The Startling Truth about the Wong Opinion

One Supreme Court case changed the nationality landscape in the United States far more than any other before it or since.  And how did it do that?  It didn’t.

Idiots did,  -by totally misconstruing what its holding was.  It is widely, and almost universally (and yet falsely) assumed to mean things that it clearly does not mean nor intended to mean as seen in its very own language.

You can hardly find a more broadly distorted and asininely re-interpreted holding of the court in American history.  And that was the result not of what the court wrote but what the Attorney General at the time decided that it meant, and the lower courts that eventually ruled based not on the high court’s opinion but on his.

Imagine if you will that the Chairman of the Board of a huge company decided that from then on it would be company policy to no longer restrict employment to college graduates but would include top quality High School graduates as well.  But then the CEO dictates that what the Chairman has decided is that anyone who has ever gone to school is eligible to be hired.  That is what happened in America in regard to the citizenship policy of the nation thanks to that Attorney General.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898; Supreme Court final, concluding opinion:

“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,

whether a child born in the United States,of parents of Chinese descent,who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.

For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.   Order affirmed.”

~     ~     ~

A very strange situation has gone on in my mind regarding that Supreme Court opinion.  I first read it a few years ago as a neophyte in the citizenship wars and could hardly believe what I was reading.  It was so incredibly specific to just the facts of Wong’s circumstance that I had to doubt by own rationality to try to come to terms with the fact that no one, literally no one at all that I had read had written a word as to what was so starkly obvious, namely; that it was not written in a general manner but in a specific one.

Yet until this day, no writing I had come across acknowledged that fact.  I subconsciously wondered if there was something “wrong” with my “legal” comprehension of what was plainly written.

Well, it appears that what I was reading was the same thing that everyone else was reading and seemingly ignoring, -until Robert finally stated the ridiculously obvious truth, which the “deafening silence” about it had made to seem like it didn’t even exist.  Now I happily give you the unvarnished unmistakeable truth about the Wong opinion:

Robert wrote: WKA lists several qualifications which the court felt justified declaring WKA a “citizen of the United States”:

1. child born in the United States,
2. of parent of Chinese descent,
3. who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China,
4. but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,
5. and are there carrying on business,
6. and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,

becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.

[Note that the court is recognizing all of the criteria as being important to their decision.]

“For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.  Order affirmed.”

So, how many of these criteria are met by Mr. Obama?

1. Well, we don’t know for sure where Mr. Obama was born. He’s claimed birth in Kenya and in Hawaii. However, no documentation has ever been presented that proves either. Forgeries don’t count.
2. Mr. Obama has never claimed and doesn’t appear to be of Chinese descent.
3. His parents were not subjects of the Chinese Emperor, either.
4. His father was not permanently domiciled here.
5. His parents were not carrying on a business here.
6. But his parents were not employed by the Emperor of China in any capacity.  [One in six match]

On even a superficial reading it appears that the court clearly set to narrowly define its decision to the resident Chinese population who were engaged in commerce by the owning of a business. If not, they certainly had the vocabulary skills to include any foreign nationality.

So, WKA does not apply to Mr. Obama at all.    ~   ~   ~

Thank you, Robert, for a perfect example of something that can be right in front of your face and yet no one acknowledges it.  It is absolutely amazing that that can be so, -and yet it is.  High intelligence is no preventative at all.  Rationality doesn’t make a difference either.  The explanation must be either strong bias or strong indoctrination, or strong fear of being the nail that sticks up and gets hammered down.
One can rightfully suspect that their opinion might have been other than 6-2 if his parents had not been established, society-connected business owners and not mere illiterate or semi-literate day laborers without any property or business.  In that case, they may have ruled that in their opinion he was not a U.S. citizen.  No one can assert nor prove otherwise based on what their holding says.
And as I’ve been preaching to those who will listen, -ever since I realized a key truth about American nationality law and the innate flaws in the system, -that Obama fell through the cracks of American law since his circumstance is not covered by it.
He would only have been a U.S. citizen if born abroad a few months later when his mother would be old enough to meet the minimum U.S. residency requirement to pass her own nationality to her child.  But being born in the U.S. means that nationality is not passed from the mother (American or foreign) but is due to meeting the conditions of the 14th Amendment, -which didn’t apply to a father and son such as Obama Sr. and Jr. since they were not subject to the full political jurisdiction of the United States Government as it requires.
Bottom line: Obama was not born as a United States citizen by any rule, statute, court opinion, or constitutional amendment.  But he was deemed to be a citizen nevertheless due to a policy put in place by the Attorney General at the time of the Wong opinion, -who misinterpreted it, or, more likely, reinterpreted it, -playing god, -or Congress, or the American people, -as if he was authorized to make a fundamental change in the nationality law of the nation all on his own.  Thank you John Griggs, for helping to ruin our country.
William St. George wrote:
What if I had asked a professor of law at say the University of Nebraska, What does this “natural born” mean?  Personally I do not know the answer, but it would have been a very legitimate question. Surely there is a very old law professor still living who was teaching law in the 1950’s.
Sloppybartfast replied:
There is a much easier and more reliable way to do this—look at text books which were in use before 2008. In fact, this has already been done. While Obots have found dozens of texts that make it clear that anyone born under US jurisdiction (another term who’s meaning was never in doubt until the birthers came on the scene) is a natural born citizen, the birthers have discovered exactly zero text books in which someone (at any level) might have learned that natural born citizenship requires citizen parents.
Which is also the same ratio as that of law professors who have confirmed President Obama is eligible to those who have said that his father’s citizenship was a problem. It is clear that this “bit of ignorance and confusion” really did start about 6 years ago—right about the time it was becoming clear that Barack Obama was going to be elected to the presidency—and is confined to a few malcontents on the fringe known as “birthers”.
Dear Sloppy; you are so right without meaning to be so and yet so wrong while also not meaning to be so either.
The term “under US jurisdiction” only has one meaning and it is determined by the word  “under”.  It is not the word “within”.  They are NOT synonymous and come from two completely different nationality systems, although it presently (since 1898) applies to both.
The word “under” originally related solely to children of citizens, as in “under the full authority or legal jurisdiction of the national government”,-while “within” relates to children born within U.S. borders to certain immigrant parents (in addition now with “under”).
The citizenship of the former is by descent; the latter is by law.
  The jus soli common law citizenship granted to native-born children of aliens must meet both of the 14th Amendment’s two criteria; -being born within the physical territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. along with being born “under” the full legal authority or jurisdiction of the government.  [notice that “jurisdiction” has two completely different uses; one relating to territory and the other to authority.]
That is a very basic fact that has been reiterated over and over throughout British legal opinion and commentary history; -said person must be born “within and under the dominion of the Crown”.  Neither one alone was sufficient because without the first, the second was impossible except for the exception of children of ambassadors.  One could be born within the physical dominion but not under the legal dominion by being born of a foreign invader in possession of royal territory or born of a foreign ambassador.
   In America, in a similar fashion, one could be born of Native Americans, or born of cross-border marauders whose women traveled with them, or Gypsies, vagabonds, or indentured servants and slaves.  Not to mention foreign ambassadors, guests, tourists, and students like BHO Sr.
Such persons were not born being citizens of any State and thus could not be citizens of the nation since being an American National was the result of being a State citizen unless born on federal property.  [If a State rejected an applicant for citizenship then that rejection for citizenship was applicable by all of the States.]
Sloppy’s problem, like that of all history book writers and members of the legal establishment, is that they all take as Holy Writ that bastardized determination of the Attorney General back in 1898.  His policy has been in place unquestioned and unchallenged ever since, -as an ossified institutional error perpetuated from generation to generation.
To even question it would be to question the sanity of the entire establishment, -and that would go down about as well as the shared observations of Galileo as seen through the eyes of the Holy See in Rome.  It, like Obama’s eligibility, is like radioactive Plutonium that no one will dare touch.
“this “bit of ignorance and confusion” really did start about 6 years ago” 
The ignorance is what previously existed and the confusion is all due to the dupes of consensus thinking like yourself.
And why did it “start” then?  Because prior to then, at no time in American history has the acknowledged son of a non-immigrant foreign guest dared to think that he could run for President and then actually do so, and even worse, win.
Are you an ignoramus too ignorant to know that no President before Obama was known to have been alien-born?  Of course you aren’t.  But what you are is a deceitful, and sinister deliberate spinner of false “facts” and distorted explanations.

“How could any man teach law for thirty or forty years and not know the Constitution quite well, especially back then when education had a rather more scholarly tone?”   Sloppi replied:

How about a woman who was appointed by Ronald Reagan and served for 25 years on the Supreme Court? Do you think that such a person would know the Constitution quite well? And if such a person voted with the majority on Bush v. Gore, then she couldn’t possibly be controlled by the Democratic party, right?

I guess the clear and unambiguous statement by Sandra Day O’Connor that President Obama is natural born due to his birth in Hawai’i doesn’t count because she doesn’t give the answer you want.

Since there are already plenty of sources with credible and relevant expertise that unequivocally say that President Obama is eligible, it is clear that only those who refuse to accept the obvious answer are still asking questions.  ~   ~   ~

 Dear Sloppy; I have a challenge for you.  Can you show any establishment lawyer – judge who is NOT brainwashed by the establishment viewpoint that has reigned in the stupid U.S. government since 1898?  Where are they?

You ask us to look at one or two or three examples of respectable legal careerists who agree with you.  Why stop there?  The question is; -which ones don’t agree with you?  Any at all?  Or are they all dupes just like you,  as pathetic consensus-opinion, group-think sycophants?

I’ve already written multiple times about how throughout history everyone was wrong about some universal belief.  Including Einstein on the nature and size of the Universe.  He was only off by about a trillion percent or so.  So why do you pontificate about establishment opinion as if it is being dispense from Mt. Sinai?

That’s a rhetorical question since I already know the answer.  People like you value security and maximum government assistance over individual Liberty and constitutional rights.  To achieve that maximum level of security from government requires that government be given the maximum amount of power that is possible.  And that power must be taken, a bit at a time, from The People and The States until Leviathan is all powerful and everyone is dependent or subservient to it.

You are just such a statist at heart or else you would not be full-time involved in defending the greatest violator of the Constitution is American history.  Not to mention his numerous criminal and impeachable acts.


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: