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'

[usmcobra]

That is an excellent analogy and should be posted on every thread.

I believe that sort of thing is precisely why there is a Natural Born Clause to begin with.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Thanks, I’ll clean it up a little and start using it.

[syc1959]

Backing the two parents (plural)

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy
-Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008)

[syc1959]

Looks like Wiggie can’t answer. Obama got his tongue.

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.

[DoctorBulldog]

Here’s the link to the resolution stating that McCain is a Natural Born Citizen.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Lots of good quotes, like:

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

And, the final conclusion that was signed by Barack Obama, himself:

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Cheers

[syc1959]

However please be advised ‘WHY’ the Senate did SR511

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/senate-resolution-511-and-what-it-really-means/

Here is a partial excerpt;

So the Senate deemed that two (2) American or US Citizen parents was an essential to the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ that was not defined in the Constitution. So how did they deem that the issue was being born outside the jurisdiction of the United States if they had no definition or requirements of what ‘constituted’ a ‘natural born citizen?’ It seems like they know the definition, but are hoping the American public doesn’t. There is but one defintion that a ‘natural born citizen’ has to have citizen parents and being born in country and that is Vattel’s Law of Nations.

As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.

[Las Vegas Ron]

And, the final conclusion that was signed by Barack Obama, himself:

Arrogance defined, grrrrr.

[EnderWiggins]

The Supreme Court has defined "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" To mean anybody in the country who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army.

Again from Wong Kim Ark:

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

[r9etb]

The excerpt in #210 does not answer the question beyond saying that natural born citizens have to be born here. The author suggests that the citizenship of one or both parents does not matter.

[EnderWiggins]

I understand that you feel that way. But nothing in your post conforms with the US Constitution or actual US Law.

[Las Vegas Ron]

The author suggests that the citizenship of one or both parents does not matter.

....children born in a country of parents

[usmcobra]

One more thing, The members of the First US Congress that defined by law what a Natural Born Citizen is were the Founding Fathers,that law was signed into law by our very first President.

Amazingly that fact of who the authors were of that actual definition in US law is completely ignored by those that say the Founding Fathers never defined what a Natural Born Citizen was by Law.

We can argue Vattel until we are blue in the face but The Founding Fathers defined what a Natural Born Citizen was in the very First Congresand more importantly they made it the law of the land.

[r9etb]

In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens

Nope. The logic does not follow.

[r9etb]

....children born in a country of parents

Huh?

[Non-Sequitur]

In the Venus Case...

In The Venus decision all the defendants were naturalized citizens, so the question of who is a natural-born citizen was not a matter before the court. Therefore any comments on natural-born citizenship were made in dicta, and are therefore not binding. And Justice Washington wrote the majority decision. If you're quoting from Justice Livingston then you're quoting from a concurring opinion and is not binding precedent.

Shanks v. Dupont...

In Shanks v Dupont the court found that there was no question that Ann Scott had relinquished her citizenship when she married Joseph Shanks and moved to Britain. As Justice Story wrote, "The question, then, is whether her subsequent removal with her husband operated as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance and fixed her future allegiance to the British Crown by the Treaty of Peace of 1783. Our opinion is that it did." So again, this is not a question of who was a natural-born citizen, so any comments in that area formed Obiter Dictum and are not binding.

Minor v. Happersett

Please continue the quote so we have it in context. Chief Justice Waite wrote, "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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

The court does not say that those who believe people born in this country are natural-born citizens regardless of the nationality of their parents are wrong. They admit that since it is not a matter before the court then it is not the court's place to resolve the question. So Happersett in fact admits that they could very well be natural-born citizens.

He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett...

Justice Gray also says the following, "The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject..."

Obama fails

Maybe, maybe not. But not a single one of them supports your claim that Obama isn't a citizen of any kind.

[EnderWiggins]

I understand your position and admire your command of French. Your problem remains this:

In 250 years, no professional translator has ever once translated "naturels" to "natural" in a single English edition of de Vattel. It has always been translated as "native" in every single such edition from the first English edition in 1759 to this very day.

So... your confidence that any of the Framers might have instead come up with the otherwise anomalous "natural born citizen" is misplaced, unless you can come up with a single example of a single Framer who actually mentioned citizenship and de Vattel in the same breath.

In contrast, "natural born subject" was a commonly used term of art in English common law, familiar to the Framers, most of whom were lawyers who practiced that law. And it is English common law that the Supreme Court has explicitly used in discussions of American citizenship law... not de Vattel

[EnderWiggins]

"Maybe you think it was written for France, eh? "

How ironic.

You are the one pretending a French/Swiss definition is the right one, not me.

Note I said "a definition" not "the definition." That's ecause de Vattel never offered a definition for natural born citizen at all.

[Las Vegas Ron]

You post that the author did not indicate parent or parentS.

The decision clearly states parentS

[DoctorBulldog]

Right. It certainly isn’t a legally binding document explaining exactly what Our Founding Fathers understood “Natural Born” to mean.

I just find it interesting that Obama signed off on it. Now, he expects us all to forget what it was, in essence, that he was actually admitting to with his signature; That his own, signed interpretation of “natural born” is: Born of two u.s. citizens on soil controlled by America.

Obviously, he had no issues with the McCain resolution affirming that two U.S. citizens are required in conferring natural born status. Now, he and his sycophants are trying to convince us that the only thing required to confer Natural Born status is birth on soil controlled by America? How oleaginous is that?

Cheers

[Non-Sequitur]

You do know what a non-binding resolution is, don’t you?