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 previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-526 next last
To: ObligedFriend

It would better be said that there is no provision under the Constitution authorizing the SPECIFIC punishment of those who counterfeit securities of other nations.

There is, however, a GENERAL provision which authorizes Congress to punish such acts. It is the provision that authorizes Congress to punish “offences against the law of nations.”

And that phrase in our Constitution doe NOT come from Vattel. It comes from Blackstone, the writer on the English common law, who included an entire CHAPTER with that TITLE in his work.

And this is CLEAR by the other terms used in that provision of the Constitution all of which are found in Blackstone’s work on the matter, and almost none of which are covered by Vattel.


401 posted on 04/04/2013 5:11:59 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

I didn’t read your post, NG. This is for two reasons. One, I devoted quite a bit of time discussing issues w you over the past several days. I came away w the realization that you are not very honest. [Think Dogs & Cats.] Worse, when you are dishonest it appears you genuinely believe you’re actually being honest. It’s hard enough to talk to a dishonest person who is sufficiently self aware & objective enough to realize their own dishonesty/twisting of the truth. It’s impossible to talk to a person who bends & breaks the truth yet believes they are being honest.

The second reason is the exchange your having w Ride. I have seen w my own eyes that you’re not being honest w him/her either. [Sorry, Ride; I have no idea which it is.] Worse, were it not for Ride constantly, relentlessly correcting you, I wouldn’t know just how dishonest you are.

So why should I read a long post from a person like that? I have no idea if the info in it is true or not. From my other experiences w you, I’d be inclined to think not. Succinctly put, I have no [further] time or patience to devote to a person who cannot be trusted. This is the risk you run when you play fast & loose w the truth. Sooner or later people tune you out.


402 posted on 04/04/2013 5:13:51 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: 4Zoltan
That may be your opinion, but until you get a court to agree with you, that’s all it is.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. We've all seen a digital image of Obama's father's actual 1961 "APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME OF TEMPORARY STAY."

403 posted on 04/04/2013 5:18:05 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

When Trumbull said “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” his intent was SOLELY to exclude INDIANS, IN TRIBES.

He had ABSOLUTELY NO INTENT WHATSOEVER to exclude children born here of non-citizen parents. Such people were, according to Trumbull’s definition, SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

Here’s how the issue came about. They started bandying words around that might exclude the Indians in tribes. Someone suggested “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Someone else said, that’s no good, because the Indians, EVEN IN THE TRIBES, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Trumbull replied, NO. I’m not talking about including the “wild” Indians IN INDIAN TRIBES, and that’s not what the words “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” mean. The Indians IN TRIBES may be PARTIALLY subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are NOT subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States, in the way that anybody participating in our society and under our LAWS is.

Trumbull made it absolutely, CRYSTAL clear that he believed the children born here of NON-CITIZEN parents, of ANY nationality, were born citizens, as long as they were participating in OUR society and not some Indian tribe with its own government.

Including even Indians.

So by Trumbull’s definition, Obama’s parents clearly would have been “subject to the complete jurisdiction” of the United States.


404 posted on 04/04/2013 5:25:01 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color..."

That is where Obama fails to meet the requirements. He and the DNC have already admitted that he was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 at birth via his non-citizen father.

That was the very first wording they came up with, and they improved it over time.

The reason why they changed to "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" does not seem to be recorded, but they obviously had some reason.

The obvious reason is that most likely somebody raised the point that the original wording sounded like it excluded immigrants. And that was NEVER the intention, not from the very moment it was introduced on the Senate floor.

In fact, it was only MINUTES after introducing that EXACT wording that you've just quoted, that Trumbull clarified that IT DID NOT EXCLUDE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN PARENTS FROM BEING BORN CITIZENS.

Any foreign nation can declare that anybody, born anywhere, is a citizen. Any such declaration is completely and absolutely irrelevant to whether a person is, under our laws, a natural born citizen of the United States.

405 posted on 04/04/2013 5:29:37 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Rides3; 4Zoltan
Was the case decided upon the fact that Obama meets neither the facts of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision nor the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction” requirement as defined in the Congressional Record?

