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'
No different then his ‘Goat Herder father” or finding his birth certificate along with his other papers [what other papers could that be - Port of Entry forms], just another lie.
There is stupid
Then there is ‘Obama’ stupid
Plenty of ‘Obama’ stupid here.
You’re not fooling anyone, obot. You will think what axelgreasy tells you to think.
Check out #471 and #484.
MHGinTN says birthers are in my head, but he's the one who seems compelled to respond to my posts with nothing but invective statements.
Ain't it wild?
He is a citizen. But he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and he knows it.
You see, Natural Born Citizen means you have ONLY EVER held the citizenship of the United States from birth.
This is what the founders intended. They wanted to make as sure as they could, the loyalty of the person who would have command of the Armies, its not as if they all didn’t know Benedict Arnold...
Its not a perfect system, but it is still the best we have.
For example, Jamaican Skier his name is Kerr. http://www.kansascity.com/495/story/1736828.html His mom is American, dad is Jamaican. Kerr was raised in Truckee California. Well he chose to take his dads citizenship in order to go to the Olympics. So he is American and Jamaican and playing for Jamaica. Nothing wrong with that, but it demonstrates the fact that a persons loyalties can easily be divided if one has parents who are not both citizens.
A Natural Born Citizen is one who can ONLY have one citizenship. Because both parents are citizens, and they were born on our soil, no other possibility exists. THAT was the founders intent, that was why they put Natural Born Citizen into the constitution.
If, at the instant of your birth hold the citizenship of more than one nation, you cannot ever be a Natural Born citizen of either one. Yes it is just that simple. We have lost SO MUCH of this simple basic knowledge because out HISTORY isn’t being taught anymore! People in 1780 knew this. The Founders sure as hell did. We have lost so much and now people because they are ignorant of history and ignorant of the CONTEXT of history, will believe ANYTHING because thats what they are told.
Obama’s Birth certificate is irrelevant, he is using it to mock the WHOLE birth/citizenship issue, because the two are closely related, but they ARE different issues. They are separate issues. But he is using it effectively to suppress and frankly mock the real issue, which is that of his citizenship.
It doesn’t matter where Obama was born, he could never have been a Natural Born citizen.
The Wong Ark opinion is bad for at least two reason:
It violated the intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment, and it violated a treaty with China that we would not make Chinese nationals citizens of the United States, both are US Constitution violations.
Well, I can see now that you don’t really read anything then. And you are deliberately being both misleading if not outright lying.
I have to conclude the same as other posters here. You are a troll and utterly unwilling to see the stark naked truth right in front of you.
A Natural Born Citizen is one who has ONLY ever held the citizenship of the United States. This is determined by having two parents who are citizens of the United States, so that you cannot possibly inherit another citizenship from either of them, and born inside the United States so that it is not possible to claim another nations citizenship because you were born inside that Nation.
It is just that simple.
A citizen can have more than one Nationality and still be an American Citizen. Just look at Mexican anchor babies for example. They are Mexican and American.
A Natural Born Citizen is ONLY American. 2 parents to inherit American Citizenship from and born on the soil of America to claim your citizenship that way AS WELL.
If you cannot wrap your mind around this very very very remedially simple fact, there is no hope for you.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHA
Sorry that case was not even decided in a circuit court and I fully expect it to be overturned should it be appealed. 200 years of case law goes against it.
So if I were you I would not be resting your case on a decidedly erroneous ruling by an ignorant judge in Indiana! LOL It is laughable.
Can the Supreme Court overturn treaties ratified by the Congress and signed by the president?
Wigg and the other troll keep on putting forth that drivel from the Indiana court like it really settled everything for Obama.
Not to my knowledge. Once a treaty becomes ratified by the Senate, it has the power of the Constitution behind it as if it is apart of it until we withdrawal from the said treaty.
What if the treaty violates the Constitution?
Only then could the treaty be overturned.
Alexander Hamilton : “A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States.”
Its so far beyond laughable.... “oh lets rest our case on a decision eronously based on an totally incorrect interpretation of Wong Kim Ark that is CLEARLY a misrepresentation of Grey’s Majority opinion!”
ROFL
I just know that somewhere there is some ignorant liberal sheeptard who is thinking, “Oh the INDIANA case will save Obama!” Hahah its too funny. That case won’t last 10 minutes on appeal.
Here's what Chief Justice Fuller said in dissent:
-snip-
"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the rule in respect of citizenship of the United States prior to the Fourteenth Amendment differed from the English common law rule in vital particulars, and, among others, in that it did not recognize allegiance as indelible, and in that it did recognize an essential difference between birth during temporary, and birth during permanent, residence. If children born in the United States were deemed presumptively and generally citizens, this was not so when they were born of aliens whose residence was merely temporary, either in fact or in point of law.
Did the Fourteenth Amendment impose the original English common law rule as a rigid rule on this country?
Did the amendment operate to abridge the treaty-making power, or the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization?
I insist that it cannot be maintained that this Government is unable, through the action of the President, concurred in by the Senate, to make a treaty with a foreign government providing that the subjects of that government, although allowed to enter the United States, shall not be made citizens thereof, and that their children shall not become such citizens by reason of being born therein.
A treaty couched in those precise terms would not be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment unless it be held that that amendment has abridged the treaty-making power.
Nor would a naturalization law excepting persons of a certain race and their children be invalid unless the amendment has abridged the power of naturalization. This cannot apply to our colored fellow-citizens, who never were aliens -- were never beyond the jurisdiction of the United States.
"Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and "naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," mean born or naturalized under such circumstances as to be completely subject to that jurisdiction, that is as completely as citizens of the United States, [p730] who are, of course, not subject to any foreign power, and can of right claim the exercise of the power of the United States on their behalf wherever they may be. When, then, children are born in the United States to the subjects of a foreign power, with which it is agreed by treaty that they shall not be naturalized thereby, and as to whom our own law forbids them to be naturalized, such children are not born so subject to the jurisdiction as to become citizens, and entitled on that ground to the interposition of our Government, if they happen to be found in the country of their parents' origin and allegiance, or any other.
Turning to the treaty between the United States and China, concluded July 28, 1868, the ratifications of which were exchanged November 28, 1869, and the proclamation made February 5, 1870, we find that, by its sixth article, it was provided:
Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities or exemptions in respect of travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And, reciprocally, Chinese subjects residing in the United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization on the citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States.
It is true that, in the fifth article, the inherent right of man to change his home or allegiance was recognized, as well as
the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for the purposes of curiosity, of traffic, or as permanent residents.
All this, however, had reference to an entirely voluntary emigration for these purposes, and did not involve an admission of change of allegiance unless both countries assented, but the contrary, according to the sixth article.
By the convention of March 17, 1894, it was agreed
that Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently [p731] or temporarily residing within the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens.
These treaties show that neither Government desired such change, nor assented thereto. Indeed, if the naturalization laws of the United States had provided for the naturalization of Chinese persons, China manifestly would not have been obliged to recognize that her subjects had changed their allegiance thereby. But our laws do not so provide, and, on the contrary, are in entire harmony with the treaties.
I think it follows that the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the Fourteenth Amendment overrides both treaty and statute. Does it bear that construction, or rather is it not the proper construction that all persons born in the United States of parents permanently residing here and susceptible of becoming citizens, and not prevented therefrom by treaty or statute, are citizens, and not otherwise
But the Chinese, under their form of government, the treaties and statutes, cannot become citizens, nor acquire a permanent home here, no matter what the length of their stay may be. Wharton Confl.Laws, § 1.
In Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 717, it was said in respect of the treaty of 1868:
After some years' experience under that treaty, the Government of the United States was brought to the opinion that the presence within our territory of large numbers of Chinese laborers, of a distinct race and religion, remaining strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, tenaciously adhering to the customs and usages of their own country, unfamiliar with our institutions, and apparently incapable of assimilating with our people, might endanger good order and be injurious to the public interests, and therefore requested and obtained from China a modification of the treaty."
-end snip-
There's more...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
He must feel threatened in some way.
You pretty much disappeared from FR right before the election in Nov. of 2008, then returned to defend the BC issue. You are a fly under the radar OBOT troll. PERIOD. END OF STORY!
I agree. It was United States v. Wong Kim Ark that violated the Supremacy Clause in respects to the treaty.
For reasons we all understand.
Yes.
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.