(Updated in parenthesis. - Dianna Cotter 12-15-2009)
Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
President Chester A. Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant, William Arthur, and Vermonter, Malvina Stone. Arthur would tragically assume the Presidency upon the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 and become the 21st President. President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage, and he died shortly after leaving the White House November 18, 1886. He served honorably and well as President of the United States, but was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, "Chester Alan Arthur Papers”. Microfiche Copy courtesy of Leo Donofrio Esq.
This document and its relevance have only recently been discovered. The President himself would not help matters any, he burned nearly all of his records and papers before he died in Nov. 1886, a year and a half after leaving office.
A lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq. wrote an article regarding citizenship during Arthur’s term, that had the President seen it, would have concerned him. “Are Persons born Within the United States Ipso Facto Citizens thereof?” was published in the American Law Review in Sept. /Oct. 1884. Collins thesis reverberates through history: “… are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth were aliens, citizens there of?” Collins relies on two sources in particular for his answer.
“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.” -14th Amendment
He also draws upon “The Law of Nations” by Emerich Vattel written in 1758, on which the U.S. Constitution was largely based. Collins states in his article, the term “jurisdiction thereof” means “not subject to any foreign power”, citing Section 1992 in Section 1 of the new 14th Amendment. He quotes Vattel:
The native or natural citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as a matter of course that each citizen on entering into society reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. -Vattel
Collins concludes:
Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – Collins
Had Collins known that President Arthur’s father was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth, he would have correctly concluded that the President was not a natural born citizen and not eligible for the office. It was considered a matter of National security; the Commander in Chief should not be subject to any foreign power, and for that reason the “natural born” distinction is made.
Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obama’s public admission of his father’s status:
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982. -Fight the Smears
(Correction: The President's website has not been updated to include the information that his Kenyan Citizenship did not actually expire until 1984. The site misconstrued the Kenyan law, and FactCheck.org was forced to give credit for the correction to Leo Donofrio Esq. This has direct implications with regard to the British Nationality Act of 1981 which went into effect in 1983. Because his Kenyan Citizenship was still in effect in 1983, Obama may still be a Kenyan Citizen. Neither the President nor any of his surrogates have addressed this issue.)
This quote illustrates four things very clearly. First, the President is the son of a British Kenyan. Second, his citizenship in Kenya expired in 1982, meaning that another country had a claim on the President from birth to 23 and he could choose to keep it as an adult. The third is unstated; the President’s British citizenship can still be formalized. The fourth issue it states very clearly. At birth, Barack Obama was subject to the power of a foreign nation, “The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr. ‘s children.” and therefore was not at any time a natural born citizen due to his triple nationality status, and he knows it.
The President has spent a million dollars fighting various court cases across the country, not so much to keep his past hidden, but to keep people focused on what they think he is hiding. What is relevant is what he has admitted out in the open. The President at birth was an American citizen, a British citizen and a Kenyan citizen. At no time in his life has he ever been a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Obama was a subject of two separate foreign powers in the instant of his birth.
Barack Obama has hidden the truth right in the open, it has never been an issue of where he was born, it was who he is the son of. A British, Kenyan National. In the instant when Citizenship is decided, birth, he was British, Kenyan, and American. By definition, a person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America while at the instant of their birth also being the citizen of any other Nation. A citizen? Yes, but not one that is solely native, solely natural, to the United States, and the United States alone.
The "President" has fought attempts to reveal his birth and other records. He has done so for the singular reason to keep people focused on what he is hiding, rather than the relevance of what he has admitted in the open. This is the relevance of Barack Obama's Heritage.
Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon have been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchises in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. Quo Warranto is one of 2 ways to remove a sitting President, and is being filed on behalf of the Auto Dealers who had their dealerships taken from them in the summer of 2009, and bankruptcy motion actions are being filed in the Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York. It is expected that as many as 50 to 100 Auto Dealers may join lead Plaintiff James Anderer in the suits.
History has been known to repeat itself, it remains to be seen if this repeat will leave an unqualified Presidential usurper in office or not.
