Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Listen Up: Here Is Proof That Native-Born Citizens And Natural-Born Citizens Are Separate
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html ^

Posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter

The Immigration and Naturalization Service:

“Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.”

Interpretation 324.2(a)(7):

“(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

Interpretation 324.2:

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”

(Excerpt) Read more at uscis.gov ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: afterbirfturds; aliens; birftards; birthers; certificate; congress; corruption; illegalalien; immigration; mediabias; nativeborn; naturalborncitizen; nbc; obama; obamatruthfile; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-526 next last
From Interpretation 324.2, the INS clearly states that each delineation, “naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen“, is a separate status. I have noticed there are a lot of Obama supporters people on Free Republic who insist that a native-born Citizen is the same as a natural-born Citizen. Well, that is not true and this is the proof that they are not. This proves that native-born and natural-born are NOT synonymous. You will see that the official recognition by the federal government is that native-born and natural-born should be separately delineated. If you recall in 2008 on Obama's own campaign website Fight The Smears, it stated:

'The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.'

Does Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifically call for a native born Citizen to be president? No it does not. It states:

'No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;....'

It's amazing that Obama admitted in plain sight on his own website that he was never eligible to meet the constitutional requirement to be president.

1 posted on 04/02/2013 9:04:27 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

I think he was born in Mombasa, Kenya.


2 posted on 04/02/2013 9:10:50 AM PDT by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Not only are the two terms mentioned once, but three times in three different parts of that statue.

The terms' meanings used to be closer but the 14th Amendment made them more distinct and certainly the modern day Congressional statue does as well.

3 posted on 04/02/2013 9:11:34 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Excuse me. That should be Interpretation 324.2 (b):

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED, NATIVE, OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN, as determined by her status prior to loss.”


4 posted on 04/02/2013 9:15:08 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Doesn’t make much difference now. We have our dictator for life. Laugh at that and you might be surprised. Nothing has even put a dent into the takeover and I fear that nothing can stop it but civil war. Much that has been set in place may never be reversed even if we get the Senate and keep the House. Washington Republicans are a real sick bunch with no backbone except for a very few.


5 posted on 04/02/2013 9:15:33 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

If Obama had been born in Hawaii, there would have been a BC there for him, and there is not.

Also the fraudulent newspaper ad confirms that they are covering up where he really was born.


6 posted on 04/02/2013 9:15:41 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“Not only are the two terms mentioned once, but three times in three different parts of that statue.”

That is correct.


7 posted on 04/02/2013 9:16:11 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“Congressional statue?”

Where is it, in DC?

Statute. :o)


8 posted on 04/02/2013 9:19:06 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

The newspaper birth ads only confirm a child was born, but not where.


9 posted on 04/02/2013 9:21:46 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
The newspaper birth ads only confirm a child was born, but not where.

Easy to find out, somebody would have noticed a bright star over the birth place.

10 posted on 04/02/2013 9:22:57 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

Republicants cannot defeat the agenda of the democrips. Republicants live in violation of their oath to OUR Constitution.


11 posted on 04/02/2013 9:24:45 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

There should be a section of definitions in those INS documents. Did anyone search for the definitions section?


12 posted on 04/02/2013 9:24:55 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

For low information voters, make sure they understand that this issue has nothing to do with difference between natural childbirth vs. Cesarean section.


13 posted on 04/02/2013 9:27:32 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Common sense has been replaced in this country by political correctness in some cases, by “New Speak” in others. Witness Same Sex Marriage. I don’t need a court to tell me that there is a difference in Natural born vs. Citizen, Native born etc. The founders said natural born. And they said it for a reason.


14 posted on 04/02/2013 9:32:02 AM PDT by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Seizethecarp

Seen Drudge today? Liberals want an “ammunition eligibility certificate.” So they care who’s eligible to buy ammunition but not who’s eligible to carry the nuclear football. That makes sense.


15 posted on 04/02/2013 9:39:13 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

totally out of context:

§ Sec. 324.2 Former citizen at birth or by naturalization.

(a) Eligibility. To be eligible for naturalization under Section 324(a) of the Act, an applicant must establish that she:

(1) Was formerly a United States citizen;

(2) Lost or may have lost United States citizenship:

(i) Prior to September 22, 1922, by marriage to an alien, or by the loss of United States citizenship of the applicant’s spouse; or

(ii) On or after September 22, 1922, by marriage before March 3, 1931 to an alien ineligible to citizenship;

(3) Did not acquire any other nationality by affirmative act other than by marriage;

...

does not apply in this case. This is about lost citizenship of the specific individual.

This is trolling.


16 posted on 04/02/2013 9:39:52 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

“So they care who’s eligible to buy ammunition but not who’s eligible to carry the nuclear football.”

Go figure! Thanks for the ping...


17 posted on 04/02/2013 9:41:51 AM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All

Why do people keep posting this stuff? NOTHING is going to happen to HUSSEIN. Doesn’t matter if he’s a citizen, natural or native - it’s too late, he’s president and there isn’t anything we can do about it.


18 posted on 04/02/2013 9:51:09 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

Yes, there is a distinction. But it is a small distinction, and it doe NOT imply that "native-born" is anything less than "natural-born." In fact, the opposite is true.

This statute covered women who had been born US citizens in the United States, and women who had been born US citizens abroad.

Either native-born women (i.e., those born in the United States) or MERELY NATURAL-born women (i.e., those born citizens abroad) could lose their United States citizenship by marrying an alien.

This statute provided that their citizenship should be legally restored just as it was before.

So yes, there is a slight distinction. This statute basically says that persons born abroad of citizen parents are natural born citizens. For this reason it IMPLIES that Ted Cruz is eligible to be elected President. However, US regulations elsewhere note that "natural born citizen" for immigration purposes may not necessarily mean "natural born citizen" for Presidential eligibility (since that question has never been formally decided by the Supreme Court).

All native-born citizens are also natural born citizens, and it is clear that they are legally natural born citizens for Presidential eligibility, regardless of any citizenship status of their parents.

19 posted on 04/02/2013 9:51:59 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby
People keep posting it because they get attached to a theory and buy into it want to believe it and insist on it, no matter what.

No matter whether it makes any difference or not. No matter whether it's really true or not.

Because they "really, really believe it."

20 posted on 04/02/2013 9:54:03 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

More than likely Canada.

His mother is placed in Washington state just a few weeks after the date of his birth.

It would be virtually impossible for her to be in Washington just a few weeks after his birth even if Zippo was born in Hawaii.

A friend of mine said after her daughter (now 15-16) was born, she wasn’t allowed to fly on any plane with pressurized compartment for something like 6 weeks because a baby can’t clear their ears and it could cause their ear drums to rupture.

Unless Zippo is several months older than what is reported, and the woman in Washington is wrong about his age being just a few weeks when she first saw him in Washington, it couldn’t be Kenya.


21 posted on 04/02/2013 9:56:57 AM PDT by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

And you really, really don’t.


22 posted on 04/02/2013 9:58:33 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Does Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifically call for a native born Citizen to be president? No it does not.

All native born citizens are natural born citizens.

Legal authorities throughout history have said "native born" citizens or anyone "born in the United States" was eligible to be President, with NO qualifier as to parentage whatsoever.

They've also said all that was required was for a person to be "born a citizen."

Here are some examples of what our early authorities said it took to be eligible for President:

The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America

"Natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were used interchangeably by State of Massachusetts (1785-1790).

This is important because it shows that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," except for the difference of subservience to a king, were understood to mean exactly the same thing in the early United States. And "natural born subject" had a long legal history. All persons born in the country, even of alien parents, were "natural born subjects," except for the children of representatives of foreign governments, and of invading armies. Here are some examples:

February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.”in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, ”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.

In March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.

In many or most of the States, in fact, the use of "natural born subject" in law gradually gave way to use of "natural born citizen" in the same circumstances.

