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

To: so_real
By law, the so-called anchor babies have been extended "citizenship", but no precedent exists granting them a claim on "natural born citizenship".

They are considered by American law, in all respects, to be "natural born citizens" of the United States, having been born in an American hospital on American soil.

If Barry Soetoro was born on American soil, I would willingly afford him, in accordance with the law, the responsibilities and rewards of citizenship.

As would most Americans. However, THAT'S the part he is unwilling to conclusively prove beyond a doubr.

It is wise that Vladimir Putin, for example, can not foster a child while vacationing in Hawaii and then use the wealth of the Soviet Union to acquire the office of the president for the child at a later date.

This is where you lose me in your argument. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Naturalized citizens are those who were born else where and renounced their citizenship in the country of their birth to become American citizens. If Putin were to adopt a natural born American child, there is nothing in our laws to prevent that child from becoming the President (assuming that that child retains his/her American citizenship), regardless WHO buys the office for him. I'm not sure how this even factors in the debate. Barry Soetero CLAIMS to be a natural born American citizen but, so far, has been unwilling/unable to prove it beyond a doubt. His origins are exceptionally cloudy and muddy, which adds to the controversy.

IF he were born in Hawaii, as he claims and IF his father was a naturalized British citizen, giving Barry dual citizenship, his father's nationality (natural or otherwise) would be immaterial IF Barry had renounced his British citizenship by age 18. IF Barry DID NOT renounce hsi British citizenship, then you are correct, it is a consequential issue, making him ineligible.

The controversy over what passport he traveled to Indonesia on adds fuel to this fire but, for the most part, is based on speculation. It creates an interesting tangent to the debate that takes the focus off the debate itself. The primary debate remains rooted in whether or not he is actually a natural born citizen and CAN PROVE IT.

50 posted on 07/21/2009 5:40:28 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: DustyMoment
They are considered by American law, in all respects, to be "natural born citizens" of the United States, having been born in an American hospital on American soil.

I'll need a citation for that. Not in any of the legislative or judicial proceedings that I have read is this claim made. In fact, a case for the opposite is made. Wong Kim Ark, for example, required a ruling by our highest court to even be afforded the basic right of citizenship -- natural born citizenship was off the table -- and he was born in San Francisco. "Citizen", yes. "Natural Born Citizen", no. If you have a quote and citation indicating otherwise, I would be pleased to read it. To the extent of my own vast research, the so-called anchor babies have been afforded the status of "citizen" by virtue of birth within the jurisdiction of our nation, but have not been extended the status of "natural born citizen" by any legislative or judicial proceedings.

If Putin were to adopt a natural born American child, there is nothing in our laws to prevent that child from becoming the President

That is not the premise I've laid. Putin, in my scenario, would *father*, not adopt, a child. Adopting a natural born citizen (and potentially jeopardizing the child's singular allegiance) is a completely different argument than that of an alien visitor fathering a child on U.S. soil. Putin, like Obama Sr., is not a naturalized citizen of the U.S. Therefore, he cannot father a natural born citizen of the U.S. If this were a possibility, colonial British agents would have reacquired the United States territories through the office of the President long ago. This was a particular concern of the Founders -- falling back under the British monarchy -- and they did well to curtail the possibility.

We may disagree on the distinctions of the "natural born" status, however, we do seem to agree completely that burden of proof lies with the job applicant, Barack Obama, and not the employer, We the People. He ought to prove he is a qualified applicant for the job or step out of the office.
51 posted on 07/21/2009 7:48:50 AM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

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