That, alone, should have been enough to get everyone interested in protecting and preserving the Constitution and our Republic to get involved.
It doesn't matter that Britain was willing to extend him citizenship because of his father. Foreign countries have no legal power here.
If that weren't the case, North Korea could destroy America by passing a law tomorrow making everyone born in the United States a North Korean citizen. Then nobody would be eligible to be President, and we would be stuck without a leader.
Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Our founding fathers never intended to give such power to foreign countries, and they didn't.
John Jay, the framers and the rest of the founders would be appalled.
No, they wouldn't. John Jay was born a British citizen himself. And so were virtually all of the rest of the Founders and Framers.
It doesn't matter that Britain was willing to extend him citizenship because of his father. Foreign countries have no legal power here.
You've completely missed the point. Just as a U.S. citizen father and a foreigner wife have a child in a foreign country, that child will be born a U.S. "Citizen" (but not an nBC)...so too is a child born here to a foreigner father inherits their foreign citizenship by birthright and the U.S. can't prevent that. Assuming Barry was born in the U.S., he was born a dual national. A "citizen" of the U.S. by virtue of statue law and the 14th Amendment and a British subject by virtue of the 1948 British Nationality Act that his father (& his father's children) were subject to.
His own campaign website even admited this:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html (This original URL has been changed, however, it's archived below)
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii)* and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
The issue with being a dual national, is this for starters:
The State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
And this...
US State Department Services Dual Nationalityhttp://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html... The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there...
If that weren't the case, North Korea could destroy America by passing a law tomorrow making everyone born in the United States a North Korean citizen. Then nobody would be eligible to be President, and we would be stuck without a leader.
Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. Our founding fathers never intended to give such power to foreign countries, and they didn't.
That's a ridiculous example. Such a move by a foreign country would not be internationally recognized. It would be 100% worthless. Since the U.S. and G.B. have 100's of years of treaties signed between each other, numerous agreements and are part on the international community, each recognizes the other's citizenship laws. As stated above, if a child is born in Britain to U.S. citizen parents, that child inherits their parents U.S. citizenship.
John Jay, the framers and the rest of the founders would be appalled.
No, they wouldn't. John Jay was born a British citizen himself. And so were virtually all of the rest of the Founders and Framers.
Stop and think about that for a moment. In fact, have another look at Article II, Section 1 Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The framers were brilliant, but it didn't take brilliance to recognize the issue there. Obviously, they knew that they were not "natural Born Citizens" themselves...so...they inserted the grandfather clause to make themselves eligible. Without that, the first year that someone would have been eligible would have been 1811.
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
You see, the original requirement in their drafts was that the President had to be a "citizen." Then Jay writes to Washington and suggests they "provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners" into the office of the Commander in Chief.
In those days, if you were born with foreign citizenship, you were considered...a foreigner. In todays world, thanks to U.S. statue and the 14th Amendment, one can be a "dual" national, or 1/2 foreigner if you will. See above for the governments take on the "perils" of owing allegience to two countries.
Another fascinating piece of history, is the case of James McClure (around 1811), who was born in the country to a British national father, but wasn't even considered a citizen of the U.S. until after his father naturalized.
The framers would indeed be appalled that today's America is OK with someone who is born with foreign citizenship, and thus owes alligience to a foreign power, be considered Commander in Chief eligible. They never intended for someone like the current Dauphin of France, Prince Louis Duke of Burgundy to be eligible to be our President. The mere notion, post grandfather clause, would be offensive to them.
And they were very much aware of this. They were all "natural born" British Subjects. That is why they put the grandfather clause in Article II. They weren't morons.