Trouble For Ted Cruz: Here's Why He Doesn't Meet The Natural Born Citizen Requirement

[Liquid Reigns]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands. No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

Look to the 1917 Jones–Shafroth Act and the court case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico

So they don't say- and you don't know.

Puerto Ricans are granted US Citizenship at birth via the 1917 Act, yet they are not "natural-born citizens". Puerto Rico is a Territory we are its protectorates, even though they are granted US Citizenship at birth, they are not eligible to hold the office of the Presidency.

 

[Skylar]

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

To be "naturalized" doesn't infer you must go through a process to gain citizenship.

So are Puerto Ricans naturalized citizens?

Look to the 1917 Jones–Shafroth Act and the court case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico

So they don't say- and you don't know.

Puerto Ricans are granted US Citizenship at birth via the 1917 Act, yet they are not "natural-born citizens".

Because they are specifically and uniquely designated as 'naturalized at birth' under US law. The only group to be so designated in all the world.

Which I strongly suspect you already know.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Nay I say NewEnglander! Although ye be in the correct area ye are incorect!
The definition was removed but not changed.

The meaning of of the term Natural Born Citizen as described by the founding fathers still stands.No amendment has been ratified to describe or update a new meaning therfore the definition has not changed.

The intent of the law still stands.

The Term Natural Born Citizen is still a requirement. One is not allowed by law to redefine its meaning simply because the definition was removed in error.(or even intentionally)
You may NOT read into it any way you please. When looking for the founding fathers defination you only need to know their defination. Clearly it can be found in the Public acts of the first congress 2nd session chapter III March 26, 1790.

The definition is legal untill the Constitution is ammended and a new defination is installed. If that ever happens.

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats.

Your whole issue is the phrase that I stated: 'unless their parents were in the military'? SMFH Children born to military members overseas are "natural-born citizens", children born to citizens overseas not in service of their government are "conditional citizens" and are not "natural-born citizens".

 

[Syriusly]

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats..

Yet they are not born citizens per the 14th Amendment.

They are born U.S. citizens though. Because of Congressional actions- not because of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Because they are specifically and uniquely designated as 'naturalized at birth' under US law. The only group to be so designated in all the world.

Which I strongly suspect you already know.

Puerto Rico Herald: UNDERSTANDING CITIZENSHIP ISSUES

Persons born in Puerto Rico acquire U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1402, which is part of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. This is statutory citizenship rather than citizenship arising from birth or naturalization in a state of the union under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that one or both parents of a person born in Puerto Rico may have been born in a state is not controlling. This is because the citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico arises from the place of birth rather than relationship to U.S. citizen parents.​

 

[Skylar]

Since the term "Natural Born Citizen" was not defined IN the Constitution, the term means what it was then understood to mean. The Constitution clearly made distinctions between citizens (a) from birth and (b) those over whom Congress was given the ability to provide-for by way of its naturalization authority.

Congress was granted that sole authority. “[E]stablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

That fact is not disputable. And in reality neither is the inherent power of the United States, as sovereign, to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

Where, as here, one is a citizen, one is either BORN a citizen or one needs to have become a citizen via the lawful process of "naturalization." Ted Cruz did not have to go through any process of naturalization because he was a United States' citizen at birth, given his mother's U.S. citizenship at the moment of his birth.

If a citizen but not naturalized, that only leaves the only other option: he was a citizen at birth. Thus, Ted Cruz IS a natural born United States' citizen. Like it or not, that's the end of that story.

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats.

Your whole issue is the phrase that I stated: 'unless their parents were in the military'? SMFH Children born to military members overseas are "natural-born citizens", children born to citizens overseas not in service of their government are "conditional citizens" and are not "natural-born citizens".

There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one. Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship.

Not a single citation you've offered is recognized as US law by the USSC. Nor cited as US law. But instead, British common law.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats..

Yet they are not born citizens per the 14th Amendment.

They are born U.S. citizens though. Because of Congressional actions- not because of the 14th Amendment.

They, children born to members of the military stationed overseas are "natural-born citizens" per common law, not Congressional action.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one. Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship.

Not a single citation you've offered is recognized as US law by the USSC. Nor cited as US law. But instead, British common law.

JFC do you not comprehend the WKA opinion? There are exception, 3 right off the bat that Gray states: Ambassadors, Invading armies, International waters. This is common knowledge.

Every citation I stated is in the WKA OPINION!!!! How is it not recognized as US Law by the SCOTUS, when they are the ones quoting it????? Do you not understand what common law is????

 

[Skylar]

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats..

Yet they are not born citizens per the 14th Amendment.

They are born U.S. citizens though. Because of Congressional actions- not because of the 14th Amendment.

They, children born to members of the military stationed overseas are "natural-born citizens" per common law, not Congressional action.

Per the findings of Gray, their only path to citizenship under our constitution is naturalization. As they are born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Remember, not one passage you've cited out of WKA is US law, nor offered by Gray as US law. But a historical review of British law.

The findings of Gray are as follows:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

A finding reaffirmed by the Roger court.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.

 

[Skylar]

There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one. Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship.

Not a single citation you've offered is recognized as US law by the USSC. Nor cited as US law. But instead, British common law.

JFC do you not comprehend the WKA opinion? There are exception, 3 right off the bat that Gray states: Ambassadors, Invading armies, International waters. This is common knowledge.

Every citation I stated is in the WKA OPINION!!!! How is it not recognized as US Law by the SCOTUS, when they are the ones quoting it????? Do you not understand what common law is????

Not one citation you've offered of the WKA opinion is in reference to US law. Nor is it offered as US law by Gray. Nor is it a finding of the WKA court. Related to citizenship, this is:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

What you've cited is a historic review of British common law related to British subjects. What Gray finds in the above citation regards US law, under our constitution.

You've imagined your exceptions under US law. You've imagined your exceptions under our constitution. As Roger affirms. As those born outside the US do not have constitutional citizenship.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Per the findings of Gray, their only path to citizenship under our constitution is naturalization. As they are born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Remember, not one passage you've cited out of WKA is US law, nor offered by Gray as US law. But a historical review of British law.

The findings of Gray are as follows:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

A finding reaffirmed by the Roger court.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.

Look, if your only issue is children born to military members are not considered to be natural born citizens by you, that is your choice. Both cites you quote refer specifically to citizens living abroad, neither refers to military personnel stationed abroad and in service of their government. You either accept it or you don't, frankly I could care less.

 

[Skylar]

Per the findings of Gray, their only path to citizenship under our constitution is naturalization. As they are born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Remember, not one passage you've cited out of WKA is US law, nor offered by Gray as US law. But a historical review of British law.

The findings of Gray are as follows:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

A finding reaffirmed by the Roger court.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.

Look, if your only issue is children born to military members are not considered to be natural born citizens by you, that is your choice.

That's not a' choice'. The court is quite explicit that those not born in the US do not hold constitutional citizenship. But are instead naturalized.

You can show us no finding of any court that says otherwise. As WKA comes to the same finding: those born outside US jurisdiction can only become citizens by naturalization. And nothing you've cited is recognized by the court as US law. Nor presented as US law.

But instead, as a historic review of British Common Law as it relates to British subjects.

 

[Syriusly]

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats..

Yet they are not born citizens per the 14th Amendment.

They are born U.S. citizens though. Because of Congressional actions- not because of the 14th Amendment.

They, children born to members of the military stationed overseas are "natural-born citizens" per common law, not Congressional action.

If that were the case, Congress would not have had to pass a law making the children born to U.S. military personnel in Panama citizens.

Which Congress did.

And before Congress did- those children were not born U.S. citizens.

 

[Unkotare]

...

If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.

No.

 

[Skylar]

If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.

No.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)
​

As does the State Department:

Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
​

Why would anyone ignore both the Supreme Court and the State Department....and instead believe you?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one. Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship.

Not a single citation you've offered is recognized as US law by the USSC. Nor cited as US law. But instead, British common law.

JFC do you not comprehend the WKA opinion? There are exception, 3 right off the bat that Gray states: Ambassadors, Invading armies, International waters. This is common knowledge.

Every citation I stated is in the WKA OPINION!!!! How is it not recognized as US Law by the SCOTUS, when they are the ones quoting it????? Do you not understand what common law is????

Not one citation you've offered of the WKA opinion is in reference to US law. Nor is it offered as US law by Gray. Nor is it a finding of the WKA court. Related to citizenship, this is:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

What you've cited is a historic review of British common law related to British subjects. What Gray finds in the above citation regards US law, under our constitution.

You've imagined your exceptions under US law. You've imagined your exceptions under our constitution. As Roger affirms. As those born outside the US do not have constitutional citizenship.

What I cited from WKA was British Common Law that was carried over to the US from the colonies up to and after the USC, thus making it Common Law. If you don't comprehend the WKA decision have someone else explain it to you, since you refuse to accept what is known as common knowledge.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

If that were the case, Congress would not have had to pass a law making the children born to U.S. military personnel in Panama citizens.

Which Congress did.

And before Congress did- those children were not born U.S. citizens.

The law Congress Passed conferred citizenship onto those that were born in the canal zone to one US citizen parent or members born in the Republic of Panama employed by the US Govt or the Panama Railway Company, it had no effect on those born to Military members in service to their govt.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Per the findings of Gray, their only path to citizenship under our constitution is naturalization. As they are born outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Remember, not one passage you've cited out of WKA is US law, nor offered by Gray as US law. But a historical review of British law.

The findings of Gray are as follows:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

A finding reaffirmed by the Roger court.

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

If you're not born in the US, you're not a citizen under the constitution. But under statute.

Look, if your only issue is children born to military members are not considered to be natural born citizens by you, that is your choice.

That's not a' choice'. The court is quite explicit that those not born in the US do not hold constitutional citizenship. But are instead naturalized.

You can show us no finding of any court that says otherwise. As WKA comes to the same finding: those born outside US jurisdiction can only become citizens by naturalization. And nothing you've cited is recognized by the court as US law. Nor presented as US law.

But instead, as a historic review of British Common Law as it relates to British subjects.

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.​

I gave you the holding in the WKA opinion stating otherwise, so here it is again:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

 

[Syriusly]

If that were the case, Congress would not have had to pass a law making the children born to U.S. military personnel in Panama citizens.

Which Congress did.

And before Congress did- those children were not born U.S. citizens.

The law Congress Passed conferred citizenship onto those that were born in the canal zone to one US citizen parent or members born in the Republic of Panama employed by the US Govt or the Panama Railway Company, it had no effect on those born to Military members in service to their govt.

Sigh. No.

(a)
Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Constitution didn't define "citizen" until the 14th Amendment. Prior to that there was no definition of citizen, at all, in it, only that citizens were entitled to to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Puerto Ricans are born Citizens at birth, they do not have to go through a naturalization process, and yet they are not eligible to hold the office of the President, why is that?

They are explicitly 'naturalized at birth' per the law. The only group, per US law.

Ted Cruzs citizenship was dependent upon his parent(s) meeting certain requirements, and then for "Ted" himself meeting certain requirements (1952 INA Section 301 (a)(7) and (a)(7)(b)) in order to retain his citizenship. Cruz was a "conditional citizen" provided requirements were met. He is not a "natural-born citizen". Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion limited the term to mean only you are either born in the US (with few exceptions, i.e. Ambassador/Diplomat - in service of your government, invading army, born in international waters) or you are Naturalized.

Justice Gray did not such thing. Gray reviewed what British Common Law regardin natural born subjects. He explicitly stated that the only way for those born outside the US to become a citizen is through naturalization.

Gray found no exceptions. You're not citing Gray's findiings on US law. You're citing yourself.

I'm citing common law. Justice Grey is citing Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

Cockburn on Nationality, 7.​

What about Section II. of the opinion:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.​

How about when he cites Dicey:

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

And he adds:

The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.

Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.​

How about Greys actual conclusion of Section II.:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.​

Knowing your response already, you will claim that isn't in the WKA decision, when it is directly quoted from it.

So lets keep going, Section III.:

3 Pet. 120. Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.​

How about where he cites Kent:

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

2 Kent Com. 258, note.​

Really, I could keep going, but the issue is clearly pointed out, there are few exceptions that are noted.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

SMFH​

Not one of your citations is offered by Justice Grey as US law. Grey cites British Common Law as as it relates to British Subjects. And as a historic review of how what the founders may have meant with 'natural born' citizen'.

As for his findings in US law, this is what Justice Grey has to say:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Justice Gray makes no exceptions. You've imagined them. Nor does Gray ever recognize such exceptions as being recognized under US law. Nor is any such exception recognized in any court ruling;

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

Roger v. Bellie (1971)

Constitutional citizenship requires being born inside the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it found that NO foreign born child could meet these standards. Even those born to US parents. But instead became citizens by congressional action. Not the constitution.

With the Roger court making it clear that congresssionally granted citizenship was fully deniable, could be revoked without the consent of the citizen, and was subject to congressional regulation. While constitutional citizenship could not be denied and was beyond the authority of congress to regulate.

Natural born citizenship is not deniable nor can it be revoked without the consent of the citizen. Meaning that by default, foreign born children to US citizens cannot be natural born. As their citizenship most definitely is deniable.

And again, note the complete lack of 'unless their parents were in the military' exceptions that you invented. They do not exist.

JFC Military members are US Diplomats in service of their government. Military personnel have their residency still in the US even though they are stationed overseas, same as US Ambassador's and other US Diplomats.

Your whole issue is the phrase that I stated: 'unless their parents were in the military'? SMFH Children born to military members overseas are "natural-born citizens", children born to citizens overseas not in service of their government are "conditional citizens" and are not "natural-born citizens".

There are no exceptions given in either WKA or Roger under the constitution. Not for diplomats, those born to US soldiers, no one. Both rulings recognize that those kids born outside US jurisdiction have to be naturalized. With birth in the US being a prerequisite for constitutional citizenship.

Not a single citation you've offered is recognized as US law by the USSC. Nor cited as US law. But instead, British common law.

You evade. If one is a U.S. citizen, then One is either a person who is a citizen because he or she got naturalized OR he or she is a person who was a citizen from the instant of birth.

Ted Cruz was BORN a United States citizen and NEVER had to go through naturalization. A natural born U.S. citizen.

There is no way around it. All you born again birfers are full of shit. End of story.