Replies

Doesn’t EVERYONE get their citizenship by statue? The idea that you if you are born here (on American soil) you are automatically a citizen is also a statue (14th Ammendment). So that line of reasoning is not compelling.

The idea that any foreign government granting you citizenship at birth is less than compelling too. What if Ireland decided to grant Irish citizenship to all persons who could show at least one grandparent was an Irish citizen, at birth. This would mean, according to your logic, that all said individuals would not be “natural born” US citizens.

You have provided legal excerpts proving that John McCain was a citizen at birth.

You have made a claim that there is a three part test to achieve the status of “Natural Born Citizen” as I understand it:

1. Parents were both citizens.
2. Parents had no other citizenship (not dual citizens)
3. Child wsa born on American soil.

Q1: Where, in law, do you see this three part test defined?

Q2: According to your view was Barry Goldwater eligible to run for POTUS in 1964? He was born in a Territory, not a state? What about Pat Buchanan? He was born in DC (I believe?) Are some territories better than others for your “jus soli” test. Again, where is this defined in law?

Doesn’t EVERYONE get their citizenship by statue?

If your mom and dad were American citizens and you were born in the United States, no law is needed to define your citizenship. You are a "natural born" citizen. You don't have any choices -- you're an American. You don't have a claim to being a citizen of any other country -- by birthplace or blood -- and no other country has a claim on you.

Both McCain and Obama had ties, either through their birthplace or parentage to another country. It required a "statute" to define their citizenship status.

McCain did have a choice, at some point in his life to be a Panamanian or an American, and Obama did have a choice about being a Kenyan or an American.

Re “According to your view was Barry Goldwater eligible to run for POTUS in 1964?”

Why The Republicans Are Silent On The Eligibility Issue

The Republican Party has a history of accommodating presidential candidates whose Constitutional eligibility is uncertain.

Chester Arthur — America’s first post-1787-born president, whose parents were not both U.S. citizens, was a Republican.

George Romney — ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968. He was born in Mexico.

Barry Goldwater — born (in 1909) in Phoenix, when Arizona was still territory, not yet a state.

Lowell Weicker — entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out. He was born in Paris, France.

John McCain — born in the Republic of Panama.

Bobby Jindal — a possible Republican candidate in 2012. He was born in the United States, but at the time of his birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens.

Given its history of eligibility-questionable presidential candidates, the Republican Party would be guilty of hypocrisy if it were to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

Moreover, if the Courts find that Barack Obama is ineligible, it is likely that John McCain is ineligible as well, since neither candidate was subject to sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his birth. Should that happen, both major political parties might be required to reimburse presidential campaign financing they received from the Federal government in 2008. This would be a non-issue for the Democratic Party which accepted little, if any, Federal monies during the 2008 presidential campaign. But the McCain campaign received substantial Federal funding.

If McCain were found to be an ineligible presidential candidate, the RNC might be required to return government monies it had received in 2008 for McCain’s presidential campaign. Given the financial risk that McCain’s questionable eligibility poses, the Republican Party is likely to oppose any public discussion of McCain’s or Obama’s presidential eligibility.

http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/SilentRepublicans.htm

Re: 14th Amendment:

You need to read it. The 14th Amendment is about citizenship rights. The word "eligibility" appears nowhere in the amendment, and after all, this discussion isn't about Obama's citizenship -- it's about his "eligibility" to serve as POTUS and CiC -- the citizenship issue is simply an Obot smokescreen. It allows them to confuse the issue.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In reference to your “The idea that you if you are born here (on American soil) you are automatically a citizen is also a statue (14th Ammendment).”

This is wrong-

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.

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.

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.

Is the Republic of Panama an American territory?

Can you explain logically why 5 democRAT Senators would be the sponsors to make sure their opponent a Republican candidate was/is a natural-born citizen???

Makes absolutely no sense, and interestingly enough, Barry Soetoro was among those sponsors as well as a third democRAT candidate, Hillary Clinton, hmmmm!!!