Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[syc1959]

Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'

[STE=Q]

Since I have never denied for a second that Obama is a dual citizen

There you go again!

The problem is his SPLIT LOYALTIES (allegiance) stemming from his being a dual citizen... thanks to his father who was a (non-American)British SUBJECT at the time of Obama's birth.

Unfortunately -- thanks to daddy's "dream" vacation in America -- Obama inherited British Subject status... and is still a British SUBJECT... even today!!

Care of Freeper Beckwith:

re: "His Kenyan citizenship lapsed when he turned 21...”

It did not.

The (factcheck) report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the implication exists that British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.

The proof of this exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):

2.(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-

(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words " and Kenya " ;

Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:

1.-(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression 'British subject' and the expression 'Commonwealth citizen', shall have the same meaning.

(3) The following are the countries herein before referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

According to the KIA, the words -- "and Kenya" -- are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon "the appointed day", December 12, 1963.

First, Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but -- as of January 1, 1983 -- he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.

AND SO OBAMA WAS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN AFTER THE BNA OF 1981 took effect Jan 1 1983, AND SO HE STILL IS, since he was not only governed by KIA63.

The ofuscation tactic is to make it seem as if his citizenship vanished, but it did not. Obama is STILL a British Citizen.

117 posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 2:45:31 PM by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

I personally believe that trolls have a higher IQ level the Obama supporters.

I've noticed that a lot of the "regular" Obama apologist are giving "wiggles" a wide birth?

They may agree with him -- in principle -- but I think they sense that something smells...and even THEY want nothing to do with him.

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Per my post # 1080

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2450158/posts?page=1080#1080

SHOULD READ:

Wiggie Wrote:

What part of this Supreme Court decision do you not understand?

“The jurisdiction of the NATION within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.”

---

“It is susceptible of no limitation NOT IMPOSED BY ITSELF”

We — the NATION ITSELF(see above)— impose “limitations” as to who may, or may not, be deemed a citizen within “the jurisdiction of the nation” (where else?)

What’s your point?

That we can’t make laws that preclude dual allegiance?

As I pointed out all naturalized citizens swear an oath of allegiance to our country.

Why do we MAKE them do that as a prerequisite to citizenship?

Even the president takes an oath of allegiance.

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html

If we did not think dual allegiance was a potential DANGER it would not be NECESSARY to extract such oaths in the first place.

What you are arguing is that our constitution does not “recognize” dual allegiance and, therefore — willy nilly — the danger of dual allegiance (especially in the executive branch)does not exist!

NOT TRUE!

The aforementioned oaths of allegiance prove otherwise.

The very reason for the Natural born citizen clause — the “strong check” (as John Jay called it) — was to preclude dual allegiance in the executive... a dual allegiance that could POTENTIALLY lead to usurpation of the presidency.

What Theodore Roosevelt wrote about an immigrant to our shores would apply with the same force (if not greater)to a Natural Born citizen!

No divided allegiance:

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American.

There can be no DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but ONE SOLE LOYALTY and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

END

STE=Q

[Red Steel]

A new “friend” of ours has departed from us:

http://www.freerepublic.com/~anothernormalperson/

[BP2]

It is "commonly accepted" that Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was not translated from French to English until 1797, 10 years AFTER the Constitution was written. This is important, as Vattel’s “Law of Nations” contains the purest form of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” defined in English, as required per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Charles Dumas, one of Benjamin Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy, met with Franklin in Holland. In 1770, Dumas sent three copies of the “Law of Nations” (presumably written in French) and instructed Franklin to send one copy to Harvard University, and one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin retained a third copy for himself.

It is further "commonly accepted" that the Founders and Framers only had access to the one copy of “Law of Nations” in Philadelphia when they wrote the Constitution and it was written in French.

However, upon further research, this is not true.

A lesser-known version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was actually the first to be translated into English (anonymously) in 1760 in London, based upon Vattel’s French original “Droit des gens” of 1758. Older law journal articles from the early 1900s lead to this "discovery".

In 1765, five years before Franklin received his three copies of Vattel “Law of Nations” from Dumas in 1770, the 1760 English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was referenced by Attorney James Otis of Massachusetts in his 1765 pamphlet “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved”.

Below is a COMPARISON between a Vattel reference from the 1765 James Otis pamphlet (quoting the 1760 London English translation of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”) and the 1854 London English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (which, in turn, is based upon the 1797 London English anonymous translation) of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”.