On what do they base their ruling exclusive of WKA or its derivatives or the 14th Amendment?

I'll let 4zoltan speak to that question if he wants, since he's just read the case.

406 posted on 04/04/2013 5:33:19 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
The defendant in the most cited Obama eligibility challenge (Ankeny v Daniels) to date was... the Republican Governor of Indiana and George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget.

The federal judge who has ruled against challengers the most often in Obama eligibility lawsuits is... a Reagan Appointee.

The federal judge who sanctioned Orly Taitz $20,000 for wasting his time with nonsense was... a George W. Bush appointee and a former Republican state Senator in Georgia.

Dr. Taitz appealed to Justice Clarence Thomas to stay her sanction, Justice Thomas denied her Application for a Stay, as did the full Court.

Every single Republican Secretary of State approved Obama for their state’s ballot in 2008 and 2012.

Not one conservative Republican member of the House or Senate submitted an objection to certifying Obama’s electoral votes in 2008 or 2012.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has not held one second of Congessional hearings on the natural born citizen requirement or Barry’s eligibility.

“The 44th President of the United States was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”— House Res. 593 (2009) 111th Congress, passed on a vote of 378-0.

Not one of the people with perfect standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility because they can show direct injury from him receiving electoral votes (McCain, Palin, Romney or Ryan) has filed suit, joined a class action suit as a plaintiff or submitted an amicus brief in support of any eligibility challenge.

There are about twenty well known conservative law firms/legal foundations who regularly argue originalist issues before the Supreme Court. Not one of them has taken up the Obama ineligibility cause or submitted an amicus brief in support of any civil action.

That's because REAL conservatives respect and preserve the Constitution instead of misrepresenting it and trying to rewrite it according to their whims of the moment.

407 posted on 04/04/2013 5:40:58 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Any foreign nation can declare that anybody, born anywhere, is a citizen. Any such declaration is completely and absolutely irrelevant to whether a person is, under our laws, a natural born citizen of the United States.

I've brought up my own situation a few times in these threads. My great grandfather emigrated from Italy 100 years ago last month. He became a US citizen, renouncing his Italian citizenship in 1943, less than a year before one of his sons was killed in Normandy. In the meantime, my grandfather was born in 1920. Now, according to Italian law, because my grandfather was born before my great grandfather renounced, Italian citizenship passed to him. He never knew this, and never made a point of renouncing it. Then my mother was born and under that same law, citizenship passed to her, and from her to me. If I provide a bunch of documentation--birth certificates, marriage certificates, etc.--I can get an Italian passport. This is not the same as applying for citizenship and naturalizing as an Italian. Under their law, I already AM an Italian citizen.

So here's the question: I'm three generations native born. Am I a natural born citizen? Or does a quirk of Italian law disqualify me? By way of contrast, if my great grandfather was say, Spanish, none of this would apply. They are strictly jus soli.

408 posted on 04/04/2013 5:41:42 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Is American law subject to and subservient to foreign law?


409 posted on 04/04/2013 5:45:57 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

And I should care which posts you choose to read, why?


410 posted on 04/04/2013 5:53:39 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

What you care about doesn’t concern me in the least. You shot your own credibility, & if you are fine w that then more power to you.


411 posted on 04/04/2013 6:03:10 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
In fact, it does.

Because you say so?

It's actually an interesting claim you're making, and not one I've heard before. Courts seem to find precedent in Supreme Court decisions beyond the specific case at hand, even when the conclusion restates the facts of the case. For example, the conclusion of Heller vs. DC reads

we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Nevertheless, most observers have concluded that the decision had broader reach than just the District, just as lots of courts have concluded that WKA didn't just apply to Chinese people. I hope you get the chance to test your theory in court someday.
412 posted on 04/04/2013 6:14:29 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
When Trumbull said “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” his intent was SOLELY to exclude INDIANS, IN TRIBES.

We know that's not true by reading the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on which the 14th Amendment was based (according to the Senate Judiciary Committee's own website) which refers to both foreign power AND Indians not taxed:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"

The 14th Amendment merely treats Indian and foreign nations the same as in being a power other than the U.S. We know this because instead of stating "not owing allegiance to an Indian Nation," Trumbull INSTEAD said:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Senate Judiciary Committee website that explains the relationship between the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
History of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
413 posted on 04/04/2013 6:23:59 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Statements of fact are not “snarky”. I had to explain semicolons and still you dispute.

Yes, all persons born in Virginia had to swear a loyalty oath.


414 posted on 04/04/2013 6:29:38 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
So here's the question: I'm three generations native born. Am I a natural born citizen? Or does a quirk of Italian law disqualify me? By way of contrast, if my great grandfather was say, Spanish, none of this would apply. They are strictly jus soli.

That is a really, really good example. Thanks.

415 posted on 04/04/2013 6:49:50 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
Statements of fact are not “snarky”.

But statements like "it's basic English" and "perhaps you're not good at your trade" are. Believe me, you did not have to explain semicolons to me.

Yes, all persons born in Virginia had to swear a loyalty oath.

So do you have any pointers to a historical record of that actually happening? I find it an extraordinary claim. The population of Virginia at the time was nearly 700,000; surely if all those people had to go to court to make an affirmation of loyalty, there would be some record of it.

416 posted on 04/04/2013 6:50:46 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Yet I did have to explain semicolons.

No matter.

Hening’s Statutes At Large Vol 9, page 281

May 1777- 1st of COMMONWEALTH

CHAP. III.

An act to oblige the free male inhabitants of this state above a certain age to give assurance of Allegiance to the same, and for other purposes.

WHEREAS allegiance and protection are reciprocal, and those who will not bear the former are not entitled to the benefits of the latter: Therefore, BE it enacted by the General Assembly, that all free born male inhabitants of this state, above the age of sixteen years, except imported servants during the time of their service, shall, on or before the tenth day of October next, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before some one of the justices of the peace of the county, city, or borough, where they shall respectively inhabit; and the said justice shall give a certificate thereof to every such person, and the said oath or affirmation shall be as followeth, viz. I do swear or affirm, that I renounce and refuse all allegiance to George the third, king of Great Britain, his heirs and successours, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the commonwealth of Virginia, as free and independent state, and that I will not, at any time, do, or cause to be done, any matter or thing that will be prejudicial or injurious to the freedom and independence thereof, as declared by Congress; and also, that I will discover and make known to some one justice of the peace for the said state, all treasons or traiterous conspiracies which I now or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the United States of America. And the form of the said certificate shall be as follows, to wit: I do hereby certify, that..........hath taken and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance and fidelity, as directed by an act of General Assembly intituled An act to oblige the free male inhabitants of this state above a certain age to give assurance of allegiance to the same, and for other purposes. Witness my hand and seal, this..........day of..........A. B.

AND be it farther enacted, that the justice of the peace before whom such oath or affirmation shall be subscribed shall keep fair registers of the names of the persons so sworn or affirmed, and the time when; and shall, on or before the first day of January in every year, transmit, in writing, under his hand and seal, to the clerk of the court of the county, city, or borough, a true list of the names of those who, within the same year, have so sworn or affirmed before them respectively.

AND be it farther enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that within one month after the passing of this act, or at the next succeeding court, the court of every county in this commonwealth shall appoint some of their members to make a tour of the county, and tender the oath or affirmation aforesaid to every free born male person above the age of sixteen years, except as before excepted; and that in the certificate directed to be returned, of those who take the oath or affirmation, shall be mentioned the names of such as refuse. And the justices tendering such oath or affirmation are hereby directed to deliver a list of the names of such recusants to the county lieutenant, or chief commanding officer of the militia, who is hereby authorised and directed forthwith to cause such recusants to be disarmed.

PROVIDED, that the person so disarmed shall, nevertheless, be obliged to attend musters, but shall be exempted from the fines imposed for appearing at such musters without arms, accoutrements, and ammunition.

