Obama is not a Native US Citizen

Bouvier's Law Dictionary ^ | 1928 | William Edward Saldwin

[bushpilot1]

Meandering through my 1928 Edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary on page 833, Native, Native Citizen is defined:

Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.

If Obama does not meet the standards of a native citizen how can he be a natural born citizen.

[Mr Rogers]

The original uses indigenous, not NBC.

Its use as such existed BEFORE Vattel lived:

“1640–50; < L indigen(a) native, original inhabitant (indi-, by-form of in- in-2 (cf. indagate) + -gena, deriv. from base of gignere to bring into being; cf. genital, genitor) + -ous”

Also: “—Synonyms 1. autochthonous, aboriginal, natural.”

[edge919]

It’s the ‘translation’ dead horse again. Let’s ignore that the definition of natural born citizen proposed in Minor v. Happersett and cited by Wong Kim Ark appeared in a passage on ‘natives and citizens’ of whom Vattel described citizenship as ‘naturally’ following at birth the condition of the father. Wow, no one would ever equate natural citizenship at birth with the contemporaneously used term natural born citizen.

[parsifal]

Not going to try to argue with you on this point. It is clear to anyone who knows how to read a case, and it was clear to the Ankeny court.

But, may I suggest a profitable course of action for you. Take your interpretation to a hungry law firm. Tell them Hillary Clinton and John McCain got bad legal advice during their campaigns about Obama being eligible for office.

Suggest this law firm contact Hillary and John, and any others who ran against Obama, and sue their campaign law firms for legal malpractice. They will not have to sue Obama to do this. Just sue the campaign law firms.

If you are correct in your legal interpretation, there’s hundreds of millions of dollars at stake and these rascals will go for it. They can even get a minor candidate, like Keyes, to sign up, and then try to class action it. The campaign law firms will surely settle out of court to avoid having this embarrassing fact come out. Get yourself cut in as a paralegal. You can retire!

parsy, who is giving you a way to make millions

[edge919]

Not going to try to argue with you on this point.

Translated: "I can't rebut your point."

But, may I suggest a profitable course of action for you. Take your interpretation to a hungry law firm. Tell them Hillary Clinton and John McCain got bad legal advice during their campaigns about Obama being eligible for office.

Parsy, this is emotional nonsense. Unless you have transcripts detailing any advice sought and exchanged over Obama's eligibility, this is nothing but a pointless strawman.

[parsifal]

Not going to try to argue with you on this point.

Translated: “I can’t rebut your point.”

Agreed. Neither can I rebut the Moon Landing Deniers. None of my typical weapons, like logic, reason, or reading comprehension work. This Birfer stuff has transcended foolishness and become its own belief system. Nothing anyone can say will convince an adherent otherwise. I guess one day the Mother Ship will come for you.

parsy, who thinks it’s sad.

[Mr Rogers]

“Let’s ignore that the definition of natural born citizen proposed in Minor v. Happersett and cited by Wong Kim Ark appeared in a passage on ‘natives and citizens’ of whom Vattel described citizenship as ‘naturally’ following at birth the condition of the father.”

Ummm...Minor v. Happersett wrote:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

To repeat: “Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

They then allow that there is a DISPUTE over the status of children born of alien parents, which the Court in that case did not attempt to decide. However, they referenced COMMON LAW for guidance, not Vattel!

It is dishonest to claim they proposed a definition of NBC IAW Vattel. And yes, they DID “...equate natural citizenship at birth with the contemporaneously used term natural born citizen” - only not always in the way you desire.

[BP2]

> Also, Vattel didn’t include the translation “natural born citizen”
> until AFTER the Constitution was written.

Well then, feel free to use Blackstone to define
Obama's status as the son of a British subject:

- OR -

If you wish, use Dicey's “Conflict of Laws”,
a chief citation used by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. (1898):

"A child whose father's father (paternal grandfather) was born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject, even though the child's father and the child himself were not born within the British dominions." (Hint: This would DIRECTLY IMPACT Barack Hussein Obama and his lineage to his British father as a British subject, regardless of Obama Jr's birthplace).

Pick your poison ... carefully.

[patlin]

George Washington:

But there is another authority which among all professing to be Democrats will, I presume, be regarded as of the most important character. I allude to the Virginia legislature. That venerable body has received at the hands of the Democracy, a sort of political apotheosis. Its patriotism and wisdom and profound knowledge of the Constitution are the constant themes of praise.

Virginia citizenship Law:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

[Mr Rogers]

Except America doesn’t recognize paternal citizenship as a binding obligation...

[lucysmom]

...over 100 years after WKA...

I wonder if WKA ever imagined he'd get so much attention in the 21st century?

[edge919]

None of my typical weapons, like logic, reason, or reading comprehension work.

Prove you have such weapons. The only 'weapons' you use are baseless insults and canards.

[patlin]

Except America doesn’t recognize paternal citizenship as a binding obligation...

But the British Nationality Act of 1948 that governed the status of Obama Sr’s children did at the time, therefore Obama was British 1st and American 2nd.

[edge919]

Let me help you .... word-for-word comparison.

Minor: "... all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Vattel: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

[patlin]

1789, David Ramsay, founding father, framer & signer of the constitution:

There are 5 ways to gain citizenship:
1. party to the original compact; declaration of independence
2. taking an oath of fidelity
3. tacit consent
4 birth
5. adoption

The 1, 2 & 5 being self explanatory, we'll move directly to 3 & 4.

tacit consent: minors through the consent of the parents who themselves became citizens or those minors at the time of the revolution whose parents did not become citizens who remained in the country after their coming of age, but this was strictly limited to those who lived and remained in the country throughout the revolution having a permanent residence in one of the states.

birth: None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence; for this obvious reason : for no man can be born a citizen of a state or government , which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the “INHERITANCE” of the children of those who have taken part in the revolution; but this is confined “EXCLUSIVELY” to the children of those who were themselves citizens.

Ramsay goes on to further explain:

Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character tot heir children, but that of “Subjects”, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the “king” or "Congress". Their children, therefore, may claim by “INHERITANCE” the rights of “British Subjects”, but not of “American Citizens”.

Now since this was being taught in American schools directly after the constitution went into effect and the only birthright citizenship it refers to is that by 'inhertance throught the parents', I challenge you to find & bring to the forum here, the dissertation of a different founding father, framer & signer of the constitution that refutes this.

[El Gato]

The original uses indigenous, not NBC.

I could as well say it also uses "naturals", if I were to use the cognate. But you insist "naturels" means "natives". So indigenes must be translated as something else, like naturals as your dictionary entry indicates:

Also: “—Synonyms 1. autochthonous, aboriginal, natural.

[Kleon]

But the British Nationality Act of 1948 that governed the status of Obama Sr’s children did at the time, therefore Obama was British 1st and American 2nd.

Maybe to the British, but in terms U.S. law, that doesn't matter at all.

[BP2]

> Except America doesn’t recognize paternal citizenship as a binding obligation...

Now, come on Mr Rogers. The legal standard used by the SCOTUS to determine Constitutional meaning are laws at the time of the Framing, not Modern-Day Law.

Wong Kim Ark v. US tells you this quite clearly ...

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”

So ... FROM WHERE would "Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that" come?

Certainly NOT 19th or 20th Century immigration law. That's not how the Constitution is interpreted ... certainly not by today's Roberts SCOTUS Court.

Furthermore, there was no Federal requirement for an Oath of Abjuration until the Naturalization Act of 1795 — seven years after the Constitution (and Art II, § 1, Clause 5) was penned. "Paternal citizenship", as you call it, was very binding, as the Framers would have had serious doubts as to whom you were loyal ... the King or the USA. Because under common law, it was understood that an infant could not defend itself without the father, who in turn was protected by the King. As the British were in the "business" of foreign colonization, it mattered not WHERE in the world you were born — as a British subject, this was (and is) your birth right. The King owed you his protection; you owed the Crown your eternal loyalty.

At the time of the Framing, this concept of "paternal citizenship" (and a man's honor) was tied to the FATHER, not the mother ... as seen in the United States Naturalization Act of 1790:

[Lmo56]

If ‘dicta’ was irrelevant, they wouldn’t write it. It isn’t binding, but it explains their reasoning and is often used to guide future questions - as has the dicta of WKA.

This is lengthy - but worth the read ...

This was Gray's writing - and he CLEARLY was trying to sway FUTURE opinion with his writing, since he COULD NOT get the majority in Ark to declare Ark natural-born. But, he abused the privilege by lying and obfuscating. From Calvin's Case [1608], he did not cite the following:

"3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King's part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant' suæ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King's protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to subject; for localis ligeantia, est ligeantia intima et minima, et maxim? incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec cælum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King."

AND [from Calvin's Case]:

"3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King f' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a) birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth."

Gray then cited from Dicey's "A Digest of the Laws of England With Reference to Conflict of Laws" - consolidating Rule 20 and 22 together:

""British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes "temporary" allegiance to the Crown. "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality."

"The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:"

"1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien."

"2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien."

Gray continued quoting Dicey:

"The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of England; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the Crown."

NOW, what does all this mean ???

From Ark, Calvin's Case, and Dicey it IS NOT birth within the realm that determines who is and is not natural-born. It is PERMANENT ALLEGIANCE.

Now, birth within the realm does, GENERALLY SPEAKING, confer natural-born status. And, true, children of aliens were NORMALLY accorded natural-born status. But, that was for two reasons:

1. Aliens WERE NOT free to come and go as they pleased. They had to have leave of the Crown in order to leave the country. So, they usually spent their entire lives in-country.

2. Dual nationality was ALMOST ENTIRELY unknown at the time. Not many nations, other than England at the time, allowed it. So, when Dicey only cited the two exceptions, he listed the two that NORMALLY occurred. If dual nationality were more common, English Law would have clarified the definition of "natural-born" to NOT include dual nationals.

Now, as far as alien children being natural-born [per Common Law], there was no such law. Ark, Dicey, and even Calvin's Case got it wrong.

From a debate in Parliament in the 13th year of Elizabeth I's reign [1571]:

" ... Moreover, statute there is none to maintain this opinion, that saith, every person is English that is born in England, of whatsoever nation his parents be. Then of necessity it must be by custom, if it be law: which having no reason to maintain it, or if it be contrary to reason is no law, have it never so long continuance; but is, as evil, to be abolished, as the laws of the realm do plainly teach us. For they say, customs not grounded on reason, or contrary to reason, cannot prescribe ..."

AND:

" ... And mark, I pray you, now into what absurdities ye shall fall, if this should be admitted for law, that every one born in England should be free in England, of whatsoever nation his parents were. I ask this question, If the child of an alien born in England should be free in England; and by reason his father is a Scot before also in Scotland, (as doubtless by the law he is, wheresoever he be born,) if wars should happen, (as it hath done many times between these two realms,) whose part shall he take? No man can serve two masters at one time, saith the right Lawmaker, and also common reason. If he follow the Scotch part, then he is a traitor to England. If he should with England, then he is a traitor to Scotland. If he will take part with neither, then is he a traitor to both. For every man by the laws of nature, (which is God’s law,) and by the law of every realm, is bound to declare himself a member of one commonwealth: that is, to bestow his life and goods in the defence thereof, when need requires. Therefore I ask, which part it is like that he will take, that is a mongrel of both nations? ..."

And further, if we are to take these sources at their word, they are relying on Common Law. The origin of Common Law is from the time of William I [the Conqueror]. And the second law of William the Conqueror was:

"We decree also that every freeman shall affirm by oath and compact that he will be loyal to king William both within and without England, that he will preserve with him his lands and honor with all fidelity and defend him against his enemies."

Now, when William first conquered England, this would have been necessary for the British to submit to William. However, children born after William assumed the Crown ALSO had to take the oath when they reached adulthood. If birth within the realm conferred an exclusive allegiance to the sovreign - there WOULD NOT have been a need for these children to swear the oath.

So, it is exclusive allegiance that determines whether one is natural-born. And, that allegiance IS NOT automatically conferred upon birth within the realm [per Common Law].

[MHGinTN]

I'm sorry, you're expecting honesty from someone who sets as axiomatic that which he/she/it tries to prove. The poster is working FR as an agent with an assigned agenda, to obfuscate the issues surrounding the affirmative action bastard-in-chief. Posting reasonable quotes from the period of the founding of the Republic is irrelevant to such a poster, to such a deceiver.

[edge919]

The concept of natural born citizen exists outside of U.S. law. It is not defined by laws nor the Constitution, but the definition, as recognized by the Supreme Court, would invalidate any claim Obama has to being a natural born citizen because British law creates an incompatible condition.