Posted on 01/26/2011 5:57:29 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
That has been established by case law. Your American citizenship cannot be taken from a minor child. Upon reaching majority, the child may not choose American citizenship, but has that option.
If you are so sure, then kindly provide a link with an example.
We were here when Berg filed the first lawsuit in August of 2008.
Berg's lawsuit did not make the two-citizen parent argument. It was solely predicated on the (false) notion that Obama wasn't born in the USA.
STFU
Do you know that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires that:
All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.
Is there any exception made in that law for any occupation, including President?
Is Obama an employee, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States?
Do you know whether or not Obama is in compliance with current Immigration law? Do you know whether or not Obama has completed a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, and if so, what documents he used as proof of his employment eligibility?
Do you realize that the Form I-9 is very specific about what documents are acceptable?
Are you calling me a liar?
Wow!
I **absolutely** read about here on Free Republic and wrote letters to every representative, my secretary of state, and attorney general. I did this BEFORE the 2008 election.
And people wonder how I typo like I do.
I angered the spelling chicken.
During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chesters birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction. Arthurs father, William Arthur was a British citizen at the time of the future Presidents birth. Born in Ballymena, Ireland in 1796 he would not become a Naturalized citizen until August 31st, 1843. No one ever checked into his immigration status at the time of his sons birth. Chester Arthur, 14 at the time his father was naturalized, and would surely have known this. Sound somewhat familiar?
No one knew Arthur was not a Natural Born Citizen. No one knew during the campaign or ever until 2008 that William Arthur did not become a Naturalized citizen until his son was 14.
That being said, a number of interviews were published in the Brooklyn Eagle regarding Hinnman, the man principally investigating Arthur. August 1880 is where to start your searching bubba. Clearly August 1880 was before the Nov 1880 elections.
FAIL!
Look, you are the one asking for proof that the discussion about eligibility came up before the election. It is not my need to wade through the backlogs since I know what took place. Therefore, you prove us wrong since that is your goal. As for the Berg lawsuit, it was simply cited as a time frame of reference, not for the quality or specific content of his arguments.
You are the one making the accusations. Back it up or shut up. Do your own research ya little toaddie.
I suggest you take the time to go back and research the FR threads leading up to the election if it is really that important to you. I am certain it was discussed here before the fall of 2008. I don’t remember exactly when Berg and Donofrio first filed their lawsuits but I beleive think at least one of them may have been filed before September 2008 and I know it was discussed in those threads here on FR. I think the first lawsuit was addressed by the Supreme Court in about November or December 2008 and it usually takes a while before cases get to the supreme court. I know I was discussing it with my friends before a 4th of July BBQ in 2008, because I had taken some of the stuff I had printed off to the BBQ. Doesn’t make much difference anyway when people started talking about it.
I need to go out for a bit, so I won’t be able to respond to posts sent to me for a while.
I called my congressperson and senator and they had no idea if Pres, VP Senators Congressmen had to fill out an I-9 and they could not point me to the right place to find out..
Sven Magnussen differs and has shown sources that support his contention.
Berg filed his lawsuit on August 21, 2008.
I refer you to the Constitution: There is a scale of qualifications for Federal elected offices. Any sort of citizen can qualify for any Federal office, except the Presidency, by satisfying residency and age requirements. In other words, a naturalized citizen, or a native-born citizen can become a Representative, or a Senator.
To become President,however, the Constitution clearly states that one is required to be a Natural Born Citizen. Therefore, there is a difference between a Natural Born Citizen and a Native Born Citizen, not to mention a naturalized citizen. But it is fair to say that there is no explicit definition offered in the document, except by differentiation. Most likely because the Founders took Natural Born Citizenship for granted. BTW, they knew they were not. You might find, in researching the source materials used by the Founders, "Natural Born Citizen" would then take on a much clearer meaning.
You, no doubt because of your most excellent education in the 1980's secondary schools of southern California, are joining a band of scholars who feel that a Native Born Citizen IS a Natural Born Citizen, a claim usually based on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If such is indeed found to be the case, well then, your side shall have won! Good news! Your side may even be in the majority. Let's see what the courts decide, when they get around to it.
Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. had the choice, upon reaching his majority, of choosing British, Kenyan, Indonesian, or American Citizenship. No such choice would be available to a Natural Born Citizen. There is no record of a choice being made. But assuming he chose American citizenship, that would not make him a Natural Born citizen.
However, although I think Barak Hussein Obama, Jr. is Constitutionally ineligible, he does hold the office, and is the sitting POTUS. He probably will remain in office until 2012, by which time Natural Born Citizenship shall have been much more precisely and publicly defined, perhaps by several states. At that time, we'll see who is eligible and who is not.
I've always thought that was the weakest part of birtherism.
No legitimate authority (meaning, with the power to compel production) has requested the BC. The loudest demands have come from Obama's bitterest enemies.
Napoleon said, "Never do what your enemy wishes, for this reason alone - that he wishes it".
That is a simple and direct reason for Obama to refuse - to give the finger to his enemies and say, "n'yah, n'yah - can't make me".
Don't bother replying that production is required - you and I both know it isn't (yet).
Then why is it differientiated in the Constutition?
You are SO fail.
“I called my congressperson and senator and they had no idea if Pres, VP Senators Congressmen had to fill out an I-9 and they could not point me to the right place to find out..”
Amazing....They’re not following their own laws. Why am I not surprised.
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.