AND be it farther enacted, that every person above the age before mentioned, except as before excepted, refusing or neglecting to take and subscribe the oath or affirmation aforesaid, shall, during the time of such neglect or refusal, be incapable of holding any office in this state, serving on juries, suing for any debts, electing or being elected, or buying lands, tenements, or hereditaments.

AND be it farther enacted, that all persons coming from any other of the United States into this state are hereby required to apply to one of the nearest justices after he enters this state, and take or subscribe an oath or affirmation, renouncing all allegiance to the king of Great Britain, and promising that he will not do any thing prejudicial to the independence of the United States of America, as declared by the General Congress; and upon neglecting so to do, he shall be liable to be taken before a justice, who shall tender him the said oath or affirmation, and upon his refusal to take and subscribe the same, the said justice shall, and is hereby required, to commit him to the jail of the county, city, or borough, there to remain without bail or mainprize, until he shall take and subscribe the said oath or affirmation, or give bond and security immediately to depart this commonwealth, which bond shall be payable to the Governour for the time being, for the use of the commonwealth.

PROVIDED nevertheless, that prisoners of war, regular officers and soldiers in the pay of the continent or of this state, merchants and mariners trading in the ports of this state from foreign powers in amity with the United States, and not become resident, are declared not to be within the intent and meaning of this act.

AND be it farther enacted, that this act shall be publickly read by the sheriff of every county in this commonwealth at the door of the courthouse of his county, on some court day, on or before the first day of September next, and also by every minister of the Gospel, or reader, immediately after divine service, at every church or meeting-house where they officiate, on some Sunday within the said time. And every sheriff, minister, or reader, failing so to do, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds; to be recovered, with costs, by the informer, before the court of the county where the offence shall be committed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mjcMAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hening%E2%80%99s+Statutes+at+Large+vol+9&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NSxeUZKtGZL69gTVsoCwDg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA


417 posted on 04/04/2013 6:57:20 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
In fact, it was only MINUTES after introducing that EXACT wording that you've just quoted, that Trumbull clarified that IT DID NOT EXCLUDE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN PARENTS FROM BEING BORN CITIZENS.

Cite the exact statement and provide a link to the Congressional Record in which this supposedly appears.

418 posted on 04/04/2013 7:13:05 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
When Trumbull said “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” his intent was SOLELY to exclude INDIANS, IN TRIBES.

We know that's not true by reading the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on which the 14th Amendment was based (according to the Senate Judiciary Committee's own website) which refers to both foreign power AND Indians not taxed:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"

Okay. I may have overstated the case VERY SLIGHTLY by using the word "SOLELY."

The intent was to exclude:

* Indians IN TRIBES (but NOT Indians who had left their tribes and joined "civilized" American society)

* AND those who had always been HISTORICALLY regarded as being outside of the rule of citizenship, and who therefore had always BEEN excluded: the children of foreign ambassadors, foreign royalty, and invading armies.

It is also clear that Trumbull regarded the children born here of non-citizen parents as US citizens. He understood that to be United States law.

And he never, ever expressed any intention whatsoever to change that law in regard to children born on US soil to non-citizen parents.

In fact, he argued that those born here of "Asiatic" races (who were regarded by some as being "uncivilized") were every bit as much United States citizens as the children of good Germans and Englishmen.

And none of those who argued against blacks or Asians being citizens EVER argued that the children of Germans or Englishmen or Frenchmen or Norwegians were anything other than United States citizens.

The Constitution-twisters have never produced a quote of any of our Congressmen ever making that argument during the course of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. It apparently doesn't exist.

But they FREELY reproduce quotes from Trumbull and others that they can twist to make their case, all the while ABSOLUTELY IGNORING the quotes where Trumbull and others make clear that they regarded the children born here of European non-citizen parents to be United States citizens.

That being the case, it is clear what our Congressmen understood the law to be.

They understood that there was no parental citizenship requirement for children born here to be US citizens.

419 posted on 04/04/2013 7:17:49 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Because you say so?

No, because GRAY himself said so:

"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 parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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."

420 posted on 04/04/2013 7:20:44 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Okay. I may have overstated the case VERY SLIGHTLY by using the word "SOLELY."

You overstated your case MUCH MORE than very slightly.

The intent was to exclude: * Indians IN TRIBES (but NOT Indians who had left their tribes and joined "civilized" American society) * AND those who had always been HISTORICALLY regarded as being outside of the rule of citizenship, and who therefore had always BEEN excluded: the children of foreign ambassadors, foreign royalty, and invading armies. It is also clear that Trumbull regarded the children born here of non-citizen parents as US citizens. He understood that to be United States law.

Children born here of permanently domiciled parents, as confirmed by the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling.

Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was always only in the country on a temporary basis.

421 posted on 04/04/2013 7:40:14 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Good point!

The Wong Kim Ark ruling confirmed children born here of permanently domiciled parents are citizens.

Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the United States, was always in the country on a temporary basis, and his "Application to Extend Time of Temporary Stay" is public, WKA does not apply to BHO II.

422 posted on 04/04/2013 7:51:25 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Cite the exact statement and provide a link to the Congressional Record in which this supposedly appears.

On January 30, 1866, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Trumbull proposed introducing the citizenship provision that would be slightly amended to become the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment. He proposed adding the words,

"All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color..."

Just a few minutes later:

Mr. TRUMBULL: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?

Mr. COWAN: I think not.

Mr. TRUMBULL: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.

Mr. COWAN: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.

Mr. TRUMBULL: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

Here's the link.

Trumbull also says that the Indians in tribes aren't citizens, but the Indians who have left their tribes and joined American society, in general, are already US citizens.

And he says that although his provision does not embrace the tribes, he is happy to add language to clarify that:

Mr. Trumbull: Our dealings with the Indians are with them as foreigners, as separate nations. We deal with them by treaty, and not by law, except in reference to those who are incorporated into the United States as some are, and are taxable and become citizens, and then it would be desirable that it should apply to the Indians so far as those who are domesticated and pay taxes and live in civilized society are concerned. In reference to the other tribes, they will not be embraced by this provision. If the Senator from Kentucky thinks the language would embrace them, I should have no objection to changing it so as to exclude the Indians. It is not intended to include them.

423 posted on 04/04/2013 8:04:59 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
The Wong Kim Ark ruling confirmed children born here of permanently domiciled parents are citizens.

Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the United States, was always in the country on a temporary basis, and his "Application to Extend Time of Temporary Stay" is public, WKA does not apply to BHO II.

I actually think that IF both of Obama's parents had been in that situation, here on temporary student visas, then there would be at least some argument in favor of that.

But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.

424 posted on 04/04/2013 8:07:34 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

See my comment at 424.


425 posted on 04/04/2013 8:08:20 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Is American law subject to and subservient to foreign law?

In regards to citizenship, its allegiance, and obligations, I'll defer to the U.S. State Dept's information on that:

"Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.

The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad.

...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."

US State Department Services Dual Nationality
426 posted on 04/04/2013 8:09:54 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
It's complicated.

Clearly, anyone born by caesarian delivery cannot be considered a "natural born citizen." However, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about some modern births. For example, if childbirth is assisted by an episiotomy, can the child still be viewed as a "natural born citizen" at birth? How about a ventouse delivery?

In 1738, Mary Donally, an Irish mid-wife, performed the first caesarian section in the British Isles. Just a few decades later and likely because of Donally's breakthrough, our Founders enshrined in our Constitution the requirement that our presidents be natural born citizens.

Most of our current uncertainty stems from the fact that there is no clear evidence that Donally was able to foresee the advent of episiotomies and ventouse deliveries. Thus, it will be necessary for us to guess whether Donally would have considered some of our modern procedures consistent with a natural birth.

427 posted on 04/04/2013 8:14:28 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

I think there’s a good chance.


428 posted on 04/04/2013 8:17:57 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

“caesarian”

A sense of humor.


429 posted on 04/04/2013 8:19:45 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
I actually think that IF both of Obama's parents had been in that situation, here on temporary student visas, then there would be at least some argument in favor of that.

But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.

Based on what? There is no U.S. law that states that a child born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent is even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.

The problem Obama has is that any claim to U.S. citizenship he thinks he has is clouded by his non-citizen father's temporary stay status in the U.S.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to him. Neither does the 14th Amendment as he and the DNC have already admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) his citizenship status at birth.

430 posted on 04/04/2013 8:20:15 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Thanks. (And no you didn’t.)


431 posted on 04/04/2013 8:30:04 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

I’m fine with that.


432 posted on 04/04/2013 8:42:13 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
So by Trumbull’s definition, Obama’s parents clearly would have been “subject to the complete jurisdiction” of the United States.

Would "complete jurisdiction" include the draft?
433 posted on 04/04/2013 8:44:24 PM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Based on what? There is no U.S. law that states that a child born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent is even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.

Yes, there is. The same American common law that makes a child born in the US to two citizen parents a citizen.

Our Founders did not rely on a statute to set the standard for natural born citizenship. Which means they didn't pass a law defining that the child born on US soil of two citizen parents was a citizen, either.

That was set by the rule of American common law.

And by the rule, which is an ancient rule that we adopted, the child born on the soil of the country, whether of two citizen parents, one citizen parent, or NO citizen parents (with very limited exceptions for the latter) was ALWAYS a natural born subject or citizen.

This is not in dispute by anybody except people who post on web sites, who simply don't like the current President and consequently DON'T LIKE the actual RULE that our Founders set up.

But historically legally, there is no case here, WHATSOEVER.

It doesn't matter whether you like it. It doesn't matter whether I like it. That's how the Founders and Framers and their generation set things up, and that is the simple fact.

The problem Obama has is that any claim to U.S. citizenship he thinks he has is clouded by his non-citizen father's temporary stay status in the U.S.

That's simply not true. Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.

Again, you or I might WISH that it did. But it's just not the case. Real conservatives accept the law as it is. They don't twist the Constitution and our history to argue that the law is something that it isn't.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't apply to him. Neither does the 14th Amendment as he and the DNC have already admitted that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) his citizenship status at birth.

Legally speaking, it doesn't matter one whit what they "admitted." They could have stated that he was born in Moscow, a citizen of the USSR, and unless it was actually true, it wouldn't matter one bit.

As for dual citizenship, again, legally speaking it doesn't matter. 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, WHILE serving as President. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

Whether another country grants a person citizenship or not is irrelevant. There is no provision for someone to "lose" their natural born US citizenship simply because another nation said they were born a citizen of that nation as well.

The United States is ruled by United States law, not the law of France or the UK or Kenya.

You can say that's sad. Fine. Thne it's sad, but true.

Continuing to make unconstitutional claims doesn't get us anywhere except having a reputation for being kooks.

434 posted on 04/04/2013 8:46:22 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

433 comments just on this thread and 93 are yours. Do you get paid by the word or just by the post?


435 posted on 04/04/2013 8:48:59 PM PDT by wingtip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
Would "complete jurisdiction" include the draft?

"Complete jurisdiction" meant that a person was in United States society and subject to the laws of the United States.

Indians in tribes weren't. They were PARTIALLY subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Indians who had left tribes and joined United States society WERE subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, whether they had naturalized or not. Immigrants were also subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, whether they had naturalized or not.

436 posted on 04/04/2013 8:51:29 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Yep, amen.


437 posted on 04/04/2013 8:53:01 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: wingtip
433 comments just on this thread and 93 are yours. Do you get paid by the word or just by the post?

Hey, I would be happy to get paid by either, as long as I retain full control of content.

What are you proposing?

438 posted on 04/04/2013 8:54:33 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Careful Jeff, your true purpose might slip out.


439 posted on 04/04/2013 8:54:50 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.

This claim is not supported by law. Remember, BHO II is not covered by WKA.

8 USC § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

440 posted on 04/04/2013 9:02:19 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

ping


441 posted on 04/04/2013 9:18:45 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
This claim is not supported by law. Remember, BHO II is not covered by WKA.

He has a citizen mother. Even if WKA doesn't cover children of temporary residents (and it's debatable whether it does or not), he's covered.

Again, you or I might not like it. I personally wish he hadn't gotten elected, but I am doubtful whether we would be any better off under Slow Joe Biden or not. Maybe we would.

But what you and I prefer doesn't change what US law is. And people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it or rewriting it based on the whim of the day. That's a tactic of some liberals who like to say we have a "living" Constitution.

442 posted on 04/04/2013 9:43:48 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; Rides3
Your true purpose is showing.
443 posted on 04/04/2013 9:50:37 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Is that all you have? False accusations?

Apparently so. Because your claims regarding the Constitution and the law certainly haven’t panned out, have they?

But you needn’t even bother. I’m used to the false accusations by now.

You know, when I started out thinking about this whole thing, and posting about it, I actually thought the main reaction to someone doing some genuine, level-headed research to find out what the Founding Fathers really said, and to find out what the law actually was, and then honestly reporting that, would be thanks.

You see, I was under the idea that others were like I was. Conservative... which meant, honoring the Constitution. Respecting the Founding Fathers. Regarding the document they wrote as sacred in our national history, and not rewritable at my whim or anybody else’s.

So I don’t think it even occurred to me that others who claimed to be conservatives would want to misrepresent our Constitution, misrepresent our laws, twist our history, and then viciously attack anyone who didn’t particularly like them doing that to our Constitution, our laws, and our history.

Boy, was THAT ever a misguided notion.

I am far less naive now.


444 posted on 04/04/2013 10:14:18 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Wrap yourself in "conservatism" and "protecting the Constitution" all you want.

You really hand me a laugh.

The holding of the United State Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark

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 parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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.
Get that? A permanent domicil and residence

Since Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the United States, was always in the country on a temporary basis, and his "Application to Extend Time of Temporary Stay" is public, WKA does not apply to BHO II.

WKA does not apply to BHO II

In Post 422 you say:

I actually think that IF both of Obama's parents had been in that situation, here on temporary student visas, then there would be at least some argument in favor of that.

But with one of his parents an American citizen? Not a chance.

Not a chance? He's not covered by WKA or statute, I'd say that's a good chance.

In 434 you continue your now obvious quest of legitimizing Obama, saying:

Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.
I point out to you in 440 that your claim is not supported by law and then show you the law governing citizenship:
8 USC § 1401

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

None of those situations apply.

In post 442 you say, "He has a citizen mother. Even if WKA doesn't cover children of temporary residents (and it's debatable whether it does or not), he's covered."

There's nothing to debate. WKA covering temporary residents is not the law. It would be de novo. Your claim "he's covered" is wishful thinking.

What makes this so hilarious is your incessant accusations toward others when your accusations apply to you!

Here's a few:

"people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it" (442)

I don't know about your politics, but your BEHAVIOR is not that of a conservative. Because conservatives CONSERVE the Constitution that our Founders gave us. They don't misrepresent it and attempt to rewrite it according to whatever they want it to say. (you to me @ 353. I ignored your ad hominem comments.)

That's not a conservative approach. A conservative approach respects the Constitution and accurately understands what it means. (274. You wear this one out by the way)

Once again, you display that people who are intent on twisting the Constitution don't care about the facts, don't care about the truth, and are perfectly ready to try and demonize those of us who put forth the actual facts and truth. (245)

The actual facts and truth have been placed before you and what is your reaction? Bluster and ad hominem comments:
But what you and I prefer doesn't change what US law is. And people who behave like real conservatives don't try to "change" the law by misrepresenting it or rewriting it based on the whim of the day. That's a tactic of some liberals who like to say we have a "living" Constitution. (you to me @ 442)
What is truly laughable is that now you claim I "viciously attack" you.

Jeff it is you who is doesn't care about the facts, doesn't care about the truth, and routinely and demonize those of us who put forth the actual facts and truth or those you disagree with. I suggest you consider examining your behavior.

All this twisting and reaching just to make Obama a citizen! I expect you will insist that he is a "natural born citizen"

It's truly laughable the lengths you go to in your quest.

445 posted on 04/04/2013 11:16:52 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
Except Minor v Happersett was a women’s suffrage case and citing it in Article II, Section 1 context has not been persuasive for any judge or Justice.

In Ankeny v. Daniels, it was the only Supreme Court case for which there was any legal precedence in defining NBC. That court claimed that the question was left open for others, but by footnote, they admitted there was no actual legal precedence to support this idea

For example: Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

This would be a lot more meaningful if the judge could come up with more than a simple denial. He gives no reasoning for making this statement, so the comment is not compelling, especially when we have unanimous support from the Supreme Court itself in Luria v. United States.

And: Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012 http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin

AGain, this is nothing more than a denial with no legal foundation to support it. The court doesn't cite anything to show why it disagrees.

And: Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

Yes, it is true that those born within the United States are natural-born citizens .... those born within the United States to citizen parents. As for anyone else, the Supreme Court has said, "No."

A later Supreme Court ruling than Minor v Happersett, US v. Wong Kim Ark implicitly cited as stare decisis on Article II, Section 1 eligibility.

No, the Supreme Court has only cited Minor as stare decisis and NOT Wong Kim Ark on Art. II eligibility in Luria v. United States. No other Supreme Court decision has said otherwise. None.

446 posted on 04/04/2013 11:19:18 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Yes, there is. The same American common law that makes a child born in the US to two citizen parents a citizen.

You've been shown U.S. citizenship law. None of the cases apply to Obama, as he and the DNC have already publicly stated that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed (exact quote) Obama's citizenship status. The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling also doesn't apply to Obama as his father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.

But historically legally, there is no case here, WHATSOEVER.

If Obama were born before 1866, you might possibly be correct (would depend on the respective state law at the time - not all states granted citizenship at birth to a child born there to an alien father) but such isn't the case. There is in fact a very strong case here as Obama fails to meet any of federal law criteria to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.

That's simply not true. Since his mother was an American citizen, whether his father was permanently resident or not simply doesn't matter.

Based on what? There is no federal law that states such.

Legally speaking, it doesn't matter one whit what they "admitted." They could have stated that he was born in Moscow, a citizen of the USSR, and unless it was actually true, it wouldn't matter one bit.

It actually IS true that Obama's status at birth was governed (exact quote) by the British Nationality Act of 1948 via his father. Read the Act. There is no wiggle room.

As for dual citizenship, again, legally speaking it doesn't matter. 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens, WHILE serving as President. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

Wow. Did you really just say that? How is it that you don't know that they were all eligible via the grandfather clause: "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."

Whether another country grants a person citizenship or not is irrelevant.

It is QUITE relevant. The 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement, defined by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record is "not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." Obama owed allegiance to the UK at birth via the fact that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his citizenship status at birth.

There is no provision for someone to "lose" their natural born US citizenship simply because another nation said they were born a citizen of that nation as well.

There is a very real question of whether Obama is even a U.S. citizen at all. He FAILS to meet any of the criteria of U.S. citizenship law, and the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark doesn't apply to him.

The United States is ruled by United States law

You've already seen that U.S. citizenship law doesn't apply to Obama. He fails to meet the criteria.

Continuing to make unconstitutional claims...

Questioning Obama's citizenship status is QUITE Constitutional. Show me where in the Constitution Obama qualifies for U.S.citizenship.

447 posted on 04/05/2013 8:48:16 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
"Complete jurisdiction" meant that a person was in United States society and subject to the laws of the United States.

Not true.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull defined the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in the Congressional Record as: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’Not owing allegiance to anybody, else. That is what it means."

448 posted on 04/05/2013 8:56:30 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
He has a citizen mother. Even if WKA doesn't cover children of temporary residents (and it's debatable whether it does or not), he's covered.

Cite the law that states such.

449 posted on 04/05/2013 8:59:08 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Tread lightly.

“Your true purpose is showing.” = “vicious attack”


450 posted on 04/05/2013 9:33:22 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500501-526 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