NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP NOT DEFINED BY BIRTH CERTIFICATES

The Daily Pen ^ | 02/26/2012 | Dan Crosby

[TexasVoter]

Today, you can apparently be born under foreign paternity on a remote, multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean, move to Indonesia with your foreign, non-citizen step-father, attend school under the name and religious identity of that patriarch, then suddenly reappear back on the island four years later under suspicious circumstances without any evidence of repatriation, and none of these circumstances prompts anyone in our government or media to ever so much as question your claim to Natural-born eligibility.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are arguing with the wrong person over this. My understanding of the law is that one’s parents or guardians are not capable of renouncing anyone’s citizenship but their own.

A person who is born as an American Citizen cannot be deprived of their citizenship through any action of their parents or guardians, it must be done by themselves after reaching an age of majority.

Now I understand that Sven Magnussen (sp?) disagrees, and he may well have some statute or regulation that says so, but till I see something in statute that convinces me otherwise, I am going to continue believing that a person’s citizenship is not subject to the whims of their parents or guardian.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hawaii became a state in 1959. Only two years later Obama is born there (supposedly). Hawaii is still in transition from “a remote, multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean”, to a state, with goofy laws that allow anyone, no matter where they were born, to become a citizen of Hawaii, thus a citizen of the United States. Obama may have obtained his Hawaiian birth certificate (if he even has one) in this manner.

My current working theory is that Stanley Ann Dunham was sent to live with Aunt Eleanor Birkebeile, or Uncle Ralph Dunham in NorthWest Washington, (as was the custom for embarrassing pregnant girls of that era) and when her due date arrived, she took advantage of a Free Canadian Hospital, then called mom who filled out an "at home birth" affidavit to initiate paperwork in Hawaii. (Which by the way, allows a Hawaiian resident to get a birth certificate from Hawaii, regardless of where the child is born.)

I consider the theory to be quite plausible, and until evidence emerges which renders it implausible, I will continue to use it as my working theory. Had Obama an actual ordinary Hawaiian birth certificate, we would not have seen all these peculiar leaps, dodges, twists and gyrations.

[DiogenesLamp]

Really? What is it?

You have family, about which this topic applies. If I am wrong about this, then I am misinformed. Am I wrong?

[DiogenesLamp]

Wait, is this the new birther line of attack? That Hawaii somehow wasn't a "real" state but some kind of semi-state that hadn't really earned its statehood yet? People have been joking for years that birthers would eventually start demanding Hawaii's statehood certificate--has that day come?

But seriously: do you guys accept that Hawaii qualified as one of the United States for Article II purposes, or not? If so, why even bring up its remoteness or its multiculturalness--isn't that irrelevant?

I cannot speak for faucetman, but my point was that Hawaii was just BARELY a state, and had the Republicans not tried to make a deal with the Democrats, it is possible that it wouldn't have been a state at all. It would still have been a territory though, so the jurisdiction argument would still apply.

Apart from that, I believe faucetman is pointing out that a territory newly transformed into a state might not have been so picky about the veracity of their records. I point out that it is worse than that. As an Island destination, it was not at all uncommon during most of it's American History, for children to be born in transit on ships. As a result, it's laws are EXTREMELY lax in regards to concerns about actual PLACE of birth.

Any child born in transit could receive a Hawaiian birth certificate at the first Hawaiian port at which the ship arrived. One might think this is bad enough for the "place" argument, but it is even worse. Hawaii, by statue, will issue a birth certificate to the child of ANY Hawaiian resident, regardless where the child is born.

What this means is that unlike all the other states(as far as I know) Hawaii is the ONLY state that you cannot trust on the question of whether or not a child was really born there.

Do any other states have such a screwy law?

[DiogenesLamp]

Find her or Barack Sr. on a passenger manifest and i'll consider that you've got something. The whole theory falls apart when you consider only one aspect of it. Money.

As this article points out, Barack Sr. didn't seem to have the funds even if he could fly now and pay later.

[edge919]

You’re arguing against yourself. “Sujets” = subjects, which means “naturel” = naturel born. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

You have a circumstantial case, and that is if you ignore SOME circumstances that contradict the case.

I'm not going to go through a litany of everything wrong with it, i'll just mention that I don't find it persuasive, and I am a person that thinks Obama may possibly have been born in a foreign country. (He could also have actually been born in Hawaii, though his behavior seems inconsistent with this notion.)

[edge919]

Subjective loyalties don't change citizenship.

Subjective loyalties?? A primary allegiance is NOT a subjective loyalty.

When Madison says "I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community;" the only way that such persons are members is through their parents. That's how one has a 'right of birth.' It's why Madison said:

Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

Clearly, independence changed to whom loyalty and citizenship ran because the identity of the sovereign changed, but it did not change the rules that determined citizenship itself.

Nonsense. If the King of England agreed with this, there wouldn't have been a war.

Did people who were previously citizens of Massachusetts because they were born there somehow shift to being a non-citizen after independence?

What???? No one said anyone becomes a "non-citizen." Way to twist the argument.

In fact, the Constitution doesn't define citizenship at all, and the only law in effect in the Colonies that could reasonably be assumed to define citizenship was the exact same pure birthright citizenship to which all the colonists had been subject under English law. It was all they knew.

English law wasn't all they knew. Plenty of evidence has shown that the founders used the law of nations, which is actually referenced in the Constitution.

But again what Madison or any other Framer may have held for an opinion isn't relevant.

Bwaahhhhh????? It was certainly relevant to the Supreme Court when it defined NBC:

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born outside of Hawaii, as a number of other states will do. However, those certificates show the birth location as a foreign country.

How do you know this? I have read that Children born aboard a ship in transit have their birth listed as having occurred *IN* Hawaii.

I think if a woman filled out (in 1961) an affidavit of at home birth, Hawaii would have accepted it and initiated all the appropriate paperwork. My recollection is that the mother had up to a year to bring the child in for verification.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was available in 1760 in English. It used the word "native" which as Justice Waite pointed out, means the same thing in that era as "natural born citizen." Someone born to two citizen parents within the jurisdiction of a nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't recall Sven ever backing his theories up with actual sources.

Funny, the same thing could be said of Mr. Obama. I haven't seen anything but weasel statements from any of HIS sources. There are no clear cut and unambiguous statements from Hawaii that some document or other is his "original" birth certificate document.

Putting in the words "or an abstract of the record thereof" renders it useless in terms of being an actual testament. It simply means that it is a recreation of whatever was put into the record, without mentioning the fact that the records are changeable by subsequent acts. The "original" is not.

They dance all around the adoption/birth issue without ever confirming or denying it. This may be fine for private Citizens in the normal order of their business, but by G*D the eligibility for the highest office of our nation should not be subject to such game playing. Answers should be CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS.

"THIS DOCUMENT IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD."

Thus.

Sign it and Stamp it and stop telling us this other piece of fluff is just as good!

[edge919]

How do you know this? I have read that Children born aboard a ship in transit have their birth listed as having occurred *IN* Hawaii.

Here's the general rule as it appears in a CDC report on how to complete a birth certificate in regards to place of birth:

If this birth occurred en route, that is, in a moving conveyance, enter the city, town, village, or location where the child was first removed from the conveyance.

If the birth occurred in international airspace or waters, enter ‘‘plane’’ or ‘‘boat.’’
- - -
If the birth occurred in international waters or airspace, enter the location where the infant was first removed from the boat or plane.

link to source

[Natufian]

“Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born outside of Hawaii, as a number of other states will do. However, those certificates show the birth location as a foreign country.”

Correct. One thing to remember however is that the law allowing for such a process was only passed in 1982.

[DiogenesLamp]

Congress could clearly define what NBC was and Vittal conflates "native" and "natural born" anyway which only strengthens the view that NBC means someone not naturalized or never a citizen and that birth-right citizenship, a.k.a natural born citizenship, is whatever Congress says it is whether it's a version of Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis or both.

You haven't gotten in deep enough to have a clear understanding of the issue. Perhaps this will help.

Chief Justice Waite of the Supreme Court in the case of Minor v Happersett.

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.

This decision was AFTER the 14th amendment by the way, so take that into account as well.

The notion that Congress could define what "natural born" means is wrong. If Congress could define such a thing, the Continental Congress could have defined themselves as "natural born citizens" of the United States, instead of writing a grandfather clause. ("...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...")

By the principles of natural law as described by Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, and Vattel, (quoted extensively in the debates on the Constitution and in the Ratification Debates) one was either "natural born" or one was not. It was an inherent characteristic, such as Hair color, and therefore not subject to being "decreed" by a legislative body. Congress only had power of Naturalization, which means to make "like natural." It is akin to adoption.

An Adopted child may have the same rights as a natural born child, but they are NOT the same.

[edge919]

The 1982 law only created a residency requirement for the parents.

[Yosemitest]

I respect the American Thinker, but Don Wilkie only has two articles there.

I suspect Mr. Don Wilkie is noting but an Obama enabler, apologist, and his political operative.
His Company, Wilkie Brothers Conveyors, Inc. has 3 Owners, and he gave donations to PHIL GRAMM FOR PRESIDENT, INC.
His theories have less proof, than I do. No, he's not credible.

A passenger manifest with the Obama's name on it wouldn't surprise me at all, as the truth always seems to come out.
But the money issue ... come on.

Look at all the financial supporters Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. had.

"In 1959, Obama Sr. received a scholarship in economics through a program organized by nationalist leader Tom Mboya.
The program offered Western educational opportunities to outstanding Kenyan students.[22][23][24]
Initial financial supporters of the program included Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Jackie Robinson, and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk,
a literacy advocate who provided most of the financial support for Obama Sr.'s early years in the United States, according to the Tom Mboya archives at Stanford University.
Funds provided the following year by John F. Kennedy's family paid off old debts of the project and subsidized student stipends,
thereby indirectly benefiting Obama Sr. and other members of the 1959 group of scholarship holders.

Yes, it's quite clear that money wasn't a problem for the Marxists Revolutionaries.

[DiogenesLamp]

The citizenship of every person in the Colonies at the time of the Revolution was determined by English law. Everyone knew that if you were born in one of the Colonies, you were a full citizen under English law. That's what everyone understood because that's what they were born into.

Here we go again. Yes, and the law said they COULD NOT be free of the King. Did they follow the law?

Here is the testimony of Dr. Edward J. Erler Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino and Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, testifying Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, June 25, 1997. He says that the founders EXPLICITLY rejected the English Common law as the basis for American Citizenship.

To assume that the people in the States who read the Constitution, and elected Delegates to ratify it, somehow understood that the entire definition of citizenship they had always known was being tossed in favor of the unmentioned (in the Constitution) interpretation of some Swiss legal theorist, is preposterous. There is absolutely no basis for inferring that the Citizens of the new United States understood that the basic English concept of birth citizenship had been changed in that document because it was not mentioned.

There is plenty of basis for it, all of which is apparently unfamiliar to you. Vattel was ubiquitous in the United States during this time frame, and particularly well studied by the members of Congress from just prior to the Declaration of Independence until the Final ratification. Indeed, he is mentioned specifically by Several States in their ratification debates, and several more by his work entitled "Law of Nations."

DEBATES IN THE LEGISLATURE AND IN CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. IN THE LEGISLATURE, WEDNESDAY, January 16, 1788. Gen. CHARLES COTESWORTH PINCKNEY

...If treaties entered into by Congress are not to be held in the same sacred light in America, what foreign nation will have any confidence in us? Shall we not be stigmatized as a faithless, unworthy people, if each member of the Union may, with impunity, violate the engagements entered into by the federal government? Who will confide in us? Who will treat with us if our practice should be conformable to this doctrine? Have we not been deceiving all nations, by holding forth to the world, in the 9th Article of the old Confederation, that Congress may make treaties, if we, at the same time, entertain this improper tenet, that each state may violate them? I contend that the article in the new Constitution, which says that treaties shall be paramount to the laws of the land, is only declaratory of what treaties were, in fact, under the old compact. They were as much the law of the land under that Confederation, as they are under this Constitution; and we shall be unworthy to be ranked among civilized nations if we do not consider treaties in this view. Vattel, one of the best writers on the law of nations, says, "There would be no more security, no longer any commerce between mankind, did they not believe themselves obliged to preserve their faith, and to keep their word. Nations, and their conductors, ought, then, to keep their promises and their treaties inviolable.

.

John Adams, (you may have heard of him) LIVED with Vattel's PUBLISHER (Charles Dumas) for several YEARS! Do you think they might have discussed his ideas? Hmmmm??? What's more, The "English Law" version of Subjectship is not as idiotic as many of you would have us believe is the standard for American Law. As demonstrated In John Adams' own Law Book on English Law it says this.

"Whose parents at the time of their birth were under the actual obedience of our King... "

Sounds exactly like the Vattel Version to me.

What some elites may have written in their own debates is irrelevant. What matters is the meaning of the words as commonly understood at the time by the citizens who approved the Constitution, because it is only from them that the validity of the Constitution flows. And any claim that de Vattel's citizenship theory was the one commonly understood by the average American at the time of ratification is simply preposterous.

Well for a rebuttal by an uncommon American, I give you PUBLIUS, otherwise known as James Madison. (1811)

I would suggest you study the issue more thoroughly before opining on the subject. It is always a good policy to UNDERSTAND the opposition arguments before you attempt to refute them. By the way, I've got more evidence. A LOT more.

[Natufian]

Here’s the statute....

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM

[DiogenesLamp]

And in the French, Vattel NEVER used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ - it being, after all, a phrase that didn’t exist when Vattel was writing in the 1750s. The closest equivalent would have been ‘natural born subject’ - and the French for that is & was “sujets naturel”.

Your point is irrelevant. You might as well say that the "Le Car", translates to "the car" not "the automobile." The choice of which word to use in translation is entirely up to the translator.

The word "naturel" translates to native, which as Justice Waite points out, is the same thing as Natural born citizen, which he defines as having two citizen parents. They are synonyms.

[DiogenesLamp]

Rogers, you’re being pathetic again. It’s already been shown that the founders translated the French word “naturel” as “natural-born” as early as 1781. Why do you think that 1797 translation was changed?? It reflected the common interpretation PRIOR to 1797.

Plus he leaves out the bit about the translator who wrote it did so ten years before it was published.