Obama's citizenship

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3 ^

[DavidFarrar]

I have recently been bringing this debate over Obama's U.S. citizenship over at Talking Points Memo. Needles to say, I have received some heat for my efforts. But I have received an interesting response. One that I have been unable to get around. I hope I can find some answers here.

[Non-Sequitur]

Over a million dollars now in legal fees.

Which is what? Less than one third of one percent of the total amount his campaign has raised? Obama's funding this out of petty cash.

[Nipfan]

I don’t think you read my post to the end.

“His prior overseas travel was most likely done on an Indonesian passport.”

No, I do not have proof of this, except that his own behaviour in hiding every single detail makes it more and more likely to be true.

[DavidFarrar]

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here.

Without the grandfather clause, you are correct, none of the framers of the U.S. Constitution could have been natural born U.S. citizens.

Politically speaking,the country (the colonies) existed before the Constitution was adopted as part of the British empire. They were the framers were subjects of the crown. One could say they were all "natural born" British subjects. With 47 of the 55 framers of the Constitution were born in the colonies themselves.

For example: Augustine Washington, father of George Washington, was born in 1694 in Westmoreland, Virginia. Mary Ball Washington, mother of good, old George, was born in Lancaster County, Virginia, in 1708.

The nation's first president was, in fact, Constitutionally speaking: a "natural born" U.S. citizen.

But you may be correct in suggesting my prior post was too general when I stated: "...If both of your parents were alive and living in this country, you were a “natural born” citizen".... I may now have to change that to "If both parents were born in the colonies,"... they would have been U.S. citizens at the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution(alive or dead), would be a more accurate statement.

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Danae]

This was an interesting article.... Certainly looks like he was painted as a voyeur anyway....

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/September/08-crm-841.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, September 22, 2008
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRM
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888
Former State Department Employee Pleads Guilty to Illegally Accessing Confidential Passport Files

WASHINGTON – A former State Department employee pleaded guilty today to illegally accessing hundreds of confidential passport application files, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich of the Criminal Division announced.

Lawrence C. Yontz, 48, of Arlington, Va., pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola in Washington, D.C., to a one-count criminal information charging him with unauthorized computer access. At sentencing, Yontz faces a maximum sentence of one year in prison, a $100,000 fine and a $25 special assessment. Sentencing has been scheduled for Dec. 19, 2008.

According to court documents, between September 1987 and April 1996, Yontz served as a foreign service officer for the State Department. He returned to the agency as a contract employee in January 2004 to work as an intelligence analyst within the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. In the regular course of his employment, Yontz admitted he had access to official State Department computer databases, including the Passport Information Electronic Records System (PIERS), which contains, among other data, all imaged passport applications dating back to 1994. According to information contained in plea documents, the imaged passport applications on PIERS contain, among other things, a photograph of the passport applicant as well as certain personal information including the applicant’s full name, date and place of birth, current address, telephone numbers, parent information, spouse’s name and emergency contact information. These confidential files are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, and access by State Department employees is strictly limited to official government duties.

In pleading guilty, Yontz admitted that between February 2005 and March 2008, he logged onto the PIERS database and viewed the passport applications of approximately 200 celebrities, athletes, actors, politicians and their immediate families, musicians, game show contestants, members of the media corps, prominent business professionals, colleagues, associates, neighbors and individuals identified in the press. Yontz admitted that he had no official government reason to access and view these passport applications, but that his sole purpose in accessing and viewing these passport applications was idle curiosity.

The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Armando O. Bonilla of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, headed by Section Chief William M. Welch II. Trial Attorney Jaikumar Ramaswamy of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section assisted in the investigation of this matter. The case is being investigated by the State Department Office of Inspector General.

###

08-841

[SeattleBruce]

I think he might be hiding something, but I simply cannot believe that Hillary would have given up the presidency if there was any chance whatsoever he was born in Kenya.
++++++++++++++++

I think Hillary was concerned about being labeled a ‘nutjob’ like other birthers were summarily labeled by the enemy press. I think she surmised the chances were smaller of her getting the nomination and presidency that way, than waiting for 2012 or 2016 or 2020, etc., were.

[SeattleBruce]

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

The majority in this case affirmed Ark was ‘at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States’ to wit “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
+++++++++++

So the SCOTUS majority concluded that he and others in like circumstances, with parents having permanent domicile, etc. etc., were ‘citizens at birth’, but carefully not touching the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement of Section 2, Article 1 of the US Constitution.

Fuller dissented, as we may know, and made the ONLY reference to ‘natural born citizen’ in the case as follows:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘naturalborn citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
+++++++++++

Conclusion: the distinctions between statutory ‘citizen at birth’ designation and the ‘natural born citizen’ status required by the US Constitution in their effort to prevent untoward foreign allegience in the office of POTUS - IS STILL NOT SETTLED SCOTUS LAW, despite your conclusion to the contrary Non-Sequitur.

[SeattleBruce]

But you may be correct in suggesting my prior post was too general when I stated: “...If both of your parents were alive and living in this country, you were a “natural born” citizen”.... I may now have to change that to “If both parents were born in the colonies,”... they would have been U.S. citizens at the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution(alive or dead), would be a more accurate statement.
++++++++++++++++++

According to SCOTUS case law, there is no doubt on that class you mention being ‘natural born citizens.’

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
++++++++++++

Clearly, it’s the ‘this class there have been doubts’ that we’re concerned about, at the least with Obama - who according to his tiny amount of disclosure, had one non-citizen father. If he were born in Kenya, then even his citizenship is in doubt, as many others have pointed out on numerous occasions.

[SeattleBruce]

According to SCOTUS case law, there is no doubt on that class you mention being ‘natural born citizens.’
+++++++++++++

This may not be true according to RegulatorCountry:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=7149#7149

“George Washington was not a natural born citizen, since his eligibility was determined via the so-called grandfather clause. In other words, he was a citizen at the time of ratification of the Constitution, and met the age and length of residency requirements as well, so he was eligible. That both his parents were born in Virginia themselves didn’t have anything to do with his eligibility under the Constitution, at that time. The only thing that mattered was that Washington was a citizen, at least 35 years old, and resident 14 years.”

++++++++++

Right, because his parents were not US citizens, at the time of George Washington’s birth. They may have been colonial citizens, but not US citizens.

[RegulatorCountry]

The parents of those who were citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution are irrelevant, DavidFarrar. That they were citizens themselves at that time, is all that is specified.

There were no natural born citizens at all, until after the time of adoption of the Constitution.

And, there were no natural born citizen Presidents, until there were natural born citizens born after the time of adoption of the Constitution, who were age 35 or older. Up to that point, all Presidents had been merely “citizens,” but were eligible via the so-called grandfather clause.

[RegulatorCountry]

Parents didn’t matter for citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, SeattleBruce. That they were citizens at that time, age 35 or older and resident 14 years or longer, is all that the Constitution required, in order to be eligible for the Presidency.

Natural born citizens did not exist until after the Constitution was adopted. And so, there were no natural born citizen Presidents until there were candidates born to two citizen parents, after the country came into existence. Up to that point, every President had been merely citizen, but eligible via the grandfather clause.

[Non-Sequitur]

So the SCOTUS majority concluded that he and others in like circumstances, with parents having permanent domicile, etc. etc., were ‘citizens at birth’, but carefully not touching the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement of Section 2, Article 1 of the US Constitution.

But since the Constitution identifies only two ways of achieving citizenship status - birth and naturalization - then citizen at birth, citizen by birth, and natural-born citizen are synonymous.

Fuller dissented, as we may know, and made the ONLY reference to ‘natural born citizen’...

Dissent is just that, dissent. Disagreement from the majority opinion. In this case 6 our of 8 justices agreed that a person born in the U.S. was a natural born citizen regardless of the heritage of the parents.

Conclusion: the distinctions between statutory ‘citizen at birth’ designation and the ‘natural born citizen’ status required by the US Constitution in their effort to prevent untoward foreign allegience in the office of POTUS - IS STILL NOT SETTLED SCOTUS LAW, despite your conclusion to the contrary Non-Sequitur.

I would say that it's very much settled.

[SeattleBruce]

But since the Constitution identifies only two ways of achieving citizenship status...I would say that it’s very much settled.

+++++++++++++++

USC 14th Amend: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

++++++++++++++

Question, do you think the Founder intended an anchor baby to be eligible for the POTUS/VPOTUS?

I disagree that this is settled SCOTUS law. It is my opinion that since the founding fathers distinguished between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=7144#7144] and since the SCOTUS has disputed this around the edges for so long, the SCOTUS needs to settle this matter, both for the current imbroglio and into the future. Even the case you cited distinguishes between NBC and CAB. The SCOTUS alone can settle this once and for all. Or an Amendment to the US Constitution. Not you, and not me.

[mad_as_he$$]

DavidFarrar Since Aug 15, 2004

Longer than you.

[bvw]

It’s not settled, the court’s refusal to redress by an action under mandamus of a bitterly contentious area not specified as a duty of an official, yet clear as a requirement of office is a egregious misfeasance. This is instead an open sore.

Obama is a Usurper. So I do hold, and so do many. No cold blanket of inaction by derelict officials and judges can remedy Obama’s deficiency to hold the office of President.

[SeattleBruce]

Open sore is right. The SCOTUS MUST act...

We MUST continue to agitate and do so with the most basic of questions - ‘where are his basic records?’ and ‘what kind of arrogance provides that the doesn’t ‘have’ to provide them?’

We MUST do this in conjunction with actively opposing the socialist agenda on all fronts.

[Non-Sequitur]

Question, do you think the Founder intended an anchor baby to be eligible for the POTUS/VPOTUS?

I haven't read anything from them either way.

It is my opinion that since the founding fathers distinguished between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’...

And where did the Founding Fathers do that?

[SeattleBruce]

—It is my opinion that since the founding fathers distinguished between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’...

**And where did the Founding Fathers do that?

—I gave you this reference: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=7144#7144

*********************

—Question, do you think the Founder intended an anchor baby to be eligible for the POTUS/VPOTUS?

**I haven’t read anything from them either way.

—Do you think, as a matter or Constitutional history, SCOTUS precedent and practicality, that Anchor Babies should be eligible to be POTUS?

“as Leo Donofrio has observed, when John Jay caused Alexander Hamilton to change the June 18 draft of the constitution regarding Article II, from “Citizen of the U.S.” into “Natural Born Citizen.” Jay explained in archived letters exactly what and why he wanted the commander in chief to be more than a citizen, and what legal dictionary, Law of Nations, he was using as a source.”

[SeattleBruce]

Oops, the prior post, should have been arranged like this:

—It is my opinion that since the founding fathers distinguished between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’...

**And where did the Founding Fathers do that?

—I gave you this reference: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306351/posts?page=7144#7144

“as Leo Donofrio has observed, when John Jay caused Alexander Hamilton to change the June 18 draft of the constitution regarding Article II, from “Citizen of the U.S.” into “Natural Born Citizen.” Jay explained in archived letters exactly what and why he wanted the commander in chief to be more than a citizen, and what legal dictionary, Law of Nations, he was using as a source.”

*********************

—Question, do you think the Founder intended an anchor baby to be eligible for the POTUS/VPOTUS?

**I haven’t read anything from them either way.

—Do you think, as a matter or Constitutional history, SCOTUS precedent and practicality, that Anchor Babies should be eligible to be POTUS?

[Non-Sequitur]

I gave you this reference...

Yeah, let's look at that.

Wong Kim v. Ark addressed citizenship.

And in it Justice Gray said, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." This concept follows precedent established by English common law and which was documented by Blackstone in his Commentaries. Since the Constitution identified only to methods of acquiring citizenship - birth and naturalization - then the Ark case is clearly stating that natural-born status is conveyed to any person born in this country and, with few exceptions, regardless of the nationality of the parents.

There was never a question of redefining natural born citizenship, which has never varied from the citations in The Venus, Minor. V. Happersett...

Natural born citizenship is not defined in the Happersett case. And if it was, it would not be legally binding because the Happersett case was a voting rights case and any comments on citizenship would have been made in dicta. And as for The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall quoted the following:

""The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."

That definition in and of itself violates the Constitution in so many ways.

or, as Leo Donofrio has observed, when John Jay caused Alexander Hamilton to change the June 18 draft of the constitution regarding Article II, from “Citizen of the U.S.” into “Natural Born Citizen.” Jay explained in archived letters exactly what and why he wanted the commander in chief to be more than a citizen, and what legal dictionary, Law of Nations, he was using as a source.

You're going to have to provide a link to support that. From what I've seen, Jay's letter was short and to the point, and did not quote Vattel or define natural born citizen. Link

Do you think, as a matter or Constitutional history, SCOTUS precedent and practicality, that Anchor Babies should be eligible to be POTUS?

The term 'anchor baby' is a modern one and invokes a certain stigma. I do believe that the Founding Fathers would have been more likely to follow English Common Law and Blackstone in their definition of natural-born citizen, and under those definitions any child born here would qualify.

[Plummz]

Neither English common-law nor Blackstone had a definition or “natural-born citizen.” Hope this helps.