The Transition from Jus Soli — Obama NOT a Natural Born Citizen

Why Challenging Wong Kim Ark/14th Amendment Soil Citizenship is Essential, and Critical to the Question of Obama’s Article II Eligibility

Ask anyone, from average citizen to presidential candidate, and they will tell you birth on U.S. soil is all that is required to become a citizen at birth. They will also agree if you suggest that a citizen at birth is the same thing as a ‘natural born citizen.’

If pressed further, they will cite the 14th Amendment’s ‘born in the United States’ clause.

This blog article proves them WRONG.

The 14th Amendment’s “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause was adapted directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act as applying to children of black slaves emancipated by proclamation and the successful outcome of the Civil War. As property, slaves had no nationality and therefore their children were also stateless. The 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act guaranteed equal rights of U.S. citizenship by recognizing children of slaves and former slaves born on U.S. soil were “not subject to any foreign power,” and therefore solely ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.  

According to existing U.S. naturalization law, from 1790 through 1855, minor children of aliens were not U.S. citizens until their parents naturalized, i.e., renounced foreign jurisdiction over their nationality. (Citation omitted. See previous blogs for full text of law.)

However, in 1898 Wong Kim Ark misinterpreted that clause and inserted feudal English law as adjudicated in the 1608 Calvin’s Case, and practiced as a general principle by the American colonies until their First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 legislated in the first Congress of the United States.

The ‘soil birthright’ of citizenship declared by Wong Kim Ark (by ignoring the effect ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ has on nationality law) created our illegal immigration and chain migration, a problem to such an extent that illegal immigration has become the de facto method of immigration. Legal immigration statistics in 2010 show only 1.04 million Legal Permanent Residents[1] on the road to naturalization. In comparison, illegal immigration has been estimated to be 13 million in 2000, increasing 500,000 annually.

Conclusion:  The Wong Kim Ark decision destroyed U.S. naturalization law through violation of constitutional law, jurisprudence, and existing legislated act, thus creating the illegal immigration problem. Chain migration out of illegal immigration is the de facto method; legal immigration practically extinct. Wong Kim Ark[2] is followed law, but invalid and must be repealed.

It is also why most Americans and ‘experts’ automatically think Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ merely by his claim of Hawaiian birth. 

The Transition from Jus Soli

For over a century, the American colonies were limited to children born on their soil being natural born subjects under the British monarch. From ancient times, jus soli was the eternal allegiance from birth of a child to the protection, ‘within ligeance,’ of the King.

However, with the Magna Carta (1200s), permanent allegiance from birth was disavowed, and the right of children of subjects born outside British territory to be natural born British subjects children was provided by law as far back as 1350.

The 1772 British Nationality Act declared children born of British subjects outside the ‘ligeance’ of the crown be natural born subjects;[3] and that is the law that we must apply to Obama’s birth circumstances. (See quotes below on ‘originalist’ interpretation of the constitution.)

Natural Born Citizen in U.S. Law

The term of art, Natural Born Citizen, appears in the constitution once, as applied to elements of qualifications of eligibility of a presidential candidate. Similarly, the term of art appeared only once in a Supreme Court holding, defining it ‘without doubt’ as children born of two U.S. citizens.[4]

Unfortunately, the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ has become ‘idiomatic’ with a meaning diluted by both time and judicial error, as merely born in the United States. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned of such error:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

In a letter to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824, James Madison wrote:

. . . I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.

Madison continued, acknowledging the “changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject”, he stated:

What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

Born, or Naturalized?

Under U.S. law, a citizen at birth may be solely of U.S. citizenship (natural born citizen), or a 14th Amendment citizen at birth as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The first is a citizen born. The second is naturalized because the alien nationality of one or both parents must be removed by application of the Aliens and Nationality Act, as revised after 1855.

Nevertheless, Wong Kim Ark did not, nor could not, revise Article II’s natural born citizen clause, nor the common knowledge of the framers as to what constituted a ‘natural born citizen,’ or what laws created a British natural born subject if born on U.S. soil.

Therefore, there is no valid interpretation of law that makes Barack Hussein Obama, II a natural born citizen as intended by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. I, Clause 5.

The Civil Rights Act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

And this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992.

The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.


[2] Wong Kim Ark (1898) is followed law, but in conflict with precedent in Minor vs. Happersett  (1875) as well as legislated act, if not the 14th Amendment itself, specifically ignoring the ‘jurisdiction’ clause, and Sec. 5 reserving enforcement of provisions of the amendment by congress, not the judiciary.

[3]That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom . . .” British Nationality Act, 1772, 1772 (13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI

[4] “This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

34 Responses to “The Transition from Jus Soli — Obama NOT a Natural Born Citizen”

  1. JAYJAY Says:

    A fine write-up para … great work!

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    The Southern Poverty Legal Center is representing a class action of children of illegal aliens suing Florida State University for not allowing them in-state tuition.

    While this could be interpreted as a violation of Plyler vs. Doe (1982), the attorney for SPLC called her clients ‘naturally born’ in an obvious attempt to imply they are ‘natural born citizens.’

    While Plyler referred to minor children unwittingly carried by illegal alien parents into the U.S., one wonders what the specific argument SPLC is building up to.

  3. borderraven Says:

    Read

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      The Justice Department is not honoring Quo Warranto. I suggested to Orly Taitz that she enlist the help of Sheriffs, the most powerful law enforcement entities in county governments.

  4. arnash Says:

    The whole subject of what a natural born citizen is hinges on the meaning of words and the limits applicable to them. The controversy arises from the twisting, distorting, and deliberate perversion of common meaning. Calling children of illegal aliens “naturally born” is truly a perversion of the word “naturally”. Even calling them “native born” is a perversion of the principle of native birth since only natives can give birth to natives. Outsiders/ foreigners can’t give birth to natives regardless of giving birth on the native’s land.

    “Similarly, the term of art appeared decisively in an 1875 Supreme Court holding, defining it ‘without doubt’ as children born of two U.S. citizens.”

    The court did not literally “define” natural born citizen, it merely observed or describe those who are citizens without any doubt and then noted the terminology by which they are called as being natives or natural born citizens. It was citizens-without-any-doubt that were defined, not NBCs. Those who are natural citizens by birth are definitely those born in the country to citizen parents, but it is a logic error to presumed that that description is an absolute limitation or boundary of who is naturally born as a citizen. It omits those extremely rare individuals who are born to citizens somewhere other than within U.S. borders. Birth to U.S. citizens in a place like Antarctica results in a newborn natural citizen of the United States. Same results if born in an foreign country. But it is never common practice to include rare exceptions in general descriptions.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Justice Waite’s logic is clear; those born of U.S. citizen parents can be nothing else but U.S. citizens . . . those born of an alien father on U.S. soil are at least citizens of their father’s nationality.

      The courts that ignore Minor vs Happersett demand that latter, children of aliens, are citizens. They rely on English jus soli.

      Legislated act, which is superior to English precedent, demands otherwise. The first 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, as did the second revision of 1795 and those following through 1855, required the alien father to naturalize before his minor children were considered citizens.

      I point out in the article above that the laws these courts relied on, mainly Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, were not precedential. Calvin was decided in 1608. As far back as 1350, ‘denizens’ (aliens domiciled on British soil) could opt out of their children being classic jus soli allegiant natural born subjects. This is from Blackstone’s own commentaries.

      The Magna Carta, which was adopted at the end of the 17th Century (ninety-years after Calvin’s Case) denied ‘permanent allegiance’ which was connected to the concept of jus soli.

      Then, in colonial times prior to the Declaration of Independence, the British Nationality Act of 1772 put an emphasis on jus sanguinis by declaring that children of British subjects born anywhere in the world, on British territory on not, were natural born British subjects.

      This 1772 Act was the law of nationality at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and the 1790 Act did not conflict with the British law. The child of a British subject on U.S. (not colonial) soil was a natural born British subject . . . NOT A U.S. CITIZEN!

      Yet, the Obots and current bastardization of U.S. nationality and immigration law (starting with Wong Kim Ark and ending with Plyler vs Doe) insist that a child of alien parentage is a U.S. citizen.

      This is what our congressmen must be made aware of . . . even though most went to law schools teaching (programming) them that birthright citizenship was the law . . . and could be equated with presidential eligibility.

      • Jim Henderson Says:

        Magna Carta was enscribed in June 1215, not at the end of 17th Century.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        I believe I was referencing Calvin’s Case, . . . I don’t recall mentioning Magna Carte, but I’ll check. Thanks for reading.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Yes, I properly cited the Magna Carta–“However, with the Magna Carta (1200s), permanent allegiance from birth was disavowed, and the right of children of subjects born outside British territory to be natural born British subjects children was provided by law as far back as 1350.” Again, thanks for reading the blog/memo.

  5. cmblake6 Says:

    Beautiful article, well researched, extremely impressive. What is a shame to me is that there need be the question post facto. None of this should have ever gotten this far, and it damn sure needs to be fixed before it goes any further.

  6. Paul Smith Says:

    In writing Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and inserting the grandfather clause, the constitutional authors said that while they were ‘citizens’ at ratification they were not ‘natural born citizens’. Clearly there is a distinction between the two terms.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      The significance is that those ‘citizens at the time of adoption’ were naturalized by the creation of the new nation. The first natural born citizen president couldn’t meet the age requirement for another 35-years.

      • Paul Smith Says:

        I don’t have the legal background to argue this so I’ll simply ask a question. . .

        Did the Constitution naturalize citizens or did the Constitution recognize them as citizens?

        The latter seems logical to me. Am I wrong?

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        The Declaration of Independence and Constitution created citizens of the United States. As they former British subjects ‘renounced’ that allegiance, it was a form of naturalization. The first naturalization law per se was 1790.

  7. yogiman Says:

    The thing that should worry us yhe most as a nation is the “unit” we call our congress has allowed this to happen.

    The vast majority of congress must be replaced. Its time for a new congress…., one on our side..

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      It is more so the law schools that are at fault . . . look, even the Heritage Foundation has it wrong in their compilation of articles on the constitution. This blog article explains why some resisted the transition from jus soli in a colonial state to jus sanguins in a Constitutional Republic. We also have Wong Kim Ark to blame . . . but if not the law schools, the individual congressmen who don’t do their own research.

  8. yogiman Says:

    Further; when you are released from your American citizenship by taking another citizenship, you cannot regain your natural born status if you later return as a naturalized citizen.

    If our so called congress doesn’t know that with their staffs, they are in the wrong business.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      If that nationality change was done by your parents, your ‘natural born citizen’ status is preserved. However, the electorate must question electing a candidate with a childhood fraught with parents who expatriated.

  9. WAYK Says:

    However, a certain legally inaccurate meme has crept into the blogosphere in recent weeks and I believe it started with paraleaglenm’s article here. paraleaglenm’s article references the 1772 British Nationality Act, which he claims made all foreign-born persons, whose fathers were natural born subjects of Great Britain, legally natural born in their own right.

    Some time back I wrote elsewhere in the blogosphere that there are at least three reasons why an interpretation of the 1772 British Nationality Act such as paraleaglenm’s is wrong:

    1. A proper reading of the 1772 Act discloses that it only covers a person whose father was specified in the Act of 1730 as being someone whose father in his turn was born in England. Neither Obama’s father nor grandfather was born in England.

    Thus it is completely erroneous for paraleaglenm to say that “former British subjects ‘renounced’ that allegiance [and the creation of US citizens] was a form of naturalization.” The transition from being a citizen of a colony to being a citizen of a state was legally seamless and unproblematic and the Father of the US Constitution, James Madison, said exactly that in Congress. The transition was based on the pre-existing and continuing common law.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      WAYK’s comment was heavily edited due to length and confusing rhetoric not based on cited fact or law.

      Blackstone cites British law from 1350 and 1772 Acts that perpetuated British succession and inheritance to subjects who adventured forth from the British island and who took foreign wives, or brought their English wives with them. This was to declare foreign-born children of these essential economic ventures British subjects, thus not discouraging long-term exploration and exploitation, i.e., trade.

