| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
Retrospective images (barbaric) were also issued on Norman coinage, to commemorate Anglo-Saxon kings.
Well, this is what Wiley thinks.
The Chew Valley hoard (like Wells cathedral) provides a mixture of Norman and invented A/S... so it's William, Harold and even an Edward the Confessor.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Mind the Gap
We all suffer gaps. Or maybe not, maybe that is just Wiley? We all like to think that we can work across different areas of so called "expertise" to uncover something new or interesting.
After all, AE is surely there to guide us when we realise that we have an embarrassingly poor grasp of numismatics or, maybe, after a couple of years trying (hat tip Umberto Eco), an adequate grasp, but it still doesn't fit in with all the other history stuff......
Anyway, Coin, Battles and Castles are now sorted (hat tip Harper and Hats) but alas, Legal History (Maitland) now beckons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, I'm an authority on all aspects of the common law. And I'm not talking wives.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Is there a thread that would serve as an introduction?
Or would I be better off starting with some random thoughts here or on a new thread, so you lot can put me right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Here will do. Should I read Maitland? It's been a long term goal and I'm 75% the way through Carlyle's Freddie the Great.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| That is the great gift of the nation state. Once there is a settled idea of ‘an England’ and ‘a Scotland’ and once they have a settled border, there is no need for either a standing army or overmighty provincial subjects. You can always raise an army when needs must. Meanwhile you can get on and do what people do when they’re not living in either a permanent war state or in chronic political instability: |
Wiley was on the trail of the birth of the nation state. In my ignorance I had always assumed that I was a member of this nation stae as, err, "I was born here", as was anyone else "who was born here". Welcome to the nation state.......
It was looking promising........
| Jus soli (English: /dʒʌs ˈsoʊlaɪ/ juss SOH-ly[1] or /juːs ˈsoʊli/ yooss SOH-lee,[2] Latin: [juːs ˈsɔliː]), meaning 'right of soil', is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship. Also commonly referred to as birthright citizenship in some Anglophone countries, it is a rule defining a person's nationality based on their birth in the territory of the country.[3][4][5] Jus soli was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis ('right of blood'), which derives from the Roman law that influenced the civil-law systems of mainland Europe.[6][7] |
But I was in for a shock. It's not that simple unless you are from the Americas.
Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas; explanations for this geographical phenomenon include: the establishment of lenient laws by past European colonial powers to entice immigrants from the Old World and displace native populations in the New World, along with the emergence of successful wars of independence movements that widened the definition and granting of citizenship, as a prerequisite to the abolishment of slavery since the 19th century.[8] Outside the Americas, jus soli is rare.[9][10] Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants nationality based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.[11][12]
Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant nationality at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis ("right of blood"), in which nationality is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which nationality by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants. |
This got me a tad interested.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I entirely ignored this line of legal argument because you couldn't apply it to the citizens of countries that underwent radical change--which is all states until they become (what is my definition of) nation states. Thus, for instance, what is the status of Mexicans when Texas becomes a US state? Or indeed the Americans that were, officially and hitherto, Mexican? And I'm not even going to mention native Americans or black slaves. But your principle does impinge on my scheme in this respect:
| Proposed Rule XI (b): a country becomes a nation-state when all its native-born citizens were born within its borders i.e. after those borders have remained the same for, say, a hundred years. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
On February 26, 2025, inside the High Court of Hong Kong in Admiralty, a renowned pro-democracy figure in Hong Kong is standing trial, he stands accused of collusion with "foreign forces" and "sedition" under Beijing's national security law. This sort of thing never gets much coverage........outside Amnesty International.
These are of course serious charges but, as any realist will tell you, any citizen or subject owes allegiance to a "sovereign" as at birth he, or she, is granted their protection. This bond of allegiance is at the heart of all modern states. You really can't escape it. You are after all somewhat protected from cradle to grave. That is the deal. Like it or lump it, you were born in such and such area, to such and such parents, you owe the sovereign body allegiance in exchange for protection.
Let see how it plays out.
| prosecution wrote: | | do you want to........"get rid of the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party]" |
This is of course a trap, all citizens are expected to show allegiance to the sovereign body.
| Jimmy Lai Chee-Ying wrote: | | "No. Only the Chinese people can get rid of the CCP. We are Hong Kong people.", |
Which Lai neatly evades.
| Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping wrote: | | "We are Chinese." |
The Judge has spotted this.
| Lai wrote: | | "We are Hong Kongers because of 'One Country, Two Systems.'" |
Lai is rather infuriatingly ducking and weaving, evading the allegiance bit of the question.
| Judge Toh wrote: | | "Is your skin yellow, Mr. Lai?" |
The Judge has had enough, he tries to hold Lai with one glove and land a wild blow...... falling over in the process.
| Lai wrote: | | "Because my skin is yellow, I'm identified as Chinese?" |
Lai sticks out his tongue.
| Judge Toh wrote: | | "You are Chinese." |
The Judge realises that he really shouldn't have tried the last one.
| Lai wrote: | | "No, I am a Hong Konger." |
A short but useful exchange, that confirms that neither judge, jurist nor state can currently assume a person's nationality on the baisis of colour without creating a minor international incident, ie that Wiley hears about.
Membership of a national state is granted by soil (you were born in that territory) or by blood (lineage) or a combination of the two.
But just how did we get here.........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | On February 26, 2025, inside the High Court of Hong Kong in Admiralty, a renowned pro-democracy figure in Hong Kong is standing trial, he stands accused of collusion with "foreign forces" and "sedition" under Beijing's national security law. This sort of thing never gets much coverage........outside Amnesty International. |
Amnesty is not great on 'left-wing' regimes like China. But the MSM is pretty hot on it.
| These are of course serious charges but, as any realist will tell you, any citizen or subject owes allegiance to a "sovereign" as at birth he, or she, is granted their protection. This bond of allegiance is at the heart of all modern states. |
I don't know where this is going, I can only read long posts by answering them in real time, but in the case of Hong Kong, all adult residents therefore owe their allegiance to Britain. (Subject to those rights being assigned.)
| You really can't escape it. You are after all somewhat protected from cradle to grave. That is the deal. Like it or lump it, you were born in such and such area, to such and such parents, you owe the sovereign body allegiance in exchange for protection. |
I'd like to see how these play out.
| Let see how it plays out. prosecution wrote: do you want to........"get rid of the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party]" |
When are you asking? It was pretty good until those wretched students started rioting.
| This is of course a trap, all citizens are expected to show allegiance to the sovereign body. Jimmy Lai Chee-Ying wrote: "No. Only the Chinese people can get rid of the CCP. We are Hong Kong people.", |
Not after 1997 he wasn't.
| Which Lai neatly evades. Judge Esther Toh Lye-ping wrote: "We are Chinese." |
I assume she meant 'citizens of China'.
| The Judge has spotted this. Lai wrote: "We are Hong Kongers because of 'One Country, Two Systems.'" |
Lai was being over-literal but...
| Lai is rather infuriatingly ducking and weaving, evading the allegiance bit of the question. Judge Toh wrote: "Is your skin yellow, Mr. Lai?" |
Oh. She didn't mean 'citizens of China'.
The Judge has had enough, he tries to hold Lai with one glove and land a wild blow...... falling over in the process. Lai wrote:
"Because my skin is yellow, I'm identified as Chinese?" |
Lai is being literally correct in his objection.
| Lai sticks out his tongue. Judge Toh wrote: "You are Chinese." |
The judge is being literally correct.
| The Judge realises that he really shouldn't have tried the last one. Lai wrote: "No, I am a Hong Konger." Normality resumed. |
er... which normality?
| A short but useful exchange, that confirms that neither judge, jurist nor state can currently assume a person's nationality on the baisis of colour without creating a minor international incident, ie that Wiley hears about. |
If Wiley says so.
| Membership of a national state is granted by soil (you were born in that territory) or by blood (lineage) or a combination of the two. But just how did we get here......... |
Mick says: China is entitled to break the 1997 Agreement with Britain since sovereignty (which Britain ceded to China in 1997) includes the power to unilaterally break international agreements if it so wishes.
No case to answer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
So what is more important, lineage or territory? As we now know a President of a democracy, one Donald Trump, has decided to sign an excutive order on January 20, 2025, abolishing birthright citizenship (territory) for anyone born in the United States without a mother or father (lineage) that was a lawful U.S. citizen, or other lawfully permanent resident......
This would mean the end of a precedent established in a landmark legal case. Namely, the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898). For those unaware of the details....
| Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law banning virtually all Chinese immigration and prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the Citizenship Clause should be interpreted "in light of the common law". |
Let's take a look.
Wong Kim Ark was a child born in California (territory) to Chinese (alien in the terminology of the time) parents (lineage), he had travelled back to China and was now being denied re-entry to the US.
His argument was that he was a United State Citizen. The powers that be are saying no, he is Chinese. Using his colour was a no no........it's his parents being Chinese (aliens) that is the problem.
The case has ended up in the Supreme Court. To whom does he owe allegiance? Does the US have a duty to protect him?
| The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to grant citizenship to children born in the United States, with only a limited set of exceptions based on English common law. The Court held that being born to alien parents was not one of those exceptions. |
It's expressed as a positive, "grant citizenship to children born in the United States" (territory is the main thing), and as a negative "that being born to alien parents was not one of those exceptions" (lineage does not count as an exception).
The only thing that confuses is it's all on the basis of common law.
Territory trumps (apology) Lineage on the basis of (err) earlier English common law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | | So what is more important, lineage or territory? As we now know a President of a democracy, one Donald Trump, has decided to sign an executive order on January 20, 2025 abolishing birthright citizenship (territory) for anyone born in the United States without a mother or father (lineage) that was a lawful U.S. citizen, or other lawfully permanent resident...... |
I bet this turns out to be a dead letter once the courts start chiselling away.
| This would mean the end of a precedent established in a landmark legal case. Namely, the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898). For those unaware of the details.... |
When the chiselling had to stop.
| Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law banning virtually all Chinese immigration and prohibiting Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the Citizenship Clause should be interpreted "in light of the common law". |
In the days before presidents stacked the bench.
| Let's take a look. Wong Kim Ark was a child born in California (territory) to Chinese (alien in the terminology of the time) parents (lineage), he had travelled back to China and was now being denied re-entry to the US. His argument was that he was a United State Citizen. The powers that be are saying no, he is Chinese. Using his colour was a no no........it's his parents being Chinese (aliens) that is the problem. |
This would be uncontentious in most places, in most of history. 'His face doesn't fit' shall be the whole of the law.
| The case has ended up in the Supreme Court. To whom does he owe allegiance? Does the US have a duty to protect him? |
Not to be legalistic, but there is a difference between 'owing allegiance' and 'duty to protect' as we were so recently reminded over Lord Haw-Haw. But do go on.
| The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to grant citizenship to children born in the United States, with only a limited set of exceptions based on English common law. The Court held that being born to alien parents was not one of those exceptions. |
Fair enough. Very judicious. One famous argument was a baby born in an aeroplane overflying national territory. Not that Maitland covered that one. If it was a ship, would it be the nation the ship was flagged to? Can Panama cope?
| It's expressed as a positive, "grant citizenship to children born in the United States" (territory is the main thing), and as a negative "that being born to alien parents was not one of those exceptions" (lineage does not count as an exception). |
I'm getting confused but that's the law for you.
| The only thing that confuses is it's all on the basis of common law. Territory trumps (apology) Lineage on the basis of (err) earlier English common law. |
You're not helping. I know I'm not either but please, do go on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
And I probably won't, but I can tell you that all our friends across the pond are now reaching for their two volumes of 'The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I' (1895) by Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederick W Maitland.
Maitland's impact on historiography and the law is far greater in the US than in the UK.
Still, as we want to understand all this, a useful starting point has to be Maitland not Pollock. Pollock wrote the chapter on the Anglo-Saxons, which I believe Maitland was sensible enough to swerve. Wiley's view is that Maitland realised that he could not evidence this period, so asked Pollock to write the early bit. There was of course a widespread fascination with Anglo-Saxons at that time, so it was a much needed first chapter, interestingly nobody really appears to have improved on Pollock (shout if you think so). Makes Wiley think that the Anglo-Saxons might have never actually existed...
Maitland started from the Angevins, and it was his historical research that has shaped the way we view how history dovetails with the development of English law.......
We treat Maitland as ortho.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | Makes Wiley think that the Anglo-Saxons might have never actually existed... . |
Makes me wonder if they suddenly appeared in "British History" just after the arrival of George I of Great Britain (a.k.a. the Electorate of Hanover within the Holy Roman Empire)
To big-up Georgie's claim to the throne.
Then again when Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha got hitched to Victoria.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Makes Wiley think that the Anglo-Saxons might have never actually existed... |
I am teetering on that brink myself.
| Maitland started from the Angevins |
Me too, on the whole.
| and it was his historical research that has shaped the way we view how history dovetails with the development of English law....... We treat Maitland as ortho. |
You've got to start from ortho so is it safe for me to start with Maitland's Angevin section in The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I?
| Borry wrote: | | Makes me wonder if they suddenly appeared in "British History" just after the arrival of George I of Great Britain (a.k.a. the Electorate of Hanover within the Holy Roman Empire) |
That would be exceptionally radical. And would rather dish my claim of Milton writing Beowulf. But it's definitely do-able in terms of known manuscripts--as well as available poets. Maybe better. Hatty will know.
| To big-up Georgie's claim to the throne. Then again when Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha got hitched to Victoria. |
It might account for the clumsy device of having an Old Saxony (Albert) at one end of the Elbe (where Saxony actually is) and a New Saxony at the other (George of Hanover). But that would be more by way of historicism rather than history (faux or real).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
