Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Not a chance there pal.The ones of us with a clue know what this guy would do to this country.Are you just that dense not to see that?

[Velveeta]

Thanks. I had a fun talk with Mom and Dad last night, about how they knew that although I was born in the US, that I was not NBC.

Dad, said INA 1952 and it was reiterated to them verbally when they were naturalized.

[Velveeta]

He sure makes a distinction, doesn’t he?

All native-borns are NOT natural-borns.

[syc1959]

The following is a clear definition of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as one born to two parents (plural) in the House of Representitives

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:32:./temp/~ammem_lD1x::

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839
MONDAY, January 28, 1839.

Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.

[Red Steel]

Good find. It’s been a while on these threads since the McCarran-Walter Act has come up.

[DaveTesla]

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 33 Page 398 of 932 Monday, January 28th 1839

[STE=Q]

"And watch... when we do, Birthers will get not one lick of credit, because he will still be an NBC when we vote him out."

Why are you concerned with who gets credit?

How about God has answered our prayers... and saved our country from an incompetent -- DANGEROUS -- American hating impostor: groomed by those who are worse than he is!

Whether he leaves under the(ostensible)umbrella of NBC... We don't care, as long as he leaves!

He can join the UN or become "a citizen of the world."

Unlike some, I wish him no personal ill will.

I want what's best for America.

That's where the rubber hits the road.

Instead of expending energy, feeding your ego by arguing with "birthers," go and organize to "vote him out?"

No one here is standing in your way... and many would help you, I'm sure.

Obama's plan is to divide and conquer... if you also want him out why do you play into his hands by arguing with others, that also want him gone?

Why don't you turn your low order sophistry and mediocre dialectics on the enemy, instead of being a nuisance on these threads?

Don't give me that crap about "principles" and "honer"... people that disagree with you can also have "principles" and "honer".

What did you learn at the academy?

Did you learn leadership?

We are at war and you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- under the guise of defending the constitution.

The Problem is if this guy turns out to be as "dirty" as we think he is there soon may not be a constitution to defend.

Now go "vote him out" ... do something constructive ... we got other things to do besides arguing with a "wall" ... someone that can't tell the difference between friendly and enemy fire.

Night All!

STE=Q

[STE=Q]

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone. ~ ♥

You too, LucyT!

STE=Q

[BP2]

In 1952, President Truman vetoed the McCarran-Walter Act, which passed despite Truman’s veto.

You may find this interesting, too.

Doing some deep research into our Founders’ intent, I came across what is likely the FIRST proposed Amendment meant to modify the "Natural-born Citizen" requirement under the Constitution, just three years after the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Unlike very recent proposed Amendments which have attempted to water down the "Natural-born Citizen" requirement for the office of President, the first proposal sought to EXTEND it!

[Lmo56]

I’ve been reading your posts – and you are disingenuous (to say the least) …

The plain truth of the matter is that the term “natural born citizen” is ambiguous (at best) in our current day vernacular. That is why SCOTUS needs to definitively declare what an NBC is (or isn’t). SCOTUS HAS NEVER RENDERED A DECISION AS TO THE DEFINITION OF NBC.

Your assertion that it was settled in the Ark decision is WRONG. True, the issue’s background was discussed at length in the decision – and Justice Gray even stated HIS PERSONAL belief that Ark was an NBC. HOWEVER, the decision was rendered SOLELY on the basis of the fourteenth amendment – and nothing else. That is what the justices voted on. It is EXPLICITLY stated in the last paragraph of the opinion. AND THE DECISION SIMPLY DECLARED ARK TO BE A CITIZEN. I suggest that you read the original cases/citations cited in the Ark decision – and NOT rely on Justice Gray’s words. For, he bastardized several of the conclusions that were reached in those cases/citations. See Calvin’s Case and Dicey, specifically.

As for Blackstone, his writings are commentaries on English Common Law and not the law itself. And, as for his assertion that children of foreigners who are born in Britain are natural born subjects – DON’T FORGET THAT HE INSERTED THE CAVEAT “GENERALLY SPEAKING” IN THE DEFINITION.

I suggest that you read further as to his definition of a “denizen” – who is a citizen that is born in Britain, but has divided loyalties. A denizen enjoys most, if not all of the rights of citizenship – EXCEPT THAT OF HOLDING HIGH OFFICE.

As for Vattel being too late to have influenced the writing of the Constitution …

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law was written in 1758 – and John Adams said that any lawyer worth his salt kept a copy on his night stand …

And, FYI, Vattel died in 1767 – I hope you are not claiming that he wrote the book more than 20 years later …

Obviously, my opinion is that Obama is not an NBC - but it is the province of SCOTUS to make a determination. However, it has skirted the issue in multiple cases over the course of 220 and some odd years ...

[Red Steel]

I suggest that you read further as to his definition of a “denizen” – who is a citizen that is born in Britain, but has divided loyalties. A denizen enjoys most, if not all of the rights of citizenship – EXCEPT THAT OF HOLDING HIGH OFFICE.

I've forgotten about "a denizen"...well probably since when you last posted about it here on FR.

Oh Wig, you using Blackstone to argue your next to nothing case has been sucked into a blackhole. :-)

[DaveTesla]

More:
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated,
“The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be
‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

William Lawrence and James F. Wilson

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates
the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

[Red Steel]

Interesting. The case against Obama being a natural born citizen appears to be massive.

Here is a link (below) to “Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS” - Supreme Court’s oral arguments from about 10 years ago.

NBC is discussed and it appears that Kennedy and Stevens know what Article 2, Sec 1, Clause 5 means.

The link. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument

However, Ruthbuzzy Ginsberg...well she’s out there. When it gets too close to what Buzzy doesn’t want to hear about a natural born citizen, she cuts in over Scalia speaking to the lawyer. Buzzy thinks Paris is part the United States - LoL! The Nags Orgs. for Women lawyer Ms Davis loses in the end the guy gets deported. Davis I think even contradicts herself saying she believes that jus soli is enough to be a natural born citizen then a few minutes later says jus soli and jus sanguinis is a natural born citizen.

You can read and hear the oral arguments that is about an hour long. The first 20 to 25 minutes the NOW lawyer argues her case and the Gov lawyer takes most of the 2nd half. Listen to the first half... you may get a sense of how an NBC case may go if an Obama eligibility case ever reaches the Supreme Court.

And it doesn’t look good for Obama and crew.

[BP2]

Oh... be serious. Even the most hard core Birthers agree that Blackstone's definition and the definition of English common law is exactly as I described it.

Let's assume — for argument's sake — that Vattel was NOT used at all and the Founders relied on Blackstone ALONE to define “Natural Born Citizen” from “Natural Born Subject” ...

Don't you understand that Obama Jr, being born a British Subject, is STILL a British Subject AT THIS VERY MOMENT?! It does not matter WHERE Obama Jr was born; it matters VERY much that Obama Sr was a British subject at the time of Obama Jr's birth.

Don't take my word for it, take Blackstone's:

By EITHER Blackstone's or Vattel's definition of Natural Born Subject/Citizen, Obama is an unConstitutional president.

[Non-Sequitur]

If he is 'partly right' then you imply that he is also, partly wrong.

He was incorrect in his statement that Vattel was never quoted during the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. Vattel was quoted on one topic relating to state sovereignty. His position on natural-born citizenship was never mentioned, so EnderWiggins would be correct in saying that Vattel's definition of that was never discussed during the convention.

[usmcobra]

And born overseas

Again it is you that doesn't even understand the standard.

Let me type slowly so you understand.....

It....

includes....

even.....

those.....

Children....

Born......

Across.....

The......

Seas.....

in......

the.....

Definition.....

Of......

what.....

a........

Natural.....

Born.......

Citizen.....

IS.......

The......

Child.....

Of......

Citizen......

Parents.....

that......

is.......

Plural.....

Meaning......

Both......

Parents......

Must......

Be........

US........

Citizens!!!!!!!

That was the legal definition that even extended to Children born outside of our borders, and it still holds true today, it is this legal standard that the Senate used to qualify John McCain as eligible for the office of the presidency in a resolution sponsored in part by Barack Obama(who cannot pass the same legal standard of eligibility applied to McCain).

[Danae]

0.O

SOMEBODY RING THE BELL!

I saw you looking for Section III of that act, and that it was hard to find. I take it you found it.

This is brilliant work Velveeta!

[Danae]

This is a document in the Library of Congress. Of course I can't get there.... RAWR But this may well have some VERY useful information in it.

LC Control No.: 54007877
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Corporate Name: New York University. Division of General Education. » More like this
Main Title: the New York University conference on practice and procedure under the Immigration and nationality act (McCarran-Walter act) Held on June 13, 1953, under the auspices of the Division of General Education and the School of Law. Edited by Henry Sellin.
Published/Created: New York, Published for New York University Press by Oceana Publications, 1954.
Related Names: New York University. School of Law. » More like this
Related Titles: Conference on practice and procedure under the Immigration and nationality act (McCarran-Walter act) Conference on the Immigration and nationality act.
Description: xii, 145 p. 23 cm.
Notes: Cover-title: N.Y.U. conference on the Immigration and nationality act.
Subjects: Emigration and immigration law--United States. » More like this
LC Classification: KF4819.A2 N48
Dewey Class No.: 325.73
Other System No.: (OCoLC)503910
Quality Code: premarc

[AmericanVictory]

What direct quotation from Blackstone is that? If you were to read Chief Justice Fuller's well known dissent in Wong Kim Ark you would have a clearer picture of why during the constitutional conventions Vattel, along with Locke and others, was constantly discussed. the common law as you interpret it, which, I would say, indicates a lack of familiarity with its actual development, was not the influence that you say. There is no evidence that it was in the actual debates. to the contrary, when it was referred to in the final document, the reference was specific, as with regard to trial by jury. You are engaging in pure surmise unsupported by the historical record. The fact remains that "natural born citizenship" as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue in Wong Kim Ark.. You are distorting it beyond what it says. Would you say you are more authoritative on the actual point than John Marshall, joined by Livingston, in his opinion in The Venus?. He seems to have been a bit closer to the events and more learned than yourself. By the way on one day of the actual constitutional convention Martin of Maryland irked others by extended readings from Locke and Vattel and others. The incorrectness of your view was pointed out again by SCOTUS in Schneider v. Rusk in 1963 as recently pointed out by the 10th Circuit in Craig. Why do you delight so in misinforming people about the Constitution? Do you not have respect for it as the basis for our government or do you just enjoy being poorly informed? Perhaps you wish to do it and us harm and assist the massive fraud that is being perpetrated?

[Danae]

Bingo:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_III.html

This is Section 3