Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[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'

[Danae]

A citizen is a person who was either born in the US on our soil, or someone with at least one parent who is a citizen.

A citizen can have more than one citizenship. For instance, having an American Mother and a Jamaican Father. That person has American and Jamaican citizenship, and can choose between either one, otherwise known as divided loyalties. Look up Jamaican Skier Kerr who is in this year’s Olympics. He fits this example perfectly as does Obama.

++++++++

A Natural Born Citizen is someone who was born in the United States to two parents who are citizens.

A Natural Born Citizen has no other potential citizenship(s). He is 100% American, by both the factor of inheriting his parents citizenship, and being born on the soil of our nation. He or she is of undivided loyalty in the sense that the Founding Fathers intended.

[BP2]

> All that time, I had no clue that I was an Italian citizen too.

YOU may not. That's not the case for Barry Soetoro.

For Obama as the acting American POTUS — who is also a CURRENT British Subject, former Indonesian citizen and former Kenyan citizen — it typifies the foreign influence that Washington, Jay and others Framers knew was dangerous for the Republic.

DANGEROUS because they designed the Executive Branch with ONE Executor, which differs from the internal and numerical Checks and Balances that the other Branches possess with 9 Justices and 435 Members of Congress (as they stands today).

That's PRECISELY why the Framers wanted the "Natural Born Citizen" qualification for the POTUS — no internal Checks and Balances against foreign influence that the other two branches contained.

[EnderWiggins]

"This graphic should help."

It only helps if you want to believe bullsh!t.

[EnderWiggins]

"A citizen is a person who was either born in the US on our soil, or someone with at least one parent who is a citizen."

So.. how did you manage to forget about naturalized citizens?

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you.

[Red Steel]

Nothing smells more than the “bullsh!t” that you spew.

[EnderWiggins]

Fascinating speculation, BP. Sadly, there’s not a shard a law in it anywhere.

[Las Vegas Ron]

But if you thought that was an valid analogy? Not so much.

No sh!t, you get my point, now answer the question.

[EnderWiggins]

Steel, have you finally come up with that single example of a single framer who ever mentioned de Vattel and citizenship in the same breath? No?

I didn’t think so.

I’ll check again next week.

[EnderWiggins]

"No sh!t, you get my point, now answer the question."

No... I don't get your point.

And you didn't ask a question.

[Las Vegas Ron]

A Natural Born Citizen is someone who was born in the United States to two parents who are citizens.

Amen, I'm trying two get wiggie to difine the difference, he's yet to do that, at least that I've read.

All he has done is try and skirt the issue, unless I missed it.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Didn't ask a question eh? Here you are again

For the purposes of defining what the difference the Founding Fathers had in mind for POTUS, why did they use two wholly different terms, both with different meanings and what are they?

[EnderWiggins]

Sorry... you did ask a question after all. Sadly, it was carefully concealed by the camouflage of no question mark. I apologize for missing it.

The used a different word (but not, as we showed a completely different word) to exclude naturalized citizens.

Remember those?

[EnderWiggins]

"All he has done is try and skirt the issue, unless I missed it. "

You missed it.

[BP2]

> Sadly, there’s not a shard a law in it anywhere.

LOL.

No, it’s historical fact as opposed to your hysterical fiction.

[Red Steel]

The evidence if not proof that has been provide to you on this thread and others that Vattel’s citizen definition is the true meaning and intent written in the US Constitution. You on the other hand, have provide frivolous arguments that are worthless in proving your point of view.

[syc1959]

gigglyPuff [wiggieFool]
can’t answer - it’s above his paygrade. They never covered that in kindergarten, and he missed that in first grade due to ‘bring your illegal undcoumented foreigner’ to school day.

[EnderWiggins]

You have a very weird definition of “fact.” Perhaps you should look it up.

[EnderWiggins]

"The evidence if not proof that has been provide to you on this thread and others that Vattel’s citizen definition is the true meaning and intent written in the US Constitution. You on the other hand, have provide frivolous arguments that are worthless in proving your point of view."

There was no such thing as "the de Vattel definition" until ten years too late.

[Las Vegas Ron]

The used a different word (but not, as we showed a completely different word) to exclude naturalized citizens.

They also exluded citizens, as well as natualized citizens.

Why, what is the difference for the third time??

Federal...federalized, two different words and two different meanings, NBC vs Citizen, what is the difference?

[Las Vegas Ron]

‘bring your illegal undcoumented foreigner’ to school day.

LOL, it was probably Obama!