I can't believe the idiocy I am seeing on this birther threads.
Even if Obama had been born in Kenya (he wasn't), he still would have been a citizen by virtue of his mother being a citizen and would have had access to all the same welfare benefits as if he had been born in Hawaii.
That is, she had to be 19 years of age when she gave birth (time from conception is not counted).
The law has since been changed, but it wasn't made retroactive.
Strange eh?
Unlawful occupation of the Office of the President means no new valid legislation. No valid nominations, including to the Supreme Court. No valid Executive Orders. No lawful commands as Commander in Chief.
Maybe that's why conservative talk radio, the Republicans and the Supreme Court are silent.
Idiocy? Educate yourself on the difference between a statutory declaration of citizenship, and natural born citizenship. There is uncertainty regarding his mother’s status: where she lived, and when; how long she was in the US; whether she gave up US citizenship by marrying an Indonesian citizen and moving to her husband’s country of origin; etc. None of the circumstances are cut and dry, but very convoluted. If it were not so, then Obama would not be working so hard to conceal ALL his documentation.
To illustrate the legal points, here is a letter I sent to the Nebraska SOS regarding the issues surrounding both John McCain and Barak Obama:
John A. Gale
Nebraska Secretary of State
State Capitol Building, Suite 2300
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Dear Secretary Gale:
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
“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.”
In regard to the office of President of the United States: I have maintained serious doubt towards the initial eligibility of candidate John S. McCain III and candidate Barak H. Obama, both of whose names appeared on the 2008 Nebraska ballot in the Primary and General Elections. I here contend both individuals were unqualified for Presidential candidacy from the onset, per Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
While unanswered questions of citizenship plague both men, those surrounding Barak H. Obama are particularly troubling. Nebraska’s electoral votes should be withheld pending the thorough vetting of his true citizenship status. To settle doubts of his eligibility to hold office, Obama must produce sufficient proof of natural born citizenship, as defined in Article II, Section 1. Documentation he must produce would include:
(a) Certified copy of his original (vault) birth certificate;
(b) Certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates, recorded in the name:
Barack Hussein Obama
Barry Soetoro
Barry Obama
Barack Dunham
Barry Dunham
(c) Certified copy of his Certification of Citizenship;
(d) Certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of majority;
(e) Certified copy of his Admission forms to the following institutions:
Occidental College
Columbia University
Harvard Law School
(f) Certified copies of any court order or legal document changing his name from Barry Soetoro.
It is reasonable we ask Barak H. Obama to produce these documents, considering his father is Kenyan, his adoptive father is Indonesian, and his grandmother claims his birthplace was Kenya, Africa. If Barak H. Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, then producing documentation should not prove problematic. Allegations of fraud will remain unresolved until such proof is provided to federal authorities and made public to the American People. If Barak H. Obama will not make such documentation available voluntarily, then he must be compelled by every legal means.
The problem of eligibility for Senator John McCain is open to examination. McCain was born, not in the United States, but in Coco Solo, Panama, to US Citizens, while his father served in the U.S. Navy. No foreign military bases existed when the U.S. Constitution was drafted and ratified; however, its authors’ distaste for foreign intervention is made explicit in their writings. By their words, it would seem unlikely they meant ‘natural born citizen’ to have a connotation other than persons born on U.S. soil. The phrase “natural born” appeared in early drafts of the Constitution. Its origin is a letter from John Jay to George Washington, where Jay suggests that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution need declare expressly that only a natural born citizen could be president:
“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.”
There was no debate. This qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention. But the 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 the following:
“…And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If he disagreed with its definition, he could have vetoed the bill. However, Congress later passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” to state that children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered “natural born citizens” of the United States. This clarified “natural born” per the framers’ intent, since the 1790 Act confused the subject. George Washington was President in 1795, and if he disagreed with the clarification and change legislated by this bill, he would have vetoed the Naturalization Act of 1795.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside.”
The language is clarified by U.S. State Department (7 FAM 1116.1-4 ‘Not Included in the Meaning of “In the United States”’ TL:CON-64; 11-30-95):
c.) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
“The State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those born abroad to U.S. citizens, who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.”
