RCR – Immigration Attorney Charles Kuck Says Apuzzo is Wrong on NBC

Read all about it here

Foggy had requested a spot on the show and Professor Kuck agreed. Kuck had obviously boned up on the subject and quoted extensively from the key cases such as Lynch v Clarke and Wong Kim Ark. He agreed that Apuzzo was wrong on every point especially his flawed reading of dicta from Minor v Happersett.

Poor Mario, just still not getting any respect…

29 thoughts on “RCR – Immigration Attorney Charles Kuck Says Apuzzo is Wrong on NBC

  1. I think my summary of the show was accurate. I hope the archive of the show is posted soon. Professor Kuck also made a comment the Supreme Court rarely revisits questions of law that they already ruled upon even if many years have passed. The Wong Kim Ark case settled the question about who are the natural born citizens under the Constitution as amended once and for all. That is why courts at all levels have said that the two citizen parent theory is not valid. Judges are not going to make fools of themselves and issue a ruling that is so directly contradicted by such a defining case.

  2. By the present court ruling (Ankeny 2009), in terms of citizenship, there is no difference between a natural born subject of the English realm and an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born American Citizen; is that correct?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  3. The term natural born originates from English Common Law. as to there not being a difference, that’s not really what the courts have ruled.

  4. @NBC,

    So there is a difference; is that what you are saying?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  5. Natural born citizen is a term used in the US, natural born subject is a term used in English common law.

    Both refer to those born on soil subject to jurisdiction. Are they equal in all aspects? I am not sure, nor does it sound particularly relevant to US v Wong Kim Ark.

  6. davidfarrar: By the present court ruling (Ankeny 2009), in terms of citizenship, there is no difference between a natural born subject of the English realm and an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born American Citizen; is that correct?

    Well, for starters the natural born subject of the English realm would be British, while an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born American Citizen would be… well, American.

    Ankeny says: “we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Sounds pretty straight-forward. Note there’s nothing about born outside the US. That might be a difference between natural born British and natural born American, but like the court says in Minor v. Happersett — “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

  7. Rather than muddy the waters with what NBC might mean or had mean in English law, let’s just look at the intent of those who inserted the eligibility clause. The idea as proposed in a letter from John Jay to George Washington was that no foreigner should be given the role of commander in chief of the American army. That’s what he wrote.
    So can we not say that a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in one who is not also a foreigner? And, if anyone should be believe that a person who is a U.S. citizen at birth cannot also be a citizen of a foreign country by birth, I would only ask him: do not other countries claim that children born on their soil are their citizens? Do not other countries claim that a child born of parents who are their citizens is also a citizen. It is therefore possible for a child, such as Ted Cruz, to be a citizen at birth of three different countries. He is therefore a foreigner and not a Natural Born Citizen as intended by the founders. If it were enough to be a citizen by birth, the founders would have said so, but that would have run counter to their intent to avoid divided loyalty in the highest military commander.

  8. Oh and Ron you really should look into the Benghazi events and you would realize how you have been had. Sorry my friend.

    Let me know if you want to talk about it.

  9. Ron: So can we not say that a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in one who is not also a foreigner?

    No, we can’t. You are letting other countries decide who our natural born citizens are. The Constitution and laws are the Supreme Law of the Land. Who other countries consider to be their citizens doesn’t matter. Let’s say one child born in New York City has 2 Indonesian parents, and another child has 2 British parents. As Indonesia doesn’t allow dual citizenship, that child only has US citizenship. The other child has British and American citizenship. In your definition, the first would be eligible to be president but not the other? Really?

    Some countries also extend citizenship to grandchildren. So no Irish, Italian, Polish, or Jewish second or third generation US citizens could be president? Try getting THAT past the current Supreme Court.

    Also, no one in the late 1780s would have considered that a foreigner was born in the US to 2 citizen parents. Here’s definitions from “A compendious dictionary of the English language” By Noah Webster, 1806

    Alien, a. foreign n. a foreigner, a stranger.
    Allegiance, n. the duty of a subject to princes, or to the state in which they live (pg. 9)
    Citizen, n. one inhabiting a city, a freeman.
    Foreign, a. belonging to another country, diftant, not connected with (pg. 122)
    Foreigner, n. a stranger, one of another country, (an alien) (pg. 122)
    Jurisdiction, n, legal authority, power, a district (pg. 168)
    Native, n. one born in any place; a. natural, real (pg. 199)
    Natural, a. produced by nature, baseborn, easy (pg. 199)
    Natural, n. an idiot, fool, native quality or gift (pg. 199)

    So the John Jay quote becomes:
    Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of [aliens] into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a [native] born [freeman].

  10. @NBC
    June 26, 2013 05:03

    So

    “A natural born subject of the English realm and an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born American Citizen; would both refer to those born on soil subject to jurisdiction”

    ; is that your statement?

    On July 5, 1776, what soil was subject to US jurisdiction?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  11. Whatever4
    June 26, 2013 06:24

    Precisely. There are differences between an English subject and a US citizen, therefore, there are differences between a natural born subject and a natural born US citizen.

    We all know what a subject is to a sovereign king, but what precisely is a US citizen? Since the US Constitution states US citizens were around after July 4, 1776, whatever that definition is today, it had to also included what a US citizen was on July 5, 1776.*

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * On July 5,1776, being a “son of the soil” Virginian, did not mean you were a US citizen

  12. The original territories that joined the US. You have to understand how change of territory results in transfer of citizenship. Those born on soil that now is US territory can elect to become US natural born citizens. For a while, certain parts of the US were not under its jurisdiction, leading to some interesting legal rulings.

  13. Precisely. There are differences between an English subject and a US citizen, therefore, there are differences between a natural born subject and a natural born US citizen.

    Citizen and subject was found to be, for most practical purposes, equivalent. But we did not adopt all the common law and statutory law as we rejected for instance that citizenship cannot be renounced. A US citizen are those born or naturalized and including those who were grandfathered in.

  14. * On July 5,1776, being a “son of the soil” Virginian, did not mean you were a US citizen

    That’s too bad… Under common law, they would have been found as such. But yes, during the transition there were somewhat more complex definitions on how one became a US citizen or how one remained an English Subject. The courts had quite a bit of fun with that.

    You may want to read US v Wong Kim Ark again to try to understand what the common law principles were, before, during and after the revolution.

  15. David – “Since the US Constitution states US citizens were around after July 4, 1776, whatever that definition is today, it had to also included what a US citizen was on July 5, 1776.*”

    During the ratification convention for New York two amendments were proposed by the delegates (Hamilton and Jay were delegates to the NY Convention).

    The first was proposed by G Livingston read

    “Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the Congress should appoint …and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural-born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776.

    This resolution didn’t make it to the final ratification document. But this other one did and was sent to the Congress for consideration.

    “That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States.”

    Both resolutions talk about persons who would have been citizens “before” July 4th, 1776. Who would that include?

  16. Jefferson wrote

    A foreigner of any nation not in open war with us becomes naturalized by removing to the state to reside and taking an oath of fidelity and thereupon acquires every right of a native citizen and citizens may divest themselves of that character by declaring by solemn deed or in open court that they mean to expatriate themselves and no longer to be citizens of this state.

    Native citizen, such a lovely word…

  17. It requires a little bit of understand as to what happens to citizenship during a revolution… This is where some international law comes into play. People have confused this when looking at the meaning of citizenship beyond this transition period.

  18. The Wong Kim Ark faux pas was a good and technically correct statement in majority summary: “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, … if he hath issue here, that issue is a ‘natural-born subject’; and his child … If born in the country, is as much a CITIZEN as the natural-born child of a citizen.” (Note: The British “natural-born subject” is not the same as our “natural born citizen”.) Some people have equated the ordinary CITIZEN, a child born in the country, to a “natural born citizen”. But the summary states only that the quality of the child’s citizenship is every bit as good as that of the “natural born citizen”. It does not say that the child is a “natural born citizen”.

  19. It does not say that the child is a “natural born citizen”.

    ROTFL.. Instead of reading the ruling you quote mine? Hilarious…. Even the dissenting judge realized the impact of the ruling: namely that WKA could become a president.

    Why are people so unable to read the full ruling…?

  20. . In order to retain NBC status, a natural born citizen must retain an exclusive U.S. citizenship.”

    Too bad that the supreme court addressed this and explicitly rejected this in their ruling in US v Wong Kim Ark.

  21. rcjackman — you left out a part of the quote. “The child of an alien, 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 quote means that parental status doesn’t matter, that a child born in the country is a natural born child regardless of who the parents are. The quote also wasn’t by the court, it was by Horace Binney in a pamphlet called “Alienigenae of the United States”. it’s clear from the rest of the work that Binney viewed children born in the US were natural born citizens.

    NBC — have you read this pamphlet? The main point of the pamphlet was to argue that foreign-born children of citizens are aliens.

  22. NBC — have you read this pamphlet? The main point of the pamphlet was to argue that foreign-born children of citizens are aliens.

    I have read various pamphlets… It’s funny how there is such a misunderstanding about the status of children born on soil. As to those born abroad to citizen parents, under common law they are indeed aliens, but by statute they can be made citizens at birth.

    A fascinating topic🙂

  23. I looked at Mr. Jackman’s website, and found that he refers to “a very understandable explanation published by “The People’s Lawyer” in the Boston Daily Globe”. That’s a bit like using Dr. Phil as an authoritative reference in a psychological journal. Or Dr. Laura. Or Dr. Pepper.

  24. Mr. Jackman is being either trusting or devious about the quote from The People’s Lawyer. Trusting, if he copied that from Leo Donofrio, or devious if he researched the article himself. The column doesn’t say that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents and be born in the United States.

    Here’s the actual column: http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee410/Whatever4PJ/HawaiiCOFB_zps4874d485.jpg

    And here’s the text:

    Who Can Be President?

    To the People’s Lawyer: The constitution of The United States says that only “natural” born citizens of the United States are eligible to become president. Is a man born of American parents while temporarily residing in Europe or any other country eligible to become president? What is meant by a “natural born citizen” of The United States? G. B.

    I do not think there can be the slightest doubt but what the son of a citizen of the United States born while his parents are temporarily away from home is eligible to the presidency. The revised statutes of, the United States provide (see 1003) that: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and Jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth, citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” This provision appears from the margin to have been enacted in 1802. The fact that the constitution says “natural” instead of “native” shows to my mind that that distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who ‘by nature,’ that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally but natively a citizen. It seems to me that if the founders of the government had meant to confine, the presidency to such of its citizens as were born upon the soil of the country, they would have used the word “native,” which is a much more apt word than natural. In the strict legal sense of natural born we never have had a natural born president. A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the Intent of the constitution. The very first definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature,” the nationality of a child born abroad of American parents is fixed by the nature of things and not by locality of birth. I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning.

Comments are closed.