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'
Yup, I checked her posting history about a month ago..
>> Did you wake up and have a bowl of stupid for breakfast!!!
LOL - great line.
BLACK, J., Judgment of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
354 U.S. 1
Reid v. Covert
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate.
*NOTE: I capitalized the "A" because the Obot Wiggins gave me guff when I was misspelled his name as "Grey."
Interesting. Yeah, you know Obama would like to do treaties if thinks it will get his agenda around the Constitution.
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
Conclusion
"Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in
reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong
Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny
the acts of Congress in order to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine while rendering unethical
and legally unsound rulings."
Here he is right on the money.
I don't think Cobra said that.
YOU : Here it is" "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens."
LoL...They shouldn't be giving you any pay raises.
However the 1795 Naturalization Act 5 years later repealed and superceded the 1790 Act. And guess what? No more 'natural born citizen' declaration in the new naturalization law, which was replaced by only saying that "foreign-born children of American parents "shall be considered as citizens of the United States.""
Do you know why Congress removed the words 'natural born' from the previous statute? I'll let you guess.
A repealed law is not a law.
You're talking in circles again. Snicker...
And yes, I do know why. I'll tell you why and it's spot on.
Here it comes...
Congress through statute cannot modify or change the meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution, or the meaning and intent in anything else written in the US Constitution.
Maybe. Maybe not. Your guess is as good (or as worthless) as anybody else’s.
It’s still just a guess.
The treaty with China was ratified by the Senate in 1868.
The membership consisted of those who helped draft and adopt the citizenship clause, including both Trumbull and Howard!
The ratifications were exchanged on November 28, 1869, and
the proclamation made February 5, 1870.
That puts both Trumbull and Howard voting to ratify the treaty
with China just 9 days after the 14th Amendment was adopted by the States
on July 9, 1868.
Did Trumbull and Howard vote to violate their own Citizenship clause?
I think not!
Yes, I noticed that too. Telling isn’t it. Obviously, Congress didn’t see any conflict.
To say that the Founding Fathers never defined what a Natural Born Citizen is, is a blatant lie.
Clearly they did and they wrote it into law with the very first Congress....
That trumps any translation of Vattel you want to talk about.
They defined by law what a Natural Born citizen is.
Cut and dry, a Natural Born Citizen is the offspring of TWO US CITIZENS.
And it doesn’t have to appear in the law that congress wrote after that under the Naturalization act.
Once Defined it takes a similar act of Congress written into law to redefine it.
Which by the way has been tried many time over the years with no success.
The fact that it was dropped from subsequent versions of the Naturalization act means nothing, nada, zip, zelch, zed.
It was defined once and it is that definition that stands even to this day.
Notice a one “W. Cobb” in the comment section at the Federalist Blog.
Gee...
Sounds just like our Mr. W.
) James Madison (a Framer and eventual President) is formally on record that the rule of citizenship in America was jus solis, not jus sanguinis.
Back to square one, right. OK Lets make it simple.
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.
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.
Now, back to your corner wiggie and chant the montra;
The Obot Creed
I believe in Barack Obama, the bearer of Hope and Change
And in his rhetoric, and tales of woe
Who was born of the mother Stanley, in a place unknown
In the sixth year migrated to Indonesia
He ascended to the Senate, and unqualified, usurped the Presidency
Who suffered under Orly Taitz and was slurred by racist birthers
I believe in spreading the wealth
Of the taxes and levies therein,
the loss of freedom, that cost doesn’t matter
That healthcare is free
As long as I don’t have pay
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.