Hey Drew, I am going to send this to you, too.
I posted this yesterday, on what turned into a dead thread. I laugh because for the past nine and a half years, it seems that every thread I post on then fizzles to a halt asap. :) I am intrested to hear what people have to say about this case:
First off, I think this is a good thing, and I believe it would end up with the courts determining definitively what a ‘natural born citizen’ actually is. Regardless of opinions here, it is still vague. (And yes, I have read ALL of the arguments about Vattel, etc.)
Here is a question for those who think that it is cut and dry:
My son is twelve. He was born in Virginia. Through his mother (me) he is descended from men who fought in the revolution (letters from Valley Forge in our possession!), as well as both soldiers fighting for the north and south in the Civil War. Also, we have a claim that we are related to one of the original supreme court justices, as well as one of the founding families of Washington, DC. He is totally American.
I was not married to his father (and if you dare tell me off for being a tramp, etc, you can kiss my derriere—I could have avoided that and had an abortion, but I didn’t!!!) who was living in the US as a German national on a work visa. He decided he didn’t want anything to do with the situation, once he was back in Germany. My son has never met him, and has never been to Germany, other than driving through on our way to Spain.
When my son was born, I called the German consulate to see how I might get some child support. They told me that my son was not eligible to be a dual citizen, as we were not married, and the father’s name was not on the birth certificate.
So, if my son is NOT a dual citizen, is not a naturalIZED citizen, was born in the US to a mother who was in her mid-twenties, how is he not a natural born citizen? What court in 2010 would contend that the rights of citizenship would go through his father, whom he has never met/had contact with, as opposed to his mother? What court is going to assign him some type of “lesser” citizenship than a kid whose mom might not know who his dad is? NONE.
This type of case, which is probably fairly common, is what would keep the courts from deciding that there is a third type of citizen (not implicitly stated) in the Constitution.
I know a lot of people screaming about natural born citizenship determined ONLY by two US citizen parents disagree, but I think that the fuzziness of the meaning, and the lack of explanation by the founders, can give the courts a lot of leeway in deciding the way that makes the most sense for the US today.
I am not a troll, and anyone who calls me one is a joke.If there is proof that Obama was born in any other country than the US, you bet, I agree he is NOT a NBC. I loathe the man, and can’t even listen to clips of his voice on Rush, but I do not agree that (if born in the US) he is not a NBC because of his father’s citizenship.
Your son is as much a natural born citizen as my son is and as much a natural born citizen as the current President of the United States, duly sworn in to office by the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land. A man who's foreign father was a matter of public record throughout a multi-million dollar campaign that lasted more than a year and a half and whose eligibility was challenged by no one, not his primary opponents, not his general election opponents, nor any member of congress.
What court in 2010 would contend that the rights of citizenship would go through his father, whom he has never met/had contact with, as opposed to his mother? What court is going to assign him some type of “lesser” citizenship than a kid whose mom might not know who his dad is? NONE.
No court whatsoever in 2010 will issue an opinion that would render millions of Americans born here in this country the status of second class citizen, essentially codifying into law Dred Scott II. In fact, the only court that has even issued an opinion on this issue in the 70+ eligibility cases that have been filed actually affirmed Obama's Constitutional eligibility (Ankeny v. Daniels).
Birthers will tell me I'm wrong until they're blue in the face but unless a high court somewhere, anywhere, rules that Obama is ineligible by reason of his father's lack of American citizenship, precedent has been established.
“So, if my son is NOT a dual citizen, is not a naturalized citizen, was born in the US to a mother who was in her mid-twenties, how is he not a natural born citizen?”
My non-lawyer take:
The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case like yours or Obama’s. I don't believe anyone can claim with certainty to know how they would rule.
Your circumstances are very similar to Obama’s mom but with some key differences.
There is an HI vital record index for both the marriage of BHO Sr to Stanley Ann as well as for the birth of BHO II and an alleged COLB showing BHO Sr as the father of BHO II.
The German government declined to claim your son as a German national because, as you said, you had no legal proof via birth certificate or marriage license showing your son was the child of that marriage, so no dual citizenship is possible. On that basis I believe it is likely that the Supreme Court would rule your son to be an NBC given that US law and international law assign the nationality of an unmarried mother to her children.
In Obama’s case his campaign claimed that the 1948 BNA applied to the children of BHO Sr. implying that the UK would claim BHO II as a subject making him a dual citizen if born in HI.
What the campaign failed to mention is that the 1948 BNA says that only the legitimate children of UK subjects can receive UK citizenship from their fathers. There is reason to believe that Obama Sr was a bigamist under both UK Kenyan law and US law due to his marriage to Kezia and his marriage.
If BHO Sr was a bigamist and Obama II was born in HI, he would not have dual citizenship. As with you, under international law and US law the child of an unmarried mother takes the nationality/citizenship of the mother. The UK would decline to claim him as a subject under the same 1948 BNA so there would be no dual citizenship that the founding fathers were concerned about.