OBAMA CANNOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF WHERE BORN

In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.

For well over a year now, we have been hearing this question in regards to Barack Obama. It’s a good question, and one that is relevant only when discussing the President, Vice President, and anyone else who may assume the Presidency in the line of succession. This the only time that such a distinction matters.

It will help in this very important discussion to understand the differing types of Citizenship that the United States recognizes and what defines them.

A Naturalized Citizen is one who has applied for and has qualified for American Citizenship. Someone applying for and being granted US Citizenship must meet the following qualifications according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

• Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 • Have been lawfully admitted to the United States • Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen • Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence • Have demonstrated physical presence • Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed • Demonstrate good moral character • Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution • Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English • Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government) • Take the oath of allegiance to the United States

The next type of citizen is that of a standard citizen. The USICS website describes a citizen thusly:

“A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood (deriving citizenship through parent’s citizenship). Whether someone born outside the U.S. to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen depends on the law in effect when the person was born. These laws have changed over the years, but usually require a combination of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen when the child was born and having lived in the U.S. or its possessions for a period of time”

This passage from the USICS is important for two reasons. First, it makes the distinction clear that the United States uses two different means by which it derives citizenship; one by blood, and the other by place of birth.

Second, it makes clear that citizenship is completely dependent on that laws that were in effect at the time a person was born.

Today’s laws do not in any way effect or change the citizenship standing of a person who was born in 1961.

This statement tells us that it is a person’s standing at the time of his or her birth that is the determining instant which dictates that person’s citizenship status. It is only at birth or upon naturalization that a person can become an American Citizen. Barack Obama’s citizenship status was determined at his birth just as with all American citizens who were born inside the territory of the United States.

This brings us to the third type of citizenship, the one most hotly debated, and the one least understood. Because of the infrequency of its relevance, few people will ever be in the position to become President, it simply doesn’t come up very often.

The following quotes are the research work of Ken Dunbar. He deserves credit for doing the legwork and hours of research that made it possible to print the quotations that follow.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

-Emer Vattel (English language version, “Law of Nations” (1797) Book I, c.19, § 212 http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~dybel/Documents/LawOfNations,Vattel.htm#I-%C2%A7212

Who is Emer Vattel? He wrote the book "Law of Nations" which was originally published in France in 1758. Vattels work would be distributed by none other than Benjamin Franklin who received it from Charles William Frederic Dumas. History gives us this information in a letter dated 9 December, 1775

“ I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Expose de ce qui s'est passe entre la Cour Britannique et les Colonies," bc. being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada. The translations of the proceedings of our Congress are very acceptable. I send you herewith what of them has been farther published here, together with a few newspapers, containing accounts of some of the successes Providence has favored us with. We are threatened from England with a very powerful force, to come next year against us.(2) We are making all the provision in our power here to oppose that force, and we hope we shall be able to defend ourselves. But, as the events of war are always uncertain, possibly, after another campaign, we may find it necessary to ask the aid of some foreign power. …With sincere and great esteem and respect, I am, Sir, &c. B. Franklin.”

Benjamin Franklin himself read the works of Vattel, and there are numerous areas of our own constitution and founding documents that bear striking similarity to that work.

The constitution did not evolve from darkness. It was deliberately created, using the best knowledge and works of not only the day, but of history. The “Law of Nations” was one of those works, and it is not the only one. The definition given us in this work is the one that was used by the framers when they made the distinction between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Furthermore, Vattel’s work has been cited numerous times in American History.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." -US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1812) ********

"By this same writer it is also said: 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society [60 U.S. 393, 477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.'

Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – Associate Justice Peter Daniel in Scott v Sanford ( 1857 ) ********

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen - ---Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )

Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875) ********

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”

[…]“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” .-Associate Justice Horace Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

In all these quotes, two things are of importance: the use of the word Parents – plural meaning more than one, and the concept that the citizenship conditions of children follow from that of their parents. These historical references are clear in their meaning.

In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.

Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was never an American, never applied to be, and never intended to be.

His son’s condition at the moment of his birth cannot be changed, altered, redacted, retroactive or in any way changed.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not a Natural Born Citizen because he does not have two parents who were citizens of the United States of America. Posted by Alan Peters at 5:58 PM 2 comments: smrstrauss said... Re: 'In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents - two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this."

Is that why why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”

Jindal, of course, would be even less of a citizen under Vattel’s concept because neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. His mother was about three months pregnant when they came to the USA.

Vattel did say something about a special category of citizens who have two parents, natural citizens, but he actually did not use the term Natural Born Citizen because he wrote in French, and the translations that appeared before the writing of the Constitution did not use the phrase Natural Born.

More interestingly, though Vattel did have a category of citizens that had two citizen parents and was born in the country, Vattel NEVER says that leaders of a country should be even citizens, much less natural citizens. He has several cases where countries picked their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says doing that was a bad thing.

Moreover, Vattel advises such things as that countries should each pick state religions and force people to join those religions–or else allow them to leave the country. So, since the framers of the Constitution did not obey Vattel in all things, did they obey him in the two-parent requirement?

Most likely NO. The term “natural born” was already in use in the laws of the American colonies and British law, and it simply meant a citizen due to the place of birth, regardless of the number of parents.

There are a couple of other arguments against “the two parents plus born in the USA theory” besides the common law.

The first of these is the strict construction approach. If the framers of the Constitution had wanted us to understand that “Natural Born Citizen” should mean either two US parents or two US parents and be born in the USA, surely they would have said so. By not saying so, they certainly knew that people could think that they meant the common law definition of Natural Born Citizen as the equivalent of “Natural Born Subject.” So, for them to not clarify, must have meant that the Common Law definition was just fine.

A second point is with the logic of the parents being citizens at the time of birth. Under this theory if one of my parents gets naturalized one day after I was born, I’m not eligible. If both are naturalized a minute before I am born, I am eligible. This may be useful as an arbitrary breakdown of who should and should not be president, but what is the REAL sense behind it? Does the fact that someone was naturalized before really make a difference to someone’s loyalty? What evidence is there that the framers though this, instead of the more commonly used rule of birth in the country, used by the Common Law?

As the Wall Street Journal says: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

first off, my aunt is an Australian who is now an American citizen. My cousins are American citizens by virtue of the fact that their father was an American citizen, and the USA is the country of their birth.

Second, the opinions of Hatch and Graham do not count as far as a court of law is concerned. They have offered an opinion but have they done sufficient detailed research?

What needs to happen is for this case to be heard in a court of law so that it is decided once and for all.

At the heart of the issue of conferring citizenship is the citizenship of the father. In the case of Obama or is that Soetero, the father came from Kenya and was a British subject. The mother was too young to confer citizenship since she had not attained 20 years of age when she gave birth.... (another quirk that needs to be investigated about a mother conferring citizenship).

When these citizenship rules are applied to say Arnie Schwarznegger, he cannot run for the office of POTUS because even though he is a citizen he was not born in the USA. This makes him ineligible for the role.

Bobby Jindal could probably not run for President because of a similar thing.... he was born in the USA but his parents were Indian citizens... which means a court would have to rule upon his eligibility for running for the office of POTUS.

Personally, I am not a "birther" but I do believe that the issue should be brought before the courts in order to have it decided. I also believe that those other records that have been sealed should be opened up for inspection. Someone has something to hide and there is no transparency.

1. No one can agree on what constitutes a natural born citizen.
2. Obama is already in office.
3. The media will never cover this fairly.

I fear that the combination of these three conditions is that this issue will never come to anything. It may be that the best we can hope for is that we can prevent this from ever happening again--assuming we ever have elections again.

Nevertheless, I admire and applaud the efforts of Orly Taitz, Alan Keyes, and all the other plaintiffs who have tried to get to the bottom of this. I pray that they will be rewarded with justice.

He was grandfathered in by the constitution itself, which was done so that we could have a president before 1811!

“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;”

That was done so that we could have a president. it is now irrelevant obviously.

BookThoughts:
The Company of Companionable Narrators

By Nancy Casey
from the March 2005 Newsletter
...
His book is the engaging (as opposed to egotistical) tale of Obama’s personal, moral, and political development. His mother was an intrepid white girl from Kansas. His father, whom he hardly knew, grew up in Kenya. Obama was born in Hawaii and spent his boyhood with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia, from which he retains vivid, fond memories of running in a pack of barefoot brown boys—until he left to attend private school in Hawaii. It’s when he’s a college student in LA that the stark incongruencies of his mixed heritage and the wide geographic and cultural span of his upbringing come into focus. There is no group of folks “just like” him. He doesn’t whine, just keeps carrying us through this compelling portrait—a stint of community organizing on Chicago’s dispossessed south side and travels to Kenya to connect with his father’s family. Presently, Obama is a US Senator from Illinois. I’m not used to national politicians engaged in such lucid and complex thinking as to be found in this book

Tell me how Alexander Hamilton become president

Umm... Hamilton was never potus.
I think someone needs a refresher course:

George Washington, 1789-1797
John Adams, 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson, 1801-1809
James Madison, 1809-1817
James Monroe, 1817-1825
John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829
Andrew Jackson, 1829-1837
Martin Van Buren, 1837-1841
William Henry Harrison, 1841
John Tyler, 1841-1845
James Knox Polk, 1845-1849
Zachary Taylor, 1849-1850
Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853
Franklin Pierce, 1853-1857
James Buchanan, 1857-1861
Abraham Lincoln, 1861-1865
Andrew Johnson, 1865-1869
Ulysses Simpson Grant, 1869-1877
Rutherford Birchard Hayes, 1877-1881
James Abram Garfield, 1881
Chester Alan Arthur, 1881-1885
Grover Cleveland, 1885-1889
Benjamin Harrison, 1889-1893
Grover Cleveland, 1893-1897
William McKinley, 1897-1901
Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1909
William Howard Taft, 1909-1913
Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921
Warren Gamaliel Harding, 1921-1923
Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929
Herbert Clark Hoover, 1929-1933
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933-1945
Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953
Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1961-1963
Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963-1969
Richard Milhous Nixon, 1969-1974
Gerald Rudolph Ford, 1974-1977
James Earl Carter, Jr., 1977-1981
Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
George Walker Bush, 2001-2009
Barack Hussein Obama, 2009-

You were unnaturally born. LOL

Seriously, my understanding is that the definition of “natural born” which is included in the Law of Nations at the time of the constitution is both parents are citizens.

You’re a citizen, a native born citizen. But you are not a nutural born citizen if the above definition holds up as being the founders intent.

I wouldn’t be surprised if some Obama warroom is manufacturing and e-mailing this theory to the gullible, expecting this way to discredit the opposition.

This all began with the question “was Obama born in the United States”, and this is a fair question that defines his eligibility to hold the Presidency. Moving the goalposts from the original question negates any questions about the foreign birth as it presupposes Obama is American born, and generally throws away any semblance of fairness in Obama’s opposition.

This is politics. This nonsense about his parents birthplace is so clueless it has to push sensible people away from those who question Obama, and into Obama’s camp.

William Arthur, the father of Chester Arthur, was born in Ireland. (As with Obama, there was a dispute as to where he was born. The official record shows Arthur as being born in Vermont; it was alleged that he was really born in Quebec, Canada.) If the definition of a natural born citizen requires that the parents be American citizens at the time of the President’s birth, then Arthur would have failed that test, as Obama does. He was born in 1829, but his father did not become a US citizen until 1843. Like Barack Obama, Sr., William Arthur was a British subject at the time of his son’s birth,

Maybe because Alexander Hamilton never became president? He was shot dead by Aaron Burr, a former Vice President in a duel. Alexander Hamilton was Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury (as well as his former aide de camp while serving in the Continental Army). Burr was Thomas Jefferson’s VP.

"1. No one can agree on what constitutes a natural born citizen."

But that is in fact one of the roles of the court, if Judge Carter will allow it, to determine the original intent. And that is done by examining congressional debates and the body of knowledge available at the time. Since the term is used in the "Law of Nations" available at the time of the constitution. It's likely that is the definition the founders meant to confer.

The constitution doesn't say "citizen" it says "natural born citizen". Clearly those words "Natural born", are not mere filling but must have meaning.

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.