Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#226

Post by verbalobe » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:53 am

Notice that in Section 3.24.2 "native- or natural- born citizenship" is used twice and "native- and natural- born citizenship" is used later. There is never any differentiation of the two in the document. I think that the use of "native- and/or natural- born" is to make sure that all cases of citizenship by birth are covered including the small subset of natural born citizens born to a US parent on foreign soil. I am getting tired of the self-appointed scholars like Leo who are Google mining every conceivable document for the last 400 years attempting to prove an invented lie.It's the kind of gnat-splitting the birthers have to engage in, in order to sustain their fantasy. MichaelN excelled at this (and at nothing else).





How many times in life must they encounter expressions where one thing is referred to by two separate terms, for clarity? For example, I might give my sister a Christmas shopping suggestion: "Tall or knee-high socks." Expressions like these are obviously meant to be inclusive of multiple terms that others might use, but which refer to a single type or class of thing.





And yet the birthers' intellectual dishonesty compels them to assert that all such constructions can only mean that the speaker believes there are two distinct classes of thing -- not a single class that may have multiple names.





:^o

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45115
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#227

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:56 am

Verbie - we have a Latin expression for that in the law -- ejusdem generis.





Race. Itsa. Locator.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#228

Post by mimi » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:47 pm

Here is the link to Leo's misusing the van Dyne history review of citizenship law:[/break1]wordpress.com/2011/10/09/multiple-instances-of-historical-scholarship-conclusively-establish-the-supreme-courts-holding-in-minor-v-happersett-as-standing-precedent-on-citizenship-obama-not-eligible/]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -eligible/Ballentine challenges Leo's misreading in the Leo Donofrio thread on 10/10/11. The birfer lawyers did not go to the source, but instead were taking the bizarro readings of Leo's and adopting them as historical fact. Leo creates the fiction which is making fools out of lawyers reciting that fiction in front of judges. (I don't know how to link to those Fogbow posts, but they are easy to find with the search)Van Dyne is very clear that the common law understanding before the Civil War was that NBC -ship was at birth for the children of citizens and non-citzens alike. The Fourteenth Amendment (and the civil rights acts leading up to it) gave a constitution definition for the first time of what had been understood in common law. He also points out that when the Constitution was written, the framers considered that Asians were not a large enough of the population to be concerned about and when they became a large enough group to be concerned about, they were excluded from citizenship by naturalization. I realized after reading Van Dyne that the parents of WKA and all similarly situated Chinese could not be naturalized and if their children born here could not be NBC's at birth or could not be naturalized either, you would end up with millions of stateless inhabitants...forever classifed as such. The judges could not over rule the power of Congress to determine the naturalization laws, but they could extend the coverage of NBC-ship to their children who were born here just as it did to the children of slaves and freedmen of African ancestry.Nolu posted that Van Dyne thing. Here at scribd:[/break1]scribd.com/doc/80311417/Citizenship-by-Birth-Frederick-Van-Dyne-Asst-Solicitor-Dept-of-State-1904] ... State-1904or scribd on the people's forum:[/break1]the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=27481]http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bi ... tNum=27481nolu posts a lot in his scribd.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#229

Post by bob » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:15 pm

Does anyone know of an article (law review or otherwise) that discusses Lynch v. Clarke? Thanks.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#230

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:21 pm

Does anyone know of an article (law review or otherwise) that discusses Lynch v. Clarke? Thanks.There are a [/break1]wordpress.com/category/precedent-cases/lynch-v-clarke-1844/]number of articles on the Native Born Citizen blog. If you mean something scholarly, I could look.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#231

Post by bob » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:27 pm

Does anyone know of an article (law review or otherwise) that discusses Lynch v. Clarke? Thanks.There are a [/break1]wordpress.com/category/precedent-cases/lynch-v-clarke-1844/]number of articles on the Native Born Citizen blog. If you mean something scholarly, I could look.Scholarly preferred. Would take a source that is reliable. ;)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#232

Post by mimi » Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:35 pm

I don't think this is what you're looking for, but thought I'd offer it in case it helps at all.[/break1]the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13978]http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bi ... tNum=13978

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#233

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:08 pm

Does anyone know of an article (law review or otherwise) that discusses Lynch v. Clarke? Thanks.There are a [/break1]wordpress.com/category/precedent-cases/lynch-v-clarke-1844/]number of articles on the Native Born Citizen blog. If you mean something scholarly, I could look.Scholarly preferred. Would take a source that is reliable. ;)I'm not sure what particular point you want it to make, but I'd imagine you have one if you want the source to be reliable.





I believe this article has been discussed here.





William T. Han, Beyond Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship, 58 Drake L. Rev. 457 (2010).





If you need a copy to get a cite, I can get you one. Very few articles cite this fairly obscure case, which is from a state reporter not included in Lexis.





It cites the case for this proposition.





See Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 362-72 (1863). "Our government ... extends its protection over its citizens when in foreign countries ... . It can hardly be doubted that it would protect the infant child of such citizen, though born abroad, to the same extent that it would protect the father." Id. at 370. See also Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 659-62 (N.Y. Ch. 1844) ("With regard to the Act of 1802, I do not think that the children of our citizens born abroad are aliens.").Han, supra, at 472 n.84.





The text attached to this footnote:





Even though, as discussed above, the 1802 statute arguably did not endow children born abroad to American parents between 1802 and 1855 with United States citizenship, one state supreme court nevertheless twice held that such persons were citizens through common law authority.Id. at 472.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#234

Post by bob » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:17 pm

Thanks; Han is good. I just realized Lynch is also discussed in the 2011 CRS memo, which is a sufficiently reliable source.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15830
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#235

Post by Reality Check » Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:18 pm

Does anyone know of an article (law review or otherwise) that discusses Lynch v. Clarke? Thanks.Professor Patrick Charles mentions Lynch v Clarke in his paper on citizenship. [link]Decoding the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause: Unlawful Immigrants, Allegiance, Personal Subjection, and the Law,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cf ... 18&mirid=1[/link]





Even the first United States case, Lynch v. Clarke, to directly address the subject of citizenship by birth, confirmed that the common law tenets of jus soli were based on national sovereignty and allegiance. The case concerned whether Julia Lynch who was born in New York of ―alien parents, during their temporary sojourn‖45 was a UnitedStates citizen. In conclusion, Judge Lewis H. Sandford held that by the current ―law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.‖46 By allegiance Sandford was referencing the ―general allegiance‖ owed to the ―confederated sovereignty of the United States‖ by aliens within its territorial limits.47


At no point did Sandford state or infer that citizenship by birth vested automatically upon territorial presence or that it was an unalterable constitutional right. In fact, Sandford expressly acknowledged the federal government‘s authority to prescribe rules affecting citizenship by birth:





In reference to another class of the future inhabitants of the country [following the ratification of the Constitution]—those who were born here of alien parents—it is claimed that the common law continued in force, which will be a subject for inquiry presently. Whether it did or not, their condition was to be ascertained by national law. In reference to aliens, legislation would be necessary; and the power to legislate, was conferred upon Congress. From what has been stated, it follows that such power was intended to be, and necessarily must be exclusive. And being exclusive, it cannot, as we have seen, be controlled by the unwritten or common law of one of the states, any more than it can be altered by the statute law of such state. And whether or not the Constitution enabled Congress to declare that the children born here of alien parents who never manifested an intention to become citizens, are aliens or are citizens—it is clear that the decision of that question must be by some general rule of law, applicable to affecting out whole nation. It must be determined by what may be called the national law, as contra-distinguished from the local law of the several states. It is purely a matter of national jurisprudence, and not of state municipal law.48To be clear, the holding in Lynch does not stand for the proposition that mere birth in the United States constitutionally vests citizenship.49 Sandford was clear to point out that the parties were in agreement that Congress had not yet legislated on the subject.Charles is not one who believes that jus soli is absolute. He thinks that there are some limitations on alien parents. I am not clear what he thinks those limitations on the principle of jus soli are.




Edit: I forgot to mention that Doc C reviewed this paper a while back. [/break1]obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/new-paper-on-14th-amendment-citizenship/]http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/ ... tizenship/
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#236