French translation of the Constitution by Phillip Mazzei, Thomas Jefferson's VERY close friend and next-door neighbor (translated, 1788):

“Nobody, without being a born citizen, or having been a citizen of the United States at the time…”

This is from Mazzei's sweeping 4-volume work in French, The History and Politics of the United States of America ("Recherches Historiques et Politiques sur les Etats-Unis de l'Amérique Septentrional"). One of the very earliest published statements of what the natural born citizen requirement meant, it equates natural born citizen with born citizen. Given the extremely close lifelong relationship of Jefferson and Mazzei, this can almost certainly be considered authoritative as to what Thomas Jefferson himself understood "natural born citizen" to mean.

James Madison, House of Representatives (1789):

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, mentions both jus soli (the law of the soil, or place of birth) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood, or parentage) here. But notice the emphasis: "In general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

The First Congress (1790):

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.".

Our very first Congress specified that the overseas-born children of US citizens "shall be considered as natural born Citizens."

This Congress included James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." These men were well aware of the Presidential eligibility clause, and they clarified that those born overseas to US citizens were eligible to the Presidency. This makes it absolutely clear: the idea that eligibility requires BOTH birth on US soil AND citizen parents is FALSE. In this instance, our early leaders specified that citizen parents ALONE was quite enough.

French translation by Louis-Alexandre, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, friend of Benjamin Franklin (translated, 1792):

“No one except a ‘natural,’ born a citizen…” (or possibly, “No one except a ‘natural-born citizen’)

By the French Duc de la Rochefoucauld, who knew Benjamin Franklin personally. He and Franklin had previously co-published The Constitutions of the Thirteen United States of America ("Constitutions des Treize Etats-Unis de l'Amérique") in Paris, while Franklin was the American ambassador to France. No mention whatsoever of parentage.

Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Books (1795):

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Speaks for the State of Connecticut. Remember, there is no documentation ANYWHERE that says "natural born citizen" ever meant anything different from "natural born subject," except for the difference between "citizen" and "subject." Swift's legal treatise was read all over the United States, including by several Presidents and several US Supreme Court Justices.

Alexander Hamilton on how to understand the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution (1795):

"What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution... unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes... where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived."

Hamilton tells us that our jurisprudence has been derived from that of England, and that if we want to understand the meaning of terms used in the Constitution, the place to look is to the laws of England that came before. This is important because the English common law was the fundamental legal training for every lawyer in America. The Constitution contains a variety of legal terms which appear no place other than in the common law. Those who claim we got the definition from Swiss philosopher Vattel are simply not telling the truth. Vattel never even spoke of "natural born citizens." He spoke of "natives, or indigenes." The latter was mistranslated to "natural born citizens" by a translator in London, England, 10 years after our Constitution was written.

Hamilton said we got the terms in the Constitution from the English common law. It is clear that "natural born citizen" came directly from "natural born subject," which never required citizen or subject parents.

French translation, (translated, 1799):

“No one shall be eligible to the office of President, if he is not born a citizen of the United States…”

Born a citizen. Once again, it appears the correct definition of "natural born citizen" is simply: born a citizen.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803):

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker was one of the most important early legal experts. His book became "the most popular reference work for students and practitioners of United States law until the mid-19th century." He totally equates "native-born" (which always simply meant born in America) with "natural born," and approvingly quotes another writer who said natural born citizens are "those born within the state."

Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805):

“...a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term “citizenship.”

In Massachusetts, they followed the common law. This is consistent with Wong Kim Ark and everything else. (Except, of course, the claims of birthers.)

Kilham v. Ward 2 Mass. 236, 26 (1806):

“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.”

Once again, Massachusetts uses the common law as the precedent for citizenship..

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813):

“Our statutes recognize alienage and its effects, but have not defined it. We must therefore look to the common law for its definition. By this law, to make a man an alien, he must be born without the allegiance of the commonwealth; although persons may be naturalized or expatriated by statute, or have the privileges of subjects conferred or secured by a national compact.”

And again.

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)

“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”

Kentucky equated "natural born citizen" with "CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

From a Spanish language book on the Constitution (translated, 1825):

“The President is elected from among all citizens born in the United States, of the age of thirty-five years…”

From among ALL CITIZENS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. No mention of parentage.

French translation by the private secretary of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a personal friend of our first six Presidents (1826):

“No individual, other than a citizen born in the United States…”

This translation is important for a number of reasons. First, the Marquis had himself been declared a "natural born citizen forever" of Maryland, by the State's legislature. So he had darn good reason to know what the phrase meant. Secondly, he was a good friend of every single one of our first six Presidents. This included George Washington, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe. (And John Quincy Adams, too.) He had served as a General in the Revolutionary War under Washington, was instrumental in our gaining France's support, and was such a hero in America and France that he was known as "The Hero of the Two Worlds."

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826):

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Common law, natural born subjects, SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Also, subject and citizen can be used interchangeably. Kent was another of our top early legal experts, which we are rapidly running out of. More from Kent:

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

Once again, NATIVE. Allegiance simply refers to the same historical precedent. Any person born within the country was born within the allegiance of the country, unless his parents were foreign ambassadors or royalty, or members of an occupying army. We also added two more exceptions: Indians in tribes, because Indian tribes were considered to be just like foreign nations that we did not control and made treaties with, and slaves, because they were legally considered to be property, not people.

French books on the Constitution:

“The President must be a born citizen [or born a citizen] of the United States…" (1826)

Born citizen, born a citizen.

“No one, unless he is a native citizen…” (1829)

Native citizen. No mention of parentage whatsoever.

By the way, the list of quotes from this time period saying the President had to be a "native" is not exhaustive. I have only included those from the most authoritative sources.

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Again explicitly states that birth in the country makes on a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, even if one's parents are ALIENS.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

You really can't get any clearer, well-stated, and absolute. Again, Rawle was a legal expert. He was VERY close to both Franklin AND Washington, held meetings with them in the months leading up to the Constitutional Convention, and was in Philadelphia WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS TAKING PLACE.

Justice Joseph Story, concurring opinion, Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830):

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Story was a LEGENDARY Justice on the Supreme Court. He would soon write the first comprehensive treatise on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution (see below, in 1840). And he tells us, quite clearly, that NOTHING is BETTER SETTLED.

American Jurist and Law Magazine, January, 1834:

“From the close of the revolutionary war to the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, all persons born in this country became citizens of the respective States within whose jurisdiction they were born, by the rule of the common law, unless where they were prevented from becoming citizens by the constitution or statutes of the place of their birth.”

Again: The rule was by the common law.

Another French translation, 1837:

“No one can be President, unless he is born in the United States…”

Once again, born in the US. No mention at all of parentage. As is ALWAYS the case.

State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838):

“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State. The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”

Straight-out tells us: natural born subjects became natural born citizens, and NO OTHER CHANGE in the citizenship rules took place. In other words, children of aliens born in the US were natural born citizens, because they were always natural born subjects before.

From Spanish-language books on the Constitution:

“No one can be President who has not been born a citizen of the United States, or who is one at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…” (1837)

Born a citizen.

“The President must be a citizen born in the United States…" (1848)

Born in the United States. No mention of parents.

Acts of the State of Tennessee passed at the General Assembly, pg. 266 (1838):

“That all natural born citizens, or persons born within the limits of the United States, and all aliens subject to the restrictions hereinafter mentioned, may inherit real estate and make their pedigree by descent from any ancestor lineal or collateral…”

The State of Tennessee defined natural born citizens are those born in the United States. No mention at all of parents.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Constitutional handbook, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. (1840)

"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people."

Native citizen.

Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843):

“...no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”

America's first prominent law dictionary. Uses NATURAL BORN SUBJECT as an exact equivalent for natural born citizen! Thus showing again, there was no practical difference between the two.

Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844):

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Flat-out ruled that the US born child of alien parents was eligible to the Presidency.

Mr. Clarke's attorneys actually attempted to invoke Vattel. Vice Chancellor Sandford rejected their arguments, noting:

"[Vattel says] in reference to the inquiry whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

In other words, even according to Vattel, the citizenship laws of England and America were different from his Swiss ideas.

Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, pg. 119 (1845)

“Every person, then, born in the country, and that shall have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, is eligible to the office of president.”

Once again, every person born in the country. No mention of parents.

The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)

“It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.”

A natural born citizen is a member of the state by birth within and under it. Just another way of saying "citizen by birth."

