Posted on 11/30/2008 6:09:20 PM PST by Red Steel
Citizenship Issue on MSNBC Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth.
This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
A natural born citizen, would not be a citizen of any other nation than the United States. That is what "natural born" means. By nature, the child, would be only a US citizen, because both of his parents were US citizens, and NO OTHER NATION, can by law claim him to be under their jurisdiction, at the moment of his birth. That was not the case with Obama. He was, by law, a Citizen of the United Kingdom, the moment he was born, and then, by law, he became a citizen of Kenya on Dec. 12, 1963.
For a more detailed explaination of natural born citizen, see my other related video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2kKN...
"It simply says you cannot be a citizen of another county and be defined have the same intent and meaning as natural born in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
Fourteenth Amendment framer, Rep. John A. Bingham, argued before the House in 1871 that Dr. John Emilio Houard was a natural-born citizen of the United States. According to Bingham he was a natural-born citizen because he was “born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States” by the “express words of the Constitution, as amended today.” A naturalized male (women became naturalized through their husbands) were required to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to other nations, and thus, could no longer be said to owe allegiance to anyone but the United States.
Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
Unfortunately over the years the Constitution has been twisted and it has moved away from the original intent.
You know what? You can show people what the Constitution actually says, you can show them the Federalist papers which tells you what the framers actually meant but because we are so far away from the original Constitution people cannot fathom it.
I have a real hard time understanding how people cannot understand and keep twisting what Natural Born is. My gosh, we are a young country, we fought an Empire to gain our independence why is it hard for people to understand that the Framers wanted to make sure there were no other allegiences? Does it make sense that after all of the sacrafice and bloodshed they were like, “Oh, yeah it doesn’t matter, it’s ok to be both a British subject and an American”.
It’s plain as day they did not want foreign influences directing the Government of this country.
My God, the founding fathers would be appalled at how far we have pushed aside what they have fought for.
The reason you were not to give up your native countries citizenship is , because you were naturalized in 2007. Over the years EVERYTHING in the Constitution has been relaxed EXCEPT for the 2nd Amendment.
Were naturalized citizens previously required to renounce their existing citizenships? Keep in mind, some countries will simply not let you renounce their citizenship.
Did you have to pledge Allegiance to the United States? Like I said, there is a huge difference between now and then. We really don’t even follow the Constitution anymore. Read it and then look around at the way our society is. Look at the size of government, look at the laws.
Truthfully, the Supreme Court has made lots of wrong decisions with regard to the Constitution. I think the most glaring is the fact that the recent Heller case was a 5-4 decision, it is extremely disturbing that it was not unanimous. There is nothing ambiguous about the intent or the way it is worded yet 4 Justices brushed that aside.
> So the Constitution gets thrown out because political correctness over-rules it?
That’s the Liberal way !!!
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.
Under United States law, an alien was required to make a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, and renounce all allegiance to his former government two years before he could make a final application.
Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction. He of course is talking about the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation. Without this full and complete jurisdiction, any foreign government can intervene on behalf of their own citizens while they visit or reside within the United States - just as the United States is known to do on behalf of U.S. citizens within other countries. On July 18, 1868 Sen. Howard explained expatriation to mean “the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates.” Sen. Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law. John Bingham said in April of 1872 that no one could be considered a citizen of the United States until they first surrender their allegiance to the country of their origin:
By all your legislation from the organization of your Government to this hour the legislative construction of the American people is that a citizen or subject of any foreign power, however long he may be domiciled in this country, does not become a citizen of the United States or surrender his allegiance to the foreign government of his birth unless he does in accordance with our local law declare his intention to sever that foreign allegiance, or in accordance therewith take an oath of allegiance to our Constitution and our government, and renounce allegiance to every foreign government. That is the traditional policy of your country. Bingham also mentioned the “right of expatriation is one of the fundamental principles of American Government,” and in another speech, said, “expatriation is what distinguishes American law with that of the English common law, leaving the two entirely incompatible with each other.”
Like I said what the law is now and what it is supposed to be based on the Constitution is very different.
This whole Obama thing has become very enlightening. If you read the Federalist papers, then there is absolutely NO SUCH THING AS AN ANCHOR BABY!!!! But because of Activist Judges the 14th Amendments has been bastardized!!
Sure, and swear to give up all allegiances. But, I did not have to legally renounce any existing citizneships. Including the US, I am a citizen of 3 countries.
Well then, according to the original intent of the Constitution your being a citizen of 3 countries would not fly. Our founding fathers would not accept that. They wanted allegiance to the US and only the US. Like I said, look at the history, they fought a war for independence FROM England. They did NOT want dual citizenship with England.
During the War of 1812, England tried to pull the dual citizenship card, they impressed upon American citizens to fight with them because of England’s common law of citizenship at birth and the once a citizen always a citizen ideal.
According the to the CONSTITUTION, at the time, you would not have been granted citizenship WITHOUT giving up your allegiances to the other 2 countries.
Where is this found in the Constitution? The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact unform laws of naturalization, without any real limitations. Congress has decided to allow dual citizenship, so that's it.
According the to the CONSTITUTION, at the time, you would not have been granted citizenship WITHOUT giving up your allegiances to the other 2 countries.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
§ 1448. Oath of renunciation and allegiance
(a) Public ceremony
A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 1421 (b) of this title an oath
(1) to support the Constitution of the United States; >p>(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
(4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
(5)
(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or
(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or
(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (5) of the preceding sentence, except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) to (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C) of this subsection, and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of said clauses (1) to (4) and clause (5)(C). The term “religious training and belief” as used in this section shall mean an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. In the case of the naturalization of a child under the provisions of section 1433 of this title the Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath if in the opinion of the Attorney General the child is unable to understand its meaning. The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 1427 (a)(3) of this title with respect to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001448----000-.html
I did. But, you'll note that there is no legal requirement that you give up other citizenships, just your allegiance to those countries.
Congress allows dual citizenship.
Congress allows welfare
Congress allows bailouts
Congress allows for their own personal perks
Congress allows social security
Congress allows the Department of Education, Labor, Agriculture, etc.
Congress allows voter fraud
Congress allows Medicaid/Medicare
Congress allows the NEA
Congress allows taxation without representation
Do you want me to keep going with what congress allows that is in direct conflict with the Constitution?
The difference is, establishing uniform rules of naturalization is a specifically enumerated power of COngress under Article 1, Section 8.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Is this what you are talking about?
The 14th amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. It’s original intent has changed drastically. PLEASE read the Federalist Papers. Especially, Rep. John A. Bingham and Sen. Jacob M. Howard. They wrote the amendment and there is documentation to back up what their intent was.
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.