Obama has no natural born right to be President. He is a squatter occupying the White House

Lets begin with the words of Vattel in 1758.."Les Naturels ou Indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de parens citoyens" the natural born or natives are those born in a country whose parents are its citizens.

When the United States was formed..the natives or naturals were American or United States citizens. This established a family of Americans, a class of American citizens. A group of Soverign U.S. citizens.

There is a word I recently learned, it is called Kind. Kind as an adjective means natural or native.

Kind (natural-native) comes from the old english word gecynde which comes from the latin jure hereditario which means by hereditary right.

From the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: "KIND (O. E. ge-cynde, from the same root as is seen in “kin,” a word in origin meaning birth, nature, or as an adjective, natural. From the application of the term to the natural disposition or characteristic which marks the class to which an object belongs."

You also get an 'A' for obscuring and blurring.

and he would not be of our “Kind” according to the asinine argument that to actually be American one must be descended of the Europeans who settled and founded the nation.

Our "Kind"? LoL!

No he meant this 'Kind'

The meaning of "Kind" as in,

"native, indigenous, inborn, natural, KIND-red, allied ...to be born."

If a person of Chinese descent is born of American citizen parents in America, a citizen at birth, a natural born citizen - despite having foreign citizenship ALSO at birth - then why the argument about 0bama’s British citizenship at birth through his Kenyan father?

It matters not a bit if by foreign law an American citizen at birth is granted citizenship, it only matters if by American law that they are an American citizen at birth.

Obama would be a first generation citizen per 14th Amendment, [only a jus soli citizen] if he was born inside the US because his British/Kenyan father gave him a foreign citizenship at birth. Obama Sr. had no US citizenship or did he have a permanent residence inside the United States. He went to school here and left. This is a patriarchal world were children not only follow their fathers in name but in citizenship and in cultural KINDship.

The hypothetical Chinese law you paint would not effect the natural born citizenship status of US citizens who were born in the US and had citizen parents at birth - that is from the 2nd generation (multi-generational) and beyond.

If British law didn't grant 0bama British citizenship at birth, you would STILL insist that he isn't an NBC because he needed two citizen parents.

Huh? LoL! Are you trying to say that if his father would be stateless? Obama Sr. was born outside the US as a foreigner.

So why make the argument when it is so transparently false and makes subject instead of sovereign American law?

Answered in spades in the 4th and 5th paragraphs above this line.

Under American law this is not a patriarchal world. Now you are arguing that it is through the father? I thought it had to be both parents? Any argument will do in a pinch I suppose.

If British and or Kenyan law did not recognize citizenship of children born to their citizens abroad, then your entire argument about the necessity of 0bama being a dual citizen at birth for his ineligibility falls apart. Thus you make American law subject to foreign law in an area where it is sovereign.

I have obscured and blurred nothing. You started out with a lie saying I was injecting race into this when I was not the one making the argument about the necessity of being of European descent to be American or White to be President; I responded to it. You start out with a lie and then go on to say that I am “also” obscuring and bluring. At least you admitted that you and your tag team partner are doing the tango around the issue without actually confronting it.

Amusing!

Under American law this is not a patriarchal world. Now you are arguing that it is through the father? I thought it had to be both parents? Any argument will do in a pinch I suppose.

I put the emphasis on the father because Obama's father was the foreigner in post 122. It is still two US parentS for a natural born citizen.

There is no American law that is needed to state natural born citizenship because there is no need for it. They don't need to be naturalized by the state. However, the Supreme Court has stated without a doubt who are natural born citizens:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parentS who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

BS, it was you who made race the issue here as a sideshow to BS your way all over this thread. It has been explain to your demo-butt, but you pout and cry and say racist! You are so full of crap.

Here, I'll save you some time you can go all over FR posting this .gif.

Amusing!

Your stupefying!

“Sir Thomas More’s Life of Richard the Third. He tells us that Richard calculated by murdering his two nephews in the Tower to make himself accounted “a kindly king”—not certainly a ‘kindly’ one in our present usage of the word[204];

but, having put them out of the way, that he should then be lineal heir of the Crown, and should thus be reckoned[185]

as king by kind or natural descent; and such was of old the constant use of the word.”

(204) [The two words are intimately related, ‘king’, contracted for kining (Anglo-Saxon cyn-ing), ‘son of the kin’ or ‘tribe’, one of the people, cognate with cynde, true-born, native, ‘kind’, and cynd, nature ‘kind’, whence ‘kindly’, natural.]

connecting the dots..the word true-born

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20900/20900-h/20900-h.htm#Page_184

You read “doubts” and conclude that it is a definitive rejection. You read a statement that concludes that those born in country of two citizens parents are definitely natural born citizens, and from that you want to READ INTO IT, that ONLY the children of two citizen parents born in country are natural born citizens, when nothing in the statement would warrant that steadfast conclusion.

Still going with your LIE that I started the race thing? Why when it is SO OBVIOUSLY a lie? My first post that had anything to do with race was to call out the poster who was insisting that only WHITE people should be eligible for the Presidency and that only the descendants of Europeans born in the USA are actually America.

But go ahead, lets keep going over it again and again, let us keep the “birthers base their argument on 0bama not being eligible on him not being the descendant of Europeans and him not being White” thread ALIVE AND KICKING!

Amusing!

Still going with your LIE that I started the race thing.

You obviously are hyper sensitive about who you are. You do have a screw lose.

was to call out the poster who was insisting that only WHITE people

You saw the word "white" from a dictionary def., and like a liberal leftist, your suspicious bias took over your mind. He never insisted that only white people can become president.

Amusing!

You really belong here at this website

http//:www.commondreams.org

A place to amuse yourself.

Yeah, not like he posted the dictionary definition to clarify his position or anything, no it MUST have been apropos of absolutely nothing!

And his insistence that the Founders wanted to limit the Presidency to White people, also apropos of nothing I suppose?

There really is no depths the birthers wont plumb to get at an argument that 0bama is not qualified; but that he is not White, not our “Kind”, and not (completely) the descendant of the European settlers who founded this nation has to TAKE THE CAKE.

The birther argument has long passed its sell by date. Now it exists only as a fetid mold spore spreading bone of contention that the birthers want to drag out to besmirch influential conservatives who didn't sign on to the conspiracy theory de jour - that being ALL OF THEM!

But go ahead and reduce the birther argument to the most absurd or defend that argument!

0bama is not of our “Kind”, he is not “White”, he is not completely the descendant of the Europeans who settled and founded this nation - and thus not even really an American!

Reducto ad absurdum has been achieved! Self inflicted even!

here really is no depths the birthers wont plumb to get at an argument that 0bama is not qualified; but that he is not White, not our “Kind”, and not (completely) the descendant of the European settlers who founded this nation has to TAKE THE CAKE.

Flaky after-Birther, we are back to "Kind" again?

Already answered. To repeat:

- - - -

You: "Highlighted was the definition of “Kind” that meant “race”, and that was in response to me asking if by “Kind” he meant race. Yes, by “Kind” he meant race."

" It's highlighted because that's what Google Books does when you do a keyword search on their database. BP1 didn't highlight it using Photoshop or any other program. And his keywords search in that page-grab image so clearly shows that it was "natural kind."

His search was not "white kind" or "brown kind" or "purple kind" or "psychedelic kind" - it was 'natural kind.' "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2620065/posts?page=85#85

- - - - -

You do see the search term "natural kind" in bold and underlined above - don't you?

0bama is not of our “Kind”, he is not “White”, he is not completely the descendant of the Europeans who settled and founded this nation - and thus not even really an American!

"0bama is not of our “Kind”, he is not “White”” ?

How did your brain turn "natural kind" into "0bama is not of our “Kind”, he is not “White” ”?

You should get out of leftist field. It is not healthy being there.

A dichotomy they refuse to understand...

exactly, Blackstone wrote of 2 laws in his works. He 1st began with the laws of nations and nature(Sect 2: Nature of Laws). He then went on to expound throughout the rest of his commentaries about English feudal law. Blackstone himself says that they are incompatible terms as feudal law is that of man and NOT of nature. Blackstone was a friend to feudal monarchism & would never concede the fact that every man, in nature, has a right to determine which society he will attach himself to. Blackstone denied the natural right of every man to have equal partnership in the making and enforcing of the laws of the society or the right of men to cast off the old in which society they were members of and take a new one as our founders did. British feudal law is “Elitism at its finest”. It was all based on the ruler who conquered & the spawn from their loins, peasants be damned!

ALL HAIL KIING OBAMA, HE CONQUERED WITH FRAUD, BUT HE CONQUERED & WE ARE NOW TO BE HIS FAITHFUL & OBEDIENT SERVANTS!

Now please pass me the barf bucket, I need to throw up.

In the English language, we have these self-contained units of discourse known as “paragraphs” that separate one complete thought from another. “IT WILL BE UNNECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE ANY OTHER” is the final sentence of a complete paragraph.

I'm sorry to hear you failed English class and reading comprehension. The final sentence in the paragraph is the one I quoted that linked Smith's birthright to his ancestors settling the country. Here's a link to prove I'm right, as usual.

Link to Madison's Document 6

Could you then please provide me with a quote from a Framer or a Founding Father stating that American citizen fathers are required in order for a child to be eligible for the Presidency/Vice Presidency as a Natural Born Citizen? Where does that appear in the Constitution or in US Law?

The first U.S. naturalization law links natural born citizenship with the status of the father, both in terms of citizenship and residence, in 1790.

"And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

"It matters not a bit if by foreign law an American citizen at birth is granted citizenship, it only matters if by American law that they are an American citizen at birth."

Actually, it matters quite a bit. At least, according to the modern day state department and the SCOTUS.

State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf

My brain had to do nothing to convert....

“It is possible the Founders limited the President to the descendants of the White Europeans who formed the country.”

“1926 Bouvier Law Dictionary..American is defined..descendants from Europeans who were born in the US.”

“Can Obama say he has kindred blood with the Founders..with..the majority of United States citizens?”

Into EXACTLY what it is; An argument that only “White Europeans” should be President, and that 0bama is not an American because he is not completely descended from Europeans, and that those who are not of the same “kindred blood” cannot claim to be American or claim the Presidency.

I’m sorry to hear you failed English class and reading comprehension. The final sentence in the paragraph is the one I quoted that linked Smith’s birthright to his ancestors settling the country. Here’s a link to prove I’m right, as usual.

Link to Madison’s Document 6

Could you then please provide me with a quote from a Framer or a Founding Father stating that American citizen fathers are required in order for a child to be eligible for the Presidency/Vice Presidency as a Natural Born Citizen? Where does that appear in the Constitution or in US Law?

The first U.S. naturalization law links natural born citizenship with the status of the father, both in terms of citizenship and residence, in 1790.

“And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

Under the provisions of the now moot Naturalization Act of 1790, Barack Hussein Obama II was not born beyond the sea, he was born in the United States of America in the state of Hawai’i and Barack Hussein Obama’s father was resident in the United States from 1958 when he enrolled at the University of Hawai’i until 1965 when he returned to live in Kenya.

The 18th and 19th century laws on naturalization were superceded by the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 which established two and only classifications of citizens: born or naturalized.

BP1 from post #1:

"What made me think of the word Kind..it came from the John Adams HBO series. Adams told the King we are related by Kindred blood. I saw the word Kin which we all knows means family..then I saw Kind in the definition. The dots are being connected.

There is an 1836 dictionary authored by James Richardson, born in 1776. Posted is the definition of Kind. You will see Kind with natural or native.

A natural born citizen is born from other members of its class..citizens of the United States. A natural born citizen cannot be spurious...born from US and foreign citizens.

A natural born citizen is born on the soil and born from the blood of Americans..born from the blood of United States citizens..a natural born citizens parents must be United States citizens...the son of a foreign citizen and/or British subject citizen cannot be President."

- - - - - -

YOU: Into EXACTLY what it is; An argument that only “White Europeans” should be President, and that 0bama is not an American because he is not completely descended from Europeans, and that those who are not of the same “kindred blood” cannot claim to be American or claim the Presidency.

Your head is on screwy goofy Obot. He saw a HBO documentary on John Adams where he said that he was 'kind' to a king, and then you see the word "white" from a dictionary def., and then you see the definition of "Kind" where you go off again on a silly tangent:

YOU - "Highlighted was the definition of “Kind” that meant “race”, and that was in response to me asking if by “Kind” he meant race. Yes, by “Kind” he meant race."

Somehow you turn all that into Obama can't be president because he is black.

BP1 was getting to this conclusion in his last paragraph from post #1 on this thread:

"A natural born citizen is born on the soil and born from the blood of Americans..born from the blood of United States citizens..a natural born citizens parents must be United States citizens...the son of a foreign citizen and/or British subject citizen cannot be President."

Well, Obama was born of blood of a British/Kenyan citizen Obama Jr. inherited his father's foreign citizenship at birth. So you see race bigotry? It's not there dingbat. I see a foreign allegiance to a foreign state. Not some racist statement that Obama can't be president because of skin color. Your a clown. You see ghosts, spectres, phantoms, mirages, and false images of racism when there are none.

Again, you're reading comprehension and ability to think logically is failing you. 1) We don't know where Obama was born. 2) Place of birth wasn't the reason why I cited the Natuarlization Act of 1790. The point was to demonstrate that natural born citizenship and basic citizenship were fundamentally tied to the status of the father - something you've failed to refute, so I accept your concession on that point. Thanks. 3) The 14th amendment didn't redefine nor invalidate the original definition natural born citizenship, which was what Justices Waite and Gray both told us Minor and WKA, respectively. Sorry, james, but once again, 3 strikes and you're out. BTW, thanks for punting on the Madison argument too.

Again, you’re reading comprehension and ability to think logically is failing you. 1) We don’t know where Obama was born. 2) Place of birth wasn’t the reason why I cited the Natuarlization Act of 1790. The point was to demonstrate that natural born citizenship and basic citizenship were fundamentally tied to the status of the father - something you’ve failed to refute, so I accept your concession on that point. Thanks. 3) The 14th amendment didn’t redefine nor invalidate the original definition natural born citizenship, which was what Justices Waite and Gray both told us Minor and WKA, respectively. Sorry, james, but once again, 3 strikes and you’re out. BTW, thanks for punting on the Madison argument too.

You may not know where Obama was born but the state of Hawai’i says that he was born in that state at 7:24 pm on Friday, August 4, 1961. Even the outgoing Republican Governor of Hawai’i says that.

As you may have noticed, Obama doesn’t need to prove where he was born, those who oppose his eligibility have the burden of proof.

There’s no sense in repeating myself, I said and I mean that James Madison’s words are definitive for me: place of birth to determine allegiance is what holds in the United States and “therefore it is unnecessary to examine any other.”

“The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution in the declaration that ‘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,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, AND ONLY TWO: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—Supreme Court of the United States in the majority opinion in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Thank you Mr. Madison!

“A natural born citizen is born from other members of its class..citizens of the United States. A natural born citizen cannot be spurious...born from US and foreign citizens.”

The word spurious comes from the Romans..the child is spurious if born from a Roman citizen and a foreigner. The child cannot be a Roman citizen and was considered no better than a slave. This comes from Livy.

Did the Founders read Livy. Jefferson read everything and he could read in the original Latin and Greek when he was a child.

The Founders read the Greek and Roman classics. Aristotle tells us a citizen comes from two citizen parents. Perciles had a two citizen parent law in Athens.

Rome had a two citizen parent law. The Romans had another definition for a child of parents of two different countries..it is mongrel.

Homer tells us .beware having foreigners as soldiers. Homer also tells us..to be beware having to many foreigners in the city..Troy had many.

The Roman empereor Caracalla granted citizenship to the foreigners in the Empire..he did this to obtain more revenue from taxes to keep up with his public spending.

This was the beginning of the downfall of the Roman Empire.

The Founders knew this. Plus they had the Law of Nations.

Why would they want..Obama eligible to be President. The son of a foreigner.

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.