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'

[EnderWiggins]

"US law determines whether or not you are a NBC of the US, not the UK or any other country."

Very good. You've figured out half of it. The question is are you able to go the rest of the way to the right conclusion?

Because in perfect symmetry, UK law determines whether or not you are a citizen of the UK, not the US or any other country.

"US law is clear. You cannot be born a citizen of another country and be a NBC of the US."

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no such US law as that.

If you disagree, then just show me the law that says this and I'll be happy to shut up.

[bvw]

Even the most hard core Birthers agree that Blackstone's definition and the definition of English common law is exactly as I described it.

That bold assertion is false on its face. Such a mighty opinion you have of yourself. You speak for everyone, eh?

[oldteen]

With your explanation I can only assume there are many in government positions who do not know the law. Recruiters, DMV, gubmint schools, etc. Wow, we’re in more trouble than we know!

[battletank]

My sincere apologies. You are correct and I addressed the wrong person. I’m very sorry.

[bvw]

Disingenuous of you, again.

Jay and Madison both were familiar with de Vattel’s works byu at least 1780. BEFORE YORKTOWN.

[EnderWiggins]

I did not. I gave the absolute correct answer, and not only was it correct but it should have inspired you to think about how silly a question it was to ask in the first place.

But that said, you have just rephrased the question in a way that has a more direct and substantive answer. You now ask:

"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."

The answers would be Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, and Deputy Branch Director Elizabeth J. Shapiro in their roles as Attorneys for the US Departments of State and Homeland Security. It was on April 23, 2009.

They did so in their response to the Court Case of Strunk v. the US DOS. Filings such as those are testimony under oath and under penalty of perjury, and the response repeatedly claims that Obama was born in Hawaii, that he is a natural born citizen, that his COLB is authentic, that he was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro, that he was never an Indonesian citizen,... all kinds of good stuff from Government Departments that actually are in a position to know.

You can find the whole document here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21654281/Docket-Item-17-DCD-08-Cv-2234-Strunk-FOIA-Answer-by-Defendants-to-Amended-Complaint-042309 ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO (D.C. Bar No. 418925) Deputy Branch Director

[syc1959]

“US law determines whether or not you are a NBC of the US, not the UK or any other country.”

Then why is Barack Hussein Obama under British Law at birth?
When did this condition change?

What US Law, states that US Law is the law of the world?

Why does Barack Hussein Obama state he’s a British suject, under British law, if US Law over-rules British law?

[syc1959]

Lawyers perjuring themselves....who would have thought!

[syc1959]

But once again, just being born in Hawaii is not the issue.
Barack Hussein Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and he’s sealed every document concerning his past that proves that.

[EnderWiggins]

"British Common law says NOTHING about a Natural Born Citizen, it does however state, define a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT."

Tsk, tsk, tsk Syc. How long have you been at this? What does the US Supreme Court say about that mealy mouthed distinction? Quoting again from your favorite Supreme Court decision, Wong Kim Ark:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

And

"The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

And then you go back to the Venus case... a case that never mentions "natural born citizens" once. Unlike you, they do not use an anachronistic translation of de Vattel that did not exist when the Constitution was written.

[EnderWiggins]

"Anyone who entrusts his family’s life with a politician who has shown strong allegiances to another country is a fool."

Good.

But that has nothing to do with eligibility.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I get the distinct impression that this noob, EnderWiggins, was hired just for this purpose.

You?

[EnderWiggins]

Of course there are many in the government who do not know the law. That doesn't change the law.

But to be honest with you, most Birthers who trot out the "I couldn't get a license with my short form" are simply telling tall tales. I myself have managed to get drivers licenses, passports and employment with a short form, and never once has anybody blinked.

[syc1959]

Longer then you have - little man

[EnderWiggins]

"Jay and Madison both were familiar with de Vattel’s works byu at least 1780. BEFORE YORKTOWN."

Awesome.

Too bad de Vatell's works never said anything about natural born citizenship until somebody else stuck it in there in 1797.

[syc1959]

wrong, Vattel was in the continental congress.

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”?

EnderWiggins - you are a fool and a liar.

[EnderWiggins]

"Then why is Barack Hussein Obama under British Law at birth?"

He's not and he wasn't. His status as a British citizen might have been, but he definitely was not.

"When did this condition change?"

Don't know, don't care. His British citizenship is of absolutely no relevance to me.

"What US Law, states that US Law is the law of the world?"

None, because it's not. It's only the law of the US.

"Why does Barack Hussein Obama state he’s a British suject, under British law, if US Law over-rules British law?"

Who said US Law over-rules British law?

[Las Vegas Ron]

de Vattel that did not exist when the Constitution was written.

LOL, what a freakin tool you are:

Born in Couvert, Switzerland on April 25, 1714, Emerich de Vattel was first a law student but then began and ended his career as a bureaucrat and diplomat.

He died in 1767.Known to some as Emer Vattel, he has had his first name spelled with two m's as in Emmerich

http://duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-589/Emerich-de-Vattel-17141767.aspx

[EnderWiggins]

"But once again, just being born in Hawaii is not the issue."

Actually, if we are talking about natural born citizenship, it is the only issue.

"Barack Hussein Obama is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and he’s sealed every document concerning his past that proves that."

So then how would you know he wasn't a natural born citizen if you admit that you've never seen any documents that could prove that?

[DoctorBulldog]

Yes, I meant what I said; "Blackwell." It's a deep well you find yourself in when you go down that road.

"Then I guess you must believe that the Framers were capable of time travel, because de Vattel himself never mentioned the phrase "natural born citizenship" in word or writing."

LOL!!!!!!

What? Can't you read French? You must be one of those Americans Obama was embarrassed by:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Jy_QOm2sbQ

The Founding Fathers spoke and read French quite fluently. The copies of Vattel that they had were written in French!!!

See? This just goes to demonstrate that you didn't even bother to follow my link I provided before opening your mouth and making a fool of yourself.

Quote:

The correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”.

In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country.

End Quote.

If you follow the link I had provided, you would have discovered (complete with historic references and quotes) that Benjamin Franklin was the one who distributed out French copies of Vattel to Our Founding Fathers.

But, you are just too full of yourself, aren't you?

So, you can decide for yourself if you think it was Blackwell (Blackstone) or if it was Vattel who influenced the Founding Fathers' views on what a Natural Born citizens was. As for me, I firmly believe it was Vattel. If you want to believe it was Blackwell (stone), then fine, sink like a stone into that well. I really could care less. Like I said previously, I don't care if Obama was Natural Born or not. I DO, however, care about the safety of America and my family and, because Obama has demonstrated his strong allegiances to his Father's place of birth, Kenya, he is NOT qualified to be my President! Cheers