Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
I would dispute your position that both wings of Birtherism are “nutty.” The Vattle Birthers are, and I even go so far as to label them a Internet Cult. BUT, the common sense suspicious birthers were just people who had a healthy skepticism about documents and paperwork. The way we are all lied to on a regular basis by presidents and politicians, it would be nutty NOT to be suspicious.
“He is saying that there is no rule of law right now for who is a natural born citizen, since the courts won’t take it up...”
Actually, the courts have taken it up repeatedly, and rejected BDZ’s arguments. The Supreme Court has been offered multiple cases, and has rejected all of them. That would speak volumes to anyone who isn’t a nut.
They already discussed the issue at length in the late 1800s. They didn’t follow Vattel, so the Vattel birthers reject that decision. No one else does.
Every state supports Obama’s eligibility. Every court has as well. Not a single congressman objected to counting the Obama delegates.
BDZ is batting 0.000, but she won’t accept it. She wants her opinion to rule, not the states, courts, or voters.
Harvard Law (1966): When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions 479 and the citizen's qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 480 equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. 481 But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. 482 And even if the common law did not regard citizens by jus sanguinis as natural born, the expatriation provisions were apparently not intended by Congress to apply to this class of citizens: the jus sanguinis provisions are in the “citizenship at birth” section, while the Act defines naturalization as “conferring nationality. ..after birth.” 483
____________________________________________________________
479 See § 352(a), 66 STAT. 269 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1484(a) (Supp. 1953);
pp. 739-42 infra.
480 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
481 Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F.2d 209 (10th Cir. 1951); see Schaufus v. Attorney General, 45 F. Supp. 61, 67 (D. Md. 1942).
482 See 5o MIcH. L. REV. 926 (1952).
483§ 101(a) (23), 66 STAT. 169 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(23) (Supp. 1953),formerly 54 STAT. 1137 (1940), 8 U.S.C. § 501(c) (1946).
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Michigan Law (1952)The problem presented by the principal case is whether a person born in a foreign country to American parents, thereby becoming an American citizen at birth, is to be considered a “naturalized” or a “natural born” citizen of the United States. The solution will determine whether he may become the President of this country,5 and whether he is subject to laws providing for the expatriation of naturalized citizens. The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli;6 this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis7 is applied.8 England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law9
____________________________________________________________
5 U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
6 Citizenship of the place of one’s birth by virtue of being born within that state.
7 Citizenship of the place of one’s descent or parentage, no matter where born.
8 1 Willoughby, Tn Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy AND Hudson, NATIONALITY
LAWS (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM.J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
9 Brooke’s ABRIDGMENT, title Denizen et alien, pl. 6 and 21; title Descent, pl. 47
(1573). See also Calvin's Case, 7 Coke 1, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1609);
People like me. I stand shoulder to shoulder with buttedezillion.
So....Are you going to report me to AttackWatch.com? ( just wondering)
Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t say the issue was settled; he said they are EVADING the issue. If it was settled there would be no reason to evade the issue, and there would be very little time to spend on deciding it anyway - a tiny price to pay for the ability of our military officers to live and die with a clear conscience knowing they kept their oaths, and the ability of every voter to pull the lever with a clear conscience.
If military oaths and the integrity of the whole democratic process are too piddly to spend a couple days writing down the oh-so-obvious settled law, then there’s nothing here in America that is worth much at all.
Guru was a bad choice of words (I was simply going for shorthand). I meant who DO you look up to. I try to get various sources, but because I am NOT a Constitutional scholar myself it’s always difficult to wade thru it anyway. Sometimes Turley makes a lot of sense, but I know he’s a liberal, so I have to be careful of him. As for Levin, he’s brilliant BUT he’s also quite inflammatory, so if you don’t agree with him, well, you will just get blasted.
I like Keyes too, a brilliant man. But to be honest, sometimes I find 2 people I respect not agreeing with each other, and I have to just use my own sense to decide. It doesn’t mean that I think one or the other is an idiot either. I kind of hate that about our current state of discourse. Oops...hate. One of those charged words. :)
I wonder if any of this would have come up in any serious way about Rubio if the Obama/Kenya connection had never come up?
First of all, not all the birthers agree with each other. Phillip Berg and Orly Taitz don’t for example. The Supreme Court and other courts through it out based on standing. They never ruled that Obama was qualified. None of the discussions that took place in the 1800’s or early 1900’s ever gave Obama or Rubio’s situation a natural born citizen status. Obama’s eligibility became an issue when he was already on the ballot. Arizona wasn’t satisfied with Obama’s qualifications, which led to them passing a bill that would mandate candidates providing their birth certificate, which was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer. As far as congressmen, they are politicians.
You are totally misstating my position. I do NOT want my opinion to rule. I want the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to rule.
Crazy, I know, to expect a legal answer to a legal question, here in America. I know I’m being really, really unreasonable expecting due process and all...
