s what I’ve been trying to tell Birthers: You want to say the NBC requirement OUGHT TO BE stricter than jus soli? Fine. You want to say it IS CURRENTLY stricter than jus soli, and Obama is in violation of the rule? Not so much.

    All I get is the on-line equivalent of a blank stare.

  2. avatar
    yutube February 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    However, in the case of President Obama, the father was a temporary figure in the family: he came, he fathered, and he departed. The intent, the domicile, was the decision of the US citizen mother, and it was in the United States. Barack Obama was born and raised in the United States, and never established any other domicile (in the sense of an intent to remain indefinitely) anywhere else.

    and how did you come up with this conclusion that the mother saves the day? From WKA?

  3. avatar
    richCares February 20, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    “mother saves the day”
    Silly Goose,competely missed the point!

  4. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    As you point out, there are 2 separate questions. The first is what is the law today? It is clear that today the status of the parents is not material as long as they are subject to US laws. Subject to doesn’t mean they always obey all US laws, whether immigration criminal or otherwise. it simply means that if they break those laws they don’t have immunity. And illegal aliens, tourists, etc, do NOT have immunity. Many thousands of them are in US jails.

    I don’t think Charles is disputing that. Rather, he is suggesting that Congress could (and perhaps should) pass laws requiring that at least one parent be a legal resident (not necessarily a citizen) for the child to be a citizen. Certainly many democratic countries have such laws, including the home of common law and Calvin’s case, namely, the UK. However, Canada grants citizenship to all boorn in Canada (though I believe that nothing would prevent Parliament from modifying that), as do Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. So, perhaps it is a New World vs Old world thing. Would such a law survive a court challenge? I don’t know and I don’t think anybody does for certain.

    Ceratinly, no law passed could possibly affect Barack Obama. First, the law could not be ex post facto. No one currently a US citizen could be stripped of that. Only those born after such a law were passed could be affected. Second, no sane person would suggest passing any law that the US born child of a US citizen would not be a citizen. As far as I can find, not a single country on Earth denies citizenship under those circumstances.

  5. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    yutube-The status of the father is not the subject of the 14th Amendment, but the status of the US-born child, It says: “anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Barack Obama Jr was subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    Here’s a question: Suppose that there had been a custody dispute between Barack Obama Sr and Stanley Ann Dunham-where would the case have been heard? The answer is in a US ciourt (Hawaii). Why? Because Barack Obama Jr. was subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so his custody would have to be resolved in US courts.

  6. avatar
    yutube February 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    I can almost picture the main stream talking about these ‘legitimate” birthright citizenship issues and throwing evereyone under the bus including Woodworth, Charles, and even Harry Reid who introduced an anchor baby bill…

    “‘domicile”?, “intent to reamin indefenitely”?, “subject to the jurisdiction”?. uhhhhggg! no more! these stinking birthers, and their conspiracies. Being born here makes you a born citizen and therefore a natural born citizen Ankeny says so!

  7. avatar
    yutube February 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

    Scientist:
    yutube-The status of the father is not the subject of the 14th Amendment, but the status of the US-born child,It says: “anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”Barack Obama Jr was subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    Here’s a question:Suppose that there had been a custody dispute between Barack Obama Sr and Stanley Ann Dunham-where would the case have been heard? The answer is in a US ciourt (Hawaii).Why?Because Barack Obama Jr. was subject to the jurisdiction of the US, so his custody would have to be resolved in US courts.

    You’re just making the answer work for you. There is no case law that can answer that question for anyone, not even WKA answers it. WKA was deemed subject to the jurisdiction because both of his parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. You’re speculating that the same would have been ruled for Obama, and there is no indication of that in WKA, zero.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    The day doesn’t need to be saved. Obama’s eligible and every judge who has commented on it says so.

    What I was describing was a hypothetical more restrictive ruling in Wong and the conclusion is based on the two articles I talk about, and the references in their footnotes.

    This article is meant for people who already know the background, not for birthers.

    yutube: and how did you come up with this conclusion that the mother saves the day? From WKA?

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    You forget Tisdale.

    yutube: Ankeny says so!

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    They returned to China in 1890.

    yutube: WKA was deemed subject to the jurisdiction because both of his parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S.

  11. avatar
    Keith February 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

    Scientist: Ceratinly, no law passed could possibly affect Barack Obama.

    Correct.

    I have been saying all along that the underlying subtext of the whole birther shenanigans was to raise FUD that could be leveraged to attack the ‘anchor baby’ question.

    I don’t for a minute believe that most of the pawns of the game understand this subtext of course. But most of the pawns aren’t doing strategy, they are just making the cut and paste moves they are encouraged to make. When the trap is sprung, the army of pawns will have been sufficiently trained to follow the dog-whistles blindly and without hesitation.

  12. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

    yutube: You’re just making the answer work for you. There is no case law that can answer that question for anyone, not even WKA answers it. WKA was deemed subject to the jurisdiction because both of his parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. You’re speculating that the same would have been ruled for Obama, and there is no indication of that in WKA, zero.

    It is sad that a person such as you with no legal education still pretends to be an expert on the internet on things he does not understand. WKA did no say his parents needed to be domiciled. Are you ignorant or just dishonest? The rule adopted was the English common law which included, but not limited to, domiciled aliens. At this point I am sure this has been told to you over and over so I suspect you are just being dishonest. If you don’t think that WKA says that Obama is natural born, then you need to talk to someone who went to a real law school. Keep filing law suits and the courts will keep laughing at you. Keep writing Congress and they will keep laughing at you. If only you had actually had someone in your hate group study law in a real law school.

  13. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 20, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Doc, don’t get too hung up on the domicile of Barack Sr. International students are legally capable of establishing domicile while present in the United States on a student visa. During his matriculation at the University of Hawaii Barack Sr.’s fixed home for legal purposes was Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Moreover, the conditions imposed by immigration law unquestionably required Barack Sr. to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Thus, whether under the 19th century notions of domicile that concerned the Court in Wong Kim Ark, or under more modern concepts, the President was unquestionably born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

  14. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

    Offhand, I cannot recall Barack Sr.’s visa classification, but international students who hold A-1, A-2, A-3, E-1, E-2, E-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H-1B, H-4, I, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, L-1, L-2, NATO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, O-1, 0-3, R-1, R-2, U-1, U-2, U-3, U-4, V-1, V-2. V-3 visas are eligible to establish domicile in the United States.

  15. avatar
    PT Siluk February 20, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: Doc, don’t get too hung up on the domicile of Barack Sr. International students are legally capable of establishing domicile while present in the United States on a student visa. During his matriculation at the University of Hawaii Barack Sr.’s fixed home for legal purposes was Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Moreover, the conditions imposed by immigration law unquestionably required Barack Sr. to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Thus, whether under the 19th century notions of domicile that concerned the Court in Wong Kim Ark, or under more modern concepts, the President was unquestionably born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

    Have any of you blokes ever heard the saying “You can’t make this *%$& up”?
    Well, apparently you can.

    Aliens such as those admitted as temporary visitors, students or workers may not lawfully form an intent to remain in the United States because they have visas that require that the holder have “a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning.”  8 U.S.C.  1101(a)(15).This excludes them as lawful “domiciliaries.”   See Graham, 998 F.2d at 196;  see also Melian v. INS, 987 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.1993)(alien on temporary visitor visa cannot lawfully establish intent to remain since maintenance of foreign domicile required);  Brown v. INS, 856 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir.1988)(alien on student visa cannot lawfully establish intent to remain since maintenance of foreign domicile required);  Anwo v. INS, 607 F.2d 435, 437 (D.C.Cir.1979)(same).   Likewise, an alien who enters the country illegally cannot have a lawful intent to remain here.  Castellon-Contreras, 45 F.3d at 153.
    -Morel v INS, 3rd Circuit (1996)

    GeorgetownJD must have gone to school with Taitz.

