Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's citizenship
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3 ^

Posted on 06/14/2009 9:58:45 PM PDT by DavidFarrar

I have recently been bringing this debate over Obama's U.S. citizenship over at Talking Points Memo. Needles to say, I have received some heat for my efforts. But I have received an interesting response. One that I have been unable to get around. I hope I can find some answers here.

(Excerpt) Read more at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; citizenship; obama; sleeperaccount; thekenyan; welcometofr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 last
To: Plummz
Neither English common-law nor Blackstone had a definition or “natural-born citizen.” Hope this helps.

But both say that children born in the country are citizens from birth regardless of the nationality of their parents.

181 posted on 08/06/2009 5:43:22 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Irrelevant.


182 posted on 08/06/2009 5:57:28 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
Irrelevant.

Irrelevant? How so?

183 posted on 08/07/2009 4:00:17 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The term ‘anchor baby’ is a modern one and invokes a certain stigma. I do believe that the Founding Fathers would have been more likely to follow English Common Law and Blackstone in their definition of natural-born citizen, and under those definitions any child born here would qualify.
+++++++++++++++

In reference to anchor babies: What about the term ‘domicile’ for the parents? What about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ What about Ark's reference to “including all children here born of resident aliens.” Do “illegal aliens” and their babies apply to this comment? Simply, no, because their neither legal and under the jurisdiction of the US, nor are they legally resident; not legally domiciled. I don't think those SCOTUS Jurists in the 19th C. could have possible conceived of the illegal alien problem we'd have in the 21st C.

In reference to BO, if he were born in HI, which he steadfastly refuses to prove to us, I will agree that he's a US citizen, however, he may have been a dual citizen of Great Britain/Kenya - which gets to the heart of the intent of the NBC status in the US Constitution.

You haven't shown us that the precedent on Article II, Section 1, has sufficiently handled that.

If BO was born in Kenya, to an 18 year old US citizen in 1961 - well he wasn't a US citizen under the prevailing law of the time. Then he's plum out.

Of course bammy himself has put us all in this position of guessing and informing ourselves on all matters of SCOTUS precedent (which in an of itself is not a bad thing) but for the sake of the POTUS is a NIGHTMARE of immense proportions. And the dim bulb party skips merrily along the way.

I will look for those other reference links for Jay's letter, etc.

184 posted on 08/07/2009 6:46:07 AM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country & the Tea Party! Take America Back! (Objective media? Try BIGOTS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: SeattleBruce
In reference to anchor babies: What about the term ‘domicile’ for the parents?

What about it? Legally a domicile is a principle place of residence. It is determined by intent and it the place that a person has fixed as their ordinary dwelling without present intention to move. That doesn't change just because a person is here illegally. Many illegals stay here for years and years. But even if they intend to leave within a few months, that place where they reside in the interim is their legal domicile.

What about ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’

Again, what about it? Any person in the U.S., be they citizen or foreigner, is subject to the laws and the jurisdiction while they are here. A visitor from Japan cannot rob a bank and expect not to be punished if caught. The only exception to this are foreign diplomats or heads of state, who are protected by diplomatic immunity, or foreign enemy nationals or prisoners held here against their will.

What about Ark's reference to “including all children here born of resident aliens.”

What of it? As natural born citizens they would, theoretically, be eligible to run for the presidency. If they met all the other qualifications.

Simply, no, because their neither legal and under the jurisdiction of the US, nor are they legally resident; not legally domiciled.

That's your opinion, and not what the law or the Constitution says.

In reference to BO, if he were born in HI, which he steadfastly refuses to prove to us, I will agree that he's a US citizen, however, he may have been a dual citizen of Great Britain/Kenya - which gets to the heart of the intent of the NBC status in the US Constitution. You haven't shown us that the precedent on Article II, Section 1, has sufficiently handled that.

And you haven't shown the precedent or the clause of the Constitution or the federal law that questions it.

If BO was born in Kenya, to an 18 year old US citizen in 1961 - well he wasn't a US citizen under the prevailing law of the time. Then he's plum out.

I would not disagree with that.

185 posted on 08/07/2009 12:10:12 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Because, as already pointed out, there’s no definition for “natural-born citizen.”

If you want to stick to common law, Barry is a natural-born British subject. Which is why he is ineligible.

Your anti-American propaganda is usually irrelevant.


186 posted on 08/07/2009 12:10:24 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
If you want to stick to common law, Barry is a natural-born British subject. Which is why he is ineligible.

If you want to stick to U.S. law, Obama is a natural born citizen. Which is why he is.

Your anti-American propaganda is usually irrelevant.

As are your rabid rantings.

187 posted on 08/07/2009 12:17:46 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Well, before you were sticking to British common law. You need to make up your mind.

Under the U S Constitution, Barry is not a natural-born citizen because his declared legal father was a British subject.

Hope this helps.


188 posted on 08/07/2009 12:35:22 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Plummz
Well, before you were sticking to British common law. You need to make up your mind.

Well then as Justice Gray noted in the Ark case: "The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

So under precedent established by English Common Law, Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the U.S. Under British law at the time, he also had British citizenship. Under U.S. law he was a natural born citizen. One does not negate the other.

Under the U S Constitution, Barry is not a natural-born citizen because his declared legal father was a British subject.

And where does the Constitution say that?

Hope this helps.

Not at all.

189 posted on 08/07/2009 1:07:55 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You just admitted there is no such thing as a natural-born citizen in common law -- hence no precedent there. Thus, your contradictory post here is not the result of ignorance, but of a mendacious lie.

And where does the Constitution say that?

Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Under U.S. law he was a natural born citizen.

Another lie.

Why do you hate America?

190 posted on 08/07/2009 2:50:50 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-190 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson