Posted on 12/06/2008 7:17:21 PM PST by STARWISE
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.
President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk.
It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.
Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867.
In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.
He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.
CHESTER’S LIES
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference.
Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824.
Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
~~~
Rest at link
Maybe it would be best if you searched my username and kept reading for a bit. Then we can have a better conversation.
It doesn’t? What’s your grounds for concluding that the understanding of “natural born citizen” at the time of the signing has nothing to do with how to interpret the Constitution?
First, where is it “demanded” that presidents be born on U.S. soil?
Secondly, even if you are correct that it is “demanded” that presidents be born on U.S. soil, what is your evidence that the citizenship of the parents was *immaterial* and *completely irrelevant* to the framers and their understanding and intent viz “natural born citizen” status?
Here’s my answer to your question:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144293/posts?page=119#119
Thanks.
Maybe this is a less confusing way to state the argument that the “natural born” status goes to the distinction between citizenship by operation of nature (by descent) and citizenship by operation of law:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144293/posts?page=119#119
(And, again, “by descent” still leaves open the question of whether, at the time in question, “natural born” status required descent from the father, or from the father or the mother, or from both.)
My last post to you should have had a paragraph mark before the second heading “Naturalized citizenship.” That would help with clarity.
Also, I’ve resorted to shorthand at times in my posts on this. I want it to be clear that “by descent” still leaves open the question of whether, at the applicable time, “natural born” status required descent from the father, or from the father or the mother, or from both.
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Justice Gray, 1898
There was no Naturalization Act of 2000, not that I've been able to find. Details please?
His research may be off:
To: Kirkwood
The Child naturalization Act from the 1980’s states that citizenship is based in the father’s nationality. Obama asserts that he held dual citizenship at birth (British and U.S. if he was in fact physically born in Hawai’i), then he asserts that his British citizenship expired making him a naturalized citizen by his own assertion at his website. Do you know whether a naturalized citizen can become president under Constitutional restrictions? ... [HINT: the answer is they cannot.]
14 posted on Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:56:01 PM by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Correction: the Naturalization act of 2000 states that a child born before 1983 has citizenship determined by the father’s nationality.
15 posted on Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:57:42 PM by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
I just read where a Frank Black on the Rense site thinks that Obama’s mother was a CIA cut out.
This would explain is very strange background and lack of information.
If true, I don’t think SCOTUS will hear this case. It would also explain the rumor that one poster says he heard that the Supremes would just let time run out (though I find this one hard to believe)
He is providing another avenue for debate. It is a scholarly argument. It is above us mere mortals. Constitutional scholars can debate about whether you look to the framers intent, what was their intent, what did they do, what was done after them, etc...while Ginsburg sleeps at the bench.
If Obama was not born in Hawaii, you have a different debate..about his mother’s age, law at the time, etc.
I think in the end he might be a US citizen by virtue of the fact that an American Citizen may have been his father. Obama, SR was not his father. I am certain of that just by looking at photos.
“So where is the legal and constitutional discussion of this person’s theory?
Here is a very convincing one:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Until someone can point me to the elusive "Naturalization Act of 2000" that stipulates a child's citizenship is determined by his father (kinda like royalty) this "research" is not only off but entirely made up.
Not that I'd be surprised. Making stuff up seems to be the primary strategy of the "Truthers" fueling this non-controversy.
Naturalization at birth? That's the first I've heard of that notion. Is there law or case law on it?
I had thought that the word naturalization was coined to denote the process of an existing non-citizen becoming a citizen, as opposed to being born a citizen.
Is Governor Jindal a natural born citizen? Or is he naturalized? Can he be president? His mother arrived in this country four months pregnant, and his Indian grad student parents (I'm 99% certain) were not yet naturalized when he was born in Louisiana. Is he your category (1) or (1a)? Is he natural born or naturalized? Does his parents having subsequently become naturalized citizens retroactively make him natural born?
Have you considered that maybe he got the name wrong.
Try a little research for the principle he was trying to communicate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Citizenship_Act_of_2000
I can't find any reference to a Child Naturalization act of the 1980's either.
I don't think I ever suggested his mothers citizenship conferred a "natural born" status. My point was that even though his father was an English citizen, the article pointed out that his mother was an American from Vermont and that Arthur derived his citizenship from his mother.
“Automatic naturalization at birth” is a phrase I coined because of the confusion engendered by the two different statuses that are attained upon birth.
The first is natural born citizenship, which is attained upon birth because of the citizenship of one’s parents. This is by operation of nature, not by operation of any law. Meaning: it just is.
The second is citizenship obtained at birth based on one’s birthplace (within the U.S.). This is by operation of law. IOW, the only reason children born in the U.S. to non-Americans are Americans is the fact that U.S. law says so. (The law could have easily said otherwise, or carved out various exceptions.)
Since this second type of citizenship-—even though it also is attained upon birth-—is by operation of law, not by operation of nature, it is the same process as what we popularly understand “naturalization” to be: the granting of citizenship because certain legal requirements were met (here, birthplace in the U.S.). It can be called “automatic” because citizenship is granted without the need for any application or approval; it is granted by law at the time of birth based solely on the place of birth.
I coined the term “automatic naturalization at birth” to distinguish this grant of citizenship by operation of law from the right of citizenship that inheres in descent.
Hope that’s not even more confusing.
As for Jindal, I gave my thoughts, fwiw, on that in another post as well. Under the understanding I (and others) are advocating now, with the facts you state, Jindal would not be a “natural born citizen.”
OTOH, your post gave rise to a twist. Here’s the only argument I could see in a Jindal-type situation. Of course, it’s very stretchy, but I’ll throw it out here all the same.
Let’s say we’re correct on what a natural born citizen is: a person born a citizen because his parents were citizens.
However, let’s put that together with the requirement that a person need be eligible for president BY THE TIME he takes office.
Then let’s make the argument that, since Jindal was a citizen AT birth (he was “automatically naturalized” based on the fact he was born in the U.S.), and since his parents were naturalized and were citizens by the time (hypothetically) he took office as President, as a matter of law, but not fact, he has the “same” legal status as a “natural born citizen.”
This would be similar to various legal fictions created in the area of adoptions, where the adopted child’s new legal identity extends back to the time of his birth, regardless that it was not created until some time (often a long time) after his birth.
Good enough? Don’t know. Just thinking out loud-—hope that’s not too constitution-geeky.
Regardless, those are the types of follow-on questions that might arise if we ever get the SCOTUS to tell us in the first place what, exactly, is a “natural born citizen”. And, since Obama’s father was NEVER an American, this type of sparring would not come up now.
Well, there’s no debate that he was a citizen. What we’re debating is eligibility to serve as president based on being a “natural born citizen.”
More of my musings, fwiw, on Jindal here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144216/posts?page=103#103
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.