Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Seizethecarp

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.


71 posted on 03/11/2012 10:38:43 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: El Gato
“There is a difference between a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen.”

Not according to the two judge 9th Circuit Marguet-Pillado majority, contrary to all of the evidence that you cite and Minor v Happersett.

The Marguet-Pillado panel did not actually state that the defendant would be eligible to be POTUS if he could have established a biological relationship with the US citizen on his Mexican BC, but the Obama legal team cites this case to prove that Obama is eligible to be POTUS. This is jaw-droppingly desperate, IMO.

It seems, in reading INS case law, that the term “natural born citizen” is used in a sloppy short-hand way to equate to statutory foreign born citizens at birth as opposed to foreign born persons who must be naturalized, even though they might have one or more US citizens prior to the law change in 2000.

This sloppy, imprecise abuse of the term “natural born citizen” in foreign statutory births is being dishonestly conflated with Article II POTUS eligible natural born citizens as defined in Minor v Happersett.

The Obama legal team is trying to pull a “Johnny Cochran” and go for the tiny bit of daylight in the defensive line on a trick play (the glove that “doesn't fit”) hoping that the public will buy it. We know that over and over you will hear the uninformed citizen say “If his mom is a citizen it doesn't matter where he was born, he is eligible.”

83 posted on 03/12/2012 7:52:49 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson