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'
Excellent point.
John Bingham:
1) He was speaking almost 80 years after the Constitution was framed, so he hardly stands as any kind of authority on the original meaning of Article II.
2) He was only responsible for writing the second sentence (i.e. the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses) of the 14th Amendment. He did not write the first sentence (the Citizenship Clause). That was an amendment added by the Senate.
So...only people born overseas of U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens? Kind of bites for people born here, doesn't it?
Se #221, 222 and 215
That law did not define “natural born citizen” it extended (briefly) the label to children of citizens born overseas. It had no relevance to children born on US soil.
Parents is plural because children is plural. It’s simple English and does not require any single child to have two parents as citizens.
Lamest argument I ever read....nice try.
Again, twisting the truth away.....
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
So when the United States Constitution amended and ratified to allow ‘native’ citizens eligible for the Presidency.
Hint; as close to 2004, the Natural Citizen Child Act was not passed.
I’ll give to teh answer - NEVER.
Can’t help it. Your argument is with the English language, not with me.
"That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Clearly Obama's father doesn't pass the test as written by the founding fathers.
Cite please?
You are wrong, it does define Natural Born Citizen as being a citizen born to two US citizens no matter where they were born.
By extending it to beyond our shores they actually included those born with in our borders.
No, it's that you refuse to except the fact that you are wrong, I can read just find.
More importantly I can comprehend it which is evidently something you're lacking.
Adams (1787):
"with the other volumes. In the afternoon I took up Vattels’ law of nature and of nations. Emmerich de Vattel, Le droit des gens; ou, principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations ... "
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=ADMS-search-1&mode=TOC
Interesting that Adams had no problem reading French and translating "naturelle" into "nature..."
And, please note the date of 1787... Hmmm.. When was the U.S. Constitution ratified again?
Cheers
Can't type worth a damn though!
Different words, different contexts, different translation. See how that works?
That’s why machine translations suck and genuine bilingual human experts are needed. It’s the difference between literal and idiomatic.
Again.... not a single professional translation of de Vattel into English in 250 years has ever translated “naturels” in de Vattel to anything other than “natives.”
Coincidence? I think not.
Note this part of SR511;
“Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President”
What other candidates were ‘BORN’ overseas?
How about one that has sealed all his documents and can’t produce a valid/legal/legitimate United States birth certificate issued by ‘ANY’ state
No. It does not.
Unless of course you believe that only people born overseas can be natural born citizens.
Then at least you would be consistent.
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.