Posted on 04/07/2011 12:46:23 PM PDT by patlin
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE II
Sec 5 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Nearly a year ago now, Mark R. Levin with all his constitutional expertise stated the dual citizenship is not 14th Amendment citizenship. Rather it is citizenship by statute. If so, the how cone he is ignoring Article II qualifications and promoting Bobby Jindal for president, knowing that Jindal was born a citizen of India? Would that not make Jindal a citizen by statute, not by nature? Also, he recently has been promoting Marco Rubio. I like Marco, but do we know for a fact that his parents were naturalized citizens at the time of Marco's birth?
Caller: Yes, how does dual citizenship work? How can person have dual alliances for example…… let’s say we got into a war with say IsraelYello! Yello! Could someone get Mark on the phone & ask him to explain this to us please?Mark: hahahahaha
Caller: You know what I am saying
Mark: yeah, yeah, the jews, we gotta watch out for them
Caller: No, no, it could be that….
Mark: Let me explain something to you. In terms of dual citizenship, that is done statutorily, you understand? In other words, Congress determines, us, the nature of dual citizenship, what qualifies for dual citizenship and so forth; which is why it is so absurd to argue that 14th Amendment by itself confers citizenship on illegal aliens
Caller: Well, that’s a good point, that’s a very good point. I understand
Mark: Well, it’s the truth, it’s not even, yeah
Caller: No, no, I understand ya, I’m not arguing with ya, I listen to you to learn
Mark: Alright my friend, thank you, you’re a good man, thank you…I’m no fan of dual citizenship either, I’ll be perfectly honest with you
Read Leo Donofrio's work. It's decent.
A case that I like to point out is Kawakita v US, 343 US 717 (1952), a dual citizen at birth. It probes the power and ability of that person to shift, based on circumstance and personal decision, with the shift being honored by more than one "host" country. Dual citizenship is a weakening factor, in selection of the person who is supposed to champion only ONE country's interests, against all other countries.
Which statute does that?
No it doesn't. Under their constitution, Obama had to choose between U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship when he became an adult. Since he did not choose Kenya then he lost his Kenyan citizenship.
It reflects poorly on all of Congress and all of the substantial press and "public education" organs.
The Senate went out of its way to issue a non-binding finding that McCain was a natural born citizen, by dint of being born of citizen parents who were out of the country on the country's military business. The Senate did not undertake to issue a non-binding resolution that dual citizens born on US soil, raised by foreigners, raised during some formative years in a foreign land, are likewise "Natural Born Citizens" under the meaning of the Constitution.
My "gut" tells me that the "best" signal of US patriotism that Obama could produce would be naturalization, whereby he renounces all other allegiances - but if he has to renounce those, then his birthright citizenship runs afoul of the "American, pure American, and only American, from birth until the present."
“In order to enter the country where I was born, I must carry that country’s passport. Therefore, I have two passports. However, when I re-enter the US I must use my US Passport.
Other than that and living there until I was seven, I have no connection with that country except that I have gone there for work a few times.
I was going to go there for work when I was around 25 but my company legal department pulled me from the trip as there was a chance I would be conscripted upon my arrival.”
Thank you for the reply. I think you made my point. You are not a natural born citizen. You are subject to two jurisdictions.
This would seem to resolve the point about someone who was born overseas to two citizen parents being a natural born citizen - a la John McCain who was born in a Colon, Panama hospital, not on the naval base.
Let’s continue the discussion. What’s your theory on being born in the US of only one citizen parent (the mother).
And what does it say about children not born beyond the seas but instead were born in the U.S.? Any thing on them in that act?
However, Title 8 can not be defined without its connecting laws that pertain to expatriation & denaturalization. Anyone who has had a former citizenship/allegiance, including children born within the United States, are subject to denaturalization laws. Natural born are not subject to these laws because they never owed allegiance to any other but the United States. Its called the doctrine of “statelessness” and there have been many cases including one just recently decided by SCOTUS where it was determined that a child born with dual allegiance would not be left stateless if American citizenship was denied or taken away.
IOW, Obama would never be left stateless because he has at least one foreign country that claims him as one of their own.
When Romney was born, Mexican laws did recognize children born to alien fathers as Mexican citizens, they were recognized as aliens and citizens of the father’s country. Romney never held any other allegiance but to the United States.
That is utterly not true or every treaty made between countries pertaining to the status of foreign citizens & their children in foreign countries would be deemed unconstitutional.
When a child is born in to parents in a foreign country, the Treaty between the countries has 1st precedence on the status of the child born. Especially if the father is the foreigner. In the early days of our country it was called the laws of nations, today it is called international law and our country can not legally impose its citizenship laws on anyone other than its citizens & their children per Treaties between the nations regarding this subject.
If you are a citizen of another country, I suggest you go find that treaty & see what it says. You might find that you are merely being allowed to operate outside the law, that you are operating as citizen merely by acceptance. Acceptance is not law and that is why the US State Dept can not protect you when you are in the country of your birth.
Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III. I know that. Nothing in there regulates dual citizenship that I'm aware of. Nor should it - the U.S. can no more control the citizenship laws of other countries than they can control our's.
If you could respond with any kind of argument, rather than the personal invective you hurl at everyone, you might be worth debating. However, based upon all of your comments on this thread, you’re not.
I have never jumped onboard, and have never considered the question to be Obama’s US citizenship. That is yet another red herring in this entire debate. I’ve questioned only his natural born citizenship, i.e., (as I understand the Framers’ intent) his being born with or without dual allegiance.
We have something like 300M US citizens, including you, your wife and children. We have only ONE holder of the Office of President of the United States. That one person is charged with, among other things, serving as Commander in Chief of all U.S. military forces. An awesome and special responsibility. And, for that reason, imo, the Framers inserted those two words, “natural born” as a qualification for that office, and for that office only.
In your case and Romney’s father’s case, you were born apparently with dual citizenship, but you were born of 2 US citizen parents. BHO, Sr. not only was never a U.S. citizen, so far as we know, he never so much as applied to be a U.S. citizen. He remained throughout his life a Kenyan/British citizen.
Due to his unfortunate parentage - both parents appear to have been totally self-centered with little care for the child(ren) they produced - they tarnished BHO Jr’s status as a ‘natural born’ US citizen. The father because he was never a US citizen, particularly at the time of BHO Jr’s birth, and the mother because, well, because.
Note that BHO Jr never wrote a book about his American lineage, about his grandfather who raised him, or his ancestors who pioneered and farmed in Kansas, or those who fought in the American Revolution. Oh, no, he reached out for his Kenyan roots. He chose to identify with that country and its culture. That is understandable for a child who was abandoned by his Kenyan father before his first memory. It is easy for a child in those circumstances to glorify the absent parent, much as adopted children do. But, is it understandable for the man who would serve as President of the United States? I would argue that BHO Jr. does not identify first and foremost, and ONLY as a US citizen.
Wow. That response was sooo good i’m saving it. I plan to trot that baby out later whenever I need to respond to this sort of argument.
Does anyone remember that dual citizenship was not allowed until Ronald Reagan’s years? (as in claiming dual status)
also
Ronald Reagan is the president who allowed US citizens, who were legally allowed by the foreign country, to vote in a foreign country. (some even allow it due to mere residency on some ballot initiatives)
100% agree that naturalized citizens are often more patriotic than natural born. The latter have no point of reference against which to measure all that they are given at birth. Those who left their homeland and went thru the process of naturalization have a far greater appreciation of this country,
My daughter’s new father in law immigrated to the US as a young man, fulfilling his life’s dream. At his son’s and my daughter’s engagement party, coincidentally on 7/4 last year, he gave the most beautiful toast reminding the guests about what this country is and why it IS exceptional. Almost brought me to tears. He’s not eligible to be POTUS, nor as I understand it, is my son in law who was born in the US with dual citizenship. Would they serve well? You bet. But they are not eligible. It’s as simple as that. And, I dare say, they respect this country too much to even consider trashing its Constitution. I’m just glad they are both on these shores.
I guess you missed the excerpt from the “naturalization act of 1790” where the First Congress specifically said that citizenship could not descend to a child born of a foreign father.
No, it’s not binding because the only thing which may override an Article of the Constitution is an amendment. An Act of Congress doesn’t posses the necessary authority, but it DOES indicate how they regarded the children of Foreigners.
English Law asserted that the Children of Englishmen are Subjects of the British Empire.
Do you really think the founders were unaware of this and did not deal with it?
K-Stater said:
“
“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: . . .”
And what does it say about children not born beyond the seas but instead were born in the U.S.? Any thing on them in that act? “
I posted the link. Did you not see it?
My argument is that it doesn’t matter what it says. An Act of Congress cannot override an Article of the Constitution. The Act is only useful for the window into the mind of the founders. It cannot redefine Article II.
“Under their constitution, Obama had to choose between U.S. citizenship and Kenyan citizenship when he became an adult. Since he did not choose Kenya then he lost his Kenyan citizenship.”
And such a choice would not obtain to a ‘natural born citizen.’ You’ve inadvertently made the ‘birthers’ point. Thanks.
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.