United States Code Title 8, Ch 12, Sub Ch III § 1401(c) ‘Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth’ reads:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
c.) A person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.
The two examples cited above prove a contradiction unless their remains that distinction between the natural born citizen and the citizen made so by effect of statute.
Born to parents who were both American citizens, John S. McCain III became a United States citizen at birth, by statute; however the argument is not whether McCain was a citizen at birth, but rather the origin of his citizenship by birth. The matter of being a natural born citizen by birth or a citizen by an act of statute decides one’s eligibility for the Presidency.
The principle difference in operation is that of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. This principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called citizenship by descent or derivative citizenship, is not embodied in the Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute.
The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born in the United States.” When this Amendment is taken in context with Article II, Section 1, there emerge three classes of Citizenship:
1. Individuals natural born within the sovereign United States.
2. Individuals declared citizens at the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
3. Individuals naturalized by statute after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Senator John S. McCain III rests in the third category, as he was born not in the U.S. but abroad on foreign soil. McCain was born in Panama August 29, 1936. Panama was not a U.S. territory, but a sovereign nation, having a tract of its sovereign territory on lease to the U.S.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), effective from December 24, 1952 to present, the definition of the “United States” was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States; “Outlying possessions of the United States” was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. (U.S. Department of State, 7 Fam 1120 ‘Acquisition Of U.S. Nationality In U.S. Territories And Possessions’)
The Panama Canal Zone is addressed under Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, § 1403 ‘Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904’
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
This is a statutory act that “declares” persons born in such places citizens of United States, but not natural born citizens. John S. McCain III was a U.S. citizen by birth (Jus sanguinis), but not a natural born citizen at birth (Jus soli). No statute may confer Jus soli, without first having its provisions authorized by Constitutional amendment.
In U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) as regards the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, Chief Justice Melville Fuller (with Justice John Marshall Harlan concurring), dissenting, said:
“Thus the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.”
“If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.”
Chief Justice Fuller declared children of U.S. citizens born abroad since 1868 “were and are aliens.” These could only be “naturalized in the United States” and could not be natural born if born elsewhere. He adds the caveat that “no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect,” including, “all [naturalization] acts from 1790 down.” Justice Horace Gray, in his majority opinion, added:
“In 1802, all former acts [naturalization acts of 1790 and of 1795] were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were re-enacted in this form ‘… the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.’ Act April 14, 1802, c. 28, 4 (2 Stat. 155) …But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent, Comm. 52, 53; Binney, Alienigenae, 20, 25; 2 Am. Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney’s paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that congress might supply this defect in our law.”
“In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that ‘persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.’ 10 Stat. 604; Rev. St. 1993.”
“It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802; and that the act of 1855, like every other act of congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States.”
So, “during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad;” thus, during this period, foreign-born children of American parents, who had not become U.S. citizens before the naturalization act of 1802, were aliens. This fact reinforces the contention that citizenship extended by birth is an act of statute, to wit: naturalization, and does not meet the Constitutional standard of natural born.
In view of all this, can John S. McCain III still claim “natural-born,” or does he belong to the category of statutory citizens of the United States whose right to citizenship may be restricted by a mere Act of Congress?
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of jus soli (Citizenship at Birth) rather than jus sanguinis (Citizenship by Inheritance). In every test to date, the Supreme Court has held that a person born on U.S. Soil is a citizen, if: one or both of parents were a U.S. citizen, or a resident alien not in the diplomatic corps or attached to a foreign military at war with the United states.
John S. McCain III is a U.S. citizen, but the question remains: is he a “Natural Born Citizen,” as required by the Constitution? The answer is provided in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. To wit: an emphatic NO. The Meaning of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 is clear: No person not a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the enacting of the constitution is eligible to be president of the United States.
John S. McCain III was born of U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone. The Panama Canal Zone is not U.S. Soil: it is not taxed as, or made by Treaty to be US Soil; but rather, is the sovereign soil of Panama, leased to the United States and the Panama Rail Company. If you were born in the same place at the same time as McCain, you would be a citizen by effect of statute, not by effect of native birth, and hence not a natural born citizen. Through correspondence during the Constitutional Convention, and in the Naturalization Act of 1795, the framers made their intent of natural born clear. In the framers definition, John McCain is not a “natural born citizen.” The alternative requirement is: “a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” and, obviously, John McCain cannot satisfy this criterion.
Therefore John S. McCain III fails the Constitutional requirements for candidacy to the office of President of the United States, and should never have held a place on the ballot, unless Congress acted to amend the Constitution on or before the first Tuesday in November 2008. Additionally, by Supreme Court precedent, McCain was ineligible to run for the office.
In April 2008, Congress sidestepped the constitutional issue by passing a resolution declaring of McCain eligible. However a congressional resolution is not law; and even if a statute were enacted, it would fail the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of Presidency. The provisions of the U.S. Constitutional may be altered only through the process of amendment.
In September 2008, Federal District Judge William Alsup (San Francisco) ruled that the law at the time of McCain’s birth automatically granted citizenship to offspring of U.S. citizens. The judge stated obiter that it was “highly probable” McCain was a natural-born citizen of the United States, owing to the legislation existing at the time. An obiter dictum statement, although included in the court’s opinion, does not form a necessary part of the decision. However, just as citizenship by statute does not equate to natural born citizen, “highly probable” does not equate to “actual”—except to those who, having a mind bent towards activism, ignore the tenets of our Constitution, and thus endanger its existence and that of our Representative Republic.
John McCain is no more above the supreme law of the land than is any one of his fellow citizens, natural born or otherwise… including members of Congress and Judge William Alsup.
In the matter of Barak H. Obama, information regarding his eligibility to seek or hold the office of the President has been systematically suppressed. Documentation that would easily resolve the issue is withheld; thus preventing that scrutiny of a candidate entitled every American voter. This concealment undermines the provisions and the spirit of the United States Constitution.
The actions of Barak H. Obama draw suspicion; and should he assume office under these grave circumstances, his every action as president will generate litigation at taxpayer expense, hobbling an already overextended federal government. To date, Barak Obama has incurred legal expenses totaling $800,000 in an effort to suppress public access to basic information on his qualifications and personal history—an extraordinary effort to conceal information required of any citizen desirous to hold an office of trust, or to obtain a security clearance, passport, etc. What is Barak Obama hiding? Is his Presidency worth risking a constitutional crisis heretofore unknown?
Mr. Secretary, as a servant of the American People, and an employee of the residents of the State of Nebraska, you have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of these United States. I remind you of that oath, and expect you uphold its duties to the best of your abilities.
Secretary John A. Gale, the undersigned, a natural born citizen of these United States, and a resident of the State of Nebraska, respectfully demands you make every effort to investigate and bring resolution to the fundamental questions raised in this letter.
If president-elect Barak H. Obama’s qualification for office cannot be properly resolved to the satisfaction of those provisions set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then I pray you act within your legal powers, as the Secretary of State of Nebraska, and withhold Nebraska’s electors from being presented for certification by the United States Congress.
Sincerely,
I take it you never bothered to look at the law in effect at the time.
If born outside the US, he would *not* have been a citizen at birth. His mother had not lived in the US the required 5 years after her 14th birthday. Mainly because she was only 18, 17 when she got pregnant.
From the US State Department
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required. Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Unless he was born a bastard (from the same site)
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
I can't believe the idiocy I am seeing on this birther threads.
So watch who you're calling an idiot, oh ignorant one.
301(g) is the same provision that applies to the case of a US Citizen mother and alien father in wedlock, except that the 309(c) residency requirements are modified *for purposes of acquiring nationality* (which is not the same as citizenship) to only 1 continuous year of US residency.
Check it out at the link above, and here for the actual verbiage of the Act
Or if you prefer the US Code they are at: 8 U.S.C 1401 and 8 U.S.C 1409
The only you need to be aware of is that 1986—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–653 substituted “five years, at least two” for “ten years, at least five”.