All right I am probably going to get flamed here but in my research on the birther issue it appears to me as long as he was born in the united states he is a US Citizen. The case that set this precedent was US vs Wong Kim Ark (1898)which dealt with a chinese couple who lived in california and had a son born there. They went back to China and when the son came back to the US he was denied entry for not being a US Citizen. The case went to the Supreme Court and in a 6-2 decision the court ruled the 14th amendment means that all persons born on US soil are considered natural born citizens. Here is an excerpt from the case;
“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution”
You can find the whole case on line and read it yourself. The decision is very long. And from every thing I have seen this decision has never been reversed and has actually been used as precedent in other cases. So if Obummer was born in Hawaii, no matter who his parents are, he is eligible for the presdincy. What I find funny is the two dissenting judges in this case pointed this possibility out. That someone could be born here and have both parents be loyal to another country but there child would be an American citizen. If I am missing something and some later case overruled this let me know.
God, we are chasing our tails here.
How many times, thousands upon thousands have people posted here that there is a difference between being a citizen of the UNITED STATES BY BIRTH, AND A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN MEANING WITH AMERICAN PARENTS.
You can be a citizen but not natural born.
Obama we believe may indeed be a citizen, but we do not think he is natural born.
I guess this will all get sorted out, if he runs again?
....it appears to me as long as he was born in the united states he is a US Citizen.....
So where is his proof of birth in the US? Gov Abercrombie from Hawaii can’t find it....
That argument ignores the term “natural born.” To be eligible for the presidency, a person must not only be a U.S. citizen, but also natural born.
My husband’s brother was born in California to two foreign nationals with permanent visas. He is a citizen of the United States by birth, but he is not natural born, and therefore not eligible for the presidency (thank God).
The natural born requirement is all about two American parents and loyalty to the country. zer0 has neither, even though he is a citizen.
The chink was not running for the office of POTUS! The “ONLY” time Natural Born need to be applied is under Presidential qualifications.
You are:
1. Very, very late to the party.
2. Wrong.
In US vs Wong Kim Ark, the issue was not about who could run for POTUS, the issue was about Wong’s citizenship. Whether or not Wong could run for POTUS was dictum.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=514
The disparity of arguments arises from the word ‘natural’ used explicitly in the Constitution for the eligibility for POTUSA.
The disparity of arguments arises from the word ‘natural’ used explicitly in the Constitution for the eligibility for POTUSA.
This is an “eligibility” issue.
It is not a “citizenship” issue.
Do some homework:
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
Your excerpt says “citizen” not “natural born citizen”. There is a huge difference. See if you can figure out what that difference is. Check Vattel, the commonly used reference of the founders.
The 14th Amendment says who may be a "citizen." It say's nothing about who may be a "natural born citizen."
In fact, the father of the 14th Amendment clearly knew the difference:
| John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by reiterating Vattel's definition...not once, but TWICE during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment! "All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))" |
No Congressman offered up an opposing view of who a "natural born citizen" was. They all knew exactly what it meant. Born in the territory of the U.S. to citizen parentS (i.e. that don't owe allegiance to a foreign country).
Barry, as you know, was born to a foreign father. Barry inherited his foreign fathers' foreign citizenship...by birthright. The state department discusses the issues/problems with dual nationals.
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(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).
"...Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there."
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
The framers would never have considered someone with multiple allegiances owed from birth, to be a natural born citizen.
Who even knows what his legal name is--much less his citizenship!