  16. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

    yutube: You’re just making the answer work for you. There is no case law that can answer that question for anyone, not even WKA answers it. WKA was deemed subject to the jurisdiction because both of his parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. You’re speculating that the same would have been ruled for Obama, and there is no indication of that in WKA, zero.

    Yaser Hamdi was born in Louisiana while his father was working on a temprary visa. The family returned to Saudi Arabia shortly after where grew up. he was captured fighting against US forces in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court considered him an American citizen. That is the law. Posting otherwise on a blog won’t change it.

    You are simply wasting your time pretending the law is not what it is. The court is certainly not going to change the law without, at a minimum, a congressional statute. More likely it would require an amendment. And neither of those could have retroactive effect on someone born in 1961.

    The one thing you can be absolutley certain of is that a court that considers the child of 0 US ctiizens, someone who took up arms against the US, to be a citizen, is not going to rule against the President of the United States because he had 1 citizen father. Even someone as foolish as you has to know that. So, if you don’t like Obama, you will have to get rid of him the old-fashioned way, by working your butt off in a campaign. So far the odds look to be against you in that area too, but they are a lot better than your chances in court , which are <0.

  17. avatar
    PT Siluk February 20, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Scientist: The Supreme Court considered him an American citizen.

    Stevens and Scalia refer to Hamdi as a “presumed U.S. citizen.” That Hamdi became a citizen at birth is not at all clear, Stevens and Scalia say.

    The Supreme Court never reached the question of Hamdi’s citizenship.

  18. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    PT Siluk: Stevens and Scalia refer to Hamdi as a “presumed U.S. citizen.” That Hamdi became a citizen at birth is not at all clear, Stevens and Scalia say.
    The Supreme Court never reached the question of Hamdi’s citizenship

    That’s nonsense, since the entire case revolved around the issue of whether a US citizen enemy combatant had rights different from a non-citizen. If Hamdi wasn’t a citizen, then his situation was no different from everyone else at Gitmo. The fact is both the government and the Court treated him as though he was a US citizen. If he wasn’t why would they?

    Anyway, his father’s domicile is irrelvant for Obama, whose mother was a citizen and therefore domiciled in the US. Had Wong Kim Ark’s father married a US citizen, there would have been no Supreme Court case as no bureaucrat would have attempted to deny citizenship to their child.

  19. avatar
    G February 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    Well said.

    Scientist: The one thing you can be absolutley certain of is that a court that considers the child of 0 US ctiizens, someone who took up arms against the US, to be a citizen, is not going to rule against the President of the United States because he had 1 citizen father. Even someone as foolish as you has to know that. So, if you don’t like Obama, you will have to get rid of him the old-fashioned way, by working your butt off in a campaign. So far the odds look to be against you in that area too, but they are a lot better than your chances in court , which are <0.

  20. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 20, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    PT Siluk: Have any of you blokes ever heard the saying “You can’t make this *%$& up”?
    Well, apparently you can.

    Aliens such as those admitted as temporary visitors, students or workers may not lawfully form an intent to remain in the United States because they have visas that require that the holder have “a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning.”8 U.S.C.  1101(a)(15). This excludes them as lawful “domiciliaries.” See Graham, 998 F.2d at 196;see also Melian v. INS, 987 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.1993)(alien on temporary visitor visa cannot lawfully establish intent to remain since maintenance of foreign domicile required);Brown v. INS, 856 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir.1988)(alien on student visa cannot lawfully establish intent to remain since maintenance of foreign domicile required);Anwo v. INS, 607 F.2d 435, 437 (D.C.Cir.1979)(same). Likewise, an alien who enters the country illegally cannot have a lawful intent to remain here.Castellon-Contreras, 45 F.3d at 153.
    -Morel v INS, 3rd Circuit (1996)

    GeorgetownJD must have gone to school with Taitz.

    Domicile refers to one’s PRESENT and PRINCIPAL home. Whatever are one’s plans regarding whether they can remain in the United States in the future, the law concerns itself with the status of the person at the present. But use whatever definition makes you happy.

    You seem to have missed the whole point. When in the United States, an alien is unquestionably subject to our laws. Accepting a visa to come here requires the alien to accede to a set of rules and laws.

    Your apology for the ad hominem will be graciously accepted.

  21. avatar
    yutube February 20, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    PT Siluk: GeorgetownJD must have gone to school with Taitz.

    I disagree, at least we know Taitz went to school and we can laugh at her, we can’t say the same for Georgetown Juris blogger who can’t read that temporary students would be excluded as ‘lawful domiciliaries’

  22. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    yutube: I disagree

    Who cares what you agree with?

    The law says anyone born here is a citizen, except for diplomats. That is what it says. Period, end of story. If you want to have a discussion as whether that is a good thing and whether the law should be changed, I’ll be happy to have that.

    Your argument is like a guy who goes to traffic court and says he ran the red because red actually “should” mean go. The verdict is a foregone conclusion.

  23. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 20, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

    yutube: The Supreme Court, in US V. Wong used the word “domiciled” its decision making Wong a citizen at birth. That said, Wong has never been interpreted to include such exclusions by the government or the courts.

    The two problems I have in understanding US v. Wong are first that the courts and US policy since Wong consistently find the children of illegal aliens to be citizens of the United States without regard to domicile, and second that the definitions I see offered of “domicile” don’t jive with the reasoning of the Court in Wong, that uses language like “temporary” and “so long as he remains.”

    You need to return to the article and make some effort to understand the premise. Doc is pondering how to reconcile the standard for “subject to” jurisdiction.allegiance as addressed in two articles. He writes:

    “The Supreme Court, in US V. Wong used the word “domiciled” its decision making Wong a citizen at birth. That said, Wong has never been interpreted to include such exclusions by the government or the courts.

    “The two problems I have in understanding US v. Wong are first that the courts and US policy since Wong consistently find the children of illegal aliens to be citizens of the United States without regard to domicile, and second that the definitions I see offered of “domicile” don’t jive with the reasoning of the Court in Wong, that uses language like “temporary” and “so long as he remains.”

    INA section 212 relief was unheard of in 1898, so there is little reason to believe that the Supreme Court was referring to the definition under today’s Code of Federal Regulations. The court used the term “domicile” in the common law sense, to distinguish from the child born to a pleasure traveler or a day worker who commutes across the border or a businessperson on a business trip here. In that sense, Barack Sr. was unquestionably a domiciliary of Hawaii. The immigration files released pursuant to FOIA mentioned, IIRC, that he had a small amount of earnings on which taxes would have been assessed, and there is every reason to believe he possessed a driver’s license issue by the state.

    The birthers fixate on the “permanent resident” status of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, but, as subsequent decisions have demonstrated, the courts don’t find that distinctive. In terms of determining who shall be considered born a citizen, the courts do not worry themselves whether the parent has accrued seven years of “lawful domicile” for purposes of granting relief to rehabilitated criminals.

  24. avatar
    NBC February 20, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

    Being born here makes you a born citizen and therefore a natural born citizen Ankeny says so!

    Well, so does US v WKA and various other rulings. Now what?

  25. avatar
    yutube February 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Scientist: Who cares what you agree with?

    The law says anyone born here is a citizen, except for diplomats.That is what it says.Period, end of story. If you want to have a discussion as whether that is a good thing and whether the law should be changed, I’ll be happy to have that.

    Noo, you go for it and try to limit anchor babies from being Presidents. I’ll be happy to call you birther.

  26. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    yutube: Noo, you go for it and try to limit anchor babies from being Presidents. I’ll be happy to call you birther.

    I don’t want to limit anyone from being President. As far as I’m concerned, the voters should decide and no laws should presume to limit their choice. Anyway, nothing done about anchor babies born today would affact possible Presidential candidates for at least 35 years.

  27. avatar
    Rowena February 20, 2012 at 8:53 pm #

    Ankeny stated WKA was not a natural born citizen. Gray said WKA is a citizen because his parents were permanent residents at his birth.

  28. avatar
    gorefan February 20, 2012 at 9:04 pm #

    Rowena:
    Ankeny stated WKA was not a natural born citizen. Gray said WKA is a citizen because his parents were permanent residents at his birth.

    Chief justice Fuller in his dissent said that the majority opinion would make a child of aliens born in the United States eligible to be President.

    You still have not answered which of Morse’s two categories President Obama fits into. Is he “natural, home-born” or “alien, foreign-born” .

    Don’t be shy, just put aside your bias and admit he is “natural, home-born”.

  29. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

    Rowena:
    Ankeny stated WKA was not a natural born citizen. Gray said WKA is a citizen because his parents were permanent residents at his birth.

    No, Ankeny said that the court did not pronounce WKA to be a natural born citizen. That does not mean that it didn’t define what a natural born citizen was and such definition is not holding. We know you don’t now how to read case law and do not understand what holding is but, it does not matter whether Justice Gray pronouced WKA to be natural born. The definition is clear and it is binding law. Time to take some night classes reading law before you post further.

  30. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 20, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

    Georgetown JD:

    I have some insight into the “temporary” question that may be of value. First, as it says in WKA:

    His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

    If I may say this delicately . . back a year and a half ago, more or less, before I swore off grunty little malebeasts FOREVER, I estimate that the time to “make a natural born subject” from start to finish, could often be as short as 8 seconds.

    While I was never crass enough to run a stopwatch, it was possible to silently execute the “one Mississippi, two Mississippi ” maneuver, all while maintaining a feigned interest in the whole business.

    Was that wrong???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  31. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    PT Siluk: Have any of you blokes ever heard the saying “You can’t make this *%$& up”?
    Well, apparently you can.

    Aliens such as those admitted as temporary visitors, students or workers may not lawfully form an intent to remain in the United States because they have visas that require that the holder have “a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning.”8 U.S.C.  1101(a)(15). This excludes them as lawful “domiciliaries.” See Graham, 998 F.2d at 196;see also Melian v. INS, 987 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.1993)(alien on temporary visitor visa cannot lawfully establish intent to remain since maintenance of foreign domicile required);Brown v. INS, 856 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir.1988)(alien on student visa cannot lawfully establish intent to remain since maintenance of foreign domicile required);Anwo v. INS, 607 F.2d 435, 437 (D.C.Cir.1979)(same). Likewise, an alien who enters the country illegally cannot have a lawful intent to remain here.Castellon-Contreras, 45 F.3d at 153.
    -Morel v INS, 3rd Circuit (1996)

    GeorgetownJD must have gone to school with Taitz.

    You obviously have not gone to school as no court has ever said children of temporary residents were not citizens under the 14th Amendment or were not natural born. According to the rationale of Wong Kim Ark, they are natural born citizens. So sad you can;t read basic case law.

  32. avatar
    ballantine February 20, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    yutube: I disagree, at least we know Taitz went to school and we can laugh at her, we can’t say the same for Georgetown Juris blogger who can’t read that temporary students would be excluded as lawful domiciliaries’

    Before you laugh at anyone, you need to show an authority saying domicile is relevant. Again, you clowns are just making up law that is unsupported by any authority. Is there one of you clowns that has any education at all?

  33. avatar
    RetiredLawyer February 20, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    “domicile” is a very complicated concept even in common law, when the federal regs come in to change the term, it becomes quite incomprehensible.

    for example, an illegal alien who moves to the US with the intent to remain indefinitely is domiciled in the US under the common law definition, while a business person who has moved here under a visa is not domiciled in the US, since she has an intent to return to her country at some time in the future.

    more confusing is the case of Howard Hughes, who died on a flight from Mexico to the US, after having lived for around thirty years in California and Nevada. In the litigation over which state got to probate the estate, (worth several millions in tax to the lucky state) it was decided that his domicile was …. Texas. Texas being his “home” although he had not lived there for decades.

    lucky for us, on this blog, we do not have to deal with “domicile” at all, as the rule of citizenship in the US is “born on soil” makes one a natural born citizen. this rule is why the children of persons who were traveling through the US, or were here on temporary visas, or were the children of people unable to become permanent residents or citizens (Wong Kim Ark’s parents) are citizens from and on account of their birth on soil.

  34. avatar
    G February 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    LMAO! That was quite entertaining. I’m glad to see you start to at least develop a sense of humour over whatever really horrible past relationship experiences you obviously suffered under. That’s a first step towards healing. A word of advice – sometimes you just need to accept that the other person in your life was simply a really bad choice. Whether you are just unlucky or have really bad taste… blame those specific rotten apples and not a whole gender and be glad that you’ve survived and moved forward from the past.

    Squeeky Fromm: If I may say this delicately . . back a year and a half ago, more or less, before I swore off grunty little malebeasts FOREVER, I estimate that the time to “make a natural born subject” from start to finish, could often be as short as 8 seconds.
    While I was never crass enough to run a stopwatch, it was possible to silently execute the “one Mississippi, two Mississippi ” maneuver, all while maintaining a feigned interest in the whole business.
    Was that wrong???

  35. avatar
    anchorbaby February 21, 2012 at 8:22 am #

    GeorgetownJD–

    In WKA, Gray referred to Dicey after his discussion of Udny, which specifically addressed domicile. And in Dicey’s Treatise, in the American Notes on domicile–“students” were listed, in the same listing as ambassadors, as those whose permanent domicile was NOT considered changed…

  36. avatar
    linda February 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    Thanks so much Doc for this article and this website. When rumors and allegations first began to arise about Obama in 2008, I was shocked, as was attorney husband. We could not understand how otherwise seemingly intelligent, educated individuals (given the benefit of the doubt) were unaware of what it means to be a NBC in the US. I guess I was fortunate to go to a good public school that covered the Constitution and the WKA case. I thought that was the norm, but I have since learned otherwise.

    It must be an effort to write and research articles for this site. I am most appreciative.

  37. avatar
    linda February 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    linda:
    Thanks so much Doc for this article and this website.When rumors and allegations first began to arise about Obama in 2008, I was shocked, as was my attorney husband. We could not understand how otherwise seemingly intelligent, educated individuals (given the benefit of the doubt) were unaware of what it means to be a NBC in the US.I guess I was fortunate to go to a good public school that covered the Constitution and the WKA case.I thought that was the norm, but I have since learned otherwise.

    It must be an effort to write and research articles for this site.I am most appreciative.

  38. avatar
    JD Reed February 22, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    Sometimes birthers act like 5-year-olds when confronted with unwelcome facts. A tyke might break a lamp before your very eyes, and then when you start to scold him, simply deny that he broke it.
    Birther analogy: The Supreme Court never reached the question of Hamdi’s citizenship. So says PT Siluk.
    But first rattle out of the box in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD, in the majority opinion by then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor:
    “At this difficult time in our Nation’s history, we are called upon to consider the legality of the Government’s detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an “enemy combatant” and to address the process that is constitutionally owed to one who seeks to challenge his classification as such.”
    Farther down, but close to the top:
    “In April 2002, upon learning that Hamdi is an American citizen, authorities transferred him to a naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia, where he remained until a recent transfer to a brig in Charleston, South Carolina.”
    And the final disposition of Mr. Hamdi? The U.S. shipped him off to Saudi Arabia, on the condition that he give up his U.S. citizenship. So how could he give up his citizenship, if he didn’t have it in the first place?
    PT Siluk, you broke it. Fess up.

  39. avatar
    G February 22, 2012 at 12:23 am #

    FIFY

    JD Reed: birthers nearly always act like 5-year-olds when confronted with unwelcome facts. A tyke might break a lamp before your very eyes, and then when you start to scold him, simply deny that he broke it.