Posted on 08/26/2009 12:40:24 PM PDT by kellynla
If Obama's father was a Kenyan then how could Hussein be eligible to be POTUS?
Can you actually read English? He says “foreigners,” not “children of foreigners.”
Honestly, FR people are getting less intelligent every day.
DING DING DING... EXACTLY!
A child of a person who holds any ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY CANNOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Fauxbama’s father, never renounced his Kenyan citizenship, as such there is no way in hell Fauxbama is a Natural Born Citizen, regardless of where he was physically born.
That’s the facts, but of course, no one cares about facts.
No, being born in Hawaii makes him a NATIVE born citizen, not a NATURAL born citizen.
The term Natural Born Citizen has a very specific meaning, it means you are the child of 2 parents both of which hold no allegance to no other nation other than the US.
Fauxbama’s father never renounced his Kenyan citizenship, as such there is no way Fauxbama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, no matter where he was born.
The Constitution doesn’t say simply “citizen”, it says “Natural Born Citizen”.
Now if you can come up with any documentation or references FROM THAT TIME PERIOD that says “Natural Born Citizen” means just any old Tom, Dick, or Harry, then you might be right.
But no such references exist. All the references at the time make it clear that “Natural Born Citizen” is one born on American soil, BOTH of who’s parents are American Citizens.
Sorry, no, go look up the term “natural born citizen” and its meaning, particularly at the time of this nations founding.
Natural Born is not simply Native Born.. and implying that the founders of this nation used the term Natural Born to mean Native Born is unbelievable ignorant.
These folks knew exactly what they were saying, they didn’t use a term with a very well understood and common meaning to stand for something else.
Exactly, words were explicitly defined and the founders were highly educated to know this. Today’s detractors do everything in their power to broadly define the meanings. Look at a PWS from the last one-hundred years and you can see the broad definition of power the founders were trying to avoid.
You show a passage from a 18th-century book by a Swiss philosopher. What does that have to do with our laws?
And yes, I recognize Vattel’s influence on modern politics and no, I’m not trying to downplay that. But seriously, basing a 21st century-American law on two sentences of a Swiss book from 17something or other?
Yesterday someone posted a blog story from Donofrio with a treatise unearthed by UCONN law students on ‘natural born citizen’ as written in the Constitutional requirements for POTUS. It was a scholarly piece from at least 100 years ago by a very prominent attorney of the day named Collins.
The understanding at the time per the “Law of Nations” to which the Founders subscribed was that citizenship was passed through one’s father if the child was legitimate. If the child was not legitimate, citizenship passes through the mother.
There has been speculation, and one statement by Michelle Obama, that Ann Dunham was “very single” at the time of BHO’s death. In that case he would derive his citizenship from his mother, and thus be a natural born citizen of the US, assuming a birth in HI or WA. His mother’s family’s roots go back to the Revolution just like the Bushes.
That doesn’t get into complications of his later adoption and possible citizenship in Indonesia .. but it was the first thing I’ve read that would bypass the questions raised by BHO,Sr.’s Kenyan/British citizenship, assuming he and Ann Dunham were NOT married at the time of BHO’s birth.
What “21st-century American law” are you referring to exactly? Be specific.
The only law at issue here as far as I can tell is the US Constitution “from 17 something or other.”
Native born citizen, citizen by statute, and naturalized citizen ALL are citizenships determined by law BECAUSE they are not ‘natural’ citizenship.
A natural born citizen is the only form mentioned in the U.S.Constitution describing eligibility for the President. It doesn’t need a stinking statute. So I’ll say it again — a natural born citizen is born in the nation where the parents are BOTH citizens.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was in Hawaii on a student visa. He had no intention of ever becoming a U.S.citizen or permanent resident. His son, Barack Hussein obama II was registered by his father as a British subject.
The holding of Wong Kim Ark concerns persons, the parents, who were “permanently domiciled” here. Both parents were subjects of the Emperor of China and, according to a treaty with the U.S.A., forbidden from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. Obama Sr. was never permanently domociled in this country and never intended to naturalize as a U.S. citizen.
“As the court in Minor said, a natural born citizen (nbc) is unquestionably a citizen, before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment. An nbc needs no amendment, statute or confirmation at all - is is self evident that he is a citizen of the US and hence his citizenship is natural born. In Wong Kim Ark the Court indicated that the native born child of an alien is not natural born. Those who deny it still don’t know what the meaning of is ‘is’.” (Per Leo Donofrio)
Even if born in Hawaii, the POTUS is still a British subject because that, unlike Kenyan citizenship or Indonesian citizenship, doesn’t lapse at 18 or 21 years of age unless reaffirmed. (In the case of Indonesian citizenship, which does not allow dual citizenship, repudiation of the other nation’s citizenship must also occurr).
The only way to terminate being a British subject is to naturalize as a citizen to another nation. At most POTUS is a dual citizen with split allegiences. He is ‘native born’ if indeed he was born in the U.S.A. But he will never be a ‘natural born citizen’.
And calling other people crazy and insane can get you kicked off of Free Republic. Watch yourself!
Citizen at birth = Natural born citizen
“But the correct answer isn’t always what people want to hear.”
You’re right there, but your interpretation of US v Wong Kim Ark and your understanding of “natural born citizen” and “citizen by birth” are a bit off.
The Wong court only determined that the child was a ‘citizen by birth.’ The generation of ‘anchor babies’ being born today to illegal aliens are not ‘natural born citizens,’ although they are, in fact, ‘citizens by birth.’ Their parents are not citizens of the USA and they are, therefore, NOT ‘natural born citizens.’
There is no U.S. law that requires the parents of citizens at birth to be citizens.
It is not a question of citizenship, but of being a ‘natural born citizen’ which is specific language in the constitutional requirement to be POTUS. And as has been written elsewhere there is a difference between a ‘citizen by birth’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’ So significant, in fact, that the Founders who crafted the Constitution put in that very specific term for a very specific reason.
Look at it this way:
If you are born and you are a citizen, then are you an alien? No. You are NOT an alien if you are born a citizen (citizen at birth).
If you are born and you are a citizen, are you a naturalized citizen? No. No. You are NOT a naturalized citizen if you are born a citizen (citizen at birth).
If you are born and you are a citizen, are you a natural born citizen? Yes.
You are mistaken.
There is no law stating that and much in the way of legal discourse which proves you flat out wrong.
But then your express purpose here is that of disinformation.
Yes, they meant BORN a citizen, not naturalized.
You could be NATURALIZED and be a senator.
That’s why they put natural born in there, to distinguish that they wanted the president to be BORN in the U.S., but didn’t care if a senator was BORN in any other country on the face of the earth!!!!!!!!!!
There is the Constitution, the statutes, and the Supreme Court cases.
There is no law stating two parent citizens are required to be natural born.
I *do* have the law; you have NOTHING.
When you're trying to understand the intent behind the U.S. Constitution, also written in "17something or other", a legal book from the same period seems like a pretty good place to start :-)
Applying modern definitions to historical language without understanding the original use will likely result in misconstruing the meaning; each generation tends to modify meanings to suit their own understanding or viewpoint. "Gay" used to mean "merry"; a "hack" used to refer to a hired horse; and that does not even scratch the surface of slang stuff like "bad" and "sick" that can mean what they say, or exactly the opposite.
Written works make no sense without understanding them in the context of the time they were written.
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.