      Was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. a British subject? His father was born a Luo Muslim, but Obama, Sr. was born (1936) to a father subject to the Kenyan British Protectorate, and therefore colonial subject himself. In fact, in the course of Kenyan Independence, Obama, Sr. and subjects of the protectorate were offered the opportunity to remain subjects upon application.

      Obama, Jr. was born under very troubling circumstances. The mother was 17 at time of conception . . . not statutory rape in Hawaii, but it was in Massachusetts where Obama, Sr. made applications for transfer. Sr. claimed he was divorced from Kezia (under Sharia law) but he offered no apostilles of divorce necessary for a legal marriage to a U.S. citizen by a formerly married alien. Obama, Sr. was, under U.S. law, a bigamist until proven otherwise and the Obama-Dunham marriage a sham. Obama was not the legitimate child of Obama, Sr. as he had not legally married Dunham. This was a civil or criminal matter, but not pursued either way until Dunham filed for civil divorce and Harvard finally deported the womanizing Obama.

      Obama, Jr. was born a ‘hybrid,’ not fully a U.S. citizen. He was of British nationality through the father. He was eligible for U.S. citizenship depending on long-term actions of the father . . . and the law stipulated specific residency requirements for the U.S. citizen mother to confer U.S. citizenship.

      The trouble with WAYK is that he appears educated, but exhibits a limited capacity for making clear distinctions; and thusly his argument is specious sophistry.

      If WAYK had wanted to make a damaging analysis of my application of the 1772 Act to Obama’s birth circumstances, back in the time of the adoption of our constitution and decades hence (until bastardization of the congressional act, misinterpretation of constitutional amendment, and usurpation of congressional plenary power by Wong Kim Ark), why didn’t he just comment that the Act would not apply to Black people, and most likely not Muslims . . . called Turks or Moors back then?

      British law applied to British subjects, i.e., jurisdiction. U.S. law only applied to U.S. citizens, or visitors operating as alien residents. However, foreign laws over children, inheritance and succession applied to foreign-born children . . . just read their laws, and our laws.

      If, in 1787, a British subject decided to ignore the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and remain a Loyalist, he remained a British subject and not eligible to the presidency. If he had a child born on U.S. soil, that child would be a British subject, and not eligible as well. If the Loyalist had naturalized prior to the birth, that child would be eligible. It is that simple. Jus soli had NOTHING to do with it; both British and U.S. law ignored it.

      As the American colonies were, indeed, a major British commercial venture paying taxes to the Crown and chartered with permission of same, of course the 1350 laws and 1722 Act applied to the colonies, and was void and without power of law upon creation of the United States. The 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act completely displaced any reference to English law on the matter of naturalization.

      Finally, any statutory definitions and requirements that dealienage a person, i.e., remove or allow renunciation of foreign nationality, is naturalization law. That is what such statutes were called through 1855 . . . from then onward named differently, but carried on the Congressional Art. I, Sec. 8 power, even if called ‘Aliens and Nationality,’ or ‘Immigration and Nationality’ Acts. A natural born citizen does not require naturalization . . . e.g., a child born of two U.S. citizens.

  10. WAYK Says:

    paraleaglenm, please explain why you edited out this comment from me:

    The 1772 Act did not apply to the American colonies nor any other British colonies or territories. Only those British statutes in force on the date of settlement (e.g. Virginia 1608) were part of colonial law.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      This is an example why . . . you make no sense. Plus, you make a dramatic determination of law with only a general cite . . . be specific!

      Obama, Sr. being black and Muslim makes formulation of a perfect analog to a British citizen in 1790 bearing a child on U.S. soil difficult. However, I cited both British and U.S. law that applied denying Obama, Jr. U.S. citizenship at all in our first century, and that is the determinative factor in interpreting the Article II natural born citizen clause.

      We can get into Loyalists inserting themselves into U.S. state and Federal government in order to subvert it . . . the Tories who fled to Canada . . . right on up to the attempt to occupy Washington, DC in 1812. That is just so much smoke . . .

      The Magna Carta diluted the feudal concept of permanent allegiance . . . the 1350 laws and the 1772 Act gave British subjects rights of succession to their foreign-born children. What is so hard to understand about that? Blackstone admitted jus sanguinis for British subjects, as the French relied on the Roman albinatus.

      Why don’t you bring up the French declaration making all descendants of the persecuted Huegonots French citizens . . . a symbolic gesture with no power of law unless the descendant acted upon it. Even today, laws are passed as political gestures . . . nothing more . . . yet, can create conflicts.

      Your comment about a British subject who desired to maintain his Loyalty to the Crown becoming a U.S. citizen just by residency . . . no force of law in the face of the 1790 Act, et seq . . . if that British statute actually exists! You did not cite it.

  11. WAYK Says:

    You say “the 1350 laws and the 1772 Act gave British subjects rights of succession to their foreign-born children.” Two problems:

    1) the 1351 law (De Natis Ultra Mare) only deemed natural born those born overseas whose “Fathers and Mothers at the Time of their Birth be and shall be at the Faith and Ligeance [in the service] of the King of England.”

    2) the 1772 law only applied to someone whose grandfather (at least) had been physically born in England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales and did not apply to North America by order of the English King’s Privy Council. America fought the War of Independence on the basis that British Parliamentary law DID NOT apply in North America; Britain fought against the Revolution on the basis that British Parliamentary law DID apply in North America but ONLY when Parliament specifically legislated for North America. The 1772 British Nationality Act did not legislate for the nationality of American colonists because it did not include them in its terms, no more than it included non-Protestants in its terms.

    Thus:

    “British Statutes in the Emergent Nations of North America: 1606-1949”, Elizabeth Gaspar Brown, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1963), pp. 95-136

    “At the beginning of the seventeenth century, it was an accepted proposition by the Crown lawyers that English laws were not necessarily in force in non-English Crown dominions and that an act of the King in Parliament did not extend to the non-English possessions unless specifically declared to extend thereto. While Englishmen going to uninhabited regions carried the laws of England with them, those going to inhabited ones did not. The Crown lawyers held that the “old American colonies” were settled in “inhabited countries” and thus, absent an affirmative act by the Crown, the colonists did not carry with them the laws of England.”

    And:

    “Review of American Colonial Legislation by the King in Council” Elmer Beecher Russell, 1915.

    “This wording [of colonial charters] imposed no particular laws, not even the common law, upon the colonies…in no other case [except Pennsylvania] was a presumption of identity [with English law] placed upon the colonists…Attempts of the assemblies to re-enact English statutes, or declare the laws of England, wholly or partially in force, were discouraged…[and] disallowed.”

    Retrojecting the circumstances of Obama Jr.’s birth to the understanding of the law possessed by the Framers of the Constitution: 1) due to the complications of slavery, only the common law, as applied in the Thirteen States (previously Colonies), NOT British Parliamentary law, established American nationality; whereas 2) if Obama’s mother gave birth outside the US she was not (as far as we know) in federal service. The implication is clear.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      A British subject born in the colonies was born into the King’s allegiance. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Constitution, children of British loyalists were British subjects. Some Loyalists stayed; some changed their nationality but not their heart . . . others fled to Canada.

      The American change in allegiances, i.e., becoming U.S. citizens, was a radical departure as explained in the Declaration. The constitution gave congress plenary power over naturalization law (not common law or the courts) and the 1790 Act specifically defined how minor children of aliens became U.S. citizens . . . not by jus soli, but naturalization of the father.

      My 1772 Act citation is typical of English law as an important caveate references other statutes and conditions, for example, “whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants . . .”

      Nevertheless, a child born of a Loyalist in the newly incorporated U.S. states would be a British citizen.

      As for the attempt to transplant Obama’s U.S. birth circumstances to 1791, which is an excellent exercise by which to understand the intent and understanding of the authors of Article II, one must stipulate that Obama’s grandfather was a British subject by colonial conquest. Obama’s father was, therefore, born to a British subject in British territory under the British flag . . . and Obama, Jr. was born of a natural born British citizen. Now, being Muslim, the 1772 law would not apply because citizenship would not devolve to a non-Protestant. However, we have to make allowances. As we are dabbling in time-travel, that is not unreasonable.

      As for the U.S. citizenship of the maiden, Dunham, prior to the marriage to an alien . . . in 1791, she would automatically lose her U.S. citizenship.

      Therefore, non-Protestant issues aside, and the moving target of devolving full rights (eligible to a seat in Parliament) is a minor issue as well for this exercise. Obama, Jr., was a British citizen by descent through his father and if born on U.S. soil remained the nationality of his father (British law), until such time the father naturalized (U.S. law).

      As for your edited posts, I could not allow comments longer than the original post. Nor would I allow spurious reasoning and vague citations. Thank you for adjusting your comment to something we could wrangle over . . . English law is complex in its generation over hundreds of years, but concise in its changes.

  12. WAYK Says:

    You say “a child born of a Loyalist in the newly incorporated U.S. states would be a British citizen.”

    Not true for the Americans:

    “In the eyes of [US] authorities, the circumstances of [“loyalists’ “] birth, residence, or behavior sufficed in law to manifest their election to become citizens of the new states. Their CONTINUED RESIDENCE under the new republican governments after independence evinced their choice of allegiance, and adherence to Great Britain thereafter proved them not loyal subjects but disloyal CITIZENS…
    “From 1350 down to the middle of the nineteenth century, the common law of England gave married women a citizenship identity entirely separate and apart from that of their husbands….marriage with a foreigner [did not] operate to deprive an English woman of her native citizenship. For nearly 80 years after the Declaration of Independence the English common law on this subject was followed in entirety by the courts in the United States…It has generally been held that where an American woman married an alien between 1789 and 1907 and continued to reside in the United States, she did not cease to be an American citizen.”

    “American Citizenship Rights Of Women” by US Rep. John L. Cable, Report to the Subcommittee Of The Committee On Immigration, 1933.

    Cable was instrumental in changing the discriminatory 1907 US law on this issue with the US Cable Act of 1922.

  13. paraleaglenm Says:

    1) Of course continued residence in the U.S. voided British citizenship . . . unless a colonial Loyalist moved to Canada, he lost all connections and protections through the Crown. Cf. The Venus Case. Your point is invalid and requires more ‘chalk and blackboard.’

    2) Cable was WRONG and was warned so by legal scholars during that time, arguing that the Cable Act would produce conflicts of law. See ‘A Citizenship of Their Own,’ . . . available through Amazon.

    In addition, what does your argument have to do with the premise of the BLOG; that Obama, Sr. would not produce a U.S. citizen at all in 1791 through 1855, or 1897 for that matter.

    Obama, Sr. was not only a black Muslim, but his family was likely involved in the slave trade in Mombasa, where converted blacks found work shipping other blacks out of the port once sold on the auction blocks. Converting to Islam protected them from slavery, and the Luo tribe of the Obama’s was in that category.

    However, just consider Obama, Sr. a Protestant, White businessman ‘marrying’ a white woman to avoid scandal . . . the child would not be a U.S. citizen until Sr. naturalized . . . Sr. already had a nationality, and legally and naturally passed that down to the child. Also, under U.S. law, the woman lost her U.S. citizenship, thus the need for the 1922 Act in the first place.

    FINALLY, where in the Constitution does naturalization law follow common law? It specifically enumerates that power to the legislature!

  14. Warren Hathaway Says:

    Before the issue of natural born citizen can be considered one needs to understand that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment there are two citizens in the country of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. This can be seen in the following works:

    “Two Distinct State Citizens For Purposes Of Diversity Of Citizenship”
    http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6862bd9-e7a4-4215-bf24-881db524e76f

    “Diversity of Citizenship: The Basics”
    http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=76d8e5c8-ac03-4a26-91ac-f32701cd3eef

    Next and last, that a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States was before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and still is after its adoption, a natural born citizen:

    (Before the Fourteenth Amendment)

    “It appears that the plaintiff in error, though a native-born citizen of Louisiana, was married in the State of Mississippi, while under age, with the consent of her guardian, to a citizen of the latter State, and that their domicile, during the duration of their marriage, was in Mississippi.” Conner v. Elliott: 59 U.S. (Howard 18) 591, at 592 (1855).

    http://books.google.com/books?id=RkcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false

    (After the Fourteenth Amendment)

    “Joseph A. Iasigi, a native born citizen of Massachusetts, was arrested, February 14, 1897, on a warrant issued by one of the city magistrates of the city of New York, as a fugitive from the justice of the State of Massachusetts.” Iasigi v. Van De Carr: 166 U.S. 391, at 392 (1897).

    http://books.google.com/books?id=xuUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA392#v=onepage&q&f=false

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Article IV gives all rights and privileges of citizenship of one state equally in another. It continues, though, denying those in Servitude or Labor immunity from extradition if they escaped and crossed state lines. This was followed in the Dredd Scott decision, if memory serves.

      Article IV has nothing to do with ‘natural born citizen.’ There is a court case in which the judge oversimplifies the distinction of two citizens, born or naturalized. There is another case in which a judge defines ‘naturalized’ as an adult who applies for citizenship and takes the oath of allegiance. This, however, ignores the deriviative naturalization of his his minor children who do NOT take the oath or make formal application.

      Obama was either ‘born’ or ‘naturalized’ a U.S. citizen. If not for provisions in naturalization law favoring the nationality of an unmarried woman conferring that nationality to the child (regardless if foreign or native born), Obama would have continued as a British subject. Obama, Sr. abandoned the family and the marriage void ab initio due to bigamy. Legal Parent Status therefore was that of the mother.

      Citizenship gained by ‘place of birth’ alone was a feudal concept followed for two-hundred years in the American British colonies as the states were not a ‘nation’ having any jurisdiction, thus no ‘nationality’ as an American citizen per se, but a British one. Upon creation of the United States and especially with the First Uniform Nationality Act of 1790 (per Art. I, Sec. 8) a U.S. citizen ‘born’ required a U.S. citizen father . . . conversely, a child born on U.S. soil to a British father was, under the 1772 British Nationality Act, a British subject. There was no such thing as dual nationality prior to the 1922 Cable Act and subsequent provisions in statute to accomodate unusual birth circumstances.

      Therefore, Obama was a U.S. citizen as a minor child through his only legal parent having U.S. jurisdiction, not by grace of claimed Hawaiian birth.

      The 14th Amendment as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark is bad law and must be overturned when congress gets around to fixing our rampant illegal immigration problem.

      As for ‘natural born citizen,’ it was clearly the intent of the framers to have no foriegn alienage in the presidency, which makes sense, and which is accomplished by no foreign parents at birth, i.e., two U.S. citizens as Minor vs. Happersett declared in judicial notice.

      • Warren Hathaway Says:

        paralegalenm,

        There are two citizens now in the country of the United States: a citizen of the United States, under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

        A citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment, can become a citizen of a State, under the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of Constitution.

        “We do not here mean to say that there may not be a temporary residence in one State, with intent to return to another, which will not create citizenship in the former. But the plaintiff states nothing to take her case out of the definition of citizenship of a State as defined by the first section of the fourteenth amendment.” Bradwell v. the State of Illinois: 83 U.S. 130, at 138 (1873).

        http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q&f=false

        Particularly, by residing in a State of the Union:

        “. . . One of these privileges is conferred by the very article (Fourteenth Amendment) under consideration. It is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State.” Slaughterhouse Cases: 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, at 80 (1873).

        http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA80#v=onepage&q&f=false

        A citizen of the United States is one who is not born in a State:

        “The language of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring two kinds of citizenship is discriminating.  It is: ‘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.’  While it thus establishes national citizenship from the mere circumstance of birth within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, birth within a state does not establish citizenship thereof.  State citizenship is ephemeral.  It results only from residence and is gained or lost therewith.”  Edwards v. People of the State of California: 314 U.S. 160, 183 (concurring opinion of Jackson)  (1941).

        http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6778891532287614638

        A citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, is one that is born in a State of the Union.

        Place of birth and political jurisdiction (complete jurisdiction) go together. United States v. Wong Kim Art (169 U.S. 649, 1898). The United States (government) has only political jurisdiction (complete jurisdiction) in the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United States and federal enclaves within the several States of the Union, whereas an individual State has political jurisdiction (complete jurisdiction) over its territory. Therefore, one born in the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United States and federal enclaves within the several States of the Union is a citizen of the United States, whereas one born in an individual State is a citizen of a State. Refer to this work to see this:

        “Blunders of the Supreme Court of the United States, Part 3”

        http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=23482b4c-adb9-4018-a261-285a5445bec2

        Since one born in a State (generally) before the Fourteenth Amendment was a citizen of a State and was eligible to be President of the United States of America, then one born in State after the Fourteenth Amendment is eligible to be President of the United States of America. Since a citizen of the United States is one who is not born in a State, then only a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, can be eligible to be President of the United States of America.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        The court cases are not on point, or in error.

        We who have studied naturalization law, the constitution, and the 14th Amendment have noted extreme violations, by the courts, of the constitution . . . namely, the plenary powers doctrine of congress over naturalization law under Art I, Sec. 8.

        The courts at first were limited to local administration of naturalization and oaths. That duty was later transferred, by congressional act, to the State Department. Several cases were abused by the judiciary to bypass the plenary powers doctrine invoking the ‘case and controversy’ clause . . . which in conflict with Art I, Sec 8 requires stricter review than just a declaratory judgment giving the courts jurisiction, not congress. The court abused this logic violating the constitution in order to protect a communist activist from losing his naturalized status, when the LAW denied visas and citizenship to communist agitators! (Schneiderman, 1944)

        Wong Kim Ark admits the plenary power of congress over naturalization law by citing Chirac vs. Chirac. However, the court then proceeds to ignore legislative history and the meaning of ‘jurisdiction thereof’ coming directly out of an almost identical preamble in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and misinterprets ‘jurisdiction’ as territorial rather than political, the latter being related to nationality and allegiance.

        The court case you cited is also in error, that the mere fact of being born in a state made one a citizen of that state. One had to be born to a U.S. citizen father, or be a minor child of a father who had succeeded in naturalization. Perkins vs. Elg is one of the few accurate and reliable cases one can refer back to as precedent on a number of related issues.

        Congress has the power to ignore and reverse ALL of the cases you cited, based not only on the laws they wrote between 1790 and 1866, but their constitutional plenary power over a ‘uniform’ naturalization law, i.e., naturalization law without conflicts.

        Unfortunately, jurists and juris doctori have been poorly educated on the subject, relying too much on judicial error which has, over time, become a mass bias in the general public, including elected representatives in congress. Congress has to be re-educated and the law made straight.

      • prsmithsr Says:

        “, then only a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, can be eligible to be President of the United States of America.”
        ————————
        Should that not read “, then only a citizen of a State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, AT THE TIME OF BIRTH, can be eligible to be President of the United States of America.”?

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Thomas Jefferson advised that interpretation of the constitution relies on the intent of the authors and the language of that time.

        Congressmen are required to be citizens, born or naturalized. However, the presidency is limited to a citizen from birth . . . specifically, to avoid foreigners from ascending to that office. The term ‘foreigner’ was used by John Jay in his letter to George Washington advising only a ‘natural born citizen.’ John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

        It is a fact, and admitted by Barack Hussein Obama himself, that he had British nationality at birth through his father. It was application of naturalization law, specifically the Aliens and Nationality Act, that ‘dealienaged’ Obama of his British nationality. However, Obama’s father never abandoned his Kenyan/Luo allegiances, and through his father Obama identified his political allegiance as proven in his 2007-2008 involvement in Kenyan elections.

      • prsmithsr Says:

        Yes, I agree but Obama was a citizen of Hawaii via his mother at birth (presuming it went down that way) and it’s important to note that said state citizenship is not adequate to meet U.S. natural born citizen criteria. Just hoping to clear up any possible confusion.

  15. mysteries of the world Says:

    mysteries of the world…

    […]The Transition from Jus Soli — Obama NOT a Natural Born Citizen « Paralegalnm’s Blog[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: