Powered by TypePad

« NY Times Editors Right On Guns! | Main | If You Like Your Guns You Can Keep Your Guns »

January 06, 2016

Comments

Miss Marple

Good morning, all!

I will look for some links to post but I bet when I get started there will be a new thread. LOL!

Miss Marple

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-after-sotu-travel-217488

Omaha and Baton Rouge. Pushing for Medicaid expansion and bragging about Obamacare.

pagar a bacon, ham and sausage supporter

"Another provision would require that any firearm lost in transit between a manufacturer and a seller would be reported to federal authorities. "

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/21-unbelievable-facts-guns-america-202200815.html

The same federal authorities?????????

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/dummy-hellfire-missile-mistakenly-shipped-cuba-36158939

Miss Marple

http://londonist.com/2016/01/what-does-black-rod-do-the-rest-of-the-year?utm_content=buffercb11f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Black Rod is the Usher of the House of Lords and the one who bangs on the door to the Commons when the Queen opens Parliament.

This is just a fascinating look at an obscure British tradition, not anything important.

Miss Marple

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/08/feds-arrest-2-refugees-on-terror-charges-in-california-texas.html?intcmp=hplnws

"Thoroughly vetted", I am sure.

Miss Marple

CCTV footage captured snowy owl in flight, Montreal:

Janet

"Thoroughly vetted", I am sure.

Yeah, MM. Here's some descriptions of our vetting from the MFM -

" highest level of security "
"multi-layered and intensive"

other articles have used -
"stringent security checks"
"rigorous background checks"
"intensive security screenings".

Exactly HOW is any information verified? Does Syria/Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan/Somolia/etc. keep meticulous records?
Using words like multi-layered, stringent, rigorous, or intensive mean exactly nothing. Specifically....how is any information being verified?

Shuffling the same unverified info through multiple agencies is bogus & just sounds like a lot is being done.

Marlene

So,Gov. Lepage is a racist. Deray McKesson tweeted that fact,so it must be true. Maybe I need more coffee,but evidently the drug dealers who come to Maine to set up a network of sellers and exploit young white Mainers are nice guys,how dare the governor be so racist.


Miss Marple

Janet,

Exactly. I am going to keep that link and slam anyone on Twitter who starts pontificating about allowing those refugees in.

Threadkiller

So much for Carly taking the high road.

Well, I don’t know all the particulars, but I would say this, I find it odd that Senator Ted Cruz did not renounce his dual Canadian citizenship until 2014, when it became clear he was running for president.”

She added that Cruz should be asked about not renouncing his dual citizenship until 2014. Fiorina continued, “clearly, there are both legal scholars, and others who think this is, perhaps, a legitimate issue.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/07/fiorina-odd-cruz-didnt-renounce-dual-citizenship-until-2014-cruz-says-one-thing-in-ny-another-in-ia/

Wasn't there some story about the Cruz campaign donating to the Fiorina campaign?

Bad investment.

Jeff Dobbs

Gus:
Cecil, if Trump wins the nomination and you don't vote for him, and Rodham wins.

Who will you blame then?

Miss Marple:
I have no say in the nomination, because Indiana's primary is in May, when it will most likely be decided.

I think we've been over this before with someone else* - but just so everyone is reminded in Cecil's case - like Miss Marple in the primary - Cecil "has no say" in the general. His state went R by 17 points in 2008 and 22 points in 2012.

He could vote 13 times for Hillary (which he would never do), and he would be less "to blame" for her winning than if I stayed home (in a state that Obama won by <1% in 2008 and lost by <2% in 2012) - because Hillary ain't gonna win in his state no matter what he does, but Hillary could have a shot in mine.

But I'm not telling you what I'd do if Trump wins the nomination (neener neener). If you care - and why should you? - you have only your own guess to go on.

---------------
*ah, yes...Appalled, of course. But even in his case, the R won by 5 in 2008 and 7 in 2012 - much closer than Cecil's state.

Janet

Concerning Obama's anti-gun infomercial...

What is gonna get to me is the MFM amplification. The thousands of articles & specials & shows that will be rolled out in coordination with the message.
The little, pitiful CNN infomercial will set the machine in motion.

Bush traveled around the U.S. & tried to shine a light on Social Security problems...but the MFM would have none of it.
...but Obama's agenda - no matter what it is - gets the royal treatment.

Miss Marple

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/finland/12088332/Unprecedented-sex-harassment-in-Helsinki-at-New-Year-Finnish-police-report.html

Wherein we discover the Helsinki police intercepted PLANS to do this by the Syrian refugees.

I believe I asked yesterday if this weren't really a terror plot. This is a hint that it might have been.

henry

From our Chitown lurking unit:

"No Chance For Shenanigans, here."

"Leverage upon leverage upon even more leverage. What could possibly go wrong?"

etf options market.

James D

MM @ 8:07 - what a fantastic photo!

jimmyk

Ken Burns mucks up his Jackie Robinson documentary by letting BO and MO appear and pontificate. Blech. I wonder if he notes that Robinson was a Republican.

Needless to say, they manage to place Robinson's accomplishments in terms of theirs:

"I think any time you're involved in an endeavor that involves enormous stress,” President Obama said, "finding yourself questioned in terms of whether you should be where you are, to be able to go back and have refuge with someone who you know loves you and you know has your back – you know, that's priceless."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-video--president--first-lady-marvel-at-courage-in-ken-burns---jackie-robinson-144558527.html

James D

Janet @ 8:08

Exactly.

We already know the "vetting" is faulty - look at the San Bernadino chick. They couldnt' even be bothered to notice that she was already married when she applied on a fiance visa, or that the address she gave didn't exist.

has anybody been fired over that oversight yet? Demoted? Called mean names in the Homeland Security cafeteria? Didn't think so.

Janet

"Obama made a similar claim in March 2015, only citing vegetables, not books."

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/obama-its-easier-and-cheaper-for-some-12-or-13-year-olds-to-get-a-gun-than-a-book-video/

Janet

an old comment -

At Drudge - "200,000 immigrants from Pakistan since 9/11..."

Whoever thought that after 9-11 Americans would have to be fighting the federal government to stop importing unknown people from the Middle East?

Why in the world did we even create Homeland Security or implement all the TSA crap if the govt. was just gonna let unknown masses from the Middle East flood in?

Weren't they created to STOP people from coming here?

Buckeye

"Shuffling the same unverified info through multiple agencies is bogus & just sounds like a lot is being done."

A lot is being done. A lot of paychecks are being generated for people who would otherwise find it difficult to have and keep a job.

Any doubt how the majority vote?

Buckeye

MM

The owl photo was fantastic.

I was in Montreal just a few weeks ago and no snow on the ground. I guess that was either very recent or prior year.

Janet

Here's the CNN story on the 2 terrorists - http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/us/terror-charges-refugees/index.html

I don't get this bit - "Both men were Palestinians born in Iraq"...why aren't they Iraqis? Why say they are Palestinians?

pagar a bacon, ham and sausage supporter

Called mean names in the Homeland Security cafeteria? "
My guess is our AG is constantly on watch to insure that does not happen.

James D

A lot is being done. A lot of paychecks are being generated for people who would otherwise find it difficult to have and keep a job.

Any doubt how the majority vote?

The Dems are really determined to replicate all the high points of the Soviet Union, aren't they? "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" was supposed to be a joke, not a goal.

Threadkiller

No borders in a perfect Muslim world, Janet.

Buckeye

"Called mean names in the Homeland Security cafeteria? "
My guess is our AG is constantly on watch to insure that does not happen."

Particularly mean names with racial overtones.

pagar a bacon, ham and sausage supporter

Hold it! A message has arrived from the "you can't make this up dept"!

http://www.weaselzippers.us/249619-tales-from-hillarys-email-hillary-wonders-why-state-employee-is-using-personal-email-not-state-dept-account/

Do not adjust your dial. It is just the BS meter hitting the alarm.

Man Tran

MM,

That image gave me s flashback of a late evening arrival in Edmonton where we were stuck in a remote corner of the airport and I stayed with the plane while one of the crew got a ride with security to go find a rental car. It was fairly light from the security lights reflecting off the snow. I saw a little motion out of the corner of my eye and a snowy owl had come around to see what I was up to. Totally silent. He made a couple sweeps around me and then landed on a light pole above me and kept me company for about 30 min until the car arrived.

Janet

Hah!, pagar!!

Miss Marple

Man Tran,

That's a neat story. I thought I would post the picture here because so often we are paying attention to all of the bad things going on and miss the beauty of the world around us.

Miss Marple

http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/43393649-leonardo-da-vinci-the-mechanics-of-genius-at-the-science-museum?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=TWSOED00-ongoing

This looks like a neat exhibit for anyone who will be in London this summer.

Miss Marple

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/01/07/cincinnati-supports-donald-trump/78254778/

Profiles of 5 Trump supporters. Interesting, and not the types MSM is characterizing them as.

Sue

Janet,

Their parents aren't citizens of Iraq, probably.

Sue

My characterization of Trump aligns itself with Cecil's. but I'll hold my nose and vote for him. This time around I'd vote for Huckabee over Hillary.

henry

All those who thought Comey had a spine... he'll resign if Hilligula indicted.

Sue

Henry,

Two birds, one stone. Or so I'd hope.

Threadkiller

CNN is concerned with how the cops may have been overworked to handle the overage crowd at Trump's Vermont event.

I don't remember them being upset with leftist rallies that leave garbage everywhere.

buccaneer morgan

I told ya people.

Threadkiller

Turns out CNN can find childhood friends pre-election.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/ted-cruz-citizenship-childhood/index.html

Threadkiller

Correction. They found a college friend that knows about Ted's childhood.

Sue

A college friend he said what TK?

Threadkiller

The college friend recalls that Ted at an early age worried about his eligibility, but, at a later age, was clueless that he was a dual citizen.

Threadkiller

I shouldn't say "clueless."

Sorry.

Sue

Weird, I read he was delighted to find out he was indeed eligible.

henry

TK, you trust some random guy from Princeton?

Janet

A guy tasked with investigating something says he will resign if the investigation goes a certain way? What kind of bullshit is THAT?!

Threadkiller

I was retracting "clueless" because I am trying really hard to not be so insulting to Ted. I haven't used any of my nasty nicknames in some time. But after reading his statement just before he renounced his Canadian citizenship I am a little concerned.

“Now, The Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said in a statement. “Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator; I believe I should be only an American.”

For someone we now find out was preoccupied with citizenship issues since childhood, how do we believe that he found out about his own citizenship from a newspaper article? Seems unlikely.

danoso

Last thing we need is a President doing the bidding for Canada. Probably end up with Wayne Gretzky's birthday as a national holiday.

Threadkiller

Sue, I read the same thing. And more.

Not that weird, really.

Threadkiller

Good point, henry!

Even worse, I was tricked into trusting CNN.

;-)

clarice

Henry--that's been corrected..Per the American Spectator Comey has said he'll resign if she is NOT indicted.

Old Lurker

That makes a lot more sense Clarice and I really hope it is right.

If you and I split the Lottery, we should split the new jet too, don't you think? You and Howard can have even number days and we will take the odd numbers, OK?

buccaneer morgan

I still don't trust him, he was all too willing to stab Gonzalez in the back, also he's responsible for fitzapoolooza.

Old Lurker

I don't trust him either, Narc. But hope springs eternal as they say.

Threadkiller

This portion of Cruz's statement prior to the renunciation does suggest that the Princeton friend misremembers:

"Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter"

Cruz assumed the matter was resolved so he would have never, ever, said he was a dual citizen while crossing the border. They really should fact check these people against Cruz's own words before they run a story.

Old Lurker

I take it as absolute confirmation that nobody trusts any Fed economic numbers or actions that the Dow is flat today even after China being up over night and the US jobs number exceeding "expectations" this morning.

Nothing is real.

Rick when you come around...the CFO pal I mentioned the other day did report at least one big China Customer told them "we know we promised to pay you but we just are not going to..."

GUS

so, it's not about birther issues, it's whether Cruz is lying??

Janet

at Insty - "AND WHY AFTER ALL THIS SHOULD WE LISTEN TO THEM? Government revises Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Go ahead and have some eggs."

I eat tons of eggs. All my "unhealthy habits" are one by one being revised to healthy.

Coffee, eggs, sun, butter,...
I just need some new finding about cigarettes & I'll practically be a health guru.

I already think cigarettes are better than antidepressants. I have tons of neighbors that are prescription drug junkies & borderline alcoholics....but somehow smoking is the big evil.

Old Lurker

Janet, I can't wait for Bacon to get back on the "nevermind" list.

Old Lurker

Also, Janet, if I had a nickle for every spousal lecture I have had over the decades about my eggs, salt and coffee, now today all "nevermind", I would be truly rich.

Janet

Yeah, OL. I forgot about salt.

To be honest...I might also need a study that finds exercise overrated. :(

Old Lurker

Oh it is, Janet, it is...

boris

TK, based on my reading of the Cruz quotes you provided there's no explicit contradiction.

IMO inference based on them would be sketchy.

clarice

OK--OL--remember though the deal is mutual.

Janet

I might be flabby but my knees still have cartilage!

Threadkiller

so, it's not about birther issues, it's whether Cruz is lying??

No.


Old Lurker

My brother and my wife (both exercise nuts) claim my goal is to be a joint donor when I die...

Threadkiller

Boris, I probably should have provided the quote from the CNN story as well.

Lubetsky said he remembered one occasion at a border crossing where Cruz identified himself as a dual citizen, "because I pointed him to and said he was a dual citizen."
Janet

Hahahaa!!

henry

Lubetsky sounds like an asshole, probably fit right in at Princeton.

boris

Maybe to you "I assumed that was the end of the matter" would be the same as saying "Me have dual citizenship ??? Inconceivable !!!"

Me ... not so much.

Threadkiller

This appears to be the entire statement from 2013:


“Given the raft of stories today about my birth certificate, it must be a slow news day. The facts of my birth are straightforward: I was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada. Because my mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware, I was a U.S. citizen by birth. When I was a kid, my Mom told me that I could choose to claim Canadian citizenship if I wanted. I got my U.S. passport in high school.

“Because I was a U.S. citizen at birth, because I left Calgary when I was 4 and have lived my entire life since then in the U.S., and because I have never taken affirmative steps to claim Canadian citizenship, I assumed that was the end of the matter.

“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.”

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--Going to the nomenclature that the framers were familiar with is nothing short of an interpretation.--

Of course it is. On Constitutional issues and pretty much every other, a legal question always comes down to interpreting what the law means and the result of what the court decides is the legal definition of whatever term they were ruling on.
Sometimes a law is cut and dried. Then it is merely the court's job to decide whether someone violated it.
Sometimes, essentially always for SCOTUS, its job is to decide between two contending parties what the law actually means. Defining what laws mean, their definition, through interpretation, is what job the Constitution gives the judicial branch, precisely because something like the Constitution cannot define precisely every term it contains without being endless.
However if you think that when they interpreted NBC they would then go to Vatell and consider it dispositive you're simply not being realistic.

The rest of your stuff is either wrong or meaningless in light of the quotes and points I supplied.

I'm kind of surprised you rely on Minor as much as you do in light of this quote:

"These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

That pretty clearly establishes that the Minor court considered any citizen attaining citizenship by birth was a native or natural born citizen. If you're going to rely on everything Minor says then it essentially extinguishes the spurious claim that there is some third class of citizen between a naturalized one and one a citizen at birth. Maybe that's why you didn't provide the evidence I asked for about this third class some of your links refer to?

Regardless of what you think about who should and shouldn't obtain citizenship at birth it is almost unthinkable in the present that any court anywhere would not grant birthright citizenship to someone like Cruz who had one citizen parent regardless of where he was born. It is entirely possible any court would have ruled that way at all points in our history in light of Wong Kim Ark granting birthright citizenship to the children of non citizens.
A court would grant the offspring of non-citizens citizenship but deny it to the child of a US citizen because Ma and Pa Kettle were driving up to Banff just long enough for ma to go into labor?

If you want to go on endlessly about what you think NBC should mean and why this third class of citizens exists, you'll have to do that alone because it not only has little to sustain it but your argument, regardless of whatever merit it has would almost certainly not prevail in any court.

I have previously and still concede that the child of illegals should not be granted birthright citizenship. I would go further and deny birthright citizenship to anyone who did not have at least one parent a citizen. This eliminates the anchor baby problem which is real and a real problem.
Whether a child of a legal permanent resident on the pathway to citizenship should be I'm not interested enough to have an opinion on.

Threadkiller

I will study what you wrote when I get the opportunity. Thanks, Iggy.

This stuck out as I scanned:


However if you think that when they interpreted NBC they would then go to Vatell and consider it dispositive you're simply not being realistic.

I'm not sure I made that complete leap. I am simply saying that NBC has been defined by SCOTUS.

Before you go back over my quotes and throw them at me, please give me a chance to reread what I have written here so I can throw them at myself.

:-)

Captain Hate on the iPad

Don't get me started on Ken Burns and his taxpayer financed sociology vignettes posing as history; I'd rather watch that Snowy Owl than his tedious crap.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

NBC was partially defined by the Minor court in dicta which even it pointedly said had nothing to do with the case at hand.
The definition it offered is one I believe not a single soul on earth would disagree with.
It then said other people might be NBC as well, but the court was not venturing an opinion of any sort on the question.

To say the Minor court defined NBC is like saying a dictionary that says the word "line" means "a long narrow mark...oh and it may mean several other things but we're not really deciding that now" has rendered a meaningful, complete or useful definition. It's undoubtedly correct as far as it goes, but it hasn't gone very far. And if its silence prompts us to assume there are no other meanings, we're mistaken.

Threadkiller

"These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

That pretty clearly establishes that the Minor court considered any citizen attaining citizenship by birth was a native or natural born citizen.

Skipping the previous line, in Minor, causes the speculation of what "these" most likely means.

To me, this is most likely what the court interpreted:


...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were...

That doesn't jive with "any."

Threadkiller

The definition it offered is one I believe not a single soul on earth would disagree with.

So we agree that SCOTUS offered a definition. And we disagree as to whether it was in dicta.

I can live with that. As far as me going on "endlessly," I'm not sure that happened here after review.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--That doesn't jive with "any."--

You're the one ignoring the context. They cite those born here to two citizen parents as being natives or natural born as distinct from aliens or foreigners. That pretty clearly establishes only two classes of citizens.
For your position to prevail they would have to have not only believed that a person born to one citizen and one legal resident was not native born but an alien who would have to be naturalized. Unfortunately for your argument they then go on to note;

...and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

The Minor court clearly states a child of US citizens born anywhere outside the US is natural born and equates that with the further clarification that if only the father is a citizen and the child is born outside the US it is also natural born.
If you think any court would not grant that same right to the child of a citizen mother and non citizen father born outside the US you're just not being realistic.
If you're going to cite the dicta of Minor then it all applies and in its totality it is devastating to your position.
Whatever minor [heh] buttressing of your argument it provides is vastly outweighed when viewed as a whole.

--And we disagree as to whether it was in dicta.--

Dicta: noun;

Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.


Was the question before the Minor court 'what are the criteria of a natural born citizen?' Unequivocally, no.
Had Minor been naturalized the case would have remained exactly the same;
does citizenship alone confer a right to vote?
To claim it is not dicta is like claiming water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue. You can state the claim but it doesn't really make any sense because it denies something not really in question.

Threadkiller

Look, I don't need the dicta-dictionary treatment.

Three possibilities that I can think of when WKA cited Minor:

WKA took Minor's holding and included it as part of their holding.

Or:

WKA took Minor's dicta and converted it to a holding as part of their holding.

Or, the dreaded double-dicta:

WKA took Minor's dicta and incorporated it into their dicta.

The last choice was problematic to DoT because it threw ECL ramblings into the dicta hole.

Threadkiller

Your new Minor quote shaves the 1790 opener. Fortunately there is enough there to recognize that they didn't conclude that after 1855 the children were "citizens."

Since there is less dicta from all of SCOTUS that suggests that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous than there is so-called dicta that suggests only one definition, does that get any consideration?

Even Cruz, in his famous Heller amicus, went to a Ginsberg dissent in his quest to rightly define "keep and bear arms." Some of what SCOTUS is valuable.

What do you suppose the purpose was of adding all that dicta to a voting rights case? IIRC, Justices like Brennan used dicta purposely. Ther must be some reason other than burning ink.

Threadkiller

...did conclude...

Threadkiller

Some of what SCOTUS writes...

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

The way you treat dicta is why the dicta-dictionary treatment is there.
Dicta is not binding precedent. That doesn't mean a future court can't cite it or even decide to incorporate it in a future opinion.

The dread double dicta is the only possible choice because the definition of NBC was not the issue before either the Minor or WKA court.
ECL ramblings are only ramblings because they are in dicta. In a case brought regarding the definition of NBC, resort to ECL and other sources to inform the opinion would probably be appropriate and no longer a rambling to anyone but a strict literalist.

--Your new Minor quote shaves the 1790 opener. Fortunately there is enough there to recognize that they didn't conclude that after 1855 the children were "citizens."--

I don't think I understand this. Who is "they"?
It can't be the Minor court since they state unequivocally;

In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

They reached that conclusion based on these words from the Naturalization act of 1855;
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of
the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens
thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of
citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United
States." (Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.)

Are you actually saying those two blockquotes don't clearly state that the child of a citizen who is born outside the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen at birth? If you claim this is an example of that mythical third type of citizenship what do you do with Minor's clear statement that such a child is an NBC from the act of 1790 right on through all subsequent citizenship acts?

--Since there is less dicta from all of SCOTUS that suggests that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous than there is so-called dicta that suggests only one definition, does that get any consideration?--

I think I understand what that means. If I do it seems to be a strawman or a misstatement of the facts. Has someone suggested 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen' are synonymous? Who?
What dicta or holding suggests there is only one definition of NBC? Minor?
Minor specifically states there is more than one category that qualifies as NBC and in fact it is the very category Cruz is in.

--What do you suppose the purpose was of adding all that dicta to a voting rights case?--

Virtually every SCOTUS, or any appellate court for that matter, includes lots of background and discussion for how they reached their decision. Only the decision as it applies to the question before the court binds the parties or amounts to a precedent for future courts.

Threadkiller

Are you actually saying those two blockquotes don't clearly state that the child of a citizen who is born outside the jurisdiction of the US is a citizen at birth? 

I am actually saying those two blockquotes don't clearly state that the child of a citizen who is born outside the jurisdiction of the US is a Natural Born Citizen after 1855.

 

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Minor, which you rely upon states;

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

Simplified;
1. Kids born outside the US to citizens were natural born.
2. These provisions were retained in substance subsequently, meaning 1 still obtains.
3. Except that 1 was extended even further in 1855 to explain that kids born outside the US of a father who was a citizen and mother who was not are also natural born.

Now you might not agree with the Minor court's assertion on that matter but I don't see how you can logically infer that isn't exactly what they were saying. Is there some other sensible way to understand that otherwise?

Threadkiller

I see what you are saying.


Hmmm...

I think you got me. :-/

Let me eat some chow.

Threadkiller

I argue better on a full stomach.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

The only issue is whether the dropping of "natural born" in naturalization acts subsequent to 1790 was intentional and meant to convey such people were not NBC or merely a simpler way of saying the same thing.
The Minor court evidently took it to mean the same thing when it says the provisions of 1790 were carried forward "in substance".
That seems the most reasonable way to understand it and that is the way I would take it myself.
My mind would be changed if there were some record of the debate leading to the act of 1795 or 1802 specifically considered the issue and rejected "natural born" explicitly.
Absent that it seems reasonable to me to believe they considered a citizen at birth, however he arrived at it, an NBC.

Threadkiller

I think it hinges on "in substance" and what that means. I don't know that answer yet, but I will look for my preferred version.

;-)

Sauerbraten is ready!

Thanks for the banter, Ig. I'll be back.

Threadkiller

From Minor prior to your most recent quote:


Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization

The court then addresses "by birth" when it tackles the nomenclature that the framers were familiar with.

Then they tackle "or naturalization" and move on to your quote at 7:00

All the "provisions thus enacted" acts of naturalization. Including naturalized at birth.

Since the POTUS cannot be a naturalized citizen, I think it is reasonable to say that Minor chose the words "considered as natural-born citizens" to convey that merely being plopped out of a citizen creates a citizen just as it would on US soil.

They were consistent that there were two ways to become a citizen. By birth and by naturalization. Overseas births are by naturalization.

Threadkiller

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by (A) birth, and second, by(B) naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that (A)‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’and that (B) Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be (A) born or they may be (B) created by naturalization.

Followed by a workup on (A)


The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of theirparents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

And then by a workup on (B)

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.

The groups (A) and (B) have no overlap due to the careful wording.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

Where does the concept of "naturalization by birth" come from?
Naturalization is the process by which a non citizen becomes a citizen.
Does dropping from the birth canal to the blanket constitute this process? As he emerges he's not a citizen but by the time he hits the floor he is?
I have seen no evidence of such a thing.
The Immigration and Nationality Act very clearly states someone in Cruz's position has gained his citizenship by birth.
Below that it lists how collective naturalization may occur and below that individual naturalization.
Unless you have an authoritative citation naturalization by or at birth is not a thing.

Threadkiller

The 1790 act was a "naturalization" act.

And that's not authority enough?

Maybe you should hunt down an authority that says "naturalization" means "birthright citizenship."

Threadkiller

The Immigration and Nationality Act very clearly states someone in Cruz's position has gained his citizenship by birth.

No. It clearly says "at birth."

From your link:


SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

With that knowledge, your questions answer them selves.

Does dropping from the birth canal to the blanket constitute this process? As he emerges he's not a citizen but by the time he hits the floor he is?

I guess we could argue about the authority that best defines "at." But that would be ridiculous.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--The 1790 act was a "naturalization" act.

And that's not authority enough?--

That's your authority?
That is the very act that says those born abroad to citizen parents are natural born citizens. Are they a fourth category; 'naturalized natural born citizens', because of the title of the law?

If you actually think the difference between 'at birth' and 'by birth' somehow constitutes the difference between naturalized and NBC then I'm flummoxed on how to get past where we're at.
You mean dropping to the floor does constitute the process of naturalization at birth?

Moreover the statute wherein you say that 'at birth' means a naturalized citizen, also states in 301(a) that "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" receives exactly the same citizenship 'at birth' as your naturalized one.
It appears from your reading of it that no one at all meets the NBC requirement for pres.

Threadkiller

That's your authority?

It's the same authority Ted Cruz always mentions.

Threadkiller

What is the difference between these two sentences?

"He legally became my son by adoption."

And,

"He legally became my son at adoption."

Threadkiller

Moreover the statute wherein you say that 'at birth' means a naturalized citizen, also states in 301(a) that "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" receives exactly the same citizenship 'at birth' as your naturalized one.

Until everything else in 301 besides (a) gets copied from the Constitution, it will get different treatment.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

--It's the same authority Ted Cruz always mentions.--

My point was the law you claimed as authority says the opposite of what you're saying. Presumably that's why Cruz mentions it.

--What is the difference between these two sentences?--

None that I can discern, but these seem to be more pertinent examples than yours;

SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

"(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

and,

"(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame