I've been having an on-going debate with Mr. Sellin about this. He has not been able to defend his contention that the natural born citizen must have both parent be citizens. I've gone through all the references in his article, and his whole contention i based on one passage from a swiss philosopher.In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were "native-born citizens of the 662*662 United StatesThat all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says: "Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent."Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law, have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 - Supreme Court 1898 674Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 - Supreme Court 1875 is irrelevant, as it acknowledges the issue but does not speak to it: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their 168*168 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. (167-168)Shanks v. Dupont is silent on the issue, being more concerned with the status of an individual whose citizenship was ambiguous having been transferred through the revolution.THE VENUS, RAE, MASTER case merely refers to the works of swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel regarding this issue, and does not endorse this as a precept of constitutional law.
Post a Comment