Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BP2
There is no requirement that a “natural born” U.S. citizen have both parents be U.S. citizens or even to be born on U.S. soil or territory.

However it would be required that Obama be born to Stanley Dunham (his mother) on U.S. soil as his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was not old enough to automatically convey “natural born” status upon her son; if he were in fact born in a foreign nation.

Please get at least the basics correct or someone might think you have no idea what you are posting about.

248 posted on 12/04/2008 8:22:29 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream; Frantzie; Smokin' Joe; OL Hickory; Poincare; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; ...
>>> However it would be required that Obama be born to Stanley Dunham (his mother) on U.S. soil as his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was not old enough to automatically convey “natural born” status upon her son; if he were in fact born in a foreign nation.

AH, so if Stanley Dunham was not old enough to convey her US Citizenship status to her baby (the law stated 19 years at the time), and Barack Obama Sr was a British citizen, AND Barack Obama Jr, was born in the US (just for arguement's sake), that would make Barack Obama, Jr, a ___________________ .

However, let's see what Chapter 7 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1130, pg 8) says (and yes, I know it addresses children born abroad):

The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

SO, there IS a difference between "Citizenship by Statute" and "Natural Born Citizen"...

And the Constitution specifically and explicitly prohibits "ex post facto" in the 9th Amendment ("No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.")

Hmmmm.....

257 posted on 12/04/2008 8:56:13 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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