reply to post by aptness
Yes that is true, it is not mentioned in the 14 amendment, however 8 USC does cover those people born in territories that are under the control of
the United States of America, and more specifically those who are born outside of the United States of America. What you are suggesting, would fully
discriminate against a portion of the population of the country who would be considered a natural born citizen. Are you for discriminating against
people, all cause they were not born on what would be considered US soil or all 50 states proper? There is nothing there in the laws, as far as,
anyone can tell that would indicate that such is written, yet thousands of children are born, while their parents are in foreign countries, be it
people traveling, studying abroad, or even in the United States Military service. In the Kim Wong Ark case, as you pointed out, at that time, there
was a strong anti Chinese sentiment through out the US.
Further to complicate matters the constitution does not define what is meant by natural born, leaving the question as to what is to be determined
either by jus sanguinis (parentage, or jus soli (birthplace). Even in the Dred Scott V. Sanford, 60 US 1857, Justice Curtis stated the following:
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be
acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the
history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of
Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the
colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States,
all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States,
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of
the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens
of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no
one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
You mention the Rogers V. Bellei case, however, there is one thing, though Obama’s father is an African national, he was born in Hawaii, to a woman
who was an American Citizen of the United States of America. And under 8 USC, as Hawaii was a territory, and it states: A person born in Hawaii on
or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on
or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is
declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
So, there you have it, a child, where the father is a national of a country in Africa, and the mother, a natural citizen of the United States of
America, born in a territory, under the control of the United States, which the question of citizenship is covered under Title 8 of the USC, is
therefore considered a natural citizen of the United States.