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

[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.

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.

It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.

 

[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.

It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.

Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

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.

Cruz was born a "conditional citizen" he is not a "natural-born citizen". Both he and his parent(s) had to meet certain requirements in order to qualify and retain his citizenship. He is therefor ineligible to hold the office of the President of the US.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Cruz was born a "conditional citizen" he is not a "natural-born citizen". Both he and his parent(s) had to meet certain requirements in order to qualify and retain his citizenship. He is therefor ineligible to hold the office of the President of the US.

Despite absolutely no court ever coming to that conclusion.

 

[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.

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.

It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.

Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.

Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

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.​

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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?

They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.

Racist scumbag dumb fuck Steve McGarrettt is too stupid top breathe.

And by the way, Ted was a citizen AT birth because his mom was a U.S. citizen at the time.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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:

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;

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.

Cruz was born a "conditional citizen" he is not a "natural-born citizen". Both he and his parent(s) had to meet certain requirements in order to qualify and retain his citizenship. He is therefor ineligible to hold the office of the President of the US.

Despite absolutely no court ever coming to that conclusion.

Really? So Rogers v Bellei never came to that conclusion? LMFAO How about the simple fact that the 1952 INA Section 301(a)(7) and (a)(7)(b) state otherwise? You can keep denying reality all you want, but to straight out deny facts is rather hilarious.

 

[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.

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.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

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)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

 

[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?

They are statutory Citizens, but not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens. That's why they can't run for president.

Racist scumbag dumb fuck Steve McGarrettt is too stupid top breathe.

And by the way, Ted was a citizen AT birth because his mom was a U.S. citizen at the time.

He "may acquire" citizenship provided he and his parent(s) meet certain requirements. Citizenship at birth doesn't denote "natural-born citizenship".

 

[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.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

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)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are either directed at citizens living abroad or foreigners simply becoming naturalized, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from there. SMFH

WKA

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.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

 

[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.

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.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

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)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

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)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

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

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(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.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

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)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

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)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

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

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(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.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

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.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

 

[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.

It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.

Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.

Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

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.​

Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.

 

[Syriusly]

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:

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.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

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)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

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)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

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

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(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.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

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.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

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.

Showing that children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation of the United States are not American citizens- nor are children born in the United States of diplomatic representatives of a foreign states American citizens.

It doesn't say anything about American citizenship of Americans born outside the United States.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.

Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.

Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

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.​

Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.

Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie?

WKA was stating what is known common law, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day you do understand that means up to the time of the case (1898) and beyond, right?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

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.

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

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)

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

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)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

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

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(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.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

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.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

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.

Showing that children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation of the United States are not American citizens- nor are children born in the United States of diplomatic representatives of a foreign states American citizens.

It doesn't say anything about American citizenship of Americans born outside the United States.

It is common law and knowledge to include international law that children born to Ambassadors and Diplomats in service of their government are natural born of that nation. These are recognized exceptions:

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.​

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.

Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.

Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

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.​

Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.

Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie?

a) I have no idea what your CO told you- you may well be lying.
b) Your CO might well have been as wrong as you are.

Soldiers are not diplomats.

Never have been considered diplomats- still aren't.

Which is why the children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not born U.S. citizens- because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born to foreign soldiers stationed here not as part of a diplomatic mission- they are born U.S. citizens.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It doesn't pertain to military personnel. It in no way changes what I posted or stated, it only confirms what I posted.

Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.

Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

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.​

Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.

Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie?

a) I have no idea what your CO told you- you may well be lying.
b) Your CO might well have been as wrong as you are.

Soldiers are not diplomats.

Never have been considered diplomats- still aren't.

Which is why the children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not born U.S. citizens- because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born to foreign soldiers stationed here not as part of a diplomatic mission- they are born U.S. citizens.

I rather doubt my CO would lie, and I rather doubt he would be wrong. Military personnel are diplomats. Children born within the US of foreign Diplomats are not born US Citizens, neither are children born to foreign soldiers, as there are NO foreign soldiers stationed inside the US. The only way a foreign soldier would be in the US would either be in a diplomatic fashion (child not born a US Citizen) or simply on vacation (child born a US Citizen).

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.​

 

[Syriusly]

Nope. There is no federal common law. What WKA cites is the British common law that INFLUENCED the meaning of constitutional terms. What you've cited was a historical review of those possible influences. Which you've erroneously and laughably cited AS the law of the United States. Which they aren't. Nor does Gray ever present them as such.

When Gray eventually does come to findings regarding US law, he explodes your entire theory:

There's a reason you keep cutting this citation out of your replies to my posts. This isn't a historical review of British common law. This is a finding of USSC regarding US law and the US constitution.

And it contradicts you, acknowledging none of the 'exceptions' you've imagined. Nor does any case after it.

Someone born outside the United States does not have constitutional citizenship. But is a citizen of statute.

You can ignore both WKA and Roger. But you can't make us ignore them. No matter how many times you delete references to either in your reply.

JFC SMFH. Both cites you exclaim are directed at citizens living abroad, neither have anything to do with Military personnel, otherwise known as "other Diplomatic agents". Go ahead, claim it isn't in the WKA opinion as usual, when it was cited directly from their. SMFH

Nothing you've cited is a finding of the court in the WKA decision. But a historical review of British common law that may have influenced constitutional terms. Which you ludicriously cite AS US law and the US constitution.

They are neither.

Gray finds, unquestioningly, that those born outside US jurisdiction must be naturalized to have citizenship.

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.

Ignore as you will. It doesn't matter. Being born in the US and under the jurisdiction of the US are required to be a citizen under the constitution. As Roger affirms....and you again ignore and pretend doesn't exist.

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)

Even the State department is the same page, recognizing that those born outside the US do not have citizenship embodied in the constitution.

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

So you ignore the State Department too. Hell, even the Congress joined the fray, contradicting you:

(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.

(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama 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 employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

8 U.S. Code § 1403 - Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
​

Congress explicitly extended citizenship to those you insisted already had it. Your narrative makes no sense at all. And is contradicted by Gray, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Roger Court, and the State Department.

And laughably, you ignore them all and replace it all with fantasies that you've made up. Feel free. You fantasies are legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

This alone makes you and your claims look ignorant:

WKA

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.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]​

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.

Showing that children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation of the United States are not American citizens- nor are children born in the United States of diplomatic representatives of a foreign states American citizens.

It doesn't say anything about American citizenship of Americans born outside the United States.

It is common law and knowledge to include international law that children born to Ambassadors and Diplomats in service of their government are natural born of that nation. These are recognized exceptions:

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.​

Justice Story's opinion- cited in WKA- is the opinion of one justice- and is contradicted by Rogers and Bellei- and WKA

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

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.

Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

 

[Syriusly]

Without that bill, John McCain would not have been a citizen.

Bull, he was born to Military Personnel (other Diplomatic agent), thus he was born to parents in service of their govt. Again from the WKA opinion:

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.​

Soldiers are not ambassadors or diplomats- and WKA was saying that children born in England who are born to Ambassadors or diplomats are not English subjects.

It doesn't say that children born outside England to Ambassadors or invading armies in hostile occupation are English subjects.

Soldiers are diplomats, they are in service to their government and are stationed by their government. Are you going to tell me all those years that my CO told us we were diplomats in a foreign nation and to watch how we act was all a lie?

a) I have no idea what your CO told you- you may well be lying.
b) Your CO might well have been as wrong as you are.

Soldiers are not diplomats.

Never have been considered diplomats- still aren't.

Which is why the children of foreign diplomats born in the United States are not born U.S. citizens- because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born to foreign soldiers stationed here not as part of a diplomatic mission- they are born U.S. citizens.

I rather doubt my CO would lie, and I rather doubt he would be wrong. Military personnel are diplomats. Children born within the US of foreign Diplomats are not born US Citizens, neither are children born to foreign soldiers, as there are NO foreign soldiers stationed inside the US. The only way a foreign soldier would be in the US would either be in a diplomatic fashion (child not born a US Citizen) or simply on vacation (child born a US Citizen).

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.​

Your CO could well be lying to you- or he could have just been ignorant.

There are foreign troops assigned to the United States on a regular basis- attending American military training.
German Military Presence in the United States: The Case of Holloman Air Force Base

They are not considered diplomats. Diplomats are extended specific protection by the State Department- which maintains a list of persons in the United States who have full or limited diplomatic immunity.