This is how my teacher explained the diferent types of citizens to us when I was a child. First she told us that there were three types of citizenship status by U.S. birth or parentage, by naturalization, and natural born which was by both parentage and birth combined. (Donofrio mentions four, but he just separated the first category into two.)
In my example Mrs. Smith was born in Germany and is still a German citizen. Mrs. Smith is married to Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith was born in Texas, and his parents are U.S. citizens too, so he is a “natural born” citizen. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a son born in the United States. The son is a citizen by birth because he was born in the United States but he is not a “natural born” citizen because his parents each bestow their citizenship on the child, so the son can not grow up to be President. Mrs. Smith later becomes a U.S. Citizen. She is a Naturalized citizen. The son, however, still can’t grow up to be President since at birth he had divided loyalties and can never be considered a “natural born” citizen.
Now if both Mr. and Mrs. Smith were both German citizens, but were living in the United States, their child would still be a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil, but he is still not a natural born citizen because both is parents are German citizens, and therefore their citizenship is bestowed on their child.
If Mr. Smith was a U.S. citizen and Mrs. Smith was a German citizen and they lived in Germany when their son was born, their son would be a U.S. citizen by his father’s parentage or by blood, since the father bestowed his U.S. Citizenship on his son. The son could not be president, however, because the mother also bestows her citizenship on the child and because he was born on foreign soil.
I hope this helps people to understand the different types of citizenship. In summary you need two parents to be U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth and you must be born on U.S. soil to be a “natural born” citizen.
Donofrio’s case rests on Obama’s British and/or Kenyan citizenship by birth as the reason he is not qualified to serve as President. He claims that it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in the U.S. because his father bestowed foreign citizenship on him at birth so while he would be likely be considered a U.S. citizen even though his mother was only 18, he is not a natural born citizen because his father was a citizen of a foreign country at the time of his birth.
The Socialist party candidate was born on foreign soil by two foreign parents, so he clearly can’t be qualified even though he is a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Donofrio’s suit further claims that even though McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, he was born on foreign soil, therefore he is a citizen by blood but not a “natural born” citizen.
I think I have stated it all correctly for those of you who can’t get on to Donofrio’s web page or listen to the tapes. I hope this helps. If any of the Freepers interpret things differently that I did, please feel free to state what you think. I promise I won’t be offended if I didn’t state something quite right.
I don’t want to take the space to restate your #22—but everyone should read it—it is excellent; and a clear cogent statement of the law as intended by the founders and drafters of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court could come down quite a bit short of this rendition and still hold Obama not eligible. But your statement of the operative principles is very good.
Among other things, in the context of John Dean’s article, it should be recognized that in a national emergency in which it was necessary to consider succession, we need to either look carefully at the Cabinet officials in the context of their eligibility to serve or amend the Constitution to provide the country with a reliable statement of succession.
Flamenco Lady, I commend your grade school American history teacher, as well as your logical presentation of her explanation. I agree with what you wrote, as far as it goes.
There are some exceptions in legal precedents.
From 1952 until 1986, immigration law read, “If one of the parents is a US citizen and the child is born in a foreign country, the child is automatically a US citizen IF at least one parent has lived in the US for 10 years, 5 of them over the age of 16.” - section 4 of http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know(1).html
This implies that the U.S. citizen must be 21 or over, which rules out 18-year-old Stanley Ann Dunham Obama. Since 1986, the law reads, “2 years after the age of 14.” That is not retroactive; only the proviso about military and government employees is retroactive.
Therefore, if the birth took place anywhere outside the U.S., its territories and possessions, Stanley Ann’s citizenship is NOT conferred, and Barack Obama II is solely a British citizen by parentage from Barack Obama Snr.
But you will say, “That doesn’t apply if Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii.” No, it doesn’t. In that case, Stanley Ann’s U.S. citizenship was conferred, regardless of her age. Barack Obama Snr’s British citizenship was also conferred by parentage, making Barack Obama II a dual citizen. As such, he was not solely “under the jurisdiction thereof [of the U.S.]” per Amendment XIV, which may or may not make him a “natural born Citizen,” according to how the Supreme Court interprets “natural born.”
According to 1677 British civil law, Mr. Obama is in. But according to the 1795 revision of the Immigration Act of 1790, “natural born” is specifically excluded from such circumstances. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution also makes it plain that “natural born” does not include British subjects born on U.S. soil.
But after all is said and done, with only four originalist justices, the U.S. Supreme Court may say whatever will justify what they do, and then do just about anything.