23 posted on 04/02/2013 10:01:34 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Obama was given the opportunity to restore his natural born citizenship status within 6 months after he reached the age of majority because he was issued a CLN as a minor.

Since he chose to remain as an Indonesian National living as a Permanent Resident Alien living in America after he reached the age of majority, he lost the opportunity to restore his natural born citizenship status 6 months after his 18th birthday.

In 1983, Obama completed the process of naturalization to become a U.S. Citizen. The Department of Homeland Security is discharged with the duty of maintaining the records of U.S. Citizens issued a Certificate of Naturalization. U.S. Federal documents supercede state records, hospital records or medical personnel affidavits concerning a birth. The U.S. Federal Government says he naturalized in 1983 and that’s final. He’s ineligible to be President of the U.S.


24 posted on 04/02/2013 10:02:12 AM PDT by SvenMagnussen (1983 ... the year Obama became a naturalized U.S. citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

read later


25 posted on 04/02/2013 10:02:39 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
And you really, really don’t.

That's correct. Because it's really, really NOT TRUE.

And I really, really don't like people continually insisting that the Constitution really, really says stuff it really, really does not say.

26 posted on 04/02/2013 10:03:14 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Give it a rest freak. Aren’t those obamaroid kneepads getting a bit tight yet?


27 posted on 04/02/2013 10:06:20 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby
“NOTHING is going to happen to HUSSEIN. Doesn’t matter if he’s a citizen, natural or native - it’s too late, he’s president and there isn't’t anything we can do about it.”

I guess it's kinda like What Difference Does It Make!!!!

The difference is, if Obama is found not to be eligible,wheather now or 20 years from now, then their has been many criminal acts committed some of them treasonous. And as far as I know there is no statute of limitations on Treason. This has the potential to bring down the Democrat party and if not now then years from now.

So, I appreciate the effort many have taken to investigate the eligibility question. If you don't then you don't have to participate.

28 posted on 04/02/2013 10:12:20 AM PDT by saleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

You actually just proved what’s probably the opposite case you intended to prove. The Natural-Born Citizen movement has been trying to prove that when Vattel’s use of the term “les naturels” should be regarded as the basis for the concept of “natural-born citizenship.” Vattel went at very great length to define “les naturels” as the natives of a country.

What you’ve done is demonstrated that, as a point of law, “native” is not identical to “natural-born citizen.” Who else are natural-born citizens, besides those who are native? Those whose parents are citizens of a nation! So, yes, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio qualify as natural-born citizens.

Natural-born citizen means those who are citizens as a legal consequence of their birth, as opposed to those who are naturalized. Most NBCs are thus because of where they are born (”native”) but not all.


29 posted on 04/02/2013 10:18:17 AM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Other people who are NBC, but not natives:

John McCain (who was born in Panama, of U.S. citizens) and Bobby Jindal (who was born under U.S. law, but whose parents were not Americans)


30 posted on 04/02/2013 10:20:02 AM PDT by dangus (Poverty cannot be eradicated as long as the poor remain dependent on the state - Pope Francis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Hey Jeff Winston, ff Obama is a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen, why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?

From Fight The Smears, his 2008 campaign website. Read the last sentence:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.


31 posted on 04/02/2013 10:23:39 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Excuse me. That should be ‘if’.


32 posted on 04/02/2013 10:24:21 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“The U.S. Federal Government says he naturalized in 1983 and that’s final”

Show me your notarized affidavit with documented evidence Sven.


33 posted on 04/02/2013 10:26:43 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

If his campaign people had had the slightest doubt he legally qualified, do you think they would have ever posted such a statement on the site?

There is no provision in the Constitution that disqualifies a person from being President simply because some other country might say they are a citizen as well.

In fact, 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens with France, WHILE SERVING AS PRESIDENT.

Multiple court decisions have also stated clearly that persons born in the United States are natural born citizens regardless of any citizenship status of their parents.


34 posted on 04/02/2013 10:27:47 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: saleman

NOTHING is going to happen because no one has the balls to do anything about it now - no judge will touch this and 20 years from now society will be in a complete state of stupid and it won’t matter who committed treason 20 years ago, no on cares enough now and they certainly won’t care 20 years from now when this country doesn’t even exist.


35 posted on 04/02/2013 10:28:17 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

“We have our dictator for life.”

Why don’t you wait for the next election before you make inane proclamations like that?


36 posted on 04/02/2013 10:28:26 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

“The newspaper birth ads only confirm a child was born, but not where.”

The newspaper announcement of the birth does not confirm a “child was born.” It does confirm the newspaper picked up the list of names for documents whichclaimed a child was born, even though no child was born in the case of birth registrations filed by family members for a child who was not born in the hawaii. Hawaii has a very long history of fraudulent birth registrations being filedd for children born in Japan, China, and other nations or who were never born at all. Organized crime groups operating in Hawaii have been into puching this fraud and scam for a hundred years in Hawaii.


37 posted on 04/02/2013 10:32:34 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
None of that is relevant except to O-bots.
38 posted on 04/02/2013 10:33:51 AM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Sun Yat Sen had a Hawaii b.c. but was not born in Hawaii.


39 posted on 04/02/2013 10:36:31 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

“The newspaper birth ads only confirm a child was born, but not where.”

The newspaper announcement of the birth does not confirm a “child was born.” It does confirm the newspaper picked up the list of names for documents whichclaimed a child was born, even though no child was born in the case of birth registrations filed by family members for a child who was not born in the hawaii. Hawaii has a very long history of fraudulent birth registrations being filedd for children born in Japan, China, and other nations or who were never born at all. Organized crime groups operating in Hawaii have been into puching this fraud and scam for a hundred years in Hawaii.


40 posted on 04/02/2013 10:36:39 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Sun Yat Sen had a Hawaii b.c. but was not born in Hawaii.


41 posted on 04/02/2013 10:37:41 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
None of that is relevant except to O-bots.

It's relevant to everyone who truly values the Constitution, and who doesn't want to see it's meaning twisted and misrepresented based on whatever the whim of the day may be.

You are arguing, in effect, that the Constitution should mean whatever we want it to mean, its real meaning be damned.

That is NOT a conservative position, and it is NOT a position that actually respects either our laws, the Founding Fathers, or the Constitution that this country was founded on.

42 posted on 04/02/2013 10:38:25 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

Yes, that is correct. Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse and Mike Zullo have documented how the fake birth registration racket is still ongoing in Hawaii today. They have remarked how this racket is a threat to national security apart from the Obama eligibility question.


43 posted on 04/02/2013 10:39:24 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

This only applies to women, who prior to getting the vote, had a different status than those who were eligible to vote.


44 posted on 04/02/2013 10:42:26 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Thank you!


45 posted on 04/02/2013 10:42:51 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; Cold Case Posse Supporter

You are a dissembler, a liar and a slight of hand artist and not very good at any of them.

The 3 Presidents you constantly cite in your idiotic posts were not born citizens of France they acquired honorary citizenship, that carried no weight of law should they find themselves in France.

In other words, had they been found guilty of treason and had an extradition treaty with the US, they would be extradited as they are not actual citizens.

If they were actual citizens then the treaty would not apply as they would be covered by the jurisdiction of France as citizens.

None of these fellows was given naturalized citizenship of France and I’ve yet to see proof they even received the honorary status of French citizenry.

Go pound sand.


46 posted on 04/02/2013 10:46:04 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

And it proves native-born and natural-born are separate subsets of U.S. citizenship.


47 posted on 04/02/2013 10:47:46 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; Cold Case Posse Supporter

Could only women be one of these categories of citizen, and not men?

(I don’t think so!!!)

Naturalized

Native

Natural born

Post #4 for reference :

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Excuse me. That should be Interpretation 324.2 (b):

“The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage,but to restore the person to the status IF NATURALIZED,NATIVE,OR NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN,as determined by her status prior to loss.”

4 posted on Tue Apr 02 2013 11:15:08 GMT-0500 (CDT) by Cold Case Posse Supporter [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]


48 posted on 04/02/2013 10:48:19 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Where is the proof of your assertion?

thnx in advance.


49 posted on 04/02/2013 10:48:34 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

IBTZ

Flippin Troll


50 posted on 04/02/2013 10:49:09 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 501-526 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson