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]

After all, you are doing here what Founders refused... surrendered our national sovereignty to the Brits.

Tell Obama(fightthesmears.com):

“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.***

STE=Q

[syc1959]

Notice how fast giggyPuff was able to get out his British garments.

I betcha he parades around thinkin he’s Austin Powers.

Yea Baby!

[Las Vegas Ron]

Here is yet another example of why split loyalties are so dangerous and why the Founding Fathers were adamant about NBC.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454434/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

[syc1959]

Here is a scan of the book that I have mentioned Here is the 'Table of Acknowledgement. This is only one page, but have the other scans up. There is no British law in there, but Vattel is listed. Why is Vattel listed, if the Founding Fathers used British Common Law, like EnderWiggins is pawning? 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.

[STARWISE]

you prove nothing other than that you yourselves are not really patriots at all.

~~~

Do you value your posting privileges here?
If so, I suggest you refrain from such
statements.

[Velveeta]

Thanks, Danae.

The reason I was looking for it was my own edification as a “dual citizen”. I’m 2 years older than BarryO and that’s the INA Act which was current at the time. I thought it would be easy to just read through the document. I clicked the first link and noticed that Title III was missing. So I went to another link and it was missing there as well. Then on to a third link....etc. After that, it became a mission. ;-)

[Velveeta]

Right-o.

[Danae]

Not buying your cow cookies EW.

I think that you are completely wrong.

I also think you will be eating crow when a case finally makes it to SCOTUS. The ONLY body with the constitutional authority to make the decision. At that point, Federal Marshals will remove Obama, if he is still in office that is. There is far too much evidence that is completely contrary to your “opinion”. You can go ahead and continue to waste your time. Up to you. But you are barking up the wrong tree with a lizard.

I am not buying your argument that the lizard is a dog.

[Danae]

Thats it. You are a troll aren’t you?

[Danae]

Time for you to go.

[Lmo56]

We are a sovereign nation. We and only we get to decide who is our citizen, and who is our natural born citizen. Britain cannot do that for us. Neither can Kenya or Indonesia.

And that is the damn point, Wiggy ...

Since the term natural born citizen has never been defined either politically, through Constitutional amendment, or judicially, by the Supreme Court, the question devolves to original intent of the Founding Fathers – what did they know and how did they know it. The lawyers amongst them were trained, quite brilliantly, in English Law. In fact, many of them received their law degrees in England prior to the revolution …

Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil, but he is also a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21].

Now, you may say that the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21] was “legislated”, and does not count. However, the definition of “natural born subject” in English Common Law was also legislated [7 Rep. 7], as well as the exception for children of English ambassadors who are born outside of the sovreign’s dominion [7 Rep. 18]. Should we discount these laws too? In fact, should we discard English Common Law completely since it was derived from Roman Law, and then discard Roman Law since it was derived from Greek Law, and then discard Greek Law since it was derived from Biblical Law ??? Of course not. BTW: Biblical Law recognizes citizenship through heredity only.

The Founding Fathers relied on Blackstone, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], and Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 in their understanding of natural born citizen. That meant being born within the sovreign’s dominion and under a singular, exclusive allegiance to him. In the eyes of the Founding Fathers, the fact that English Law allowed natural born subject status to children born out of the sovreign’s dominion of natural born fathers [4 Geo. II, c. 21] would have necessarily negated Obama’s claim to natural born citizenship in the United States. If Obama had lived in the times of the Founding Fathers, he never would have been eligible to run for President.

[syc1959]

Your claim “Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil,”

There is no evidence that he was actually born in the United States. If there was he’d have released his records instead of hiding them.

Another Obot pawn; “The Founding Fathers relied on Blackstone, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], and Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 in their understanding of natural born citizen”

British Law is for British subjects.

Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, 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 send 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”?

The United States Supreme Court in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘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.’ ”

The Supreme Court did not reference Blackstone, Calvin, or BNA of 1730, why didn’t they if they were the source of the understanding of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’

Your attempt to keep repeating the same old lies to make them the truth has failed.

Your trying to re-invent the Founding Fathers intent and meaning, by attempting to change water into wine, making a purse out of a sow’s ear, or an illegal undocumented questionable ‘native’ into a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States.

[BP2]

“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.

The photo below is reportedly to have been photoshopped.

HOWEVER, one has to wonder what happens behind closed doors when the camera AREN'T present, as Obama still owes his OBEDIENCE to the Crown as a British Subject.

Nemo potest exuere patriam

Restated:

“Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.”

As our current laws, as reinforced by the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch (US State Department “policy”), is that there could be no right of expatriation. And it goes both ways. Even the Brits in 1797, after the America's sovereignty was formally recognized by the King and Parliament via the Treaty of Paris in 1783, said:

“No British subject can, by such a form of renunciation as that which is prescribed in the American Law of Naturalization, divest himself of his allegiance to his sovereign. Such a declaration of renunciation made by any of the King's subjects, would instead of operating as a protection to them, be considered an act highly criminal on their part.”

On September 16, 1870, a treaty was entered into between Great Britain and the United States — the Convention between the United States and Great Britain [16 Stat. at L. 775] — provided:

I. Citizens of the United States of America who have become, or shall become, and are naturalized according to law within the British Dominions as British Subjects, shall, subject to the provisions of Article II, be held by the United States to be in all respects and for all purposes British Subjects, and shall be treated as such by the United States.

Reciprocally, British Subjects who have become, or shall become, and are naturalized according to law within the United States of America as citizens thereof, shall, subject to the provisions of Article II, be held by Great Britain to be in all respects and for all purposes citizens of the United States and shall be treated as such by Great Britain.

[Lmo56]

Your claim “Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil,”

There is no evidence that he was actually born in the United States. If there was he’d have released his records instead of hiding them.

Agreed. However, I'm cutting Wiggy a break here and giving him a mulligan about Obama's place of birth. My point is that even if Obama was born on U.S. soil, he is not a natural born citizen.

Another Obot pawn; “The Founding Fathers relied on Blackstone, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], and Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377 in their understanding of natural born citizen”.

British Law is for British subjects.

35 of the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention were lawyers - trained in British Law. They got their legal training in one of three ways. Either their families were rich and could afford to send them to prestigious law schools in England, or they could have attended one of the few fledgling law schools in the colonies (which, BTW, were certified by England, or they could "read for the law" under established lawyers in the colonies (who, BTW, received their legal training in one of these ways).

My point is that the Founding Fathers were drafting a legal document at the Constitutional Convention and they relied on the lawyers amongst them for guidance. Concerning the term "natural born citizen", the lawyers most certainly would have relied upon their legal training and the principles as set forth in the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21], as it was the prevailing law concerning inheritance and citizenship (subjectship) for some 57 years. They also would have referred to Blackstone (but only as a summary of English Law) and Calvin's Case [7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377], which since 1608, was the seminal case concerning natural born subjectship. Calvin was as famous as Miranda v. Arizona is in American Law.

Now, did the Founding Fathers also refer to Vattel ??? My opinion is that they most likely did - as well as referring to Grotius, who founded the theory of Natural Law. But, again, I gave Wiggy a mulligan - saying that Vattel and Grotius (and a host of others, I am sure) were not necessary in order to determine natural born citizenship. Prevailing British Law in 1787, upon which the lawyers were trained, was sufficient to that end.

As a side note, had the Founding Fathers decided to change the British definition of natural born citizen (subject) as they had been taught in law school to understand, they would have noted the specific changes to that definition in the Constitution.

Your attempt to keep repeating the same old lies to make them the truth has failed.

Your trying to re-invent the Founding Fathers intent and meaning, by attempting to change water into wine, making a purse out of a sow’s ear, or an illegal undocumented questionable ‘native’ into a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States.

I guess that you completely misunderstood the meaning of my last post. I apologize for that. I wanted to strip down the issue to bare bones for Wiggy, removing any issue of conjecture, speculation, or debate from the argument. When stripped down to just British Law, which the lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers based their careers, Wiggy's arguments are unsuppportable and cannot be defended.

Was Obama born in the United States ??? I don't know. Did the Founding Fathers rely on Vattel, Grotius, and/or others ??? I certainly believe so. But even without birth evidence and the works of these scholars, the British Law under which all of the colonists lived until the end of the Revolutionary War precludes Obama from being a natural born citizen.

[EnderWiggins]

"Obama is a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of being born on United States soil, but he is also a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730 [4 Geo. II, c. 21]."

You are almost correct.

Obama is a natural born American citizen by virtue of having been born on US soil (and not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army).

Whatever any British law calls him does not matter. If he is a "natural born British subject" by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730, it is of no relevance to his eligibility, because the US Constitution's requirement has already been met and we are a sovereign nation over whom Britain's citizenship laws have no effect..

[BP2]

Whatever any British law calls him does not matter. If he is a "natural born British subject" by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1730, it is of no relevance to his eligibility, because the US Constitution's requirement has already been met and we are a sovereign nation over whom Britain's citizenship laws have no effect..

What when Obama's visiting England ...
... a British Subject in their jurisdiction?

[EnderWiggins]

"What when Obama's visiting England ... ... a British Subject in their jurisdiction?"

1) Being a British subject is irrelevant. Anybody visiting another country is subject to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of that country, no matter what country they might be citizens of.

2) The only two exceptions are foreign diplomats and invading armies.

3) As President and head-of state, Obama possesses diplomatic immunity and is not under the jurisdiction of England while he is traveling there.

4) As a Senator, he absolutely was subject to the jurisdictional of England when traveling there, but so is every other Senator, even those who are natural born American citizens.

[BP2]

1) Being a British subject is irrelevant. Anybody visiting another country is subject to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of that country, no matter what country they might be citizens of.

Obama is not an alien when he visits the UK. He's a British Subject and has privileges and obligations in the UK that a visiting alien does not.

EnderWiggins, as a British Subject yourself, Blackstone's words should hold particular poignancy to you. Those words are unequivocal:

... at all times ...

... in all countries ...

... universal and permanent ...

[BP2]

1) Being a British subject is irrelevant. Anybody visiting another country is subject to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of that country, no matter what country they might be citizens of.

Obama is not an alien when he visits the UK. He's a British Subject and has privileges and obligations in the UK that a visiting alien does not.

EnderWiggins, as a British Subject yourself, Blackstone's words should hold particular poignancy to you. Those words are unequivocal:

... at all times ...

... in all countries ...

... universal and permanent ...

[EnderWiggins]

"Obama is not an alien when he visits the UK. He's a British Subject and has privileges and obligations in the UK that a visiting alien does not."

Maybe, maybe not. It still doesn't matter. As long as he is a natural born American citizen he is eligible to be president of the United States.

"EnderWiggins, as a British Subject yourself, Blackstone's words should hold particular poignancy to you."

LOL... I'm not a British Subject. What are you on about? Who do you have me confused with?