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'
By that standard, George Washington was not eligible to be president. Indeed, even Abraham Lincoln was not eligible by that standard, his mother and father having been born in 1778 and 1784, respectively, before the Constitution was written.
And yet they both served, and their eligibility has never been in question.
Then you should not be holding this conversation. WKA is Wong Kim Ark, one of the few cases that ever touched on Natural Born Citizenship, and stated clearly that Wong was a citizen but not a Natural Born one, thereby making the LEGAL distinction between the two.
You appear to have never actually read the decision.
Please do so, and pay particular attention to the several times Judge Gray defines natural born citizen.
A Natural Born Citizen is born to US CitizenS ANYWHERE ON THIS PLANET OR "BEYOND OUR SHORES".
The page prior to this one describes the Naturalization of New Citizens immediately after the founding of this country and enacts the process by which they can become citizens. This law that you deem irrelevant is the very basis for the citizenship of countless millions of Americans whose ancestors became citizens after the founding of our country.
It spells out the Naturalization process, who is a natural born citizen as well as who is not a citizen by birth and most importantly it was written by the Founding Fathers of this country.
But all that is irrelevant to you.....
WKA’s parents were under the jurisdiction of foreign law, it has been viewed as a flawed decision.
I have posted four other Supreme Court cases that directly conflict with WKA.
An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) 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.”
I have read it several times. In full I might add.
You seem to be missing the SIMPLEST of points. If there was no difference between the two... WHY MAKE THE SPECIFIC DIFFERENTIATION? Hum? If you are talking a single thing, why name it twice and state that one is not the same as the other? Your logic fails. Vattel has it correct, and it is well known (see Benjamin Franklin letters) that the founders had coppies of Vattel.... yea, thats the definition they used.
bump
Racism? You’ve got to be kidding. You sound just like a Dem Rat! Anyone who says anything derogatory about the Messiahhhhhhh is a Raaaayyyyycccciiissssttttt!
Sorry, just have to LOL again at that one....
"Or born on US soil to anybody who is not a foriegn diplomat or occupying army"
Show me where the first Congress of the United States or any of our founding fathers made that distinction.
ROTFLMAO Prove that!
*cough*Federalist68*cough*
And yet your logic says otherwise. The problem is not mine.
Ping to thread, its the end that’s interesting... and this newbie poster, who seems to think that he is all that with constitutional definitions, and history. Maybe he is... maybe he is a SCOTUS judge incognito... (giggle) Seems to know more than SCOTUS who interestingly enough has never decided exactly specifically what NBC is... golly.... he also seems to miss that until they DO we don’t have ANY guide at all, but a pretty damned good indication we have an unconstitutional government. EnderWiggens, joined Jan of 2010.
Not at all. Re-read what I wrote.
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.