And just a couple of facts before I head off to work.
No court has ruled that Obama was eligible. None. Every one refused to take up the issue, even when somebody who has ADMITTED not being NBC (Roger Calero) was at issue in the case. IOW, the courts treated Obama and McCain exactly as they treated somebody that we all know is not eligible. By your standards, that would mean that by refusing to take up the issue they affirmed the eligibility of Roger Calero who is not even a US citizen at all.
None of the Congress-critters was ASKED whether they objected to the electoral votes. Dick Cheney violated the law by not asking for objections so that the certification never fulfilled the requirements of the law.
In the late 1800’s they said there were questions whether someone born in the country to non-citizens was NBC but said that issue didn’t have to be decided for that particular case. IOW, they said straight-out at that point that it was definitely NOT settled law. When since then have they settled that question in the courts?
Thank you. Were these involving Obama?
You let me know when you find that judge that will rule that someone born on this soil can’t run for president.
Until such time, I’m going to use the power vested in me by God to vote out whom I want, and to vote in whom I want.
And that means I’m going to vote out Obama, and not going to vote for Rubio, because, quite frankly, I’m not interested in a hispanic president, because, as a whole, their views on illegal immigration are utterly insane. But if he wants to run, he certainly can run, and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it, is there?
You are the one who must find a judge to agree with your narrow definition of NBC in order to get your way, and you call me a subservient fool?
ROFL.
COPTER.
“Dick Cheney violated the law by not asking for objections so that the certification never fulfilled the requirements of the law.”
What are you talking about?
Actually, I believe they pretty clearly clarified this and SET PRECEDENT when the CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT swore Obama in as the 44th President of the United States.
Oh, sorry, brain fart, obviously, Berg V Obama, obviously yes, they were involving Obama.
Below, I have copy/pasted one outline of the process involved in becoming a citizen in our day.
My point is this: IF we are going to use the law at the time of the ratification of the Constitution to define “natural born citizen”, then we should also use the process set up at the same time. The earliest law was the Naturalization Act of 1790. It’s process must have fulfilled what the ratifiers of the Constitution meant, since it is the first law on the subject that they enacted.
That law simply requires: 2 years residence, 1 in the state in which applying, and an oath and evidence of moral character before any court. Residence and oath by a decent human being. That’s it.
Rubio’s mom was a citizen before his birth. His father had appeared before authorities before his birth. They were clearly refugees from communist Cuba. Rubio was born 10-11 years after their arrival (1960 arrival, 1971 birth).
His parents would have been acceptable to 1790’s authorities, and the dad’s appearance would have been accepted at fulfilling the law.
The current process is:
US Citizenship Apply Guide
As part of the process, you will be given citizenship test during interview. Passing the Citizenship test is the ONLY way to become a US citizen. And you definitely don’t want to fail. For those who determine to pass the citizenship test on first try with very little effort, you want to find out how our U-Pass Citizenship Success Program can help!
Time frame to become a US Citizen:
Normally it takes approximately 6 month from the date the application is filed.
However, according to the news released by US Citizenship and Immigrant Service (USCIS) on 1/16/2008, due to the significant increase in the number of applications filed, processing times have been affected. As a result, average processing times for certain application types filed after June 1, 2007, may become longer. Citizenship applications may take approximately 16-18 months to process.
Following are general 8 steps to become an US Citizen:
Step 1: Find out if you are eligible
Step 2: Complete an application and collect the necessary documents
Step 3: Get Photographed
Step 4: Send your application, documents, and fee to the Service Center
Step 5: Get Fingerprinted
Step 6: Being Interviewed
Step 7: Receive a decision
Step 8: Take the oath and become a citizen
Step 1: Find out if you are eligible, here are requirements for becoming an US Citizen:
Prove a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States; residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing.
If you are at least 18 years old and have been a Permanent Resident for the past 5 years without leaving the United States for trips of 6 months or longer.
If you are at least 18 years old and are currently married to and living with a U.S. citizen; and have been married to and living with that same U.S. citizen for the past 3 years without leaving the United States for trips of 6 months or longer, and your spouse has been a U.S. citizen for the past 3 years.
Able to read, write, and speak English and have good knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government.
USCIS officers will test you up to 10 civics questions in English and you need to answer at least 6 questions correctly to pass the test.
Passing the Citizenship test is NOT difficult if you know what you will be tested on and memorize everything. The biggest challenge to passing is learning the right material in the least amount of time. This is what our U-Pass Citizenship Success Program is designed for. It provides the shortcut to your citizenship!
Good moral character
To be eligible for naturalization you must be a person of good moral character.
If you do not tell the truth during your interview, USCIS may deny your application for lacking good moral character.
Attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and favorable disposition toward the United States.
All applicants for naturalization must be willing to support and defend the United States and our Constitution.
Step 2: Complete an application and collect the necessary documents:
The official Naturalization Application Form is the N400 form. You should be warned that N400 is not easy to filled out. There are some questions difficult to understand their meanings. In addition, during the Citizenship interview, USCIS officer will ask you questions about yourself, your family, your employment, criminal background, etc. These questions are normally from N400 form. So in order to pass the Citizenship test, you must understand all the questions on N400 form and be able to answer them on paper and orally during the Citizenship interview.
To help you prepare for N400 form and familiar with the questions, we developed “N400 Prep Guide”. The official N400 form is also included in this guide.
In our English-Spanish and English-Chinese N400 Prep Guide bilingual versions, we translated the entire N400 form into Spanish and Chinese. The Preparation Guide is offered in both Audio and Booklet formats. We have received numerous compliments from our customers about N400 Preparation guide. They told us just the translation itself had saved them $1,000s money on immigration lawyers.
You will need to send copies of several documents with your application. How many and which documents you will need to send will depend on your individual situation. If you do not send the additional documents with your application, the processing of your application may be delayed. In most cases,you should send a copy of a document, but you should be prepared to bring the originals with you to your interview.
USCIS may also ask you to send other documents to us before your interview, or to bring additional documents with you to your interview. Use the Document Checklist make sure you send the correct documents.
Be sure to send an English translation with any document that is not already in English. The translation must include a statement from the translator that he or she is competent to translate and that the translation is correct. If you do not have a required document and cannot get a certified copy of the original, submit a certification from the original recording authority explaining why it cannot be provided. In that case USCIS will consider other evidence such as notarized affidavits.
The Document Checklist will tell you when you need to send original documents and when you may send copies. Remember to make and keep copies of all documents you send to USCIS.
Step 3: Get Photographed
You must include 2 standard, passport-style, color photographs with your application. A passport picture taken place normally knows the requirements.
Step 4: Send your application, documents, and fee to the Service Center
The fee for filing your naturalization application is:$595.00
The biometric services fee for having your fingerprints taken is:$ 80.00
You must send total $675.00 fee with your application. Pay the fee with a check or money order drawn on a U.S. bank payable to the Department of Homeland Security. Do not use the initials DHS or USDHS. Do Not Send Cash.
Click here to see where you should mail your application, documents and fee to.
Step 5: Get Fingerprinted
Once you have filed your application, USCIS will send you a letter telling you where and when to have your fingerprints taken.
After getting your fingerprinted, wait for USCIS to schedule your interview
Step 6: Being Interview
USCIS will send you a notice in the mail telling you when and where you must appear for your interview. You will not receive a second notice.
You should bring the following identification to your interview:
Your Permanent Resident or Alien Registration Card,
Your passport (even if it has expired), and
ny Re-entry Permits you have.
Answer questions about your application and background.
Take the English and civics tests
Step 7. Receive a decision
After your interview, you will receive a Form N-652 that gives you information about the results of your interview. Based on all the information you have given USCIS, USCIS will either grant, continue, or deny your naturalization application after your interview.
Step 8: Take the oath and become a citizen
If USCIS approves your application for naturalization, you must attend a ceremony and take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. USCIS will notify you by mail of the time and date of your ceremony.
You will take the Oath during the ceremony. An official will read each part of the Oath slowly and ask you to repeat his or her words.
You become a citizen as soon as you take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a formal naturalization ceremony. Once you have taken the Oath, you will receive your Certificate of Naturalization.
The above are general steps of getting your US Citizenship. For more details or specific guidelines, please see the following:
A guide to Naturalization published by USCIS
Naturalization Information for Military Personnel
Naturalization Waivers, Accommodations, Exceptions, and Special Cases
Citizenship of Children
Becoming a U.S. citizen is about having the better life and future for you and your family. NOBODY wants to risk the consequence of failing the citizenship test. If you determine to pass the citizenship test the first time, check out how our U-Pass Citizenship Success Program has helped tens of thousands immigrants pass the citizenship test on their first try!
One can care about the rule of law but disagree on the particulars.
Mark Levin is a constitutional jacka$$. And the Jews wonder why they still live under persecution. The LAW of “Natural Born” was defined by God, who wrote the Laws of Nature, long before the Jews even existed. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with soil. It is entirely encompassed by the blood of the father.
I love Marco Rubio. That’s all!
“No court has ruled that Obama was eligible.”
Actually, Indiana did. No other court has BOTHERED with these cases, since there is legally speaking no case. It has been settled law for over 100 years. Courts do not take cases to issue rulings when the law is already well established. Particularly not the US Supreme Court!
I know you don’t like the results of WKA, but the court dealt with the issue at length. The closest birthers come to a case is that Obama’s father was not intending to reside here permanently - and that is a pretty slim basis for overturning an election. After all, WKA’s parents didn’t remain in the USA either.
That sounds a lot like something Janine Garafalo said...
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.