Breaking: NJ Judge Admits He Never Read Briefs That Ted Cruz Was Not A Natural Born Citizen

[Anathema]

Eligible- just not qualified.

No person born outside the US, or who has traveled outside the US for non-combat purposes is qualified to be POTUS so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

As opposed to your conclusion- which has no effect at all- their conclusions actually have an effect.

The GOP has them on their ballot as a candidate- now maybe you are correct- maybe the GOP would put a candidate on their primary ballot without believing he or she was eligible- you probably know more the GOP than I do.

Their conclusions only have the effect of allowing him on the states ballot, nothing more.
The GOP does not have him on their ballot as a candidate. Cruz is simply running as a Republican, same as Trump, and Kasich.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No- he was always a U.S. citizen- the United States just didn't know it yet.

Hilarious. The US Didn't recognize his citizenship until he entered the US at age 4 and began to reside here.
.

Regardless- as the law says- he was a citizen at birth- even if the United States was not aware of this until he was 4 years old.

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

From your prior link United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2] ​

So you are conceding that Cruz was a citizen at birth.

SMFH What does may acquire, mean? It is not definitive.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not familiar with Longborough v. Blake but American citizenship law is pretty clear that being born in a U.S. territory does not automatically make one a U.S. citizen.

Right, it doesn't, but McCains parents being in the Military and being in US Territory does.

Military is immaterial.

If everyone born in the Canal Zone was automatically a U.S. citizen- why did Congress pass a law retroactively making them citizens?

(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.

 

[Syriusly]

No- he was always a U.S. citizen- the United States just didn't know it yet.

Hilarious. The US Didn't recognize his citizenship until he entered the US at age 4 and began to reside here.
.

Regardless- as the law says- he was a citizen at birth- even if the United States was not aware of this until he was 4 years old.

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

From your prior link United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2] ​

So you are conceding that Cruz was a citizen at birth.

SMFH What does may acquire, mean? It is not definitive.

'may acquire' if requirements a and b are met. Ted's mother met them.

So you are conceding that he was a citizen at birth.

 

[Syriusly]

Eligible- just not qualified.

No person born outside the US, or who has traveled outside the US for non-combat purposes is qualified to be POTUS so far as I'm concerned.

Well I am not surprised that you would consider many of our Presidents- from Jefferson onward to be unqualified.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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 are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to their King.

A child born outside the jurisdiction to a parent or parents not in ligeance to the King (Govt) would not be "natural-born" and could only become a subject (citizen) via naturalization.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Hilarious. The US Didn't recognize his citizenship until he entered the US at age 4 and began to reside here.
.

Regardless- as the law says- he was a citizen at birth- even if the United States was not aware of this until he was 4 years old.

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

From your prior link United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309) - Chapter 3, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

•The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and

•The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2] ​

So you are conceding that Cruz was a citizen at birth.

SMFH What does may acquire, mean? It is not definitive.

'may acquire' if requirements a and b are met. Ted's mother met them.

So you are conceding that he was a citizen at birth.

Again, to know what the requirements are you must look at the 1952 INA, your bolded portion only gives 301(a)(7) and fails to even acknowledge 301(a)(7)(b) which places requirements on the child as well. Because Cruzs parents changed their legal domicil to Canada, section 301(a)(7)(b) applies.

Here is another link to help you understand the law.
Purpose and Background - Chapter 1, Part H, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS

The law in effect at the time of birth determines whether someone born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents is a U.S. citizen at birth. In general, these laws require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the United States for a period of time. In addition, children born abroad may become U.S. citizens after birth. Citizenship laws have changed extensively over time with two major changes coming into effect in 1978 and 2001.


Prior to the Act of October 10, 1978, U.S. citizens who had acquired citizenship through birth abroad to one citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements in order to retain citizenship. [2] This legislation removed all retention requirements. Prior to the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), effective February 27, 2001, the INA had two provisions for derivation of citizenship. [3] The CCA removed one provision and revised the other making it the only method for children under 18 years of age in the United States to automatically acquire citizenship after birth. [4] ​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

easyt, you have the focus of a gnat.

I doubt Steve_McGarret or Liquid are liberals.

Cruz is eligible regardless of all the yammering of the McGarretts and the Liquids.

I'm a Classic Liberal.

 

[Anathema]

Well I am not surprised that you would consider many of our Presidents- from Jefferson onward to be unqualified.

Hell, most Americans today don't meet my standard for US citizenship or voting, nevermind the Presidency.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I am not familiar with Longborough v. Blake but American citizenship law is pretty clear that being born in a U.S. territory does not automatically make one a U.S. citizen.

Right, it doesn't, but McCains parents being in the Military and being in US Territory does.

Military is immaterial.

If everyone born in the Canal Zone was automatically a U.S. citizen- why did Congress pass a law retroactively making them citizens?

(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.

Military is not immaterial. Not everybody in the Canal Zone was military. SMFH

 

[tinydancer]

He is a natural born citizen solely by being the son of an American citizen. There is no such thing as "naturalized by Positive law" as you suggest. However, show us some solid case law that supports your position.

Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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 [p703] 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.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,

becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.​

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Canada was not an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was.

Help me out here. It was my understanding that he was born on the military base which would have been US territory. Right or wrong?

 

[Skylar]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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 are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

 

[Skylar]

Wong Kim Ark

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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 [p703] 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.

The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,

becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.​

Does not mean a thing when applied to Curz, or McCain, or Obama.

They all had American parents. End of story.

McCain was born to 2 American Citizen parents in US Territory in the Military.
Obama was born in Hawaii, a US State to a US Citizen mother and Legal Immigrant father.
Cruz was born to an American Citizen mother in Canada, out of the jurisdiction of the US.

As I stated earlier, you know nothing of US Law. You can't even read a SCOTUS Opinion defining citizenship.

If according to Wong Kim Ark, Cruz is not eligible- then McCain would not have been eligible either.

For the exact same reason.

Canada was not an unincorporated territory of the United States. The Panama Canal Zone was.

Help me out here. It was my understanding that he was born on the military base which would have been US territory. Right or wrong?

Wrong. I can quote the State department saying as much if you'd like

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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 are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

Exactly nowhere in the Wong Kim Ark ruling will you find he was affirmed an Article 2 Section 1 'natural born Citizen'.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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 are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

What were children born to foreign ambassadresses (Diplomats)? If England had a foreign Ambassador (Diplomat) in France what was the child born as? French or English?
Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

Are you going to tell me this isn't in the WKA opinion, too?

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.​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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 are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

Exactly nowhere in the Wong Kim Ark ruling will you find he was affirmed an Article 2 Section 1 'natural born Citizen'.

He (WKA) was born to parents here legally domiciled and resident, thus making him eligible as a "natural-born citizen".

 

[Skylar]

You're confused. What you're citing is a description of how you wouldn't be granted natural born status. Not how you would.

Being born in the ligeance of the king requires two components:

1) Geographically being born within the territory of the king
2) Being under the the King's law when this happens.

Ligeance meant to be:
ligeance ‎(plural ligeances)

1. (Britain, law, obsolete) The connection between sovereign and subject by which they were mutually bound, the former to protection and the securing of justice, the latter to faithful service; allegiance.

Thus those serving in the Kings military and having children born abroad were also giving birth to natural born subjects of the King.

Says you. Wong Kim Ark describes the exact conditions of natural born status....and it doesn't say a thing you do.

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.

Foreign born children of citizens aren't born in the Kings allegiance and under his laws. Thus, they aren't natural born. The only way such children can acquire citizenship is through naturalization.

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.

You've imagined an exception to this standard. Your imagination is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

As the WKA court makes ludicriously clear:

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.

McCain meets both criteria of natural born status as the Panama Canal zone was an unincorporated US territory and was under US jurisdiction.

No where does it indicate natural born status by way of parentage to foreign born children of US citizen....under any circumstance. WKA explicitly indicate that the ONLY way for a foreign born child to US parents can acquire citizenship....is through naturalization:

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 [p703] 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 are not exceptions given there. It doesn't say 'unless your parents were in the military'. It says, clear as a bell:

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized"

There's not a lot of wiggle room there.

There are exceptions in the WKA opinion. English Ambassadors in France have a child in France, that child was a "natural-born subject" of England. English soldiers occupying lands in other countries, their children were born "natural-born subjects" because they were in complete ligeance to the King.

Says you. The passages of WKA say no such thing. Here's your passage:

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.

It makes no exception for natural born citizenship for children born to foreign soldiers. It never even mentions 'natural born'.

You made that up. And its the cornerstone of your entire argument. Nor was Panama Canal Zone 'hostile territory' nor 'conquered'. It was ceded by treaty with the consent of the country that held the territory in exchange for military protection from Columbia.

There's quite simply no angle your argument works under.

What were children born to foreign ambassadresses (Diplomats)? If England had a foreign Ambassador (Diplomat) in France what was the child born as? French or English?
Are US Military bases considered US territory? Are children born on a US military base in Germany considered "natural-born citizens"? Are military personnel considered a type of diplomat?

Are you going to tell me this isn't in the WKA opinion, too?

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.​

A subject. You're equating a natural born subject with a subject. Which makes no more sense than equating a natural born citizen with any citizen.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

A subject. You're equating a natural born subject with a subject. Which makes no more sense than equating a natural born citizen with any citizen.

No, read the WKA case, the child born of an ambassador was born a "natural-born subject" of the parents nation. The Ambassador was in ligeance of the King.

By your reasoning McCain is not a "natural-born citizen". Even the Senate Resolution admits that because he was born on a US Military base to US Citizens he was a "natural-born citizen".
Text of S.Res. 511 (110th): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. (Resolution Agreed to by Senate version) - GovTrack.us

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
​

 

[Skylar]

A subject. You're equating a natural born subject with a subject. Which makes no more sense than equating a natural born citizen with any citizen.

No, read the WKA case, the child born of an ambassador was born a "natural-born subject" of the parents nation. The Ambassador was in ligeance of the King.

None of the passages you've cited mention natural born anything. With the Wong Kim Ark ruling making it ludicrously clear that there was only one way that foreign born children of US citizens could acquire citizenship: Naturalization.

WKA made no exceptions to this rule. You imagined it. Nor did later rulings.

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.