An Excellent Discussion of Natural Born Citizenship at Mario Apuzzo’s Blog

I’d like to refer you to attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog, specifically the one dated December 11, 2011. It includes a list of case law with brief analysis of each very useful to your understanding of the Judiciary’s opinions on citizenship.

See http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5867093233794772942

Here is my Comment on that Blog Post:

Notice how in the Elk case, the 14th Amendment ‘born or naturalized’ aids in conflating ‘natural born’ with ‘native born,’ as most consider a child born on U.S. soil of alien parents not naturalized per se.
Therefore, they are raising statutory Jus Soli to the level of natural law.
In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48 (1844), Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, wrote:
“Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”
Of course, the conflict is the public law concept of jus soli undermining the ‘reasonable qualification’ that was, since 1790, an integral part of legislated Act requiring aliens to first naturalize before their minor children could become U.S. citizens.
Sec. 3. Uniform Naturalization Law by Congress “And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:”
The champions and defenders of the Jus Soli insist that Sec. 3 applied only to children born abroad . . . yet cannot prove this when challenged.
Justice Story’s Commentaries describes the reason for making Naturalization law Uniform through Federal legislation. See http://www.constitution.org/js/js_316.htm
Uniform Law relies heavily on the Plenary Powers Doctrine. The courts in each state were limited to administering oaths and keeping records. Later, that part of Naturalization Law was given over to the Executive Branch. As cases and controversies in suit against the Secretary of State ensued, the courts declared Article III power over naturalization law and the liberal courts began rewriting it.
I recommend Mark R. Levin’s article at http://www.cis.org/CitizenshipSupremeCourt
Congress has the power to ‘fix’ the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th Amendment, merely by adding a brief definition of ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to 8 USC 1401, but our congressmen are, almost unanimously, misinformed and uneducated on the subject.
Indeed, a President Gingrich could address congress and teach them, and encourage them to challenge the SUPREME (or not so supreme) Court.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “An Excellent Discussion of Natural Born Citizenship at Mario Apuzzo’s Blog”

  1. arnash Says:

    There’s a bigger issue regarding ignorance of U.S. law than there is regarding the inadequacy of U.S. law. The policy of law that I’ve been espousing isn’t just a supposition of my imagination after all since it is codified, as I recently discovered here:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001101—-000-.html
    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101

    § 1101. Definitions

    (15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes

    of nonimmigrant aliens—
    (A)
    (i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;…

    (B) an alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or of performing skilled or unskilled labor or as a representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media coming to engage in such vocation) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure;…

    (i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study…

    None of those in the extensive list of foreigners presently within the U.S. can be considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States since they are instead subject to international treaty and the jurisdiction of their own nation. They aren’t immigrants, they are foreigners and foreigners aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
    Any view to the contrary is a manifestation of ignorance and irrationality. Unfortunately, many people in positions of authority have been taught by teachers who were ignorant and irrational.

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    1101, much further down, defines who is the ‘legal parent’ required for identifying the nationality and/or citizenship of the child. Obama, Sr. abandoned the family, plus was a bigamist, so the ‘legal parent’ status went to Dunham.

    Thus, Obama, Jr. was dialienaged of his British citizenship-by-descent at the time of birth, vis-a’-vis the act of abandonment by the father.

    Of course, since Wong Kim Ark (1898) through Plyler vs. Doe (1982), the judiciary has ‘taken over’ the writing of Naturalization Law . . . making existing statute a secondary authority, rather than an enumerated plenary power of congress.

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: