Hookem123 will continue to regurgitate birther website arguments no matter what. He will probably also deny that he is a birther, but no matter.
Logic tells those capable of logic that a "natural born citizen" is one who is a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, as opposed to one who must undergo naturalizion. Logic is not part of the birther movement, but it is, generally, presxent in Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
Here is what the US Supreme Court says about "natural born citizenry". It is cogent, persuasive, and under our system dispositive, and will therefore have absolutely no impact on Hookem123. The birther websites he obviously frequents, in addition to loving Vattel, and his very European, very unAmerican views of citizenship, have provided him with ammunition sufficient to convince him that Wong doesn't say what it very obviously says, and I can even guess which one or two sentences he will cherry pick (actually, he probably won't read Wong, he will read and parrot some birther website's take on it) to demonstrate that Wong doesn't say what it says. I suggest that all the non-mouthbreathers on this site,even those who lean toward birtherism, but retain the ability to reason, read the entire Wong decision. YOURSELF, Don't just go read some birther site egregiously unfair paraphrase of it, or accept my shorthand rendition of it. There is a lot of useful history in it. It even discusses the birthers' favorite philospher, Vattel. The dissent is the birther position. It lost. The majority clearly, explicitly, and inarguably held that person's born in this country are natural born citizens of this country, irrespective of his/her parent's citizenship. Quoting:
"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"
"The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
The Link Birther sites ignore the "natural born" language and insist that this case somehow does not deal with "natural born" status, that a; they posit three types of citizenship, contrary to the views of the Court, and apparently pulling the argument out of some undisclosed orifice. (Under Vattel's formulation, you will note, a person born to foreign nationals would have to be naturalized, therefore the Wong decision would not be wight (couldn't resist that). Birthers cannot be persuaded by the actual words of the case; they are unpersuadable. Typically, they insist that the Supreme Courts invocation of the concept of the English common law concept of "natural born subject" when discussing "natural born cotizens" tells us nothing.
On the issue of those born outside our borders to a citizen parent, this one never seemed to concern the right when it came to John McCain, Lowell Weicker, George Romney or Barry Goldwater and Republican Herbert Hoover's V.P. Charles Curtis (a different issue, but still interesting) but it is now of the utmost importance with that Nigerian Mooslim (did I spell that right, Hookem?). It was pretty much disposed of in Wong, but the birthers cannot or will not be persuaded.
The poster above, who challenged Hookem's birther claptrap is correct. Statute defines when a person is a citizen by virtue of his birth. There is nothing in the Constitution to the contrary. If one is a citizen by virtue of the circumstances of his birth, then he is a "natural born citizen". Vattel's elistist European, nonegalitarian musings notwithstanding, that is the law in this country.
United States v. Wong simply cannot be read by any fair minded person the way the Birthers insist it is to be read. Again, don't take it from me, read it yourself.
