a Natural Born Citizen
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Please note that the correct title of Vattel’s Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. [That explanation is covered exhaustively.] ... Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.”.
[article goes on to expose the Blackstone counterpoint. Here’s part of that ...]
John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.
What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond 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 a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.
[snip/unquote]
Satindoll’s research — Indonesian Citizenship?
[quote]
Barak Obama, as a child there, was known as Barry Soetoro. He was registered in a public school under that name. His religion was Muslim, he was an Indonesian citizen, and his father was Lolo Soetoro.
Indonesia in 1965 was a police state controlled by a dictator. No way could an American kid get into a public school. Was he adopted? To be registered as a student required identification, a birth certificate in the name of Barry Soetoro. Adoption by his stepfather seems probable.
But that’s not all.
Barry Soetoro attended Occidental College, CA, and had a SSN starting with 999-XX-XXXX. This 999 prefix is used by the Federal government to track the financial aid given to foreign students. (That information, discovered by Neil Sankey, a private investigator, is included in Orly Taitz’s accumulated evidence against Barak Obama.)
His mother removed him from her American passport in 1965. Since he traveled between Indonesia and Hawaii he must have had a passport of his own, and since he was probably an Indonesian citizen, he used an Indonesian passport.
At twenty years of age he went to Pakistan with his boyfriend, Chandoo.
So, what passport did he use?
My speculation, and that is all it is, is that Barry Soetoro swore allegience to Indonesia. He repudiated any and all citizenships he may have had at that time in his life, and received an Indonesian passport.
Barak Obama is Barry Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
[unquote]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2712999/posts?page=15#15