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 ...
You can voluntarily give up your citizenship, its called renunciation, and if you were a Natural Born Citizen, this means you lose the claim to the status. You can regain your U.S. citizenship, but only as a Naturalized citizen after a whole legal process.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_777.html
“There is no difference between native born and natural born citizen. That distinction lies entirely inside your own head.”
You are wrong, sorry. There is a difference.
for years Congress has brought legislation forward to grant eligibilty to children born abroad to military personel. The reason they have all falled flat on their faces and not made it out of committe into the public eye is that, the legislation also wanted to open up eligibilty to those born with dual citizenship, born to a US military person who is married to a foreigner.
If the right legislation ever came, that only included children born to military abroad, where both parents were US citizens, it would go viral and no doubt pass as an amendment and be ratified by all 50 states.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/
Obama had three claims of Nationality on him at birth. American, British and Kenyan. He was governed by the laws of both Britain and the U.S. at his birth. He was under the jurisdiction of British law, and his fight the smears website plainly admits that. He is a native American, meaning he was born here, but he is not Natural born, the two do not mean the same thing. He was under the jurisdiction of another Nation at birth other than the USA.
Yes, A.) must be born in the U.S. or U.S. Territory. B.) Both parents must be citizens at the time of birth. Otherwise, the nationality of the alien parent also passes to the child, which will not prevent them form being citizens, but does prevent them from being Natural Born citizens because another Nation has claim to them.
Many countries grant citizenship to any child born within their borders, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. For example, if two US citizens in Canada have a child, that child is Canadian by Canadian law. Even if your parents were in transit from Alaska to Washington, and had to stop in British Columbia to deliver you, you are a Canadian citizen.
So you do NOT have to have a non-citizen parent to earn dual citizenship. Other nations grant citizenship at their own volition, and there's nothing the US can do to stop that grant. My point through this thread has been that dual citizenship is NOT a disqualifier for "natural born" status as it is something granted by other nations regardless of what we choose to do or recognize.
“You are wrong, sorry. There is a difference.”
No, you’re wrong (can we make this cycle go on forever?).
OK, so children born to soldiers overseas are not natural born, and that would include John McCain, correct?
“To you, this implies native born and natural born citizens are not the same. Except that the rest of the quote goes on to explicitly say they’re not going to inquire into whether native born citizens are also natural born citizens, which is the one thing in which we’re interested.”
Native or Natural Born? Sounds clear enough they aren’t the same
Blue or red. Different colors. Purple would result, but it ain’t blue or red. It’s blue and red.
How’s that for an analogy?...lol
“The original Framers are irrelevant. The 14th amendment currently controls who’s a citizen from birth.”
The fourteenth amendment can be changed. The original Framers can’t.
“He also does not say that they are not. So Minor v. Happersett proved nothing. Other than a woman couldn’t vote.”
He also did not define what a woman is. Where in the constitution does it define what a woman is??????????
But if you were born on US soil to a British father, although you are a US citizen, you are not a "natural born US citizen" unless your British father filed and became a US citizen prior to your birth.
“The fourteenth amendment can be changed. The original Framers can’t.”
????
I would agree that, as the original Framers are long dead, they can’t be changed. The framework they established, however, can be. That’s what the amendment process exists to do.
“What are you talking about? The excerpt clearly states that a soil baby “is as much citizen as” a blood baby. What am I missing?”
You’re missing the words. The words are:
The baby is as much a citizen....
Not the baby is as Natural Born as a NBC.
It says that Ark was a citizen at birth regardless of the nationality of his parents. Since the Constitution identifies two forms of citizenship then citizen at birth or citizen by birth or natural born citizen all have to by synonymous.
And what defines what a natural born citizen is?
I'm constantly surprised at the stupidity of birther questions.
“So why was John McCain declared a natural born citizen, when he was not born on US soil? Was it because of the status of his parents alone? “
Because he wasn’t a NBC. And is still not a NBC. They could pass a law stating that he is a woman. That doesn’t make it so.
“A. Must have been born on US soil
B. Both parents must be US citizens at the time of the birth
Is this correct?”
Yes. Now you have it. Finally.
“First of all, who says native born citizens aren’t natural born citizens?”
If you would just look carefully, they’re spelled differently.
They both have NAT but one has IVE and the other has URAL.
27 amendments would like a word with you.
All in all, I like almost all of the amendments, which carry equal weight as the framer’s intent. My wife sure loves #19, and my next-door neighbor is a really big fan of #13, #14, #15, and #24. I don’t like #17 all that much, hate #16, but like #21 a whole lot. #1 and #2 of course are fantastic. #4 is far too forgotten these days.
Regardless, when it comes to those (and for the purposes of these discussions, #14), the framers intent is muted at best. It does not trump subsequent amendments.
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.