Posted on 03/15/2010 4:44:38 AM PDT by 1234
...Dr. Fukino has made three public statements regarding Obama’s “vital records” on October 31, 2008, July 28, 2009 and February 23, 2010. While Hawaii law mandates in Section 15 that “information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public” must be provided to an individual upon request, Dr. Fukino has released only very limited information on the DOH website. She also has never explained how she arrived at the conclusion that “Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen” and why, as a public figure, his vital records cannot be released.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
LOL! That’s what I thought!
Wrong.
bump
Fourtheenth Amendment (emphasis added:)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Here are the relevant Fourteenth Amendment cases that the court has decided (from Wikipedia):
The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"— does not exist in most of Western Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship.Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[7] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[8] Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Native Americans (called "Indians") were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who were lawfully residing in the United States and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.
Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:
* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)All other persons born in the United States were citizens.
So you can hope and wish and think you understand the legal definition of what is a "natural born" citizen, but you cannot point to a Supreme Court ruling upholding your opinion.
So I point you here — http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2470873/posts
The founders purpose of including ‘natural-born citizen’ as cited in the U.S. Constitution and many founding documents, as opposed to ordinary ‘citizen’ was to insure the continuance of USA heritage.
Hence the issue is where is Obama's real birth certificate and proof his father was a U.S. citizen at time of birth, which he most certainly was not.
As a matter of fact, you can be a Constitutionally qualified ‘natural bork citizen’ if both of your parents were illegal aliens, but you mother gave birth on US soil.
Does anyone find anything weird about that???
Is the USA the ONLY country in the entire world that has this???????
Did you know that foreigners in overseas country know this and LAUGH about its stupidity? I know many and have heard many. They are even on TV laughing about how easy it is to fly to the USA and while pregnant .......
Oh never mind.
I tire............
Where are the fold marks?
Not even one?
First version or later?
Etc
When 40 representatives out of 90 in Arizona sponsor a bill demanding proof of eligibility for ballot status, and a several other states sponsor similar bills, this is counts as **real** stuff!
Are all these legislators “cranks”, as Ann Coulter would say? These men and women are leaders in their communities and highly successful businessmen and women. Likely, a rather large portion are **attorneys**. Are these people “nutz”?
In some states those that have serious doubts about Obama’s eligibility is well over 50%. It’s been reported that even in Marxist California it is over 30%.
There NO POSSIBLE WAY that Democrats will be able to drive around this great big pile of stinking road kill blocking the way to the polls in 2010 or 2012.
Man, I hope so.
I hope you are right.
Yes she did. She said it was based on her looking at his vital records.
The text of the majority opinion in Kim Wong Ark very clearly indicates that anyone who qualifies for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment is a natural born citizen.
If you doubt me, go read the text, the whole thing, for yourself. It's clear as day, attempts by birthers to rip passages of the decision out of context notwithstanding.
Think about it. If the parents needed to be natural born citizens, no one could ever qualify. Those in the who were in colonies or immigrated before or during the revolution, where not citizens of the US at birth, so they can't have been natural born. Thus their children would not have been able to have been either, and their grandchildren...
The same with those immigrating after the revoluation. They could be naturalized, but could not be natural born, thus niether could their children, grandchildren... down to the Nth generation.
Now it would be possible for the criteria to be that a Natural Born Citizen must have parents who were born citizens. But that's not what Vattel's "Law of Nations", or several SCOTUS cases say. They say the parents must be citizens.
But either way, born citizens or just citizens, BHO Sr fails the test, having been not only Kenyan born, but also never even a naturalized citizen of the US. He was a visiting student, not even a permanent resident alien. Thus BHO Jr cannot be a natural born citizen.
Always, not just since then. Since 1787, the President must be a natural born US citizen, but the criteria for being a natural born citizen goes back much farther. Even Vattel, in 1758, was only chronicling it, not establishing it.
What the law required in 1961, and which has since changed, is the requirement that in order for a child born outside the country to one citizen and one alien parent to be a citizen at birth (a naturalized citizen for Constitutional purposes), the US Citizen parent must have resided in the US for 10 years, 5 of them after their 14th birthday. BHO's mother was not yet 19 when he was born. Thus if born outside the US, he would not even be a citizen at birth, although he could have been naturalized later. The requirement is now 5 years total, 2 after the 14th birthday. But that does not matter. Even if both parents were US Citizens, if born overseas one is not a natural born citizen *unless* one or both parenst are overseas "in the armies of the nation" or it's diplomatic corps.
Not even they are NBCs. Unless their father (or today either parent) were serving in the Armies of the nation, or it's diplomatic corps. See Vattel, "Law of Nations", Book 1, sections 212 and 217.
Or you could say it would take just a few generations be born before they would qualify. The way I wrote it, you as a naturalized citizen may not qualify, but offspring of your son or daughter would, provided they wed another citizen. The problem would correct itself quickly. And today there are natural-born in plentiful numbers.
I have read what was said in various founders documents, and the intent was to preserve the heritage of America by the natural-born requirement — why else would they do it?
It would not take many generations before most every citizen would be natural-born.
All four of my grandparents were U.S. citizens, as are my parents; but by your made up definition I would not be a natural born citizen, as neither of my parents would be, because neither of my grandparents would be, because all four of my grandparents had at least one parent who immigrated from Europe.
Almost every American has at least one immigrant within their parentage if you go back four or five generations. According the definition that you made up, none of them would be natural born citizens.
And the problem would only get worse, as the few who would fit your made up definition would no doubt predominantly choose as a mate an American citizen who had an immigrant grandparent or great-grandparent. After sufficient generations there would be no such thing as a “natural born citizen” according to the definition that you made up.
That is an absolute falsehood that has been perpetuated by the mainsleze media. Your parebnts must be here legally to be a citizen, and even then you would not be a "natural born" citizen unless they were citizens at the time of your birth.
The purpose was to prevent recent immigrants from assuming high office, not their offspring.
Quote source from here.
For sure, my definition does not fit NObama, but made up, hardly.
Your made up definition. If not made up by you, made up by someone else. It obviously is not true, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is.
According to the definition you supplied, if an immigrant became a U.S. citizen, married another U.S. citizen, then their offspring would NOT be natural born, as their immigrant parent was a “naturalized” not a “natural born” citizen.
Are you backing away from your made up definition? Repudiating it? Admitting that it is fiction?
So you agree with the statement one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country. Is that better?
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.