"We impose lot’s of “limitations” as to who may, or may not, be deemed a citizen within “the jurisdiction of the nation” (where else?)"
Information on immigration and naturalization (see link)
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/oath-of-allegiance.html
The Oath of Allegiance is as follows:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
THERE IS WHOLE LOT OF "RENOUNCING" GOING ON FOR A COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T THINK DUAL ALLEGIANCE CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS!
... And of course -- as every American knows -- the the Natural Born Citizen clause was put in by the framers to prevent a possible SPLIT allegiance in the executive.
John Jay's letter to George Washington:
New-York, 25th July, 1787
"Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be WISE and seasonable to provide a STRONG CHECK to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a Natural Born Citizen.(Emphases Mine)
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay."
John Jay Letters:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/
View abstract:
http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/app/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1
Now the question arises as to what would be the best "STRONG CHECK" to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government?
It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question.
Nice try wiggie!
From now on EVERY time you PRETEND you can't read I'm just going to post the pertinent information for all to see.
Here's a special "bonus" package care of Freeper Beckwith:
re: "His Kenyan citizenship lapsed when he turned 21...”
It did not.
The (factcheck) report is not accurate as to Obama’s historical British Subject status in that the implication exists that British subject status was lost along with British citizenship back in 1963.
The proof of this exists in the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) which states in Section 2(1):
2.(1) On and after the appointed day, the British Nationality Acts 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-
(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words " and Kenya " ;
Now we must look at the British Nationality Act of 1948, Section 1:
1.-(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression 'British subject' and the expression 'Commonwealth citizen', shall have the same meaning.
(3) The following are the countries herein before referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.
According to the KIA, the words -- "and Kenya" -- are added to subsection (3) making all Kenyan citizens also British Subjects upon "the appointed day", December 12, 1963.
First, Obama could not have lost his Kenyan Citizenship on August 4, 1982. This means his foreign nationality issues were not only governed by the Kenyan Constitution, but -- as of January 1, 1983 -- he was also governed by the British Nationality Act of 1981.
AND SO OBAMA WAS A BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CITIZEN AFTER THE BNA OF 1981 took effect Jan 1 1983, AND SO HE STILL IS, since he was not only governed by KIA63.
The ofuscation tactic is to make it seem as if his citizenship vanished, but it did not. Obama is STILL a Bobfuscationritish Citizen.
117 posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 2:45:31 PM by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
STE=Q
Indeed.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate
Clearly, they made a distinction between a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen." The question is, what's the difference? If merely being born in country (i.e. citizen) were enough, Jay would not have felt the need to write his letter of suggestion, which was accepted and ultimately they changed the requirement from "citizen" to that of "natural born citizen." They decided that being a "citizen" was not enough to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (for good reason I would add).