Posted on 05/23/2023 1:10:56 AM PDT by Jonty30
Just a question of curiousity.
I understand, from the intents of the Founding Fathers that this should be impossible due to dual loyalties, but is there anything stopping a natural born US citizen from becoming Prime Minister of Canada and then coming back and becoming President of the United States?
Well I asked CNN and the WAPO. It all depends:
The US Constitution CLEARLY PROHIBITS a US natural born citizen who had been a former Canadian PM to become the US President, if such person was a conservative, moderate, or even liberal (by standards of ten years ago).
The US Constitution does allow it for former Canadian PMs who are socialists, communists, gender-confused, pedophiles, “minorities”, etc., based on the Fourteenth Amendment.
Exactly! Clearly The Kenyan was never eligible to be POTUS - no matter where he was born.
Barak Hussein. After him anyone in the world is qualified to be President of the United States of America. That item in the Constitution has not been repealed but annulled.
Obama- probably born in Kenya. His childhood was largely spent as a citizen of Indonesia. I would say that there was a possibility of divided loyalties. That question appears now to be moot.
Yep
“due to dual loyalties”
“Dual loyalties” was the REASON for Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, but in and of itself does not disqualify anyone.
Not born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen parents DOES!
Someone can have dual loyalties for having gone to a foreign university or by marrying a foreign bride, but that does not make them ineligible to the presidency.
Born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen parents. THAT is the standard. “natural born citizen”.
NOT born in Kenya, NOT born in Panama, NOT born in Canada, Not born in a FOREIGN embassy.
ParentS MUST BE U.S. citizens when you are born. No do overs. Becoming a citizen later is too late.
That is why all of Donald Trump’s children (except Tiffany) are NOT eligible, NOT natural born citizens.
But hey, Obama did it, so now anyone can be president.
Just ANOTHER reason that our country is DOOMED.
Maybe, unless the person specifically stated they were not renouncing their American citizenship, kept their passport, paid taxes, etc.
It is the sort of thing that would need to be tested in court.
However it is really hard (justifiably so) for a natural born American to lose their citizenship. Even renouncing it voluntarily is difficult.
“Obama- probably born in Kenya. His childhood was largely spent as a citizen of Indonesia. I would say that there was a possibility of divided loyalties. That question appears now to be moot.”
Obama- probably born in Kenya.
YES
His childhood was largely spent as a citizen of Indonesia.
Doesn’t matter
I would say that there was a possibility of divided loyalties.
Doesn’t matter
That question appears now to be moot.
YES
Obama born in Kenya. Copy of Kenyan BC admitted in court as evidence.
Obama COULD NOT PROVE birth in Hawaii. All of his copies of Certificate of Live Birth were forgeries. Computer manipulated. FACT!
Hawaii was an incorporated territory from annexation. Any person born in the Territory of Hawaii after August 12th 1898 was a natural born American citizen. Both Alaska and Hawaii were considered integral parts of the United States, not possessions as defined by the Insular cases.
The same applies to Alaska, anyone born in the Department, District, or Territory of Alaska after October 18, 1867, was a natural born American citizen.
The Insular cases in the early twentieth century drew an (unconstitutional) distinction between incorporated territories (Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and the Indian Territory) and unincorporated territories (The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa).
However, the Congress has partially fixed this with acts guaranteeing citizenship in all territories except the Philippines (now independent) and American Samoa (due to local issues of governance and land ownership).
Even under the insular cases, both the Virgin Islands (1917) and The Northern Mariana Islands (1986) have had citizenship since acquisition.
I suppose that would be one way to get him off death row...
A U.S. national’s employment, after attaining the age of 18, with the government of a foreign country or a political subdivision thereof is a potentially expatriating act pursuant to Section 349(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act if the individual is a citizen of that foreign country or takes an oath of allegiance to that country in connection with such employment. Such employment, however, will result in one's expatriation only if done voluntarily with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. Running for foreign office, even foreign head of state, is not a potentially expatriating act; only accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of a foreign office are potentially expatriating as described above.
The Department has adopted an administrative presumption that U.S. nationals intend to retain their U.S. citizenship when they naturalize as nationals of a foreign state, declare their allegiance to a foreign state, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government. See 22 CFR 50.40(a); see also 7 FAM 1200 (additionally applying the presumption to serving as an officer in the military forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States). Questions concerning whether a foreign government position is a policy level position should be referred to the Office of Legal Affairs for Overseas Citizens Services.
U.S. nationals employed in non-policy level positions with foreign governments are not required to take any action to retain their U.S. nationality if they wish to retain it because the Department presumes that U.S. nationals employed in such positions do not have the requisite intent to relinquish their U.S. nationality. An individual who is employed in a non-policy level position will only lose his/her U.S. nationality if he or she establishes clearly and credibly, by a preponderance of the evidence, an intent to relinquish U.S. nationality upon assuming or serving in such foreign government employment.
In cases where U.S. nationals are employed in policy-level positions, the Department of State will seek to ascertain the individual's intent to retain or relinquish his or her U.S. nationality upon accepting the policy level position with a foreign government. An individual assuming such a position who wishes to retain U.S. nationality should state clearly to the Department or post that he or she intended to retain U.S. nationality. An individual assuming such a position who wishes to relinquish U.S. nationality may come to Post and follow the required steps to complete the Certificate of Loss of Nationality application process.
Cases involving service of a U.S. national as a foreign head of state, head of government, or foreign minister raise complex questions of international law and are reviewed by the Department on a case by case basis. Serving as a foreign head of state/government or foreign minister may affect the level of immunity from U.S. jurisdiction that a dual national may be afforded. All such cases should be referred to the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs.
Last Updated: March 12, 2019
Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory before it became state.
Vattel wrote in the 1700s both parents have to be citizens to be born a natural born citizen. Historically, countries have included either both parents or citizenship of the father.
Jay and Washington exchanged letters in which they were concerned the president be someone not tied to another country when the led the military. Why would the founders want a British citizen to be in charge of the military given the revolutionary war or the war of 1812?
IIRC Obama’s birth certificate posted online by the wh was pulled down after 3 days because some digital document experts said it was a forgery.
We do know, Obama’s father was a British citizen by birth as a Kenyan. Therefore by most definitions Obama was not a natural born citizen. Born here of citizen parents or father, is natural born, but not a natural born citizen if your father is of another country and you have the option of dual citizenship. A natural born citizen is determined by the citizenship of the parents to be only an American without the option of citizenship of another country.
Your contention would be wrong. When you are born in the United States you are automatically an American citizen.
There was no way “request” recognition. His birth made him a citizen, his birth certificate was proof.
The intentions of the writers of the 14th Amendment don’t mean squat. The plain text of the amendment is crystal clear.
I also added a lot more to defend my contention that in that time he would not have been considered to be a U.S. citizen.
Today, lots of wrong contentions are in place. Such as: that it is being humane to mutilate a person who isn't even an adult because they believe something that isn't true.
I suppose you now side with those claiming that it is being inhumane to deny these children their "right" to be mutilated when they have no clue whatsoever as to what they are agreeing to?
If you do, then you are part of the problem in this country, I'm sad to say.
Interesting. Thanks!
my bottom line position is we really needed a USSC decision and they shirked their duty when Obama ran the first time refusing I think 5-6 cases, as they have done on a few other issues.
If my position were validated, Obama, Jindal, Cruz, Haley, Harris would not be natural born citizens.
Best wishes.
Section 349 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. nationals are subject to loss of nationality if they perform certain specifiedacts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality. Briefly stated, these acts include:
obtaining naturalization in a foreign state after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or its political subdivisions after the age of 18 (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
accepting employment with a foreign government after the age of 18 if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. nationality before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
formally renouncing U.S. nationality within the United States (The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for implementing this section of the law, and any inquiries should be directed to DHS) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
conviction for an act of treason against the Government of the United States or for attempting by force to overthrow, or bear arms against, the Government of the United States (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
The Supreme Court has not (yet) explicitly ruled on whether a visitor or illegal alien is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".
If Congress did not intend that phrase to have meaning, they would not have included it.
Who did you have in mind, Ted Cruz?
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.