Vattel on Citizenship
Posted in the 2012 Presidential Election Forum
#1 Sep 5, 2012
Alexander Porter Morse
A treatise on citizenship,...
By ~ Alexander Porter Morse
All rights reserved
The natural-born or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents.(4)
 Vattel, Droit des Gens, 1, ic, xix. sect 212, Ed. Paris, 1863
#2 Sep 5, 2012
Chapter 19 or XIX
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
#3 Sep 5, 2012
Alexander Porter Morse
A treatise on citizenship, by birth and by naturalization : with reference to the law of nations, Roman civil law, law of the United States of America, and the law of France; including provisions in the federal Constitution, and in the several state constitutions, in respect of citizenship; together with decisions theron of the federal and state courts
Type: Book; English
Publisher: Boston : Little, Brown, and company, 1881
“The Usurper FAILED”
Since: Apr 11
#4 Sep 5, 2012
#5 Sep 5, 2012
Does the Fourteenth Amendment grant citizenship to all those born on American soil? Two legal experts debate the issue.
Edward J. Erler
University of Baltimore
Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment
A Superfluous Clause?
The Fourteenth Amendment specifies two requirements to become a natural born citizenan individual must be born in the territory of the U.S. and be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If it is argued that everyone born in the U.S. is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., then the jurisdiction clause is rendered superfluous. But, of course, no interpretation of a written Constitution can render any of its provisions without force or effectthis would be tantamount to an amendment of the Constitution by mere interpretation.
If the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had intended that everyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction, they would simply have omitted the jurisdiction requirementprecisely what liberal constitutionalists have done in their insistence on automatic birthright citizenship.
#6 Sep 5, 2012
Thank you :)
#7 Sep 5, 2012
Vattel was "quoted" in several Supreme Court cases as can be seen here:
6 U.S. 280
2 Cranch 280
2 L.Ed. 279
February Term, 1805.
Of all people the Americans are the last who ought to call in question the right of expatriation. They have derived infinite advantage from its exercise by others who have left Europe and settled here. It is denied by the constitution of no state, nor of the United States.
It is positively affirmed by the constitutions of some of the states, viz. Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Vermont, and by an act of assembly of Virginia.
The right is also asserted by the best writers on the laws of nature and nations.***Vattel, b.1, c.19,§ 218, 223, 224, 225 &c. 1 Wyckefort,(L'Embassadeur et ses fonctions) 117, 119.
The same right is also asserted by our own authors, 1 Judge Wilson's works, 311 to 317. 1 Tucker's Bl. appendix, 426,(in a note) id. Vol. 1, part 2, appendix, 96.
Fish and Game - State "Ownership"
famguardian.org/Publications/PropertyRights/f... in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842)... Vattel 127, 287; Ruth. book 1, ch. 5, p. 76, 3. 3. The nation may ...
#8 Sep 5, 2012
All Persons Born or Naturalized ...
The Legacy of US v Wong Kim Ark
UC Hastings College of the Law Library
Summer, 2001 and updated Spring, 2009
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents in 1873. After a visit to China in 1895, he returned to the United States through San Francisco harbor. He was not allowed back in the country, on the grounds that he was not a citizen. Moreover, federal Chinese Exclusion Acts forbade him from entering as an immigrant. Thomas Riordan, a lawyer for the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco and the Chinese Six Companies, filed a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Wong Kim Ark in federal district court. Citing Ark's birth in the US and relying on the authority of Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (1884), the court ordered him discharged from custody. The decision was immediately appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court appeal hinged upon the interpretation of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states, "...all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The government argued that Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen because his Chinese parentage made him subject to the emperor of China. In a six to two decision (Justice McKenna did not participate), Justice Gray wrote the majority opinion that a child born to two Chinese nationals legally present on American soil was an American citizen. The case was a landmark legal victory for Asian-Americans during a period of intense anti-Asian sentiment. For the text of the entire case, click here: United States v Wong Kim Ark
The Chinese Exclusion Act was approved on May 6, 1882. It was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States.
In the spring of 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Chester A. Arthur. This act provided an absolute 10-year moratorium on Chinese labor immigration. For the first time, Federal law proscribed entry of an ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered the good order of certain localities.
#9 Sep 5, 2012
Learn more about the Chinese Exclusion Laws and the history surrounding the laws
“The Usurper FAILED”
Since: Apr 11
#11 Sep 5, 2012
They just put God back into their platform on DNC
Why was it ever gone?
#12 Sep 5, 2012
Lot of the libs are 'atheists'
doncha know ;-)
#15 Sep 5, 2012
Obots wonder WHY we laugh at them! ;-)
Add your comments below
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||2 min||USAsince1680||1,419,506|
|'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10)||15 min||Uncle Tab||239,645|
|BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09)||53 min||Jacques in Orlean...||222,623|
|Colombian peace deal could mark rare victory fo...||5 hr||Go Blue Forever||1|
|In presidential elections, size doesn't always ...||12 hr||gwww||17|
|Harry Reid calls mother of Benghazi victim 'cra...||18 hr||Captain Yesterday||41|
|Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10)||20 hr||Actual Science||35,576|
Find what you want!
Search 2012 Presidential Election Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC