English Common Law Requires Jus Sanguinis as Essential for Natural Born

Everyone who grew up in the U.S. knows there are only two types of citizens- natural born- meaning anyone born in the U.S. and naturalized.

Aussie Mike just wasn't fortunate enough to learn this growing up.

 

There is also Native Born. Do you disagree?

 

native born and natural born are the same thing. there is not three types of citizen in the US.

 

Garbage & it's not a theory, the Lord Coke quotes are verbatim........... none of your so-called legal experts have been able to debunk these FACTS that have been shown as found in Calvin's case.

What you have 'watched' is a bunch of disgusting people, so desperate to have their lies perpetuated, that they yelp, bark & attack the messenger like a pack of rabid dogs at any sign of their absurd fantasy-land notions being exposed and proven false.

'torn to shreds'? ................ what a joke!

 

no, native and natural are not the same.

native is not the same as natural.

e.g. native American Indians were not natural born citizens ......... they weren't even citizens, yet they were native born.

e.g. children of visiting ambassadors are native born in US, yet they are natural born, inheriting their parents citizenship.

native is soli

natural is sanguinis

There were plenty of native born people around in the framing era.

So why do you suppose the framers chose 'natural' then, when you say they really meant native?

But they didn't say 'native' did they?

 

This might help you with your problem in comprehension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

So, as has been pointed out to you, native born is not the same as natural born.

 

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

 

Are you trying to confuse them with facts again???

 

Whatever Aussie Mike,

whatever.

Meanwhile here in America, we will continue as we have for the last 200 years without your interpretation.

 

I love it when you use british law to make your argument for US law. why not use russian law, or chinese? it has the same relevance.

 

Did you love it also when Horace Gray cited English common law in Wong Kim Ark to define 'natural born'?

You did .............. didn't you.

You loved it so much you went off all half-cocked, following the pack who tried to twist the final ruling that was formed in consideration of that citation of English common law in dicta of WKA, when all Wong got in the final ruling was 'citizen'.

You loved it when you thought the alien parent = natural born, but now the truth has come to bite you on the arse.

I bet you just hate it that the alien had to be a subject for his child to be a natural born.

I bet you also just hate it that even if the child was born in the land, without the parent being a subject, the child is not a natural born or even a subject at all.

Don't you love the truth? .... ooops that's a silly question, of course, you hate the truth, you spend just about every moment of your time trying to suppress the truth. ... deceit is your game & that's why you are a loser ............. it must really suck to be a loser.

here, some light for you to shy away from............

English common law per the case cited by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark

Ergo: The status of the parent is of paramount importance in determining natural born status of the child, without the parent being a citizen, the child cannot be natural born even if born in the land.

That's why Wong got ONLY 'citizen'.

It must really suck for you to have to face that fact.

 

I'm sorry that US law, every legal textbook, the voters, the electoral college, the ENTIRE congress and the ENTIRE judiciary do not agree with you. I really am. But no amount of foot stomping by you and your fellow birthers is going to change reality. The entire US congress knew obama was born to only ONE citizen parent, and the entire US judiciary knew that also, yet they still say you and your fellow birthers are wrong.

what does that tell you?

 

The USA isn't England.. Reminds me of that dolt Franklin Graham who thinks religion is transmitted by sperm.

 

Name Change for Obama Found in British Columbia?

 

Hahahaha.. now we have the birthers reduced to barking loons.

•Pidgeon found at the Consulate in British Columbia, just over the US-Canada border, a record of a name change from “Barak Mounir Ubayd” to “Barack Hussein Obama” in 1982.
•Believes Obama was educated at Patrice Lumbuma University in Moscow, echoing Pastor Manning’s research;
•Mentions Nazi, Stalinist-Marxist, and fascist as descriptors of Obama
•Predicts Obama will throw the NWO under the bus as the Caliph.
h/t Drew for the interview and Debbie G for the Video!

 

Simply because the initial assertion is false. There are other routes to British/English citizenship than Jus Sangunis, as you claim.
In fact, prior to 1983, being born in England (Jus Soli) was the main route, whatever your parentage, other than to foreign diplomats, and the Jus Sanguinis requirement that one parent be a citizen only applied to those NOT born in England.

 

Just saying 'simply because the initial assertion is false' is useless to your argument.

You will need to provide a better response than that.

What did Lord Coke (Calvin's case) mean when he stated ....

What did he mean by 'nature and birthright'?

What did he mean by 'procreation and birthright'?

Can you explain why the subject status of the parent father was crucial to determining the child's natural born status?

Can you explain why a child born jus soli (born in England) was not a natural born subject, because the parent father was not a subject?

Can you explain why in Wong Kim Ark case, when English common law was cited in dicta as the benchmark for definition of Article II natural born, but Wong was ruled ONLY 'citizen' and NOT 'natural born citizen'?

Can you explain what Binney meant by .

?

 

The silence is deafening, not one of the Obama worshipers dare to even attempt to answer the prior post.

It is a proven fact that the English common law that is referrred to by SCOTUS (i.e. Calvin's case) requires subject status of a parent father, for a child of that 'subject' to be a 'natural born'.

Without the parent father being a subject, then his child cannot be a subject,
even if born in the land.

Jus sanguinis is essential for the making of a 'natural born citizen'

 

Aussie Mike,

Frankly, I pretty much let you ramble on as you want here in the Conspiracy section. Congress and Supreme Court and the voters all disagree with you.

I don't really care about what tortured explanation you want to make up- get back to me when you manage to convince someone with any authority whatever.

And just to be clear- I will not be replying anymore because a) This is in the Conspiracy section where it belongs and no one bothers to read and b) You don't agree with what anyone else says anyway.

Enjoy arguing with yourself.

 

What's to answer? Your confusion over Calvin's case speaks for itself. Who needs to parse your tortured reasoning when we have the unambiguous decision of US v. Wong Kim Ark to guide us?

SCOTUS has spoken. Lower courts have listened.

Ankeny v. Daniels

 

The SCOTUS have spoken and the state court of Indiana is in denial, furthermore state courts don't trump SCOTUS.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162


.

 

No they don't.

Lower courts follow SCOTUS, exactly as the Ankeny court explicitly followed Wong Kim Ark.

 

It is useless. Michael will not accept anything other than his own opinion.

Luckily we have real legal experts, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana who wrote a very succinct interpretation of Wong Kim.

Michael just thinks he is a better legal scholar than all of those over-educated and well respected jurists in Indiana.

I never knew that the Australian education department was so much better in teaching U.S. Constitutional law than our own schools.