Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers
The Post & Email ^ | March 10, 2010 | Sally Vendée

Posted on 03/11/2010 8:25:03 AM PST by kyright

Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.

The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.

The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Society
KEYWORDS: aliens; artbell; article2section1; awgeez; birthcertificate; birther; birthers; birthright; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; constitution; eligibility; immigration; ineligible; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; ntsa; obama; tinfoilhat; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-333 next last
To: jamese777
The parents’ citizenship has NO bearing on eligibility to be President of the United States if the candidate was himself/herself born in the United States and is not the child of a foreign diplomat or the child of a foreign military of occupation.

If you don't have a citizen father, you don't have a natural born child. The 14th amendment created broad native-born citizenship, but it didn't redefine natural born citizenship.

141 posted on 03/11/2010 10:46:23 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Well, it's just from that same court case we find the following quote from the majority:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

Emphasis added. It seems to me that being born on US soil is enough to qualify for natural born citizenship, if we're to fall back on the history of English common law, at least that's what the Supreme Court ruled. Correct?

142 posted on 03/11/2010 10:47:01 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

So you’re saying Obama was born in England and is a natural born subject??? You’re not helping yourself.


143 posted on 03/11/2010 10:51:26 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
If you were born of two US citizens, on US soil, your mother dies and your father marries a Malaysian woman, you are now granted Malaysian citizenship. Does that cancel your “natural born” status?

If you are born a US citizen, you are natural born. Only you can cancel your "natural born" status. And only after having reached adulthood. Your parents can't do it for you.

A lot of folks get confused reasoning about these issues, because they can't get Zero out of their heads. Before considering these issues, it's best to put Zero completely out of your mind. Or substitute RR.

144 posted on 03/11/2010 10:53:27 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: patlin
What part of unity of allegiance at birth and that the president must have had a very ‘singular good fortune’ as stated by the North Carolina legislature when debating on ratifying the constitution is so hard for you to wrap your brain around?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the North Carolina's legislature superceded Congress when it came to the state of the citizenship of the United States. The 1790 Act is pretty explicit, is it not?

And don't confuse ‘common law’ to mean ‘English common law at the time of the revolution’ as that is the law that was repudiated by the founders in the Declaration in 1776.

Well, the Supreme Court in Ark seemed to rely on English Common Law in their decision. Apparently without your permission.

Since we've determined that NC law trumps Federal Law, and that the Supreme Court was wrong in relying on English Common Law, well I guess I'll just bow out now...

145 posted on 03/11/2010 10:53:53 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: edge919
If you don't have a citizen father, you don't have a natural born child. The 14th amendment created broad native-born citizenship, but it didn't redefine natural born citizenship.

Exactly! We know from all the several 1st drafts that one contained the term ‘native born’, however that was stripped out and replaced with ‘natural born’ thus proving that there was a difference in definitions, otherwise the term native would have remained.

Morse, 1904

A natural born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.

Morse then pointed out that “if it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person except a native-born citizen’; but 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.”

146 posted on 03/11/2010 10:55:18 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: edge919
You can't be serious, are you? The post I addressed leaned on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Ark case as establishing their reasoning. And they turned to English Common Law to form their basis for natural born citizenship. And that cited English Law states outright that place of birth - not parentage - is enough to establish natural born citizenship.

How you got that I was claiming Obama was born in England is beyond me...

147 posted on 03/11/2010 10:57:46 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
or myself it seems obvious that if you were a U.S. citizen merely by the natural act of being born you are a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.A..

The courts beg to differ. For Constitutional purposes, the Supreme Court has ruled that persons born outside the US, but citizens at birth via statue are "naturalized at birth". Why? Because Congress has power only to create a Uniform Rule of Naturalization. So anyone who is a citizen solely through the operation of a statute, must be naturalized. Although the statute law says they are not naturalized. The Constitution says they must be.

No statute attempt to say who is a Natural Born citizen. Even the 1790 statute which did contain the words Natural Born Citizen (the only statute law ever to do so) said that the children of citizens born abroad shall be *considered* as Natural Born Citizens. But in 1795, that law was repealed and replaces, and it still made those born abroad of US citizen parents citizens at birth, it did use the words "Natural Born".

While no one knows why "natural born" was left out of the 1795 and all later laws, I believe that they recognized that they had overstepped their bounds, or that is could be inferred that they had, in trying to redefine a Constitutional term.

What is interesting about all that is that in putting that into a statute, they were acknowledging that such persons were *not*, and are not natural born under the Constitution.

But as your two categories, yes there are only two ways, by birth or naturalization.

148 posted on 03/11/2010 10:59:01 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

DRONE BE GONE!!! YOU HAVE NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, YOU ONLY HAVE WHAT HAS BEEN INDOCTRINATED INTO YOU!


149 posted on 03/11/2010 11:01:17 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Exactly. And apparently not seeing things their way means you’re a traitorous, Obamabot troll... I always though conservatism was to be marked by logic and reason, not emotion and desire.

Thanks for the lucid post!


150 posted on 03/11/2010 11:03:56 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

What you quoted doesn’t say that natural born citizenship means native born. English common law made those persons born in the colonies of colonist parents natural born subjects. This remained in effect up until the Constitution was ratified, and perhaps beyond because there were still British loyalists (kind of like Obama who says his status at birth was governed by British law). You could be native born in the United States and either be a British subject or a U.S. citizen depending on where you loyalties were. The 14th amendement didn’t change this because it recognized you might be subject to another country. They didn’t recognize dual citizenship at the time, so you were either subject to the United States or subject to the country of your parents if they only had temporary allegiance in the United States. For Wong Kim Ark, the court acknowledged native born citizenship because the parents were subject to the United States by being permanent residents, having domicile in the United States and operating a business here.

Obama’s father did not have permanent residence nor do business here. He was a visiting scholar. Obama’s mama married two foreign nationals, the second of which she promptly moved out of the country with and declared her child an Indonesian citizen. From whom would Obama derive natural U.S. allegiance in that mess?? Nobody. Plus, we still don’t know for sure WHERE he was born.


151 posted on 03/11/2010 11:06:44 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
At the other extreme is citing US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898), for the proposition that a child born of Korean or Japanese parents (any nationality, I use these as examples because the practice is common for Koreans and Japanese), born on US soil while here on a "birth vacation"

It's also common for Mexicans. Many well to do, by Mexican standards, come to the US to give birth. They do this not so that their children might be US President someday, or so they can get a Free Eduction or healthcare, but rather that the children have a perceived "safe haven" should Mexico go to hell in a hand basket, which it's often on the brink of doing. More so recently.

Our first exchange student, and her sister in law, did just that. She has 3 children. I really don't know #2 and #3, but the US, or any other country would be glad to have #1` as a citizen.

But, the ironic thing is that the US may go to hell in that same hand basket, and perhaps sooner than Mexico, although Obama will have work harder to make that happen than the Mexican "leaders" who seem to believe more in slow and steady when it comes to destroying their country, do. But the PRIistas are no pikers either, come to that.

152 posted on 03/11/2010 11:06:58 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: patlin

You mean because I read the words, the history, and the actions of the Founders and I reach conclusions different from you I must not be capable of independent thought.

Yet if I parroted your lines, and mimicked your posts as a real drone would, I would be rewarded with your consideration of an independent thinker.

With such twisted logic how can anyone discuss rationally with you?

Good night, sir...


153 posted on 03/11/2010 11:07:52 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
What you have stated is correct and it is consistent with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and scores of US Supreme Court decisions that have interpreted the 14th Amendment with regard to citizenship since 1868.

I don't see the words "natural born" in the 14th amendment. It did nothing to change the meaning of that term. And it did not intend to do so. The intent was to make citizens of the freed slaves. Full Stop. It has the side effect of making anyone, regardless of their parentage, born in the US, a citizen of the US, But it says nothing about Natural Born. No court case has turned on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. So despite centuries of dicta on the subject, as case that did turn on the meaning, which could only be a Presidential Eligibility case, would/will be a case of first impression. No "settled law", no binding precedent. Just a knock down drag out over the original meaning or understanding of the term as used in the Presidential eligibility clause of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.

154 posted on 03/11/2010 11:13:01 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: edge919
In the part of Ark that I quoted it does not address native born, only natural born. And being born on English soil was enough to earn natural born status in England. If we're to lean on English Common Law - as the Supreme Court did - then would it not be consistent to reach the conclusion that being born on US soil carries natural born status, just as English Common Law provided?

As far as "dual citizenship" the US does not recognize such, and I do not challenge that notion. Similarly, I do not see how what a foreign nation claims over a US citizen would affect the US' claim on that citizen. If Canada suddenly claimed all US citizens as their own citizens, does that immediately negate our possible natural born status?

I simply posit that what another nation claims about a person is irrelevant because the US ignores that claim. It only worries about its own claim AND what the citizen pledges. If you do not claim allegiance to that foreign nation, how does that foreign nation's claim on you matter?

155 posted on 03/11/2010 11:14:10 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
In the part of Ark that I quoted it does not address native born, only natural born. And being born on English soil was enough to earn natural born status in England.

Yes, to be a subject to a monarch, this makes perfectly good sense. To be a citizen of an Independent Republic, not so much. But, you've jumped the gun on what they were talking about. They made distinctions between permanent and temporary loyalty. Other parts of their citation acknowledge this by saying the children of aliens were natural born subjects, but only as long as they remained in England. The plaintiff in Wong Kim Ark was NOT found to be a natural born citizen.

156 posted on 03/11/2010 11:18:39 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier
If you gained citizenship by virtue of simply being born, then you were born a US citizen. Naturally born. Not naturalized.

Unfortunatly, for you, the Supreme Court disagrees. If you gained citizenship at birth solely because of a statute passed by Congress, then since Congress only has power to define rules of Naturalization, for Constitutional purposes you are considered Naturalized at Birth, and thus cannot be a natural born citizen, nor even a 14th amendment "native born" citizen. (native born is not used in the 14th amendment, and using as I just did and most people do, is a modern usage meaning "born in the country" )

Interestingly A. Hamilton's proposal to require the President to be "born a citizen" was replaces with the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen". this indicates that at the time the two phrases "born a citizen" and "natural born citizen" did not mean the same, else why replace the terminology. Other than subsituting "natural born citizen" for "born a citizen" Hamliton's proposal is almost the same as the final phraseology.

Hamilton's proposal:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."

The final language.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

157 posted on 03/11/2010 11:23:24 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier; All

Funny, I looked at the phrasing of the very first statute created about citizenship, and it states unequivocally that you can be born outside the US and still be a natural born citizen.

The Citizenship Act of 1790 also referred to white aliens being citizens, which is surely NOT your point in dealing with Obama. Regardless, that phrase was dropped in the Citizenship Act of 1795.

Historians disagree if dropping the "natural born citizen" phraseology from the 1795 Act was purposeful or not. However, it would certainly seem that Congress more than 200 years later obviously agreed that "natural born citizen" does NOT apply in the manner the 1790 Act is occasionally interpreted, as shown with the attempted passage of this Bill in 2004:


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2128

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 25, 2004

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' .

    (a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--

      (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

      (2) any person born outside the United States--

        (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

        (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

    (b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.


158 posted on 03/11/2010 11:24:09 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
There is. Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401 of the U.S. code.

Point out where that uses the term "natural born citizen".

Only by assuming that "citizen at birth" is the same as "natural born citizen" can you make such statement. But that courts have already ruled that those who are citizens at birth by operation of that statute, or any other, must be considered "naturalized at birth", under Congress power to define rules of Naturalization. If they are naturalized, they can hardly be natural born, now can they?

159 posted on 03/11/2010 11:27:45 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: edge919

I understand that, because Ark moved away when an adult. I don’t know if relocation is the issue with Obama, is it? Relocation as a minor I don’t think counts at “renouncing” or foreswearing citizenship as the minor didn’t make the decision willfully.

It is an interesting question, and I think those who claim hard-and-fast that it must be one way and one way only are putting aside reason and logic, as there isn’t enough legal precedent to conclusively state either way.


160 posted on 03/11/2010 11:27:50 PM PST by PugetSoundSoldier (Indignation over the Sting of Truth is the defense of the indefensible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-333 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson