Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by 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'
It’s the answer I gave. Think about it and maybe you’ll understand it better.
Sure, a naturalized citiizen is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.
Yeah, I’ve been down this road before. You will have to prove that Blackwell is the source for the “Natural Born” clause in the U.S. Constitution.
After wrestling with this question for years, I am of the opinion that it was based on Vattel’s work and the SCOTUS got it wrong in the Wong decision because they were trying anything they could to get around the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Wouldn’t be the first time the SCOTUS has played politics and won’t be the last.
Here is a link to a well argued case for Vattel:
http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Yeah, I know, it’s a “birther” site, but it covers many of the same items I have come across in various history books while researching this issue at various libraries.
Cheers
He was a citizen at the time the Constitution was signed idiot
Both Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr were duel citizens.
And both of them sought the Presidency in their day to no objection.
Thanks for confirming your troll status, you won't last long here.
See ya chump
If a COLB is a birth certificate, why wouldn’t the Army Recruiter except my sons when he wanted to enlist? I had to have a CERTIFIED COPY of his long form Birth Certificate.
I was told the COLB was not acceptable. Nor was it acceptable when he entered Kindergarten, when he played Little League, when he played soccer, OR when he took his drivers test? Explain please.
A lot of presidents have been dual citizens. Especially those with Irish or Huegenot French blood. Eisenhower was a dual citizen with Germany. Spiro Agnew was a dual citizen with Greece, and VPs have to meet the same qualifications that Presidents do.
I’ve read over Blackstone and disagree that his text backs your assertions.
And I’m NOT taking Wong King Ark as precedent, for a number of reasons.
Blackstone is NOT the only commentator of English Law of the time, there are others, and de Vattel’s work was known and must be considered as well.
US law determines whether or not you are a NBC of the US, not the UK or any other country. US law is clear. You cannot be born a citizen of another country and be a NBC of the US. You can be a citizen of the US if you were born a citizen of another country, but not a NBC.
Then you gave a disingenuous answer. Answer the question, it is a simple answer. Name the person who under oath and penalty of perjury has claimed that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, and also when that fabled circumstance took place.
Now your prostituting youself with British Common Law
At the time of the Framing there was a single definition of natural born citizen in the English language. And that was the defintion of English common law. there was no other.
British Common law says NOTHING about a Natural Born Citizen, it does however state, define a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT.
As to what is a natural born subject, Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those of diplomats who were born in the realm of the King of England was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous. In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any Natural Born Citizen can become President. Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of Natural Born Subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.
Prior to 1949
At common law, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the British Crown (and no other) was a British subject. This meant that to be a British subject, one simply had to be born in any territory under the sovereignty of the British Crown. The only exception at common law was that the children of foreign ambassadors took the nationality of their fathers, who were immune from local jurisdiction and duties of allegiance. From time to time, statutes were passed expanding the class of persons who held the status of British (earlier, English) subject, e.g. the statute 25 Edw. III st. 2 that naturalised children of English parents born overseas.[1]
In Calvin’s Case[2], the Court of Exchequer Chamber ruled that a Scottish subject of King James VI of Scotland, who was also King of England, was by virtue of his allegiance to the King’s person not an alien, but a natural-born subject under English law.
Entitlement to the status of British subject was first codified by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which came into effect on 1 January 1915.
Within the British Empire, the main class of people who were not British subjects were the rulers of native states formally under the “protection” of the British Crown, and their peoples. Although their countries may for all practical purposes have been ruled by the imperial government, such persons are considered to have been born outside the sovereignty and allegiance of the British Crown, and were (and, where these persons are still alive, still are) known as British protected persons.
Between 1947 and 1951 each of the various existing members of the Commonwealth of Nations created its own national citizenship (the Irish Free State had done so in 1935, but left the Commonwealth in 1949). In 1948, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the British Nationality Act 1948, which came into effect on 1 January 1949 and introduced the concept of “Citizenship of the UK & Colonies”.
Why did teh Supreme Court in Venus, rely on Vattel vs. British Common Law, “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.’ ”
Again EnderWiggins is showing not only his limited knowledge, but his true nature.
Obama’s website, FightTheSmears.com officially says that Obama is “a native citizen of the United States of America.”
They never say he is “Natural Born.” That’s a little too odd, for my liking. Politicians are oleaginous little buggers and play word games all the time.
Obama’s official website then goes on to quote Factcheck.org:
“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.”
In other words, while Barry doesn’t come outright and say that he was born with dual-citizenship, he admits, via his official website, that he was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Which is an admission that he was born with dual-citizenship.
All that being said, it doesn’t matter to me if he was legally Natural Born or not. As I have said elsewhere, here:
“Obama said he is, “a citizen of the world.”
“I believe him.
“Obama was not on U.S. government business when he went to Kenya and campaigned for Odinga.
“So, he has most certainly demonstrated his loyalty to the Kenyan government.
“I, for one, do not trust Obama to fully protect America [nor my family] from Kenya should the Kenyan government decide to go rouge and attack the United States.”
Anyone who entrusts his family’s life with a politician who has shown strong allegiances to another country is a fool.
Anyway, that’s where I stand on the issue.
So, like I said, I don’t care if he was Natural Born or not; I just don’t trust him to push that big, red metaphoric button if needed. And, I’m certain that Our Founding Fathers were thinking along those same lines when they included the “Natural Born” requirement for President.
Cheers
...except...should have been accept...gotta preview better :)
The Supreme Court has NEVER heard a case or ruled on a President’s status under the ‘natural born citizen’ clause.
Wong King Ark was not running for President.
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.