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

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[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'

[Danae]

Yes, on both sides of the isle. And people wonder why we hate rino’s...

[Lmo56]

My original post:

"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 response:

I cannot help but note your qualification "in our current day." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell all of us here have been arguing about original intent at the time of the Framing.

My new response:

Of course we are, you twit ...

My point (that you OBVIOUSLY did not grasp) is that what was obvious to the Framers (definition of NBC) may not be so obvious to most citizens today.

And it IS the province of SCOTUS to rule on such a case - as long as it is properly filed, presented for consideration, and accepted by SCOTUS.

Your response (continued):

The Supreme Court does not need to "render a definition" when the controversy is fake. They are proscribed from doing so by the "cases and controversies" clause.

My new response:

US Constitution, Article III, Secton II, Clause I:

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party ...

A petition for a writ quo warranto, properly filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia WILL end up before SCOTUS. Whether it will be accepted for review is another matter ...

Your response (continued):

"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."

And we all know the exceptions that warranted the caveat. he expresses them explicitly; children of foreign diplomats and occupying armies.

My new response:

WRONG !!!

Here is what Blackstone wrote (including the next two paragraphs):

... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: ... A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying the alien's duty, and some other mercantile burdeens. And no denizen can be of the privy council, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.

NATURALIZATION cannot be performed but by act of parliament: for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king's ligeance; except only that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament, etc.

As someone wrote to you in another post - you are picking from a Chinese menu, keeping what you like, and IGNORING what does not agree with you.

" From my original post:

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."

Your response (continued):

"Denizen" has no meaning in American Constitutional law. You will not find the word anywhere in the Constitution. We continue to speak here about "natural born citizen" and the only definition for it that existed at the time of the Constitution's framing.

My new response:

Blackstone never referred to "natural born citizen" - he referred to "natural born subject". But we all know what he meant ...

Denizen is not referred to in the Constitution, but it is referred to in Blackstone. It is also referred to in Calvin's Case (one of the English Common Law cases referred to in the Ark decision).

You should read the Calvin Case, like I suggested previously, but that you obviously did not do ...

I have not included citations for denizen from Calvin, but they comport to the definition in Blackstone ...

But, I have included citations from Calvin regarding natural born subjects.

From Calvin's Case:

Report Date: 1608

3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of' England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the King's ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out-of the King's dominions. But if enemies should come into any of the King's dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and [7-Coke-18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King's ligeance or obedience. But the time of his (a) birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the King of England, unless at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the King. And that is the reason that antenati in Scotland (for that at the time of their birth they were under the ligeance and obedience, of another King) are aliens born, in respect of the time of their birth.

4. It followeth next in course to set down the reasons wherefore an alien born is not capable of inheritance within England, and that he is not for three reasons. 1. The secrets of the realm might thereby be discovered. 2. The revenues of the realm (the sinews of war, and ornament of peace,) should be taken and enjoyed by strangers born. 3. It should tend to the destruction of the realm. Which three reasons do appear in the statute of 2 H. 5. cap and 4 H. 5. cap ultimo. But it may be demanded, wherein doth that destruction consist; whereunto it is answered; first, it tends to destruction tempore belli; for then strangers might fortify themselves in the heart of the realm, and be ready to set fire on the commonwealth, as was excellently shadowed by the Trojan horse in Virgil's Second Book of his Aneid, where a very few men in the heart of the city did more mischief in a few hours, than ten thousand men without the walls in ten years. Secondly tempore pacis for so might many aliens born get a great part of the inheritance and freehold of the realm, whereof there should follow a failure of justice (the supporter of the commonwealth) for that aliens born cannot be returned of juries (a) for the trial of issues between the King and the subject, or between subject and subject. And for this purpose, and many other, (see a charter worthy of observation) of King Ed. 3. written to Pope Clement, datum apud Westm 26. die Sept. ann regni nostri Franciæ 4 regni vero Angliæ 17.

Now when the whole was under the actual and real ligeance and obedience of one King, were any that were born in any of those several and distinct kingdoms aliens one to another? Certainly they being born under the obedience of one King and sovereign were all natural-born subjects, and capable of and inheritable unto any lands in any of the said kingdoms.

2. Whosoever are born under one natural ligeance and obedience due by the law of nature to one sovereign are natural-born subjects: but Calvin was born under one natural ligeance and obedience, due by the law of nature to one sovereign; ergo, he is a natural-born subject.

Calvin declared that place of birth was highly desirable, but that ligeance to ONE SOVREIGN was paramount.

While the US Constitution declared Obama to be a citizen via the 14th amendment, the British Nationality Act of 1948 ALSO declared him to be a British citizen.

This puts him at odds with the definition in Calvin, which declares liegeance to ONE SOVREIGN AND ONE SOVREIGN ONLY ...

My original post:

"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 "

Your response:

You come late to the conversation. The copy of Law of Nations on John Adam's nightstand said nothing about natural born citizens. Neither did any other edition until it was inserted by an unknown translator into the 1797 London edition.

My new response:

Potato, Potahto - Toamto, Tomahto ... JFK used to say Baaaahstad when he shanked a golf ball - but we all know what he meant ...

[syc1959]

Obama also claimed he was a few months old when the bay of pigs happened, April 1961. Though he was born on Aug 4th, 1961 in Hawaii

Oh, thats right, another claim, but never proven.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I can’t wait til his own turn on him...not enough popcorn and ammo in the world....

[Las Vegas Ron]

Speaking of RINO's....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2452135/posts

[Velveeta]

One more time for the hard of hearing:

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.”

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

[STE=Q]

Calvin declared that place of birth was highly desirable, but that ligeance to ONE SOVEREIGN was paramount.

That leaves Obama out... next!

STE=Q

[syc1959]

not only that, it never lets Obama in.

[Red Steel]

Of course we are, you twit ...

WiggOut is a paid twit.

[Velveeta]

I’m still amazed that you found it. I searched for several hours and couldn’t find it at all.

I was about to just stop at a library to find a copy.

[Velveeta]

Obama also claimed he was a few months old when the bay of pigs happened, April 1961.

Maybe he was. An original birth certificate could clear that up, right quick.

[STE=Q]

WiggOut is a paid twit.

"WiggOut" ...

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Love the moniker you gave him!

STE=Q

[DoctorBulldog]

Uhm... Isn’t Barry a bastard child? I mean, from what I understand, Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham’s marriage was legally null and void since Obama Sr. was still married to Kezia Aoko back in Kenya when he supposedly married Ann. I say supposedly because I have not seen a marriage certificate, yet; only divorce proceedings...

So, I guess my question is; wouldn’t that put his citizenship status under U.S. Code Title 8, Ch. 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1409, entitled, “Children born out of wedlock?”

Now, I don’t know what the code was at the time of Barry’s birth, but the current code seems to imply that the consanguineal father is the one who passes on U.S. citizenship to children born out of wedlock...

I’d be interested to hear what you guys have to say about § 1409:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001409——000-.html

Cheers

[DoctorBulldog]

Ping. See comment #853

[STE=Q]

“Isn’t Barry a bastard child?”

I speculated about that in an article I wrote here(see link):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2076357/posts

At the time I didn’t know what the legal implications were and still don’t.

All I remember is that Obama seemed a tad skittish about the subject at the time.

Excerpt from article:

“Then the story broke about her {Palins} daughter Bristol being pregnant and not married.

And, of course, the mainstream media wolves — ever hungry for red-meat — were licking their chops!

Then Obama made the well known statement that children and family should be ‘out of bounds’ and that, after all, ‘his own mother was only eighteen when she had him’.

When he said ‘families are out of bounds’ I got the impression that he was attempting to preclude any snooping into his own family background.”

END

Night all!

STE=Q

[DoctorBulldog]

Yes. You’re right. That is a curious statement by Barry because it implies that his mother was not married when she had him. I say that, because an 18-year-old mother who is married is not all that unusual, especially in the early 1960’s, and is certainly a moot point to make in reference to Bristol. However, an 18-year-old having a baby out of wedlock would certainly be frowned upon back in the early 1960’s.

Thanks for the information.

Cheers

[Danae]

I don’t want to say what lead me to it, but it took searching through a lot fo titles and phrases. It was not at all intuitive. But I have the source bookmarked now :) and anything I research I also download. Make a habit of downloading everything. More is being scrubbed than I ever would have believed.

[Danae]

All we have to go on is a COLB and a divorce decree. That is all a court would have to go on, the evidence at hand... The parties in question being deceased.

We can only go by what has been in the courts. A divorce was granted, therefor there was a marriage to dissolve.

If Barry is a bastard... Legally.... Then he inherrits his mom’s citizenship.

[El Gato]

By definition and by law, you are wrong. A certification of live birth is a birth certificate.

Which nonetheless contains much less information than the original "long form" birth certificate. It contains virtually no information that would allow for verification. About all that can be checked is that the mother did live in the location specified, but only to level of city. But due to 'granularity' of the records, if they exist at all, it may be impossible to verify that the mother lived there at that time.

With the long form, doctor's name, wether he/she practiced at the hospital indicated, wether the mother lived at the *address* indicated, can all theoretically be cross checked.

Also given that the COLB is a computer generated abstract, it's ridicously easy to forge, since the forgery will also be computer generated form. Leaving only the seal and signature stamp to be carefully faked.

[BP2]

> The copy of Law of Nations on John Adam’s nightstand said
> nothing about natural born citizens. Neither did any
> other edition until it was inserted by an unknown
> translator into the 1797 London edition.

Once again, you show your ignorance on this topic. Let me help you.

First of all, John Adams was quite literate and lingual in French, as he went with Ben Franklin to Paris to create a treaty and ask for funding for the Revolutionary War. He and Franklin clearly used "Law of Nations" for definitions and as a primer for French with which they were not familiar; Franklin commented as such in 1775 (if memory serves me correctly, Franklin had 4 copies):

Adams would have continued to negotiate with the French, but because of his “stern and haughty” nature, by the summer of 1780 the French refused further communication with Adams; henceforth they would deal only with Franklin.

Later, when John Adams served as US Ambassador to Britain, Thomas Jefferson would also have been required to speak French when he served as US ambassador to France in the mid-1780s. They had to be able to speak and write French, and did so by reading the books available at the time (since the WWW and Babelfish weren’t quite available yet).

As the Framers eschewed the phrase “Natural Born Subject”, they began to use phrase “Natural Born Citizen” to put additional distance between themselves and the Crown they had just declared independence from in 1776. In fact, you’ll find that the home States of the Second and Third “Committee of Eleven” that inserted the “Natural Born Citizen” qualification in July and August of 1787, at the bequest of Washington and John Jay, began to migrate from the phrase “Natural Born Subject” to “Natural Born Citizen” in the early to mid 1780s, such as Adams' home State of Massachusetts:

So, where did “Natural Born Citizen” originate and who used it FIRST? Not from Blackstone certainly as he did not use the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” to describe “Natural Born Subject”.

Framers would have likely been familiar with the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” from the London-based multi-lingual translator “J. Patsall”, known for his French and Latin translations into English. He’s attributed to the first-known use of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” in this 1774 English translation (from the Latin) classic Institutio Oratoria, by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (published in the first century A.D.):

Although it is unknown who is responsible for the 1797 London-based English translation of the French version of the "Law of Nations" on John Adam's nightstand in the 1770s through the mid-1790s, most experts (including myself) agree that London-based multi-lingual translator “J. Patsall” is likely responsible. There just weren't that many translators in those days with France and England as enemies.

And since J. Patsall first introduced the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” in 1774 — 23 years before the 1797 English Translation was available — the likelihood is very, very, VERY high that the Founders and Framers derived their use and understanding of the phrase from Vattel's French "Law of Nations", instead of from Blackstone ... who never used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” in the first place: