Posted on 11/23/2008 6:30:41 PM PST by Red Steel
If Obama was born in Hawaii, his father's citizenship is irrelevant. Obama would be a natural born citizen.
His father was a British subject and because of that Obama was born a subject of the Crown and later became a citizen of Kenya. Even if he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was old enough to pass US citizenship on to him, he would still only be a citizen-not a natural born citizen.
There are only two classes of American citizens: naturalized citizens (who are not eligible for the Presidency) and citizens from birth (who are). There is no category in American law of someone who is a citizen at birth, but does not qualify as natural-born for purposes of serving as President.
However, if we look at the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790, it states “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. So we can learn from this that you have to be the child of US citizens, to be a natural born citizen
No, that is not what the law is saying. That law only dealt with the status of kids born abroad. Anyway, note that the law does not require both parents to be American citizens for the kid to be considered natural born. One parent would be enough.
Now that law was repealed and replaced by the The Naturalization Act of 1795 which now stated that “the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. “This act, signed into law by George Washington himself, dropped the “natural born” phrase. So from this we can see the only way you can be a natural born citizen, is to be born to US citizens on US soil.
The 1795 law says no such thing. The 1795 law is silent on the issue of who is and isn't a natural born citizen, but that does not support your conclusion.
Also in the 1795 law you can see that to become a naturalized citizen, you had to “support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject.
This only deals with naturalized citizens- it has nothing to do with citizens from birth.
So you can see that the founders did not allow dual citizenship, for even a naturalized citizen.
That is not correct. You can retain dual citizenship and still meet the requirements of this provision. I am a naturalized citzen of the US, but am also a citizen of two other countries. Dual citizenship is not a bar to the Presidency.
Children that were born to fathers that never resided in the United States were barred from citizenship at birth. “right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.
That only applies to someone who is born aborad to an American citizen mother and a non-citizen father who has never resided in the US. It is wholly irrelevant to someone born in the US.
You are drawing an incorrect conclusion here. The State Department is only making it clear that being born on a US base or embassy abroad is not, in of itself, a basis for citizenship. If it was, then the kids of Iraqi women who are born in US bases in the Green Zone (a somewhat common occurence these days) could run for President. However, a kid born abroad to an American citizen or citizens obtains US citizenship, from birth, based on the parents' citizenship.
Yes, and they are qualified to serve as President.
Nonsense. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" deals with the issue of the children of diplomats. They are, AFAIK, the only people born in the US but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof as they are not subject, by treaty, to American law.
Are you arguing that Obama is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US? So, he can commit murder and not be prosecuted for it?
Not just any citizen can be president. If that was true, the founders would have never put the natural born clause in the Constitution.
That's correct- naturalized citizens cannot be President. But any American who was a citizen at birth can.
Unfortunately, with some few exceptions, yes. It happens all the time. Anchor baby on Wikipedia The article was clearly written by a lib and is biased, but that is one of the flaws of Wikipedia.
-PJ
That someone was me. It isn't bunk. Please provide a citation that refutes my claim. Here is one that supports my position. Clearly written by a lib and biased, but even so it describes the issue. And plays the race card.
"The 14th Amendment states '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.'"
Virtually all persons within the borders of the US are subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof excepting a few cases such as children born to diplomats, children born to indian tribes and subject to tribal law, kids born on ships or planes while in transit through US waters or airspace, and so forth:
"While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas." From Findlaw
The 14th Amendment itself only specifies two classes of citizen: "born or naturalized" [Section 1]
The purpose of the 14th Amendment (1868) was to insure the rights of former slaves and explicitly grant them the status of either a natural born or naturalized citizen (there weren't all that many "imported" slaves left at the time of the Civil War, but there were some. Most were "domestically produced" by then. The actual trade of African slaves had been stopped.)
"You must be born of 2 US citizen parents within the borders of the USA to be a natural born citizen."
Patently untrue. Nowhere is this stated. This language does not exist anywhere in the Constitution or US law. If this were the case, why doesn't the Constitution just say so, or at least the 14th Amendment? Where did you get this idea? See the varous references provided on this thread and in this post specifically. Do you claim that none of the children of US Military born overseas to persons serving their country overseas at the behest of their government can ever be President? Now, I think the Romans had some such requirements for their Emperors, although I'm not certain, but I am certain that we do not.
"Obama was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was a Subject of the United Kingdom. A ‘natural born citizen’ would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States."
Was Obama born to diplomats, or to indians on a reservation, or to members of an occupying force, etc.? If not, and his birth was mundane then the "Subject" clause applies.
"Obama was born a SUBJECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, and therefore was not a citizen of the United States. "
Dual Citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US as well as what ever other country they hold citizenship from. It simply does not matter if Obama held British or Kenyan citizenship in addition to his (unproven) US citizenship.
"US Dual Citizenship: The U.S. government allows dual citizenship. United States law recognizes U.S. Dual Citizenship, but the U.S. government does not encourage it is as a matter of policy due to the problems that may arise from it. It is important to understand that a foreign citizen does NOT lose his or her citizenship when becoming a U.S. citizen. An individual that becomes a U.S. citizen through naturalization may keep his or her original citizenship. However, as some countries do not recognize dual citizenship, it is important to consider it carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship." [from above link]
And none of the rest of your post, British law or Kenyan law has any bearing what so ever. Repeating it ad nauseam won't make it true. SHOUTING it won't make it true. Please provide some actual references to support your position instead of just regurgitating your previously refuted assertions.
Also children of indians (subject to tribal law, by treaty), children of hostile occupying forces, and children born on boats, planes, etc. transiting through US waters, airspace, etc. See the link a few comments up.
We have friends here in DC- he is a French diplomat and she is an American citizen (they met in college, before he took the embassy job). They have a couple of kids- I assume that they qualify as natural-born citizens, since I don’t think they get diplomatic immunity. Interesting question- I’m going to ask them if they know the kids’ status next time we see them.
And what law was that? Please provide a link, or at least more information. You still haven't said what law you are talking about. It would be easier if we didn't have to work backwards.
That should be the case. They may be (probably are) dual citizens of France and the US, depending on whether French law allows it. They might be forced to renounce their US citizenship or lose their French citizenship when they reach their majority.
No doubt the few patriots with access, if there are any, believe in the Rule of Law. And most likely the purpose of 0's trip to HI, aside from insuring his grandmother didn't spill the beans, was to get the BC locked down and sealed so that nobody what so ever could see it.
No you do not, as many children were born just like McCain was to US servicemen serving overseas. Yet, they were born to parents who were by and large both natural born US citizens and delivered by US military military MD’s in US military hospitals on US military bases.
I haven't heard the quote, but I've been giving it some thought since I read it in your comment. What I think Mr. Constitutional Scholar Obama was referring to with that is that the 14th Amendment indisputably gave African-Americans citizenship. It's just his racist views sneaking through.
Did you ever get a chance to ask your friends about their kids' citizenship status?
Surprise, they had to run an apology today. Seems after they got the letter they failed to check to see if he actually wrote the letter before publishing it.
He didn' t
That'a called taking an x-acto knife to a jigsaw puzzle piece to make it fit.
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.