Posted on 03/03/2016 8:35:22 AM PST by Ray76
Governor LePage "I also have two daughters born in Canada, and they had to be naturalized, they couldn't be natural."
Howie Carr: "Really? You don't think your daughters could run for President?"
Governor LePage: "They can't. I know they can't. I've already looked into it."
Audio at link
“And yet PEOPLE HERE, completely ignore the OBVIOUS FACT... Cruz was born in Canada, was a Canadian citizen until VERY recently, and can’t even produce an America BC like Obama did. Why are we pretending that he is eligible?”
Many of us ask that.
It is a testament to the rationality of modern courts, and by that I mean that they are nuts, and so therefore cannot be regarded as reliable because they have made so many serious and obvious mistakes.
Sorry DL, that was meant for X-spurt.
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized
either by
treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory,
or by
authority of congress, exercised
either by
declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,
or by
enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703
I think you misfired on this one. You probably meant to include me, but I think you were intending to send this to X-spurt.
Figured as much. :)
State your theory, and then we can compare notes. Historical speculation can be great fun. However, as to a legal determination of eligibility for office, I believe this conversation should be about what has been codified as legal under the U.S. Constitution.
Peace,
SR
You are correct about that. I think that they are all a bunch of nutters. I have been in many of these discussions since they cropped up during the 2008 Election season. People were looking for something to save us from Obama. Unfortunately, this tack was never going to get us out of the bay and we ended up on the rocks of disappointment.
Eventually all of the arguments were debunked and most people came to understand that it was all a brilliant disinformation campaign by the Obama camp. The flaw in Obama's candidacy was never the natural born citizen issue, which took several manifestations depending on the most useful argument at the time, but the flaw was the missing or forged documents designed to cover Obama's misdeeds after his adoption by his step father. Millions of dollars was spent to destroy evidence, but this deception campaign was at least as effective as all the lawyers. We still don't know the truth to this day, but the simplest part of this convoluted story is that Obama really was born in Hawaii in 1961 which made him eligible for the Presidency. All the rest is open to question.
My theory, formed many years ago during these debates is that when Obama was adopted in Indonesia, he became an Indonesian citizen. When Obama became an adult, he never took steps to regain his American citizenship either through neglect or intent. He used his foreigner status to gain admittance to Occidental and later to transfer to Columbia. He was a fraud, but once that guise was no longer useful, he engaged in a new fraud to regain his citizenship and doctor all of the documents that would reveal what had happened. This theory fits all of the facts that we know, but of course the purge of documents was very good, so we may never know.
The birthers were duped accomplishes to Obama's frauds, and they hurt our conservative cause. Obama would probably have won without their help, but I won't forget how they played a role in this drama.
At what point did they become “naturalized”?
Well I don't believe it to be a theory as it has been explicitly stated to be true by courts which operated in the early days of the Republic.
I ask you again, how was US Citizenship created, and when was it created?
I'm just asking for a simple acknowledgement of facts before we proceed to a discussion. We must first agree on the foundation of the discussion, and that requires pinning down the source of US Citizenship.
So you think a Naturalization Act can create a natural born Citizen? I'm certain even the most obtuse federal judge will understand that is a contradiction in terms.
Then when the were 18 they went before a judge, raised their hand, and swore loyalty to the U.S. What date was that?
The statute granted citizenship provisionally at birth to foreign-born persons whose citizen parent met qualifications.
“At birth” is in no way synonymous with “by birth”.
Get back to me when you find a federal judge that agrees with you. You have noticed that often Acts of Congress have very strange names that have little to do with the actually legislation as passed. Obamacare, for example, is officially the Affordable Care Act. Nice try, but the law is a little more superficial than that.
It's my opinion that it could have worked were it not for the fact that so many people on our own side insisted on stabbing us in the back as well as portraying us as "nutters."
To be fair, some of us were, and those are the ones that got all the publicity because the opposition endlessly repeated some of the more kooky assertions.
Eventually all of the arguments were debunked and most people came to understand that it was all a brilliant disinformation campaign by the Obama camp.
No, not all of the arguments were debunked. About the only one that *was* debunked, was the possibility of Obama having been born in Kenya, but that wasn't the most important of the three most prominent "birther" assertions.
but the simplest part of this convoluted story is that Obama really was born in Hawaii in 1961 which made him eligible for the Presidency. All the rest is open to question.
No, those two points are open to question too, but not to the same degree. There is some evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, but there is also some evidence that he was not. The more important question of the two has not been debunked at all, and that is whether mere birth in the US bestows upon an individual the status of "natural citizen."
There is much evidence to demonstrate this is not true at all.
My theory, formed many years ago during these debates is that when Obama was adopted in Indonesia, he became an Indonesian citizen. When Obama became an adult, he never took steps to regain his American citizenship either through neglect or intent. He used his foreigner status to gain admittance to Occidental and later to transfer to Columbia. He was a fraud, but once that guise was no longer useful, he engaged in a new fraud to regain his citizenship and doctor all of the documents that would reveal what had happened. This theory fits all of the facts that we know, but of course the purge of documents was very good, so we may never know.
This theory is plausible and it does fit a lot of available facts. It is not necessarily complete though. This business of whether or not he was born in Hawaii is still somewhat open to question, as well, though it is of lesser importance than is the question of whether or not a dual citizen can be a "natural citizen."
The birthers were duped accomplishes to Obama's frauds, and they hurt our conservative cause.
I don't think so. I think they were just a convenient scape goat for both the establishment wing of the GOP and also for the Democrats. The "birther" effort was a hail Mary pass that could have yielded enormous benefits had it worked out. It really didn't cost much in terms of efforts, and the payoff would have been well worth it.
What helped Obama was the numbers of people on our side who couldn't wait to declare in favor of his legitimacy.
Oh, I very much disagree with you there. Again I point to "gay" marriage, or Abortion.
The federal Judiciary is filled with irrational people. You are lucky when you can find one that isn't a kook.
And you wonder why you are called nutters, confusing fantasies with evidence.
And you wonder why you are called nutters, confusing fantasies with evidence.
I say there is much evidence to demonstrate this, and your response is to insinuate I am a "nutter"?
If it were me in your shoes, I would say "what evidence?"
But I am the sort that likes to question my own infallibility by contemplating other people's views.
I am interested in determination of eligibility under the law. If you wish to introduce some variety of historical speculation, I leave that to you. Again, I am not opposed to such speculation, but I can hardly be expected to know where you want me to start. The opening move is yours to make. Do it, or do it not. It’s up to you.
Peace,
SR
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.