The Hamdi case (vs Rumsfeld) was a disgrace. If I recall, he was caught as a ‘driver for terrorists’ overseas, fighting for the Taliban. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the State Department deportation because Hamdi, born in Louisiana to visiting Saudi parents, was a ‘citizen for life.’

The policy of liberals is to destroy borders and sovereignty, replacing the ‘children of citizens’ with ‘children of aliens.’ I am paraphrasing Vattel here,¹ who noted that a nation could only replenish itself with children from its own citizens–but that is what the Chinese are promoting, from the ACLU’s Wang at the Supreme Court to 5th Circuit Appellate Justice David C. Ho, who both declare that just being born on U.S. soil creates a ‘natural born citizen’ who could be president; and lower courts have been cited saying the same thing. See Ankeny vs Indiana (2009)

There is the Terrazas case, a U.S. Mexican immigrant who voted in a Mexican election who faced denaturalization under INA statute. A judge refused to allow it as losing his precious U.S. citizenship was ‘unintentional.’ A Muslim family hiding their religious practice of polygamy under Sharia law, to subvert INA statute requiring denaturalization and deportation of the entire family, was saved by a liberal judge who didn’t want to cause the baby’s loss of U.S. citizenship.

The law, the constitution, mean nothing to this judiciary who are becoming what I call a ‘fractional monarchy.’ Chief Justice Charles Hughes made it clear, saying “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.“

It is ironic that these Chinese jurists, Wang and Ho, are so gung ho to make ‘birthright citizenship’ settled law. It was the Wong Kim Ark case (1898) that created it, but it was bad law relying on poor reasoning, and ignoring existing legislated act in favor of feudal law, a 1608 British court case, and British common law. It was a complete corruption of jurisprudence resulting in what may have been a prejudiced outcome benefitting the Chinese, who were 10% of California’s population. The Wong Kim Ark case created a massive, coherent voting bloc of new citizens.

The Fatal Flaw of Wong Kim Ark

We saw the matter of ‘permanent domicil’ argued–versus temporary or illegal. That comes from Wong Kim Ark. However, when the Ark case argued ‘conflict of laws, they still called ‘native born’ children of aliens ‘natural born subjects of England,’ in conflict with children of subjects (whether born inside or without the king’s domain). The term ‘permanence’ was a ruse, and the conflation of ‘natural born’ children to both those of subjects and of aliens was false. Why? Because the children of aliens, even though ‘natural born subjects’ by jus soli, could always return to the land of their alien parents as full citizens by jus sanguinis! 

So, Wong Kim Ark created dual citizenship, as much an oxymoron as the conflation just noted in British law, relying on foreign and feudal law that was NOT authoritative. Any consideration of jus soli was superseded by statute, and extending it to ‘all races and classes of persons’ by corrupting the language and intent of the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional as well as in conflict with existing statute.

The Wong Kim Ark court, and Trump vs Barbara, missed one of the most telling and on-point cases of all, and it was an American case, Ramsay vs Smith (1789). Smith was 100% British subject, born in South Carolina and with his parents moved to England prior to the Declaration of Independence. He returned to South Carolina as an immigrant per se, British, but ran for and won a congressional seat. Ramsay objected, suing, saying Smith did not meet constitutional citizenship and residency requirements. The court agreed with James Madison, that Smith was a ‘native born citizen’ of South Carolina (the state in which he resided) under colonial British laws. But six months later, the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 changed the jus soli standard to jus sanguinis! Under that fundamental principle, Smith would have to formally naturalize and fulfill residency requirements (I think it was fourteen years then) to claim U.S. citizenship over being British, ‘natural born.’ His claim of being a ‘native born citizen’ was null and void, regardless of the 1789 court decision.

That case describes the Conflict of Laws perfectly–you are either jus soli or jus sanguinis as the two cannot be mixed or blended in any way–one departs entirely from the other.

Whether the Wong Kim Ark court corrupted the 14th Amendment to extend to aliens in error, or not, our jurists and people are so brainwashed and dissonant that 99.9% of them think Born in the United States = Permanent Citizenship is constitutional. But, as a ‘matter of policy’ it is destroying our nation, other countries laughing at us.

INVASION?

The Muslims have a form of jihad called Hijra, named after Mohammad’s raid, rape, and massacre of Medina. In the U.S., Muslims hid polygamous practices under Sharia law and have 5 children per ‘family’ versus 1.5 children per taxpaying U.S. citizen families.
The Pew Foundation estimates that every year, 10% of our population is replaced by children of alien fathers, U.S. citizens under current policy, not the law as intended, but the constitution twisted by the Wong Kim Ark court.

If this is an invasion, a Third World Jihad, then under British common law those ‘invaders’ have no right to jus soli citizenship–and that is from law cited by Wong Kim Ark. But we are ignoring the invasion because it is ‘racist.’

1. Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations, Ch. XIX §212 “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; . . .” ↩︎