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'
EnderWiggins
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.
wiggiefool
sorry, double negitive...
In point of fact, he defined them as meaning exactly the same thing. And as such, yes, “The natives, or natives, are those born in the country of citizen parents.” Would be a correct (if clumsy) translation of the phrase.
indigenous citizens are those born of the country, decendent from the population. A foreigner is not ‘from the country, nor the population’
Obama is an illegal undocumented resident alien, based on his father being a subject to a foreign country, under foreign laws, and that by British law, can never be broken.
Obama 101 - illegal, un-natural, illegetimate.
wiggiefool
Just to make it crystal clear;
Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection
ethnic; An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed
common heritage; Common Heritage of Mankind (also termed the common heritage of humanity,common heritage of humankind or common heritage principle) is a principle of international law which holds that defined territorial areas and elements of humanity’s common heritage (cultural and natural) should be held of trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.
So how can a foreigner be part of a native/Indigenous people, that are part of a ethnic bond with a common heritage?
My but you are laughably obtuse and full of sophistry of the lowest order. I commend you on your “never say die” attitude, however, sometimes it is wiser to just bend and acquiesce to a stronger wind than to stand foolishly rigid.
Having already demonstrated to just about everyone here, except yourself, just how counterfactual and erroneous your contentions are, I will stand on my previous comment to which you are replying. Nothing further needs to be added to show the inherent fallacies in your speciousness and desperate arguments.
I had lots of fun, though.
In fact, I’ll even play one last game with you. Now that you are saying that “native” and “natural-born” are synonymous with each other-—according to your interpretation of Vattel, you said, “In point of fact, he defined them as meaning exactly the same thing”-—then you must ponder the following:
Vattel says, and I quote, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Therefore, according to your skewed understanding of Vattel, that would mean that even a “native-born” citizen must be born of “parents [plural] who are citizens [plural].”
So, now Obama isn’t even a “native-born” citizen, according to your Vattelian “point of fact.”
Yup, better stick with Blackwell (stone).
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Cheers
To your delight and to all other Obots.
You took the word out of my mouth . I was going to use that word on fast Eddie WiggOut the sophist.
LOL! Great minds......think.
Cheers
You : There you go!!! Ignoring that de Vattel never said anything about "natural born" and so your characterization above is false, finally somebody actually has made the effort to determine what de Vattel was actually saying.
There you go NOT!
You know dang well that de Vattel used the French word for natural when he first published the 'Law of Nations' in 1758, And the definition hasn't changed one bit which is the intent and meaning behind the natural born citizen clause.
But Barack Hussein Obama was not and still is not under the sole jurisdiction of the United states, is he?
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.
You are subject to the jurisdiction if you to have pay your parking tickets. Foreign diplomats in the US are not subject to its jurisdiction. They get to laugh at parking tickets.
 Double parked car with diplomatic tags in San Francisco, California. The consular code on the license plate indicates issuance to Ukraine. |
But their kids born here are not US citizens, unlike just about anyone else born here, including Zero, alas.
Gets what?
“fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”
§ 212
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
WKA, flawed decision.
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.