The quotes, Long-S notwithstanding (" ſſ "), are virtually identical:

This proves two important points, perhaps never before pieced together:

Today’s version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, thought to be based upon the 1854 version (taken, in turn, from the 1797 London English version), is actually primarily based upon the lesser-known 1760 London English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”.

An English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was available to the Colonists in America at least 11 years BEFORE the “Declaration of Independence” was penned, and 22 years before the “US Constitution” was written.

As cousins Samuel and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others cited Vattel before 1776, it is likely they had access to James Otis' or other copies of Vattel's "Law of Nations" published in English from 1760 London. This new finding likely impacts what we have long understood about the influence Vattel's "Law of Nations" had on this nation's Founding documents.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

JINDAL WRITES BOOK- DOES THIS MEAN HE’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?

http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitics.theatlantic.com%2F2010%2F02%2Fbobby_jindal_writes_a_book_does_this_mean_hes_running_for_president.php

Wait for it...

[DaveTesla]

The answer is no.

[STE=Q]

I wrote: ”However, the key word here is SPLIT loyalty.”

You wrote: “It seems to me that ‘the key’ is not whatever we wish it to be. It is what the Constitution says. And the Constitution says nothing about ‘split loyalty.’

---

---

see (revived) post #1103 above.

STE=Q

[bgill]

Thank you for this new version.

[Danae]

Oh noes, did eggie get the zot?

What post did it? I didn’t even report him.... he was useful in a great way. He really did make us do some hard core research to prove our points, which I think we did pretty damn well.

Oh well. RIP Ender Wiggins.

[syc1959]

The reason why Obot's can't bang their heads on a wall.

[Danae]

It was done, I know Donofrio was pursuing it. As were others, but not to prove forgeries. It was with the intent of proving he WAS born in Hawaii, which I think likely, so that people could focus on the real issue. The real issue is the fact that Obama was born British. That’s why he isn’t a Natural Born citizen. That’s why he could never be a natural born citizen no matter where he was born.

Donofrio wanted to prove Obama was born in Hawaii so that society could move on to the REAL issue!

Great work Velveeta on recognizing that Title 3 had been given the Obamainternetzot. Did you get the information you were seeking out of it? What exactly was your purpose in looking for it? I have been wondering about that! :P

[Danae]

The first english version was printed in 1759 if I recall correctly.

[syc1959]

The attempt is to insinuate that the Founding Fathers or anyone ‘spoke, wrote, understtod’ French or any other foreign [like Obama foreign] langauge.

If by suggesting that they [The Founding fathers/Framers] mis-interpreted Vattel, they would a minor leg to stand on. However is well documented that The Founders were very well versed in language like French, as Ben Franklin was the ambassador to France for a number of years, so was John Adams.

Just like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, they attempt to twist, lie, distort everything that fails to meet their need. In this case instead of ‘hath God said, it’s hath ‘whatever’ really means’.

[syc1959]

I should have put didn’t in there

The attempt is to insinuate that the Founding Fathers or anyone didn’t ‘spoke, wrote, understtod’ French or any other foreign [like Obama foreign] langauge

[Danae]

LOL Too true!

I agree. Its insanity itself to suggest that Franklin Adams, et al didn’t know french. Its laughable really considering you can find quotes they made in french, letters written in french etc.

But then, some people are desperate to keep the fact that we have an Usurper in office a secret.

As my daughter would say,”too bad, so sad”.

[BP2]

> The first english version was printed in 1759 if I recall correctly.

The first London English translation is pegged between 1759-1760.
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL18683993M/law_of_nations_or_Principles_of_the_laws_of_nature
Vol. 1: 1760; v. 2 : London : Printed for J. Coote, 1759.

There's also an even lesser-known 1787 Dublin English translation said to be “remarkably fluent and elegant”, but lacking substantive notes of the original French version — and more importantly — the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773, intended by Vattel for a 2nd edition that he did not live to complete.

Looking at the list of who was on the "Committee of Detail", as well as the Second and Third "Committee of Eleven" — who likely debated the "Natural Born Citizen" qualification in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 — it's very possible key players such as Gorham, Rutledge, Williamson, Butler, Madison, Morris and others had their hands on other copies of the French 1758 or 1773 London English versions, or the 1760 London or 1787 Dublin English version:

First Committee of Eleven
Proposed and appointed July 2, on the question of equal represenation in the Senate

• Abraham Baldwin (GA)
• Gunning Bedford (DE)
• William Davie (NC)
• Oliver Ellsworth (CT)
• Benjamin Franklin (PA)
• Elbridge Gerry (MA)
• Luther Martin (MD)
• George Mason (VA)
• William Paterson (NJ)
• John Rutledge (SC)
• Robert Yates (NY)

Committee of Detail
Proposed July 23, members appointed July 24, to create a constitution containing all issues agreed to by the convention
Result: August 6 Draft

• Oliver Ellsworth (CT)
• Nathaniel Gorham (MA)
• Edmund Randolph (VA)
• John Rutledge (SC)
• James Wilson (PA)

Second Committee of Eleven
Proposed and appointed August 25, to consider issues concerning uniform duties and fees

• Pierce Butler (SC)
• Daniel Carrol (MD)
• Jonathan Dayton (NJ)
• William Few (GA)
• Thomas Fitzsimons (PA)
• Nathaniel Gorham (MA)
• John Langdon (NH)
• George Mason (VA)
• George Read (DE)
• Roger Sherman (CT)
• Hugh Williamson (NC)

Third Committee of Eleven
Proposed and appointed August 31, to address tabled issues and committee reports not yet acted upon

• Abraham Baldwin (GA)
• David Brearly (NJ)
• Pierce Butler (SC)
• Daniel Carrol (MD)
• John Dickinson (DE)
• Nicholas Gilman (NH)
• Rufus King (MA)
• James Madison (VA)
• Gouvernour Morris (PA)
• Roger Sherman (CT)
• Hugh Williamson (NC)
  
  

[Lmo56]

Here ya go, Wiggy ...

And that allegiance is determined at birth by whatever nation is providing the protection for which natural allegiance is owed. If born on US soil, that protection is afforded exclusively and solely by the US. Hence, that child is a natural born American citizen.

Au contraire - mon frere ...

You forget that Dicey was also cited in the Ark decision ...

This part was omitted, since it was not relevant in Ark ...

From "A Digest of the Law of England With Refernce to the Conflict of Law" (Dicey):

More than one state may claim the allegiance of the same individual, and a man whom English Courts treat as a British subject may, by French Courts, be treated as a French citizen.

RULE 23.3—Subject to the exception hereinafter mentioned, any person:

(1) whose father is born within the British dominions, or

(2) whose paternal grandfather is born within the British dominions,

is (though not born within the British dominions) a natural-born British subject.

Provided that no person is under this Rule a natural born British subject whose father is not at the time of such person's birth a natural-born British subject.

The principle of the common law is that a person born beyond the limits of the British dominions does not at his birth owe allegiance to the Crown, and cannot, therefore, be a natural-born British subject. If such a person acquires British nationality at all, he must acquire it at some later period of his life. This principle, however, was before 1870 so far relaxed by legislation that " persons born abroad whose fathers (or grandfather by the father's side) were natural-born subjects are deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes."

" We think the sense of these words [i.e., ' natural-born British " ' subject,' in the statute 4 Geo. II. c. 21] is very plain. "Natural-born subjects are mentioned as distinguished from" subjects by donation or any other mode. A child born out of "the allegiance of the Crown of England is not entitled to be" deemed a natural-born subject, unless the father be, at the "time of the birth of the child, not a subject only, but a subject" by birth. The two characters of subject and subject by birth "must unite in the father."

In order, in short, that a child born abroad may, under Rule 23, be a natural-born British subject, his father must at the moment of the child's birth combine two characteristics: viz., first, the characteristic of having been a British subject at the time of his own (the father's) birth, and, secondly, of still retaining the character of a natural-born British subject at the moment of the child's birth. If either of these characteristics is wanting, the child is not a natural-born British subject.

BTW, 4 Geo. II. c. 21 is better known as The British Nationality Act of 1730 (which was the controlling act in England at the time the Constitution was written) ...

Since the Founding Fathers were learned men, and most were lawers trained in British Law, the would MOST CERTAINLY known this ...

QED

Bitch Slap !!!

[Danae]

RIGHT ON BP2! I had asked EW just which committee had charge of writing the requirements for POTUS, it was the Details committee.

And they most CERTAINLY had a copy of Vattel’s work in the room when they were hashing out the details!

[Danae]

Oh yes! LOL That gets bitchslap status LOL