Comments
quo warranto is just a birther wet dream
one good thing, it keeps the wing nuts preoccupied so they don't cause any real trouble.
'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' - this refers to the children of diplomats such as ambassadors, who specifically have diplomatic immunity, and originally (at the time of the amendment) American Indians.
Other than that, there's at least three major problems with your theory. One: Collin's writing does not in any sense have legal precedent. Two: If this were applied, you would have to reverse the citizenship of potentially millions of children of immigrants who were in a legal resident status or process of naturalization at the time of their children's birth. Three: If birthright citizenship is not conveyed by the fact of birth as certified by a birth certificate, but must be passed on by process of foreign law, then we have the potential problem of person's born having no citizenship of any country. (if they are refused by the parent's native country for reasons, example punishing political exiles)
KH, you confuse citizenship with Natural Born citizenship. In order to be a natural born citizen, you can have no other citizenship at the instant of birth other than American. If you inherit the citizenship of any other nation at the same time, you are not a natural born citizen. That is the test, and Barack Obama fails it, and he knows it.
Those auto dealers who had their franchise rights taken away - that was always in the power of GMC/Chrysler to take away. What makes them think they would have fared any better if GMC/Chrysler went to Chapter 7 bankruptcy? Look at the total # of dealers vs sales for GMC/Chrysler vs competitors. There were way too many being kept open, and that had a cost to the franchiser.
LT, Chrysler and GM were given a list from the government. That is the issue.
Poland considered anyone descended of their citizens to be, themselves, citizens, regardless of whether they naturalized in another country. Until 1972 that meant that people of Polish heritage could, if they traveled to Poland, be conscripted into the Army. In 1972, we signed a treaty with Poland that people holding US passports would be "considered" US citizens during their travel there.
In 1968, Ed Muskie was the VP candidate. He was the son of a Polish immigrant. That means that if he traveled to Poland as a VP candidate, they could have forced him to serve in their military - even though his dad was a US citizen.
Similarly, Greece would have considered Spiro Agnew a Greek citizen if he had traveled there.
Collins lost this argument when he argued it before the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. Leo will lose this argument here as all birthers have lost all cases before this.
Oh, and Collins would not have concluded that Arthur was a citizen but not eligible for the President. He did not recognize any citizenship AT ALL for those born to aliens. His thesis was that the definition of "natural born" was entirely different than the common law and therefore anyone born to aliens was, himself, an alien:
"Now it is evident that such persons [children born to Chinese aliens] are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the important privileges of an American citizen, a title which it was the aim of our ancestors to make as proud as that of king; and yet under the common-law rule they would be citizens."
There are two choices in Collins' worldview for those born here - alien or natural-born citizen. There is no third option.
LT, Chrysler and GM were given a list from the government. That is the issue.
Great article, and i hope the quo warranto gets someplace, but I don't have much hope for it. Along with telling us that the previous cases were in the wrong jurisdiction and by people without standing, they also told us that "the people have spoken", the "election is over", and it's a "fairy tale". They're not going to give us a fair hearing and I would be shocked if it went past the first hearing.
We do know that along with Obama paying almost two million dollars to keep people from seeing his birth certificate, he's also hiding his college records and many other things. And, the Hawaii DOH is going way over and beyond in their effort to keep all the info secret. I think a good case could be made that they're totally ignoring their own laws of disclosure. I can't see them going to the lengths they've been going to if it were to just "keep people looking in the wrong direction". I don't feel they'd go this far unless there really were something big to hide. There's evidence of frau
Greg said: Collins lost this argument when he argued it before the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. Leo will lose this argument here as all birthers have lost all cases before this.
Yes, Collins lost, but look who wrote the opinion in WKA, ZJustice Grey who was appointed to the SCOTUS by Arthur. And in light of the Minor case, it is clear there was soe heavy duty cover-up/white washing going on.
Let me see if I can simplify this. The debates and various statements, in and out of context are all very interesting, but the actual words incorporated into the 14th Amendment are what is determinative. The key clause reads “and subject to the jusrisdiction thereof”. Now supposing one really wanted to exclude the children of aliens and dual citizens. One could accomplish that by inserting a single 4-letter word so that the clasue would read -”and subject to the SOLE jurisdiction thereof”. Then the clause would be clear; if you fall under any other jurisdiction (as would most children with even a single alien parent), sorry, no automatic citizenship for you.
But the clause of course doesn’t say “SOLE jurisdiction”, it simply says “jurisdiction”, meaning that the child can have multiple other citizenships by birth without impacting their US citizenship by birth (natural born citizenship). Whatever the intent might have been, you are stuck with the actual words that made it into the
And, of course, we all know that Obama spent about $2 million in legal fees for the entire election. McCain spent about $1.75 million. That's not the same as saying that Obama or McCain spent that money hiding anything. Elections have become more litigious since even before Bush v. Gore.
But, you guys never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
BRW, another great article Dianna. Keep up the outstanding work & we look forward to more updates on the progress of the case.
George D. Collins was the losing attorney in the SCOTUS decision Wong Kim Ark. His arguments (as reflected above) were explicitly rejected by the court as wrong.
And just for fun... you did know that George D. Collins also ended up as a disbarred felon, right? He was a convicted perjurer, bigamist, incestuous adulterer and embezzler who ended his days running the jute mill in San Quentin Prison. He was so notorious that he even got a whole chapter devoted to hi in a book about spectacular California criminals.
The standards for Birther lawyers have not changed in over a century.
Linda writes: Yes, Collins lost, but look who wrote the opinion in WKA, ZJustice Grey who was appointed to the SCOTUS by Arthur.
WKA was a 6-2 decision.
Look who was also on the Court when Wong Kim Ark was heard. Justice Stephen Johnson Field. Justice Field decided In re Look Ting Sing in 1884, which, like Wong Kim Ark, held that children born to Chinese aliens were natural born citizens. He decided that case while he was a Supreme Court Justice riding circuit.
That case was universally adopted by the Federal Courts that passed on the issue later.
Had Justice Field not retired, he might have written the decision in WKA and it would have been 7-2. Interestingly, Gray and Field were not fans of each other. Field thought Gray was long-winded and overblown. Gray thought Field relied too much on natural law and not precedent.
I guess Field was in on the conspiracy?
What an incredible poorly-researched piece of crap. First off, Vattel's work is not the basis of US citizenship, it's Blackstone's. Second, the work you quote, from 1884 by Collins, was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in a decision known as Wong Kim Ark. Your argument does not stand up to any scrutiny of fact and law. Shame on you.
Look at Article II and the 20th and 25th Amendments which are the sections of the Constitution that apply to selecting and removing the President. They don't have any role for the courts; all power is in Congress, both for determining who becomes Presdient and for removing a President. Congress decides whether a President-elect qualifies-they look at whether he won the vote, his age and whether he is a natural born citizen. They made their decision and it is final. Same with impeachment-Congress decides whether an official committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" amd their determination is final.
There is no role for the courts in qualifying or removing a President. No quo and no warranto because the President's warranto is from the voters and the Congress.
It was over in January says: "One could accomplish that by inserting a single 4-letter word so that the clasue would read"
I have the same thought about the Vattel line. He wrote that "the naturals" [note: he didn't use the term "natural born"] are those born of "citizen parents." Birthers argue that the plural form of "parents" meant that *both* parents had to be citizens--but if that's what he meant, why didn't he just add the word "two" or "both"?
Also, Vattel and Collins seem to think that fathers have greater power to transmit citizenship than mothers do. Is that really a position you want to argue today?
"In order to be a natural born citizen, you can have no other citizenship at the instant of birth other than American. If you inherit the citizenship of any other nation at the same time, you are not a natural born citizen."
And of course you can cite the court decisions that say that, right Dianna?
Right???
RIGHT????
I thought not, since as others have pointed out, the Supreme Court REJECTED that argument more than a century ago.
Frakin' moonbats.
Linda and yo- When you say, "great article, Dianna", how so?
1. It was cut and pasted from Leo Donofrio's web site; someone with a clear axe to grind.
2. No effort was made to get any commentary from the 99.99% of legal scholars who would say exactly the opposite. A simple phone call to Dianna's local law school would have been a good place to start.
3. It isn't even news; just the same re-hash of discredited nonsense.
With all due respect, the average staff writer on a high school newspaper would do a 100x better job. This is just incredibly shoddy and basically the antithesis of evrything that journalism is supposed to be.
"Also, Vattel and Collins seem to think that fathers have greater power to transmit citizenship than mothers do. Is that really a position you want to argue today?"
Jake: The birthers don't care how stupid the argument is. They start from the conclusion, "I don't like Obama and want him gone" and then invent justifications. If there were serious issues they would have been raised by Obama's opponents in the Democratic primary and the general election. Obama announced he was running in January 2007 and his father's citizenship was public information, so there was plenty of time for everyone to raise any issue they wanted. Yet we heard nothing on this until November 2008. Strange, no?
Anyway, all legal cases, have a time limit and this one ran out in January 2009 when Congress certified the results. No court will do anything. The birthers are welcome to try their luck in 2012, but, unlike a good wine, their case will not improve with age.
Dianna, shame on you!! You have repeatedly been taken to the wood shed and shown that you are wrong. You keep repeating the same LIES over and over, to the point that you are to be treated as a traitor to the United States in a time of war. You are deliberatly spreading lies against our President and our country, to weaken his position of CIC with the military. You give aid and comfort to our enemies. America has a long tradition of dealing with tratiors. It's called fifty feet of half inch hemp.
quo warranto is just a birther wet dream
one good thing, it keeps the wing nuts preoccupied so they don't cause any real trouble.
Great article Dianna, I tend to agree with Yo. I do not see a hearing on the merits in front of SCOTUS on NBC. The Chrysler cases will be settled out of court. All OZero has to do is say the word, like he did with the Indian trust fund case.
I predict the lefties will use the Natural Born Citizenship issue in the next election to get rid of Ozero for not being communist enough. After all the Birther movement was started by the Hillary Rodham Clinton worshippers.
Quote Penick Duval
"America has a long tradition of dealing with tratiors. It's called fifty feet of half inch hemp."
Hey Penick, is that the same tradition you Democrats in the South used to use to keep people of color from voting etc...
You appear to have kicked a hornets nest. Congratulations! BTW, congrats also on that Donofrio/Pidgeon quo warranto news scoop.
Greg said: I guess Field was in on the conspiracy?
I never used the word conspiracy, that is your interpretation, however, in light of the decision in Minor, that implicity stated a natural born citizen was one born to 2 citizen parents, and in light of the decision that WKA was held to be a citizen, not a NBC due to the fact that his father was a permanent alien resident, one can conclude that is was not conspiracy but was a decision brought forth by a most convincing argument of a sitting justice. This is just plain common knowledge where the SCOTUS is concerned. It is not always what is right, but who puts forth the most compelling argument and this is from a recent interview of Justice Scalia that I recently listened to.
Journalism?
Good thing you have that question mark behind your anonymous name, Dianna did not cut and paste, she cited parts of Leo's articles as have I and many others, so guess there are no more journalists anywhere as everyone cites other people. It's called responsible researching.
Linda (wow, very non-anonymous name. Narrows you down to a few million people assuming it's real)
Presenting only the arguments of a single lawyer involved in a case with no attempt to present the arguments of the other side is the farthest thing imaginable from actual journalism. Supposing I sued you and a reporter went and talked only to my lawyer and printed only my side. Would you consider that fair???
Journalism?,
Otherside of what? You all keep referring the term 'citizen' as found in WKA to be the same as 'natural born' citizen in which WKA failed to determine in that case. It is you who are misrepresenting case precedent.
The suggestion that Arthur hid his father's citizenship status is a modern fantasy. There is not one shred of historical evidence that "no one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth." In fact, there is fair evidence that Democratic opponent lawyer A. P. Hinman was fully aware of the fact that Arthur's father naturalized after the president's birth. Hinman published a 90-page book: "How a British subject became president of the United States", in which he poses the question in a letter to his senator as whether such a naturalization would make the child a natural born citizen.
Last time I checked, Hawaii was part of the United States in 1961. Not sure that anything else matters.
Hinman's theory was that Arthur was ineligible because he was born in Canada.
How a British subject became president of the United States.
by Arthur P. Hinman
Published in 1884, (New York)
description
Notes: An attempt to prove that Chester A. Arthur was born in Canada.
First sentence: The Constitution of the United States requires that both the President and the Vice-President should be native born.
A. P. Hinman was a lawyer hired by the Democratic party to investigate Republican vice-presidential candidate, Chester A. Arthur. Hinman traveled to Vermont (the accepted place of Arthur's birth) and to Canada. The instant work is a collection of correspondence and affidavits collected by Hinman in support of his theory that Arthur was born in Canada, and ineligible for presidential office.
openlibrary.org How_a_British_subject_became_president_of_the_United_States.
I have read Hinman's work cover to cover, you can find it here: www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/HinmanWeb.pdf
No where in it does Hinman ever discuss Arthur's father's Naturalization as an American Citizen. At the time of the election in 1880, it was known that his father was a Naturalized citizen. What people failed to check was WHEN William Arthur became a Naturalized Citizen. It was 14 years after Chester was born. The document above is in the Library of Congress, and it is proof positive that Chester was also British, he inherited his father's citizenship.
Legal scholars at the time would have concluded that this would have made Arthur ineligible for Vice President and President if they had known of it. Arthur also lied about his own age, his father's history, and the fact that he lived in Canada before coming to the U.S. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has several articles which include interviews with Arthur in Aug. 1880 which are evidence of this.
The Framers of the Constitution were no dummies. They wanted only true Americans to be President or Vice President of the US. They feared England at the time thus they were concerned. Also, it is a conflict of interest to have a Prez who has ties to another country.
If Obama is allowed to remain as president, then Osama Bin Laden could impregnate an American woman and that child could become president of the united states.
I don't think anyone wants that but if we allow Obama to stay as Prez, then it certainly could happen in the future.
Let's play by the rules. Obama knew all this too, for crying out loud he was a Constitutional Professor which makes this even worse. Barney Frank is also behind all of this too. Go look at his comments on this subject in the past.
Thank you for this good article as it helps get the truth out about Obama.
Shocking the number of people involved in the cover up and conspiracy to keep an usurper in power..
Where is Billy Graham, Pat Robertson? Who of our leaders can we respect? Why are we marginalized as "Birthers" when all the rest of the world plainly sees and knows who this cat is? ... maybe we deserve this.... We are going to trust Christ and him crucified and consider all else dung.
The Obots will love this one. They will start the name calling and will attempt to discredit you and this story. They always have a problem with the truth and facts.
Liberalism is a mental disorder with no known cure. Let's not forget that they can't help themselves. It is the only way to make sense of what they believe.
Linda-"Otherside of what?" Linda, a lawsuit has 2 sides-they are called plaintiff and defendant or respondent. Fake journalist Dianna wrote an article about a putative lawsuit (it is not yet filed and may never be). She only talked to the attorney for the prospective plaintiff. Don't you think a fair journalist would at least attempt to talk to an attorney representing Obama so we could hear his response? Also you should find a couple of recognized legal scholars, say constitutional law professors at major law schools so readers can get the perspective of someone who actually knows what they are talking about. That's what a real journalist does and why Dianna is a fraud and a disgrace.
As for WKA and any other cases; they all became moot on January 20. In the law, Linda, time is of the essemce and you guys are way too late. Obama announced in January 2007-waiting unril October or Novemeber 2008. You snooze, you lose (not that you wouldn't lose anyway).
"The Obots will love this one. They will start the name calling"
LOL!
Since Leo's gone dark I guess it rages here now.
Stay above it Dianna: Most of the names I read here read our Paraclete's original source analysis a year ago, and have already blathered their predictable rant.
But do keep on writing. Your articles remain concise, accurate, and accessible. I send them on.
[Last time I checked, Hawaii was part of the United States in 1961. Not sure that anything else matters.]
Last time I checked Ozero said on his web site that he was born a British Subject.
Linda,
Minor did not "imply" that natural born citizens were limited to those born to two citizen parents. It said, explicitly, that it was an easy question that they were. It ALSO said, explicitly, that it did NOT answer the question about those born to aliens.
That's what we, in the legal profession, call an open question. It means that when you go into court, you cannot cite Minor for the proposition that natural born citizenship is limited to those with two citizen parents.
I suggest you take the time to read, completely, Minor and Wong Kim Ark. Wong spends 10 pages discussing how the phrase "natural born" did not change in the 400+ years it was in use in England, in the several hundred years it was in use in the United States and did not change when it was put in front of the word "citizen" in the Constitution. This was central to the decision. Wong Kim was a citizen BECAUSE natural born had not changed meaning. He was a citizen BECAUSE he was a natural born citizen!
Interesting says, "The Framers of the Constitution were no dummies."
I couldn't agree more. That's why it is so insulting that you folks present an argument that requires our believing they were!
The founders knew exactly what "natural born" had meant for the 400+ years it had been in use, both in the UK and the US. They knew what British common law was. They also knew how to change it - they explicitly changed the meaning of "treason" to exclude thought crimes a part of British common law.
But, in your minds, the Founders, being complete idiots, used a phrase, "natural born" and forgot to tell anyone they were completely changing its meaning!
How big a set of idiots were they? Before 1800 legal scholars were writing that the phrase "natural born" had not changed and was the same as British common law! Between Lynch v. Clarke and WKA, judges have been able to amass a mountain of evidence that the phrase wasn't changed! It has always meant born here even to aliens!
Dianna, why would Hinman have written to a Senator to ask if Arthur's father's naturalization could have made him a natural born citizen if he didn't think there was some possibility that he was naturalized after Arthur was born?
Also, you mischaracterize the state of the law when you say that "legal scholars" would have thought that Arthur was ineligible for the Presidency.
Collins' article was written in 1884. That was the SAME year that Justice Field said that those born to alien Chinese parents were natural born citizens in "In re Look Ting Sing." Not only did he find that plaintiff a natural born citizen, he quoted from Lynch v. Clarke for the proposition that it was universally understood in the legal community (of 1819) and the universal understanding of the general public.
So, yes, Collins would have thought that Arthur was not a citizen, much less eligible for the Presidency. Other scholars would have had no problem with either proposition.
Good for you Diana, you put the other "journalists" to shame.
Chester Arthur in no way set a precedent. When you commit a criminal fraud it does not set precedent. He committed a criminal act. The Obummer? Ditto.
The parents of Wong Kim Ark were Chinese citizens and never naturalized to the United States. The ruling of Wong Kim Ark only declares Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen only, and not a natural born Citizen.
When Wong was written, no one suspected that one day birthers would make a distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen." Everyone involved in the case, including Collins, believed that if Wong was a citizen, he was a natural born citizen. That was one of the arguments Collins made against Wong's citizenship - if he was a citizen, he could run for President! (Oh, the horrors! If Wong could run for President, that would mean that bin Laden could impregnate a woman in the US and that child could run for President!)
The decision spent page after page discussing how "natural born" did not change one iota from the British common law. Among the many sources cited was this one:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of Britain...
So, Hugh, you're welcome to pretend that Wong Kim Ark only decided that Wong was a "citizen," and not a "natural born citizen," but you're still left with the reason that Wong is a citizen is because the phrase "natural born citizen" HAS THE SAME MEANING as "natural born subject." Those born here, even to aliens, are natural born citizens.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!