Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers

The Post & Email ^ | March 10, 2010 | Sally Vendée

[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.

[BP2]

It found that the issue of a foreign national, if born in US territory, would be a “natural born subject”.

Subject and citizen are interchangeable as they were quoting from English precedent.

Which English precedence is this?

[allmendream]

The one written by Lord Coke in Calvin’s case.

From Wong Kim Ark....

“His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”

[jamese777]

Well yeah. That’s the way it works. When Congress passes a law, its the law of the land until its declared unconstitutional.
Not what the courts have said.

An Unconstitutional Act is not law; it confers no rights: it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” (Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442)

And it is unconstitutional from the day it is signed, one cannot be punished for violating such a “law”, even if one does so before the law is declared unconstitutional.

---

Here’s an example:
Schools had been legally racially segregated from 1898 onward by scores of laws passed by states implementing the separate but equal doctrine affirmed in Plessy v Ferguson. When the Supreme Court affirmed Brown v Board of Education in 1954, all those laws were struck down as unconstitutional. That did not mean that racially segregated schools had been illegal and unconstitutional for that period of 54 years, it meant that from 1954 onward, school racial segregation was now illegal and unconstitutional.
Another more recent example. Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. It was challenged in court and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998. President Clinton used the line item veto 3 times before injunctions halted its usage while its legal status was being adjudicated. Those three times that Clinton used the line item veto were not undone by the 6-3 ruling declaring the Act to be unconstitutional.

[jamese777]

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.

---

Conversely, no court has ever ruled that “born citizen” and “natural born citizen” have different meanings with regard to Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

[rxsid]

HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“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.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born). Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!

http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.

[edge919]

It found that the issue of a foreign national, if born in US territory, would be a “natural born subject”.

It doesn't say that and we don't have natural born subjects in this country.

Subject and citizen are interchangeable as they were quoting from English precedent.

Not consistently: "He evidently used the word "citizen" not as equivalent to "subject," but rather to "inhabitant, ..."

Where is this provision spelled out that to be a natural born citizen one must have a father that is a U.S. citizen?

In Wong Kim Ark: "... right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." Vattel says citizenship of a child naturally follows the conditon of the father. In general, most wives hold the citizenship of their husbands (at least when our country was founded). This was a paternal society. Recall that women didn't have the right to vote.

Making things up again?

Again?? What do you think was 'made up' to start with??

[Bigun]

That is not the issue, the issue is if “as much a citizen” means a different type of citizen, or breaks from the previous declaration that the ‘issue’ of a foreign national born in the USA is a “natural born subject”.

No. The issue is what the founders understanding of the term "Natural Born Citizen" was when they incorporated that language in the Constitution and the evidence is overwhelming that our founders depended upon "continental law", of which Vattel was the most widely read interpretation. Look at the number citations by James Wilson, founder and justice, in his Philadelphia Lectures. Chief Justice John Marshall cited Vattel in The Venus, Jefferson's course Natural Law and Law of Nations used Vattel, as did James Wilson's course at Philadelphia College. The point being that Vattel was THE standard reference of the time and if the founders understanding of what the term natural born citizen meant is not relevant neither then is the Constitution.

[edge919]

What I cited said DIRECTLY that the child of a foreign national, if born in U.S. territory, was a “natural born subject”.

We DON'T have subjects in this country. You can't have a direct statement when it uses terms that don't even apply to our country. Besides, if that statement were true, why did we need to include a statement on citizenship in the 14th amendment??

[danamco]

Barry Soetoro has triple citizenships including Kenyan/British/E.U. and Indonesian!!!

[danamco]

Depends of WHERE they were born???

[edge919]

Barry has citizenships for at least four different continents. That why he calls himself a citizen of the world.

[allmendream]

It DOES say that. It says directly, speaking of a foreign national residing in the USA “and if he hath issue, that issue is a natural born subject”.

Your quote doesn't support your contention that to be a natural born citizen one must have a citizen father. It says that citizenship will not descend to those whose father have never been a resident in the United States.

You made up a definition that to be a natural born citizen one had to have a citizen father, to support it you post that citizenship will not descend to one whose father had never been a resident in the USA. That doesn't supply the definition that you are attempting to establish. Moreover it is hardly applicable in this case, as 0bama’s father was a resident of the USA.

[edge919]

It DOES say that. It says directly, speaking of a foreign national residing in the USA “and if he hath issue, that issue is a natural born subject”.

That's a quote from another case FOLLOWED immediately by a quote from another source that acknowledges a difference between citizen and natural born citizen.

Your quote doesn't support your contention that to be a natural born citizen one must have a citizen father. It says that citizenship will not descend to those whose father have never been a resident in the United States.

You're not thinking this through. This is saying that having a mother citizen isn't enough to make the child a citzen BECAUSE of the status of the father.

[BP2]

“His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’;

LOL. Lord Coke said a lot of things in 1608 and after.
What did Coke have to say about Allegiance?

and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle”

You're basing your argument on a flimsy paper (which was referring to "the citizens of the United States", not "Natural Born Citizen") written by “Mr. Binney” in 1853 meant to influence Congress — which it failed to do? Really?!

Well, as Horace Binney clarified in 1854:

“Alligience”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character.

Remember that Kim Wong Ark's A.W. Dicey said "I unhesitatingly give this advice: Begin your study by reading Blackstone's Commentaries. Keep in mind that the book describes English law as it stood towards the end of the eighteenth century.”

... and what did Blackstone say about natural allegiance?

BTW, here's what FactCheck says about Obama:

“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.

[allmendream]

Saying “as much a citizen” is not establishing a third type of citizenship, no matter how much you would like to read that it does. The following quote does not break from the statement that a foreign national that “hath issue” here “that issue is a natural born subject”, it supports it.

That there are or were differences in the law on how citizenship at birth is established in relation to having a father or mother that was a citizen does not establish the definition you want to, that to be a natural born citizen one must have a citizen father. Your quote doesn't support your made up definition.

[ops33]

Both were born in a US Army hospital in Germany, one in West Germany, the other in Berlin. But I knew of several instances where the child was born in a German hospital because either the child needed some type of medical attention not available in the local military hospital or the parents lived too far away from a military hospital. Towards the end of my tour at Zweibrucken AB it was common for all children to be born in the local Germany hospital because the base did not have a 24 hour medical facility.

[allmendream]

I was stationed at Zweibruken AB as well. The Canadians made the base, so it had an excellent ice rink for hockey or skating. I helped close the base down in 1991.

Live in Fame or Shot Down in Flame!

[jamese777]

Barry Soetoro has triple citizenships including Kenyan/British/E.U. and Indonesian!!!

---

In your mind, I’m sure that’s true. In reality, its a myth.
For example, Kenya gained independence from the British Empire in 1963 and it became a republic conferring citizenship on December 12, 1964 when Barack Obama was three years old.

[BP2]

> Barry Soetoro has triple citizenships including Kenyan/British/E.U. and Indonesian!!!

>> In your mind, I’m sure that’s true. In reality, its a myth.

As we know, Indonesia did not legally permit Dual Citizenship until 2006; the US, officially not until 1990.
And yet, here's Obama shown as a Muslim with Indonesian citizenship in 1968.

Whereas Obama was a Kenyan citizen during his formative years from Dec. 12, 1963 — until he turned 21 on Aug 4, 1982 — rest assured that Kenya would have certainly taken Obama back as a Kenya citizen if he ever had, or does, lose his US Citizenship.

Lastly, in regards to Obama’s status as a British subject, Blackstone reigns supreme and eternal
in the concept of "Once a British subject, always a British subject."

[danamco]

“In your mind, I’m sure that’s true. In reality, its a myth.”

---

My mind???

Nah, not only in my mind but maybe you should study the link below where an attorney gives you all the details, including the extended rules that Kenyan citizens can NEVER lose their British citizenship according to the BNA. So be my guest there is a lot of detailed information you may have missed in your research!!!

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/