Trolling, errrrrr, patrolling the ACLU blogs
This kind of writing sounds awfully familiar. From the Find Habeas blog:
Strange. I've read this kind of writing before, but I just can't quite put a finger on where.
The response by ACLU blogger and Georgetown Law student Gabe Rottman is well worth the read.
Andy in Harrisburg
Thoughtful Criticism from a Reader
David LaBrosse writes:
Unfortunately, while the suspension of Habeus Corpus is very disconcerting, we must first of all STOP!!! "ASSUMING" that the constitution applies to non-citizens, and foreign combatants. Our founding fathers had no intention of granting the same protections which citizens and legal residents are granted by the constitution to visitors, illegal aliens, and foreign combatants! Also, by the actual definition of the Convention of Geneva, ONLY the countries who signed the treaty at the time of it’s inception are those protected by it! AND, ONLY formal combatants of a signing country are protected. International criminals, insurgents, and terrorists were NEVER included in it's agreements and tenants!!! Terrorists need to be hunted down, tried, and executed like the predatory vermin they are! I'm sure that if this note ever appears on your site, it will be removed promptly, since you really don't care about a healthy debate of the issues, only your own subversive opinions.
Strange. I've read this kind of writing before, but I just can't quite put a finger on where.
The response by ACLU blogger and Georgetown Law student Gabe Rottman is well worth the read.
Andy in Harrisburg
Labels: habeas corpus, Mr. Habeas Corpus
posted by ACLU of Pennsylvania at 5/08/2007 01:42:00 PM
2 Comments:
Anytime you encounter phrases like "hunt down and execute the predatory vermin" you know you are dealing with a very special sort of "uber fanatic."
Eternal vigilance....
I would like the ACLU to provide a counterargument for the following question:
When did the United States Adopt Jus Solis?
Answer: United States never did adopt it as it was practiced under common law, and instead, abandoned common law practice of jus solis.
After the Revolutionary War the first thing the colonies threw out was England’s much hated “perpetual allegiance.” To the colonists, perpetual allegiance was much like perpetual bondage (no citizen or subject could renounce their allegiance, i.e., expatriate), and was considered both a dirty phrase and offensive. To say America freely adopted common law rule of jus soli would be like suggesting America adopted Nazism after WWII.
Under jus soli, there was no personal choice. Under old English common law, foreigners were not required to owe any allegiance to the nation in advance because the mere act of birth upon British soil conferred allegiance itself, no matter to who. Under common law, dual allegiance could easily be forced upon a child, something Americans greatly despised and guarded against.
Founder Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the “consent” of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
Theodore Roosevelt called dual allegiance a “self-evident absurdity.” Adams said a “man who confesses to several allegiances is not a man anyone could completely trust.” There was to be no dual allegiance in the United States, and the framers went to pains to make sure such absurdity could never exist under American law.
After the current Constitution was adopted, America devised its own rules governing citizenship that resembled nothing like jus soli under common law. Instead of forcing allegiance upon a person by virtue of birth, it was required that the father consent in advance and renounce all allegiance he owed to his country of birth.
Under American law it was required for foreigners three years before admission to first record their intent to become citizens with a local court. Furthermore, foreigners were required to take a oath that it is their intention to become a citizen of the United States, and that they renounce forever any allegiance and fidelity to another country. Upon this, children born to him/her would be considered born within the allegiance of the United States, and thus, a citizen of the United States even though the father had not yet been awarded citizenship.
Please note: There were two oaths required of a foreigner, one at the time of their declaration of intent to become citizens of the United States, and an oath at the time citizenship was awarded.
States before and after the the federal Constitution was adopted determined who shall be born citizens within their respective limits, while Congress was responsible for defining rights of alien citizenship. All State laws which records survived required an oath of allegiance along with a record of intent to reside within the State. Without this, most statutes deemed infants born to aliens to be aliens and not citizens of the State.
Under common law, none of the above was required, and so, proves without a doubt the United States never adopted common law jus soli. This of course, did not prevent the courts from rendering confusing court decisions on the subject.
The 39th Congress adopted the same allegiance in advance requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment: “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.”
What did “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? It was defined by Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary: “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
The primary author of the Fourteenths citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, said “subject to the jurisdiction” means “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
It is very interesting to note that Howard proclaimed the citizenship clause as a virtue of "natural law." Natural law at the time considered all children born, no matter where, to had inherited the condition of their father. A German child born to a German father in the United States would be under natural law a German citizen because that is the condition of the father.
Because a foreigner was required to renounce all allegiance to another country in advance of becoming a citizen, and declare their allegiance to the United States instead, a child would inherit his/her fathers allegiance to the United States, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, an American citizen.
The construction applied to the citizenship clause by its framers dramatically departs from the rule of jus soli, and thus, differs in operation. Under Howard’s construction the clause could had well read: “All persons born to citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Next time someone says America adopted the unconditional rule of jus soli, or adopted England’s common law of birthright, laugh at ‘em. Finally, I will finish with some words of wisdom from TR.
From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it. (Theodore Roosevelt, "The Children of the Crucible" New York, Sept. 9, 1917)
Post a Comment
<< Home