Former Dean of Law School in Chapman University: Birthright Citizenship Is Not Actually in the Constitution
Posted on | August 24, 2015 | 16 Comments
|
Comments
16 Responses to “Former Dean of Law School in Chapman University: Birthright Citizenship Is Not Actually in the Constitution”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
August 24th, 2015 @ 2:11 pm
This does verify what I have been saying for a number of years, (at least four) yet still attempts to validate, or affirm the decision in the case of “wong kim ark. There can be no mistaking that at no time were the parents of wong kim considered under the jurisdiction of the United State, and never was the jurisdiction of their citizenship separated from the jurisdiction of china. In fact it is my understanding that at that time, any chinese subject would be subject to execution for attempting to recant their chinese citizenship. Also it is a point of fact that the parents had returned to china in 1890, which should have made wong kim”s case redundant.
That is why I assert that the judges in the case of “wong kim ark”, for now unknown reasons violated the intent of the 14 amendment. Regardless of whether an immigrant is within our borders legally or not, only by actually being naturalized as U.S. citizens will their children be born with U.S.citizenship. In true essence, what the 14th amendment means is that a child can only be what the parents are.
What this does mean is that rubio and jindal are what is currently termed “anchor babies”, not being true U.S. citizens at all. And cruz; he is even more special, being a “canadian anchor baby”. Though he may be able to claim U.S. citizenship, if his mother filed the proper papers, he is not a “Natural Born United States Citizen”.
August 24th, 2015 @ 3:33 pm
Makes good sense.
August 24th, 2015 @ 5:16 pm
Biden meets with bob bauer, scumbag obama lawyer!!
https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/politics/joe-biden-obama-blessing-2016/index.html
August 24th, 2015 @ 5:32 pm
bob bauer, chief birther lawyer
https://www.theobamafile.com/_associates/RobertBauer.htm
August 24th, 2015 @ 9:32 pm
Number 1, Mr, Lankford: In the Syllabus of US v WON KIM ARK, there it is clear that Ark’s parents were here LEGALLY, hence under OUR jurisdiction: They fulfilled the required PERMANENT DOMICILE and were (legally) CARRYING ON BUSINESS. While they may have been under CHINESE Jurisdiction too, they were LEGALLY here.
ARK, being born here of parents living under legal jurisdiction, had no obligation to be subject to the Emperor.
Trump’s point is that Citizenship is now given out incorrectly to those in VIOLATION of US v Won Kim Ark who have NO PERMANENT DOMICILE and have NO LEGAL AUTHORIZATION for “CARRYING OUT BUSINESS.”
It seems to be all muddled by decades of misappropriation of citizenship status to those who have no legal right to it.
These children of legally residing aliens do not fit the traditional notion of Jus Solis/Jus Sanguinis NATURAL BORN citizens, and would be NATIVE BORN.
However, one only needs to peruse the NYS Board of Election Website to see that the requirement for POTUS now seems to be different, as that state stipulates only that one need to be Born with citizenship.
That means, as the 14th amendment is applied today, that an anchor baby who may speak English as a Second Language may run for Commander in Chief/Chief Executive.
It all seems quite muddled indeed, and Trump merits an accolade for opening up the topic; his policies will evolve when he takes office and the Constitution is more clearly understood for what is there and NOT there.
BTW, whether Cruz is eligible or not (this must be certified by the RNC for him to run), it is clear that he is considered a DERIVATIVE US CITIZEN, esp as he was born before 2001:
Derivative Citizenship:
A. Before February 27, 2001:
Under the old section 320(a) (before February 27, 2001) of INA, a child born outside of the United States may acquire derivative United States citizenship as a matter of law, if:
1. one parent was an alien;
2. the other parent is a United States citizen;
3. the alien parent became a naturalized United States citizen when the child was under eighteen (18) years of age; and
4. the child was residing in the United States as a lawful permanent resident, in the custody of the parent at the time of naturalization.
August 24th, 2015 @ 9:47 pm
What do you know, a Scholar who actually understands the framers intentions. Maybe he can have a one on one session with liberal hack George Will who is running around regurgitating lame talking points about Birthright Citizenship.
August 24th, 2015 @ 9:53 pm
Why is it these fools aren’t capable of researching history on the issue. If they did they would find out there is a precedent that was set back in the 1950’s. Eisenhowers Operation Wetback is exactly what Trump has said he is going to do. It worked once and it will work again. We’ve just got to get started.
August 25th, 2015 @ 7:08 am
@ #5 veritas
It is my opinion you are trying to justify a fraud, just as the decision in “wong kim ark” was a miscarriage and intentional misrepresentation of the purpose and provisions of the 14th amendment.
The decision of the court that the parents were in this country legally, carrying on legal business, and permanently domiciled is a mere observation having no bearing whatsoever on the requirement and definition of jurisdiction within the 14th amendment. The mere fact that they did return to china in 1890, never initiating the Naturalization process should quell that silly notion any how.
The intent and circumstance of the phrase “AND under the jurisdiction” is clear and readily verifiable, and there is no doubt in my mind the court in the case of “wong kim ark” chose to violate this understanding for reasons now unknown, and their action should be condemned, and the court accused of their crime. To use this case as precedent only perpetuates criminal intent, as there is no agency having authority to redefine the original intent of a constitutional amendment to suit their purpose.
As for cruz; the canadian “Anchor baby”, he still can do no better than claim U.S. citizenship, if the proper forms were registered when he was brought to the U.S.. His father becoming a naturalized citizen would be irrelevant, as ted was 30 years old by then.
It just blows my mind how all these that argue in favor of candidates whose allegiance and loyalties are so obviously compromised, have so little concern, even appear to desire the foreign infiltration and influence it invites.
August 25th, 2015 @ 7:36 am
Good point about Eisenhower, and in THAT TIME it probably was not as egregious at is NOW:
—-
Birth tourism: 71% of illegals with kids collect welfare…
August 25th, 2015 @ 9:17 am
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
“TREATIES MADE OR SHALL BE MADE”
CONVENTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS RELATING TO
THE CONFLICT OF NATIONALITY LAWS THE HAGUE – 12 APRIL 1930
CONSIDERING that it is of importance to settle by international agreement
questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws;
BEING CONVINCED that it is in the general interest of the international
community to secure that all its members should recognise that every person should have a nationality and should have one nationality only;
WHO, having deposited their full powers found in good and due form, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 1
It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other States in so far as it is consistent with international
conventions, international custom, and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality.
Article 2
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State
shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.
Simply put: We have a binding agreement to honor the nationality and citizenship laws of all nations as they must respect ours. To violate this is treason against Article six of our constitution. As a further note the to reinforce the “under the jurisdiction”
statement the first and second Naturalization Laws stated “Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: If your father is a citizen under he jurisdiction so are of what ever nation he is.
August 25th, 2015 @ 9:30 am
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/enforcement/state/local-policies/map-states-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html
E-VERIFY is voluntary among 50 states [!?]
Harry Reid says US-Mexico border is secure, but ICE et al and border states say just the opposite. Why is this?
What legal basis does anyone have for tax-paid-for sanctuary cities?
What legal basis did Obama use to release thousands of convicted illegal aliens into American’s neighborhoods?
No such thing as “anchor babies” in Constitution, so who let this happen?
Our immigration system is not broken, it is simply unenforced and faithfully neglected. There appears to be no intended consistency, no intentional uniformity, AND VIRTUALLY NO CONSEQUENCE FOR THE ILLEGALS OR THE “GOOD GUYS [judges, government leaders, law enforcement, attorneys, churches et al]” WHO JOINTLY VIOLATE IMMIGRATION LAWS.
Did we forget as a nation that HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS A FUNCTION OF CONSEQUENCE [or is half, or 47% of America, just BORN TO BE STUPID]?
WHERE IS MAINTAINED SOCIETAL STRUCTURE IN USA?
GOD AND TRUMP SAVE AMERICA!
August 25th, 2015 @ 11:33 am
Charleston: Obama DOJ Fast tracks Payout of Over $3.2 Million per Each Victim Family
On the late afternoon of Friday June 19 the Obama Justice Department led by new Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced it will “fast track” $29 million to victim families of the June 17 shooting at the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, Reuters reports. The exorbitant payout amounts to over$3.2 million per family.
How much is going to family of Kathryn Steinle? Nothing, Nada. To the Chattanooga Servicemen families? Zippo, Zilch, Zero from this mysterious government “fund”. So like it or not, we are paying $29,000,000 to these people and the only reason I can see is that they are black (and NO, my liberal friends, that’s not a racist comment; it’s just a fact)!!
https://www.newsweek.com/us-fast-track-29-million-help-charleston-shooting-victims-families-345246
August 25th, 2015 @ 3:01 pm
Good for Veritas and Rod:…
When in doubt, leave them out!!!
Until this gets extremely settled…
So we don’t have another illegal in the WH!!!
Trump is the only one with guts to do it! I say: GET HIM IN THE WH!!!!
August 25th, 2015 @ 7:34 pm
Mr Lankford, it is interesting to read your opinion and it adds to the discourse: if you find there was fraud in 1898 many of Orly’s readers and scholars would find it edifying to read it.
On the contrary, US v Won Kim Ark PROHIBITS “birthright” citizenship to children of illegals, which one supposes you also oppose.
PS: Bravo, # 13 THE CONSTITUTION
LEGALLY residing aliens, such as “Green Card,” “TPS,” and other situations seem to be justified since 1898 in having citizenship for their children.
Have you noticed that only JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO is one of the commentators to bring that up to counter liberals who say that ANYONE BORN here is a “citizen.”
KUDOS to her and may she continue to press the point!
August 25th, 2015 @ 7:34 pm
Mr Lankford, it is interesting to read your opinion and it adds to the discourse: if you find there was fraud in 1898 many of Orly’s readers and scholars would find it edifying to read it.
On the contrary, US v Won Kim Ark PROHIBITS “birthright” citizenship to children of illegals, which one supposes you also oppose.
LEGALLY residing aliens, such as “Green Card,” “TPS,” and other situations seem to be justified since 1898 in having citizenship for their children.
Have you noticed that only JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO is one of the commentators to bring that up to counter liberals who say that ANYONE BORN here is a “citizen.”
KUDOS to her and may she continue to press the point!
PS: Bravo, # 13 THE CONSTITUTION
August 26th, 2015 @ 5:32 am
@ Veritas;
What I find disturbing is that the 14th amendment in no way lends itself to the interpretation of the court in “wong kim ark” that just the legal presence within the boarders of the United States satisfies the jurisdictional requirement that was clearly defined, as unfettered allegiance, by the composer of the phrase. Simple presence to conduct business and a permanent structure as residence is no indication of intent as proven by the parents of wong kim simply returning to china at their leisure.
Only by immigrant parents becoming naturalized citizens while a child is still a minor can that child fall under the jurisdictional requirement intended by the 14th amendment.
The decision in 1898, in the “wong kim ark” case, is an obvious and blatant violation of the intent of the 14th amendment, which was to insure the sovereignty of our government and sincere allegiance of our citizens. It should be ignored if not challenged, not ignorantly accepted. The word of “no” judge is law, Their word is to reflect law. Citizenship is not to be meted out without true assurance.