IMO, the timing of this citation by Obama and his legal team shows “consciousness of guilt” that he is actively hiding his actual foreign birth, which most likely would be in Kenya. The defendant in the Marguet-Pillado case was born in Mexico to a Mexican citizen mother and had stipulated in an earlier trial (reversed and remanded) that the US citizen named Marguet that appeared on his Mexican birth certificate was not his natural father. Why would Obama cite to a case which adds nothing at all towards establishing his eligibility if he were, in fact, born in the US? Here is the Opinion from the case, which does not appear to apply to Obama at all:
OPINION
GWIN, District Judge:
"Defendant-Appellant Carlos Marguet-Pillado ('Marguet- Pillado') appeals his conviction for being a previously removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. With his appeal, Marguet-Pillado argues that the district court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction. The instruction would have permitted Marguet-Pillado to argue that the government had failed to establish that Marguet-Pillado was an alien who had not obtained derivative citizenship from his step-father, a United States citizen listed on Marguet-Pillado’s birth certificate as his father. The district court rejected the instruction after finding that an earlier appeal in this case relieved the government of the burden of establishing alienage in the second trial. Because we find that in the second trial, Marguet-Pillado could require the government to come forward with proof that Marguet-Pillado was an alien and did not have derivative citizenship, we REVERSE Marguet- Pillado’s conviction and remand this case for a new trial."
If born in Kenya, whether Obama would even be a US citizen at birth (natural born or not) would depend on whether his parents were legally married. INS records show that BHO Sr. was deported based substantially on suspicion that he had entered into a bigamous marriage with Stanley Ann Dunham. Below are the State Department rules for married vs unmarried foreign births with a US citizen mom:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html
“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock:
“A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.”
“Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
“A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.”
Ironically, if Obama was born in Kenya it would be to his advantage for him to have been born out-of-wedlock because, as can be seen above, his mother meets the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she was single while she does NOT meet the residency requirement to pass citizenship to him if she were legally married to BHO Sr.
Bottom line is that the Obama legal team is now claiming that Marguet-Pillado applies to Obama and that case would make the out-of-wedlock Kenya-born child of an eighteen-year-old US citizen mother a "natural born citizen" according to the two-judge 9th Circuit majority and eligible to be president of the United States according to the Obama legal team. This is a blatant attempt to overturn the unanimous holding in Minor v. Happerset defining natural born citizen to exclude those who were not born in the country to citizen parents:
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/.../USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html
“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.”
Note that the Congressional Research Service has also jumped to endorse the Marguet-Pillado case as affirming that a foreign born child biologically-related to a US citizen is a citizen at birth and thus a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be POTUS:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement
quote
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), itmay be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and “naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to “involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23). The Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,” and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could not be considered to be “naturalized.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements.
end quote
re-ping my vanity for the ping list?
“Bottom line is that the Obama legal team is now claiming that Marguet-Pillado applies to Obama and that case would make the out-of-wedlock Kenya-born child of an eighteen-year-old US citizen mother a “natural born citizen” according to the two-judge 9th Circuit majority and eligible to be president of the United States according to the Obama legal team. This is a blatant attempt to overturn the unanimous holding in Minor v. Happerset defining natural born citizen to exclude those who were not born in the country to citizen parents...”
yowza ping
There is a difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. In some cases, the citizenship of a citizen at birth can be taken away, as in the case of a person born abroad to one US citizen and one foreign citizen. There is precedent for doing so, although I can’t recall the case name off the top of my head. It envolved a man who was born in Italy, and never lived in the US as required under the statute. He was a citizen at birth, but since he failed to complete the required actions when coming of age, his citizenship was forfeit. This indicates that despite the bleating of some, there is a difference between types of citizens at birth. Some are statutory citizens, like the case indicated, some are 14th amendment citizens, like the “anchor babies” are alleged to be, and some are natural born citizens, born in the country of two citizen parents.
If that hooha is his ace in the hole then why did has his good buddy McCaskill (McLame's being vetted on SR 511) tried time and time and time again to change the Constitution on NBC and eligibility?
US long form bogus. Nary a picture of the happy newly married couple. Sr.'s college friends (other than Abercrombie who was THERE!) knew anything about Ann or that there was a bouncing baby boy. Nary a picture or anyone who saw the baby bump. Then Barry Steve David Barack Obama Soetoro Dunham Whatever couldn't remember which hospital he was born in even though on his 5 minute walk from the Dunham's apartment to the Punahoa school everyday he had to cut through one hospital's parking lot. And we still don't know if he was born in the US, Canada or Kenya and to what parents since the BC he waved in front of the cameras is totally bogus and all other records are missing. Bottom line is he's 100% fake.
See my post #94
bump