Post by bob » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:10 pm

Asst. Prof. at Penn. St. U. [/break1]personal.psu.edu/sxg196/]Salar Ghahramani: [/break1]ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032875]A Kenyan Birth? Still Natural Born:This paper is a “so what” rebuttal to those who hold the so-called birther view and argues that even if Barack Obama was born outside of the United States, he is still a natural born citizen because, under the laws of the United States, he was entitled to birthright citizenship through his mother, no matter where he was born. The essence of the article lies on simple logic: that there are two types of American citizens — natural-born and naturalized. Those entitled to birthright citizenship do not have to be naturalized, no matter where they are born; so it follows that they are natural-born.Apuzzo [/break1]blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=1833930042741313364]not happy:He relies on a Congressional Act to define a “natural born Citizen,” looking to 8 U.S.C. 140, available at [/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401. What is amazing about this argument is that he does not explain that when the Constitution was written in 1787, there was no such Congressional Act in effect, but yet we had the “natural born Citizen” clause. That same Constitution also only gives Congress in matters of citizenship the power to naturalize. Hence, the definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause cannot possible come from a law that did not exist when the clause was written. Furthermore, the definition of the clause cannot come from an Act of Congress which under the Constitution on matters of citizenship only has the power to naturalize.[...]But this is not the law that was in effect when Obama was allegedly born in 1961. A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For births between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child). [/break1]state.gov/law/info/info_609.html]http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html.[...]He states: “My reading of the law prompts me to believe that those entitled to birthright citizenship must be deemed natural born citizens.” But Congress has the power to make persons from the moment of birth “citizens of the United States.” This is Congress’s naturalization power. Surely, the Founders and Framers did not give Congress, as part of its naturalization powers, the power to expand the class of persons who could be eligible to be President, all supposedly done without a Constitutional Amendment. No, indeed, for the Founders and Framers gave us only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents. Congress has no power to change or add to that definition.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

BFB
Posts: 5283
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:48 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#237

Post by BFB » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:14 pm

No, indeed, for the Founders and Framers gave us only one definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents.Really?? Wherezat?

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 45115
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#238

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:17 pm

In Apuzzo's mind.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15830
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#239

Post by Reality Check » Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:44 pm

Really?? Wherezat?Apuzzo mentions the paper in the comments to this article on his NJ challenge: [/break1]blogspot.com/2012/04/objection-to-candidate-barack-obamas.html]http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/objec ... bamas.htmlI wish Professor Ghahramani had paid a little more attention to detail. Ann Dunham was actually 18 when Barack Obama was born, not 19. Her birth date was November 29, 1942. This means she would not have satisfied the age and residency requirements to pass on citizenship with the law in effect at the time. (The law required the mother to have been a resident for five years after age reaching age 14). Patrick Colliano makes a strong case that the citizenship laws are retroactive and that Barack Obama would be a citizen at birth and therefore natural born based on the change in the law in 1986. The argument is of course moot.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

Tarrant
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:05 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#240

Post by Tarrant » Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:35 pm

The problem I have with this paper is simple - I don't think it's worth refuting something untrue, especially in politics, because it opens the door to the possibility that it is. After all, why bother writing a paper saying "It doesn't matter if he was born in Kenya, he'd still be eligible!" unless you admit the possibility that he might have been born there?Now I realize that, as a scientist, hypotheticals are part of my daily life. I will assume something untrue and then use facts etc. to show a conclusion. Proof by contradiction and such. But in politics that's a dangerous game, and I think it plays into the hands of birthers - fanning their idiocy...especially when he article gets a number of details wrong that might have otherwise affected the conclusion.The fact is the President was born in Hawaii. The question of "Is he eligible if he wasn't?" is simply conceding, if hypothetically, a point to the birthers.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22409
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#241

Post by RTH10260 » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:53 am

Asst. Prof. at Penn. St. U. [/break1]personal.psu.edu/sxg196/]Salar Ghahramani: [/break1]ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032875]A Kenyan Birth? Still Natural Born:This paper is a “so what” rebuttal to those who hold the so-called birther view and argues thateven if Barack Obama was born outside of the United States, he is still a natural born citizen because, under the laws of the United States, he was entitled to birthright citizenship through his mother,no matter where he was born. The essence of the article lies on simple logic: that there are two types of American citizens — natural-born and naturalized. Those entitled to birthright citizenship do not have to be naturalized, no matter where they are born; so it follows that they are natural-born.IANAL question on the latter part:I seem to remember discussions from 2008 elsewhere, according to the arguments then, Barack Obama would not have become American citizen at the time, cause some US or HI law of the time required the mother to be five (?) years past her 14th birthday (?) before becoming eligible to transfer citizenship.Any clarification, please ?

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15830
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#242

Post by Reality Check » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:34 am

Look up thread at my post.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27238
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Expert Renunciations of the Birther NBC Definition

#243

Post by bob » Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:04 pm

Professor [/break1]widener.edu/Academics/Faculty/ProfilesDe/McManamonMaryBrigid.aspx]Mary McManamon (of Widener School of Law) has written a [/break1]ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2444766&download=yes]scholarly article suggesting that most of the other experts are wrong: She contends only those born in United States are natural-born citizens. Sorry, McCain, Cruz, etc.!





Someone slip this to Apuzzo: Vattel isn't even cited. :-bd








H/t: [/break1]obamaconspiracy.org/2014/06/new-natural-born-citizen-paper-sorry-ted/]Doc C.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Legal Claims by Birthers”