Posted on 07/23/2009 8:07:18 PM PDT by DavidFarrar
Thank you.
ex animo
davidfarrar
WRONG. Look it up. It's in the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Geeeez, people ....
Section 1401 provides:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
People making this argument cite to Section 1401(g). They point out that Stanley Ann was 18 years old in 1961, the year Obama was born, and because she had lived at least five years in the United States, at least two of which were after she turned 14, Obama, they say, is a natural born U.S. citizen under 8 U.S.C. 1401.
But that's not the end of the analysis. This argument overlooks that 8 U.S.C. 1401(g) was amended and changed in 1986 by Public Law 99-653. Since 1986, it reads the way it's written above. However, in 1961, the year Obama was born, 8 U.S.C. 1401 read a little differently as follows:
"(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: . . . " (emphasis added).
So, if born in Kenya, Obama could only be a natural U.S. citizen under 8 U.S.C. 1401(g) in 1961 if Stanley Ann had lived at least 5 years in the U.S. after the age of 14. But there's no way she could have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years after turning 14 because she was 18, not 19, when Obama was born.
Finally, in case anyone is wondering, the 1986 amendment to 8 U.S.C. 1401(g) only applies to persons born on or after November 14, 1986.
This entire debate boils down on whether he was born outside the United States. If he was born outside the United States, he's not a natural U.S. citizen, period. If he was born in the United States (and not inside a foreign embassy), it doesn't matter if his father was from Pluto and his mother was an unmarried alien, he's a citizen under 8 U.S.C. 1401(a).
You keep hammering on this, but it's a red herring. It's simply inapplicable to this issue.
Where do you get that belief? There's certainly no evidence that that was the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
Those same original framers as part of the first Congress defined in law what a Natural Born Citizen was.
"And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizen of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits..., shall be considered as natural born citizens..."
enacted by Congress on Mar. 26, 1790
Citizens plural not singular.
But I agree, by no means has he proven he has met the requirements of Art. ll by corroborative evidence.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Yes. The Constitution has meaning, or it does not.
If Zero had nothing to hide, he would have produced the real deal and he wouldn’t be spending big bucks to hide it. Case closed!
ex animo
davidfarrar
Disagree.
I've read extensively here on FR about the legal basis for determining natural born citizen status, and I don't mean opinions, either. The precise laws and statutes concerning this, as well as a great deal of historical documents pertaining to this very subject have been posted here many times.
According to everything I've read on the subject, the intent of the Framers is clear, that the definition of a "natural born citizen" is one who is born of two US parents, and on American soil. They had very good reasons for inserting this requirement into the US Constitution.
If Barack Obama was born on US soil to foreign parents, he would be a US citizen, but not a "natural born citizen". That is a special condition, which Obama was not born into.
No, it had to do with her only being 16 when he was born; I forget all the particulars at the moment because I have stayed away from all these threads since he was elected, but this was a big stumbling block that was never addressed before the election.
As far as your point goes, it's a good one, but the British Nationality Act of 1948 isn't the law of this land. By OUR law, Obama's mother wasn't legally married.
ex animo
davidfarrar
That still wouldn't make him a natural born citizen. Gotta have two US citizen parents to qualify for that.
Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.
"Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child's minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality."
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.
"It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality." British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.
Think about it. If it did, we would have an awful lot of babies running around in this country without citizenship.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You forgot block 23:
EVIDENCE FOR DELAYED FILING OR ALTERATION.
That one will require some explanations that HE won’t have because the witnesses are dead — explanations that will lead to investigations or other release of documents.
There was never any proof of a marriage between them, was there? What would we do if we did have a candidate for President born on U.S. soil, birth certificate and everything, but had no father at all on the birth certificate and the mom did not know who the father was, or the father had been from another country but was merely a one-night-stand and disappeared and never saw nor raised his son?
Blood might not end up as important as that person’s life as a born American. Hmmm.
ex animio
davidfarrar
There is no shame in being born out of wedlock today. Nor should there be, for the CHILD. It is not the child’s fault.
And Obama, in his own book, admitted that he did not try to hard to prove whether his parents were actually married; it didn’t really matter to him (since the father was not at all any part of his life at any time).
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.