Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.
Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.
The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'
|
> Obama is not an alien when he visits the UK. He's a > British Subject and has privileges and obligations in > the UK that a visiting alien does not. >> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe not ??!! Don't be coy, you know the answer ... As a British Subject, Obama POSSESSES access to more privileges than does a non-Subject or alien. IF Obama wanted to obtain a UK passport or British nationality, he could do so. For all we know, he already has ...
|
I found the following argument — posted by “DJ MacWoW” on another threed — of some interest, and thought others may also find it edifying:
John Yinger is Professor of Economics and Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, and the father of two adoptive children, one of whom, even when old enough, will not be eligible to be President.
The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: by John Yinger
The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law.(38) In fact, a law passed in 1677 law says that “natural born” citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who had children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat.(39) It also appears to have been employed by the members of the first Congress, who included many of the people who had participated in the Constitutional Convention. To be specific, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by this Congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or 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 of the United States.”(40)
In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45)
Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms “native-born” and “natural-born.” The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines “native-born” as “belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein” and “natural-born” as “having a specified status or character by birth.”(47) If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, “it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person, except a native-born citizen.’”(48)
82 posted on Friday, February 19, 2010 7:37:36 AM by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]
STE=Q
threed = thread
This is an argument that certainly favors John McCain.
But it does little to build a case against Barack Obama. In fact, the final comment actually is making the point that the framers waned an “expansive,” and not a “restrictive” definition.
I like this article a lot.
Wrong oh newbie troll.
"the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth."(45)
> “Maybe, maybe not ??!! Don’t be coy, you know the answer ...”
>> It does not matter one way or the other.
Your non-response will be parroted by US Attorneys once
the case is heard on its merits.
And it is VERY relavent.
I can read. YOU need to read it again. Miss this gem?
John Yinger is Professor of Economics and Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, and the father of two adoptive children, one of whom, even when old enough, will not be eligible to be President.
Nope. Didn’t miss it. And he considers that completely wrong and unfair. He says so right there in the essay.
Another one of those "inconvenient" Statements, wiggie likes to "conveniently" leave out.
STE=Q
Wrong again.
Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms "native-born" and "natural-born." The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines "native-born" as "belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein" and "natural-born" as "having a specified status or character by birth."(47) If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, "it would only have been necessary to say, 'no person, except a native-born citizen.'"(48)
Which reinforces that I'm right. And you are grasping at straws. His own research rules out one of his adopted children. That means the President , to be natural born, is born of TWO citizen parents. Twist all you like, you can't change facts.
Yes. So I see.
Evidence from the period right after the Constitutional Convention also supports the notion that the Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign influence on the federal government, and in particular on the President.
The most direct evidence comes from a statement made by Charles Pinckney to the U.S. Senate in 1800. Pinckney had been a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and, on July 26, 1787, had been the first delegate to raise the issue of presidential qualifications in the debate. On March 25, 1800, the Senate was debating a bill "prescribing the mode of deciding disputed elections of President and Vice President of the United States."(54) Pinckney gave a detailed explanation for the Electoral College, emphasizing that the rules governing the Electoral College were designed so "as to make it impossible ... for improper domestic, or, what is of much more consequence, foreign influence and gold to interfere."(55)
Having a foreign born parent would cause undue influence.
|
> Obama is not an alien when he visits the UK. He's a > British Subject and has privileges and obligations in > the UK that a visiting alien does not. >> Maybe, maybe not. >>> Your non-response will be parroted by US Attorneys once >>> the case is heard on its merits. >>>> I'm sure it will. They are very good lawyers. You're easily impressed, EnderWiggins.
Take Jim Letten for example, the US Attorney who RESIGNED (only to be kicked upstairs) after botching James O’Keefe’s “break in” of Mary Landrieu’s office. Holding O’Keefe in jail for 28 hours without access to an attorney and leaking information about O’Keefe’s arrest to the media — is that EnderWiggins' definition of a “good lawyer”?
Or take Justice Department head Eric Holder and his “decision” to move KSM’s trial to New York City to try KSM and other terrorist suspects in the Civil legal system? EnderWiggins, when I want a good chuckle, I just look at the video of Sen. Graham asking Holder, “Can you give me a case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?” Bwa-ha-ha! The vast majority of US Attorneys are bungling idiots. Most are political appointees not worthy of hiring to get the average person out of a parking ticket! In the case of Obama’s Eligibility, they're hiding behind Legal Standing and Jurisdiction as a "defense". It won't hold up much longer. If one of the Eligibility attorneys doesn’t find a way to trigger Standing and Jurisdiction, one of the States will. Among the States where Presidential election qualification or Eligibility requirements will be checked in 2012 include Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, New York and others. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require “certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president.” Given the political environment, this list of States in the next 30 months — leading into the DNC Convention — will grow. You After-Birthers think that confirmation/possession of Obama’s true MD-certified "Certificate of Live Birth" is to confirm where he was born. To some, maybe, but its usefulness will be to compel the SCOTUS – via Art III, Sect. 2, Cl. 1 – to resolve the Natural Born Citizen enigma once and for all. And it won’t bode well for Barry ... or whatever you want to call him.
|
You are an idiot. He was born who the he!! knows where and even if he was born in Hawaii his father was a BRITISH citizen and a COMMUNIST. Read your Constitution. One day soon, you are really going to wish you knew it!! CO
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.
