Posted on 12/14/2009 7:02:03 AM PST by Danae
Students of history know that history repeats itself, and today we are reliving the past of 1880’s. Some of the similarities between the 21st President and the 44th are startling, and the ramifications are huge.
(Snip)
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthur’s father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future President’s birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his son’s birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
(Snip)
Today, a direct and startlingly similar situation exists between President Arthur and President Obama. The 44th President was also born to a British citizen, not a naturalized citizen of the United States. For the same reasons both Presidents were not eligible for the office, the only difference lay in Barack Obama’s public admission of his father’s status:
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Such a declaration would not be recognized in international law which only recognizes some combination of blood or soil at birth for claims of citizenship. No foreign dictator, such as Kim, can claim under international law that US citizen babies magically have North Korean blood or that US soil is magically North Korean soil.
On the other hand, Obama defenders would have us believe that the US born alleged terrorist, "David Coleman Headley"is equally entitled to be POTUS as Obama.
Headley was born Daood Gilani, but changed his name apparently to evade terrorist profiling. He was arrested this week for allegedly scoping out sites for the Mubai Massacre .
"Headley" had a Pakistani citizen father and a US citizen mother when born in the US nearly 50 years ago, yet was educated in Pakistan in Muslim schools in his formative years, then returned to the US and became radicalized.
Hmmm....sounds a bit familiar?
My personal view is that Obama's radicalization was more Marxist then Muslim (his father was both) but the underlying point is that Headley and Obama share insufficient or at least sub-optimal infusion of American experience and values, particularly from their father's, that was of concern to our founding fathers.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3817816,00.html
“Being born on American soil does NOT automatically confer Natural Born Status and that was decided by Minor v Happersett in 1875 and by U.S. v Wong in 1895.”
Liar!
“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.”
What on earth do you think is in these sentences which establishes that native born citizens are not natural born citizens?
“You can give up a birth right.”
No, you can’t You can choose not to assert it, but that’s another matter. Such rights are “inalienable,” meaning not transferable. It remains forever with the holder.
“If she chose to come back and regain her citizenship she could, but can never regain that Natural Born Status based on the simple fact that another Nation had claim to her.”
That makes no sense. Disclaiming citizenship does not alter her natural born status, which is set at birth and never changes.
“You can give up Natural Born Status.”
I wholeheartedly disagree. It is completely outside of your power to do anything about what your status was at birth.
“They DID make the clear distinction that there exists a DIFFERENCE.”
Well of course there’s a difference. No one denies that. It’s common sense. But the two different means of obtaining citizenship at birth do not result in any difference of status. Both ways have the exact same status.
“There are most definitely three types of citizenship. Naturalized, Citizen, and Natural Born citizen.”
If you could please just point to ONE single law or decision that says this, I’ll go along. As it is, I’ll go with the common sense fact that natural born citizen means citizen from birth.
“Both ways have the exact same status.”
Except when it comes to the Presidency of the United States. Then you MUST be a Natural Born Citizen. It is the only time it matters.
You already conceded the point in post 102.
“’Compelling’ is subjective...you believe what you want.”
Believe what you want if you want. Don’t be surprised if others begin calling you gullible. Others amongst us like to be a bit objective and consider third party agreement.
Prove it.
I meant you conceded the point in post 105.
You want to call me a Liar? YOU prove it. You haven’t even read the cases, let alone done ANY research. All you got is an ad-hominum attack of “Liar”.
The case speaks for itself. Come up with a better argument than name calling, it makes you look like a little schoolgirl.
Go get an education and go do the research for yourself. All the material is linked, do it for yourself. I have the research, you have name calling. Golly, wonder who is looking gullible. Hint, the mirror is a good place to start.
“’Both ways have the exact same status.’
Except when it comes to the Presidency of the United States. Then you MUST be a Natural Born Citizen. It is the only time it matters.”
Yes, you must be a natural born citize, and native citizens ARE natural born citizens. They come at it two different ways, which is what makes them “different”. However, they are not different in result. They have the exact same status.
I know that’s not what you think SCOTUS said. But in fact, they deliberately steered clear of deciding whether the native born are also natural born, since it wasn’t at issue. So I have no idea why you keep bringing up the case.
Judging from the article...
President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage, and he died shortly after leaving the White House November 18, 1886... During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction... The President himself would not help matters any, he burned nearly all of his records and papers before he died in Nov. 1886, a year and a half after leaving office.
... it looks like he may indeed have agreed, based on his behavior.
-PJ
Danae:
read this first thing this morning. Excellent artictle.
“I meant you conceded the point in post 105.”
I did no such thing, unless by “point” you mean something that has no bearing on your larger point. I realize, as does everyone else, that “the right of the soil” and “the right of the father” are two different avenues to citizenship. That’s all was getting at by “conceding” the point that native and traditional natural born are “different”. However different they are going in, though, they are the same coming out. Two paths to one status, that’s all.
“You want to call me a Liar? YOU prove it.”
How, by posting the entire decision? No one would bother reading. I could cherry-pick excerpts, but that would prove nothing, because they never came out and said native born citizens are natural born citizens (because it wasn’t the issue at hand). You’re the one claiming they did assert something (my point being they didn’t say anything either way, since the presidency was none of their concern), so why don’t you prove it? Thus far, you’ve failed, since the part you excerpted doesn’t say anything like you seem to think it says.
“You haven’t even read the cases, let alone done ANY research.”
Considering you cannot possibly have any knowledge of my study habits—apart from the fact that I disagree with you—this sentence does not speak well of your honesty.
“Come up with a better argument than name calling, it makes you look like a little schoolgirl.”
Name-calling is for everyone.
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787
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. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…
That is not entirely true. The U.S. does recognize dual citizenship, we don't really have much of a choice in the matter. If another country's laws says that a child born in the U.S. under certain circumstances is also a citizen of that country then there isn't anything we can do about it. We no more control their citizenship laws than they control our's.
A naturalized citizen cannot be a dual citizen in the U.S. because part of the citizenship oath requires the person to renounce any allegiance to any foreign country or foreign leader. And U.S. law also states that any adult who applies for and is granted citizenship in another country has forfited his citizenship in the U.S., natural-born or otherwise. If a natural born U.S. citizen willingly gives up their citizenship status then they can only become a citizen again through naturalization.
“Go get an education and go do the research for yourself”
What makes you think I’m unfamiliar with the case. Ask anybody: it’s NOT about natural born status. I know that much at least. Seems to have gotten past you, oh lord of research, that they explicitly avoided the issue of whether the native born are eligible for the presidency.
Kindly point me to the part of the decision that I lazily avoided wherein they indicate how the term native born was chosen to indicate he doesn’t fit the Constitutional requirements for the presidency. The excerpt you provided above does nothing of the sort.
“I have the research”
So you say, except the evidence you’ve provided so far doesn’t say what you say it does. That’s a problem.
If they are the same why differentiate the two?
Hum?
Yea, you are the person saying that I am wrong, and not backing it up. Prove me wrong with researched fact.
You have not yet, you have merely resorted to attacks of “Liar”. Bring it if you can.
SCOTUS must decide this case. The only way to do that is to bring a case to it that requires a decision on the matter. Previous decisions established that there is a difference between citizen and Natural Born Citizen or it would not have been specifically mentioned.
Prove me wrong.
speaking on naturalization & defining those naturalized:
By the constitution of the United States, congress have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.
(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. (snip)
there was but one allegiance before the revolution. This principle was asserted by the same court in the case of Phipps, and I consider it to be the true and sound law on the subject (snip)
The principle which has been declared in some of our state constitutions, that the citizens have a natural and inherent right to emigrate, goes far towards a renunciation of the doctrine of the English common law, as being repugnant to the natural liberty of mankind, provided we are to consider emigration and expatriation, as words intended in those cases to be of synonymous import. But the allegiance of our citizens is due, not only to the local government under which they reside, but primarily to the government of the United States; (snip)
2.) An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States.(snip)
The act of Congress of the 14th of April, 1802, establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, affects the issue of two classes of persons: (1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that “the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.” (snip)
It applies to all the children of “persons duly naturalized,” under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent. (snip)
This provision leaves us likewise in doubt, whether the act intended by the words, “children of persons,” both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.; or the father only, according to the more liberal declaration of the statute of 4 Geo. II. This clause differs from the preceding one, in being without any restriction as to the age or residence of the child; and it appears to have been intended for the case of the children of natural born citizens, or of citizens who were original actors in our revolution, and therefore it was more comprehensive and more liberal in their favour. But the whole statute provision is remarkably loose and vague in its terms, and it is lamentably defective in being confined to the case of children of parents who were citizens in 1802, or had been so previously. The former act of 29th January, 1795, was not so; for it declared generally, that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
BO’s father was an alien, not subject to the jusrisdiction of the United States, therefore under the laws in place at the time, BO’s fathers children, would not have been citizens of the US, therefore under the intent of the framers, BHO could never claim to be a natural born citizen. Period.
All you have to do is reverse the context of the situation, BO’s fathers was a US citizen, BO was born in England, BO may have been a british subject, but he never would have been classified as a natural born british subject due to the fact his father was not of that country, his allegiance came from soil only aka a native, statute of 25 Edw. III: “children of persons,” both the father and mother
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.