There is no birthright citizenship in the Constitution.
None.
If you say there is, then why were Indians denied the right to vote until at least 1924 when the Indian Citizenship act passed and much later as each state granted Indians the right to vote?
Could that be because of the fact that Indian Nations are considered not a State of the US but rather sovereign states dependent on and outside of the US?
We are talking the corporation here.
I guess this will be settled when, what Douglas Macgregor indicates, a new republic will/must be established with the bill of Rights as the cornerstone. After all, the Corporation is a thing of the past. And the compact was broken long ago. And the Declaration establishes the right of the people to institute new safeguards .... Not just as amendments to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES but a Constitution for the united States.
Oh what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
So you are the final authority on what is and is not a Natural Born Citizen, and there is no room for debate on the subject? What an arrogant asshole'ish approach that is.
Actually the Supreme Court has never taken up the issue of natural born citizen. That is what it means.
In the law of nations Vattel wrote the definition: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
I think you, this site are misinterpreting what United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649 actually did rather they what the wording conveyed.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
In the link you referred to:
“The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. There is some uncertainty over whether a person that is born outside the U.S. but still becomes a citizen at birth through a statute is a natural born citizen. One example is U.S. citizenship that immediately passes from the person's parents.”
Vattel defines Natural Born Citizens as:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. This the definition the founders were referring too.
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
According to the eyes of the Supreme Court, any person born in the US, regardless of parental citizenship, is a natural born citizen.
birthright citizenship
It’s clear as day. People need to look it the fuck up or shut up.
Does it need to change, yes, absolutely. Most other countries don’t do it.
There is no birthright citizenship in the Constitution.
None.
If you say there is, then why were Indians denied the right to vote until at least 1924 when the Indian Citizenship act passed and much later as each state granted Indians the right to vote?
Could that be because of the fact that Indian Nations are considered not a State of the US but rather sovereign states dependent on and outside of the US?
We are talking the corporation here.
I guess this will be settled when, what Douglas Macgregor indicates, a new republic will/must be established with the bill of Rights as the cornerstone. After all, the Corporation is a thing of the past. And the compact was broken long ago. And the Declaration establishes the right of the people to institute new safeguards .... Not just as amendments to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES but a Constitution for the united States.
Birthright citizenship covers those born outside the US. A person born inside the US is a natural born citizen
Fair enough. She’s a citizen. Like it or not. All of these posts are fucking garbage and a complete waste of time. They make us look STUPID.
Yup
Oh what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
So you are the final authority on what is and is not a Natural Born Citizen, and there is no room for debate on the subject? What an arrogant asshole'ish approach that is.
The harsh truth.
Actually the Supreme Court has never taken up the issue of natural born citizen. That is what it means. In the law of nations Vattel wrote the definition: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
See here:
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
They most certainly have.
link
I think you, this site are misinterpreting what United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649 actually did rather they what the wording conveyed.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
In the link you referred to: “The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. There is some uncertainty over whether a person that is born outside the U.S. but still becomes a citizen at birth through a statute is a natural born citizen. One example is U.S. citizenship that immediately passes from the person's parents.” Vattel defines Natural Born Citizens as: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. This the definition the founders were referring too.
Not true, quite spreading lies please:
Under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Cool, I'm talking about the supreme court.
Is a citizen. I don't believe they said they were "natural born" citizens. Just citizens
A bit more info here, with the supreme court case linked