Viernes, 25 de febrero de 2011

Share on Facebook



by paralegalnm, blogging at Paralegalnm?s Blog

(Feb. 24, 2011) ? The concept of birthright U.S. citizenship by native-birth alone is a carryover from English law as practiced by the American colonies, but superseded by the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act that relied on the ?Law of Nation?s? ? 212 description of ?those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.?

The reason ?native-born citizen? is so terribly?conflated in the American psyche as synonymous with ?natural born citizen? is because of over a century of the judiciary ignoring U.S. statute.

The Lynch case (1844) violated the 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802, and 1804 uniform naturalization acts through semantic gymnastics and false logic, implying law and intent that went beyond the clear language of the acts themselves.

Wong Kim Ark (1897) side-stepped the existing requirements of legislated Act by creating a special ?constitutional? citizenship-at-birth. Ark?s violation of jurisprudence?(neglecting to address treaty and equity issues actually within the court?s jurisdiction) completely ignored the 1866 Civil Rights Act?s ?not subject to any foreign power? as precursor to the 14th Amendment?s ?under the jurisdiction thereof? clause. Ark continues in its effect to this day, causing the courts to ignore the conflicts of dual nationality at birth and, through Plyler vs. Doe (1982), forcing states to treat children of even illegal aliens as citizens.

The Judiciary versus Congress; Removing the Redundancy

The constitution clearly enumerates congressional plenary power over uniform naturalization law. However, while Minor vs. Happersett (1874) commented in dicta that a ?natural born citizen? was without doubt a child born of U.S. citizens, the judge in Ark intentionally fabricated a ?constitutional? citizen out of reach of congressional Article I powers.

The judiciary?s misguided reliance on English jus solis principles for citizenship at birth was belied by English law itself, that relied on both ?descent? and ?otherwise than by descent,? i.e., of patrilineal?inheritance, or?just born within English dominion. The courts compounded their error by creating the ?birthright? native-born citizen, which has burdened the states by encouraging illegal immigration.

In addition, judicial error has created a constitutional crisis, for it has justified the son of a British subject, Barack Hussein Obama, to erroneously claim Article II eligibility to the presidency through?native-birth alone.

Congress has the power to correct over one-hundred years of judicial ?legislation? simply by clarifying Title 8, U.S.C. ? 1401(a) with a definition that ?under the jurisdiction thereof? is extended from the 1866 Civil Rights Act?s ?not subject to any foreign power.? The legislative history supports this amendment.

In addition, the current misinterpretation is a gross redundancy; a child ?born in the United States? is obviously within its territorial jurisdiction. The reality is, as defined in the rest of the Aliens and Nationality Act, is the effect of one alien or non-citizen parent who introduces alienage through foreign jurisdiction.

For a more complete, fully-cited?legal analysis, please forward your request to the address below.

[email protected]


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

5 Responses for ?Fax this Memo to your Congressman?

  1. ksdb says:

    The Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed Justice Waite?s definition of natural born citizen (from Minor v. Happersett). Gray cited the definition verbatim and acknowledged that Waite REJECTED Virginia Minor?s claim of 14th amendment citizenship. Gray wrote that the Supreme Court was ?committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ?? IOW, this is saying the 14th amendment does NOT apply to natural born citizens (since they are already citizens). Gray further affirmed this by noting that Minor?s citizenship was due to jus soli AND jus sanguinis criteria: ?The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ??

    The other thing that?s noteworthy about the MInor and WKA decisions is that both technically acknowledged that the concept of being a ?native? is equivalent to being a natural born citizen in that you still need to be born in the country to citizen parents. Gray?s concept of 14th amendment ?citizenship by birth? is a public law class of citizenship, but it is not technically ?native born? citizenship. The modern concept of ?native born? citizenship is based on a superficial understanding of the term, but is not based on the Supreme Court?s actual interpretation.

  2. jtx says:

    Harry H.:

    The very last phrase of your post is undoubtedly correct!!!

  3. SteveinVA says:

    A well written and powerful discussion of the subject.

  4. Harry H says:

    Paralegalnm seems to have fingered the necessary distinctions here, but waiting for a walrus-like judiciary to act appropriately and justly could take a while. And many people will never understand or admit to understanding what they consider the legal niceties of Article II.

    In contrast, everyone can understand that a non-citizen should not be our Commander-in-Chief. Since I believe Obama is not even a citizen, much less nbC, I think the easiest, surest way out of this mess is to indisputably verify where the usurper was born. If by some miracle it turns out Obama was indisputably born in the U.S., the nbC question still has to be answered.

    Congress should take the easiest step first by establishing as a legal fact where our putative president was born. If it can?t even do that, Congress is a useless parasite on the body politic.

    • thinkwell says:

      One thing that is certain, recent revelations (Adams, Abercrombie, Miss Tickly?s blog, etc.) have made it more and more evident that Obama-liar was born somewhere else than in Hawaii. That contradictory fact alone constitutes criminal fraud and should be sufficient legal justification to oust the usurper, regardless of wherever he actually was born.

      Certainly there are plenty of Kenyans (apparently including his step grandmother) who are convinced that he is a native son of Kenya and drew his first brand-spanking-new breath as a Kenyan on Kenyan soil.

      Given that eyewitnesses and university enrollment records placed his mother in Seattle within scant weeks of his purported birth date, and given that he had a great aunt who lived nearby in northern Washington state at that time (the perfect hiding place for a ?very young and very single? mother), it is also quite possible that he was born just over the border from Blaine, Washington in White Rock, Canada.

      In my opinion, these are the two most likely scenarios, but given the dearth of nativity information from the ?most transparent administration ever,? all we know for certain is that, whatever the truth actually is, it would mean the immediate end of the Obama-fraud?s illegal occupation of the Presidency.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:02
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar