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

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[EnderWiggins]

"wrong, Vattel was in the continental congress."

Well actually, de Vattel was already dead by then. But I guess you meant that his book was used by the Congress. And it absolutely was.

Unfortunately, it was in French and did not even contain the phrase "natural born citizen." Certainly you are not going to be so hypocritical as to insist the French "indigenes" was the same as "natural born citizen" just a few posts after whining that "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" were two completely different things. Are you?

Because that would be just so... typical.

[r9etb]

British Common Law that included Bl Com [Blackstone Commentaries] dictated that British subject could never forfeit being in the allegiance to the King regardless of place or time.

Sorry, son. My neighbors were both British citizens at the time their kids were born here -- and the kids are US citizens, according to the Constitution and subsequent court rulings.

The fact that Britain also recognizes them as citizens is irrelevant to their US citizenship status.

[EnderWiggins]

As we used to say in Ranger School, “Nice attack, wrong hill.”

I did not say his book didn’t exist.

I said that no translation of his book that included the phrase “natural born citizen” existed.

And it didn’t.

[Las Vegas Ron]

As we used to say in Ranger School, “Nice attack, wrong hill.”

er, no, the Founding Fathers spoke French so that is irrelevant.

You have proof of your assertion that the phrase NBC was inserted at a later date or are you spouting fairy dust from your arse again?

[EnderWiggins]

Doc,

It’s always a bit tiresome to have to slay again the already slain, but you and I have never really talked before so bear with me.

1. The original French of de Vattel was “Les naturels ou indigenes...”

2. The first six English translations of de Vattel translated that phrase to read, “The natives or indigenes...” This is very important, so I hope you are paying attention. They translated “naturels” to “natives,” not to “natural born citizens.”

3. In the 1797 London edition we find the phrase “natural born citizens” for the first time. But the new translation is this, “The natives or natural born citizens...” Again, this is very important, so I hope you are paying attention. “Naturels” is still translated as “natives.” It is the word “indigenes” that is now translated for the first time as “natural born citizens.”

In every single English language edition of de Vattel to this very day, “naturels” has never been “translated as “natural born citizens.” And I ask you, if 250 years of professional translators have never once thought to translate “naturels” as “natural born citizens,” why would you imagine for a second that Ben Franklin would have?

So again...the point remains. It is impossible without time travel for de Vattel to have had any influence over the article II definition of “natural born citizen.”

[Las Vegas Ron]

The fact that Britain also recognizes them as citizens is irrelevant to their US citizenship status.

True, but they're not NBC and are Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS

[Las Vegas Ron]

“The natives or natural born citizens...” Again, this is very important, so I hope you are paying attention. “Naturels” is still translated as “natives.

Ya know, you are a cocky, condecending smart ass.

Accepting your premise, you left out the part of being born to TWO citizen parents.

What a dweeb.

[EnderWiggins]

"You have proof of your assertion that the phrase NBC was inserted at a later date or are you spouting fairy dust from your arse again?"

Of course I do.

Here is an essay by a guy who is even a Birther that proves this. If you scroll down you will find the relavent scanned pages of every English language edition of de Vattel published between its original writing and the 1797 edition that first included the phrase.

Check for yourself.

http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm

[EnderWiggins]

"Accepting your premise, you left out the part of being born to TWO citizen parents."

If you accept the premise, then that part becomes completely irrelevant.

[r9etb]

True, but they're not NBC and are Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS

Prove it. Not just by saying so, which is what birthers do, but by actually showing some legal decisions that prove it....

Not holding my breath.

[El Sordo]

But Eisenhower never dueled anyone...

Spiro Agnew, might have...

OK.

Maybe my humor needs to be less subtle...

[Las Vegas Ron]

Check out #37

[IMR 4350]

You can be an NBC by birth only. There is no law on the books to make someone that was born a citizen of another country a HBC of the US. They can be a citizen but never a NBC.
Unless you know something no one else does, BO’s father was a Kenyan at the time of his birth which made him a citizen/subject of the UK. Because a father has as much rights as a mother, that made BO a citizen/subject of the UK.

[Las Vegas Ron]

If you accept the premise, then that part becomes completely irrelevant.

That's right just go around in circles, two citizen parents is what defines NBC for his purposes.

How much you getting paid to do this?

Is Rahm really gay?

[EnderWiggins]

"You can be an NBC by birth only. There is no law on the books to make someone that was born a citizen of another country a HBC of the US. They can be a citizen but never a NBC."

No law is necessary to "make" someone an NBC. As you yourself point out, NBCs are born, not made. A person born on American soil (who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army) is an NBC, no matter how many other nations also decide to grant him their citizenship.

[oldteen]

I cannot speak for anyone else. I only know what I have had to do when a BC was needed for ID of son. The same with my daughter. Needed BC...not COLB. And she with her children.

[EnderWiggins]

"That's right just go around in circles, two citizen parents is what defines NBC for his purposes."

Maybe someplace.

But not in this country.

[syc1959]

SWo explain how “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.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?

Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.

[Las Vegas Ron]

But not in this country.

Yes, in this Country.

It's in OUR Constitution, last I checked it was written for OUR Country.

Maybe you think it was written for France, eh?

[syc1959]

ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS;

So explain how “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.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?

Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.