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'
This was to EnderWigings
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.
As you can see for yourself, via the image I have previously provided, the translations are wrong. Even so, you are skipping over the fact that Our Founding Fathers read the French of Vattel, not the translation.
I read and speak French. “Naturels” most definitely means, “Natural.”
Here’s a game for you: Go to Google’s French to English translator and enter in the word, “naturels.”
http://translate.google.com/#fr|en|naturels
Now, did it give you “natives” as a translation, or did it give you “natural?”
Now, go to Google’s English to French translator and enter in the english word, “natives.” Did it translate “natives” into “naturels” or, did it translate it into “indigènes?”
http://translate.google.com/#en|fr|natives
Like I said, Our Founding Fathers read and spoke French quite fluently. They were given copies of Vattel that were written in French. They would have quite naturally translated and interpreted “naturels” to be “naturals,” not “natives.”
Likewise, they would have translated and interpreted “indigènes” to mean “natives,” and not “naturals.”
That the English translations of Vattel have incorrectly translated “naturels” is of little consequence when you consider that Our Founding Fathers were reading the French version.
Cheers
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.
If you want to believe someone can swim across the Rio Grand and plop a kid out in the mud and that kid is a NBC, you believe it. Nobody is going to stop you. Believe whatever you want.
Erratum: “French of Vattel” should be “French version of Vattel”
Cheers
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.
ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS;
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
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.
Did you read the SCOTUS decisions regarding the definition of NBC?
For example:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
U.S. Supreme Court Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
I figure if we have a man in office hell bent on destroying this Country, I want to at least know he's in office legally, if that's a birthr than I'm a proud one.
See post 210
***The whole birther thing is fueled by racism and disgusts me.***
It’s not because he’s black, it’s because he is RED. And I don’t mean American Indian. Get it straight.
Are you sure you are directing that to me?
When I responded earlier I thought it was to another poster.
Lets looks at the 14th Amendment’s authur John Bingham
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.”
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen” (emphasis supplied).
Or these
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
-Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
I disagree, a natural Born citizen is the offspring of two citizen parents, NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE BORN.
That was defined by the First United States Congress.
The child of two illegal aliens is not a citizen, because their entry into this country was illegal and as such they have no right to citizenship because they ignored our laws.
The child of LEGAL ailens or tourists may claim US citizenship but they too are not Natural Born citizens, because they have to be born to two US citizens.
EnderWiggins. I hit the reply button on the wrong person
Thanks, I meant to post that part to R9etb too
ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS;
Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
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.
The Senate did too in Senate Resolution 511, verifying John Mc Cain as a NBC.
Some here would lead you to believe that if Putin came over here and impregnated an American woman and after she gave birth took the child to Russia, raised him in his formative years he could then send him back here to be POTUS.
If that doesn't clear up the intentions of the Founders for the NBC clause than nothing will.
Sorry, disregard that last post to you. I was looking for another quote from that decision and didn't read yours carefully enough.
Tired eyes.
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.