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'
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.
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.
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?
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.”
True, but they're not NBC and are Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS
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.
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.
But Eisenhower never dueled anyone...
Spiro Agnew, might have...
OK.
Maybe my humor needs to be less subtle...
Check out #37
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.