Posted on 07/30/2009 8:35:25 PM PDT by Edward Watson
The entire birther argument, that Obama was actually born in Kenya instead of the US, making him ineligible for holding the office of the President of the US, is a spurious argument. It plays into Obama and the liberals hands - they want this to continue since it makes regular conservatives and opponents into fringe wackos.
Not one of us would've looked harder at his legitimacy than Hilary Clinton and the entire Clinton smear machine during the Democratic primaries. That magic bullet would've given Hilary the presidency - and yet nada, bupkis.
There are many valid reasons to oppose Obama and the liberals, but his birthplace isn't one of them.
The Obama campaign acknowledged at its “Fight the Smears” Web site that Obama was a foreign national until the age of 18, by virtue of his father’s British then Kenyan citizenship.
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982,” the Web site stated.
“Fight the Smears” attempted to debunk rumors that Obama was not a U.S. citizen by producing a 2007 computer-generated copy of his certification of live birth. “
All from: http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
“Can a person be a natural born citizen of more than one country?”
A person can be a citizen of more than one country from birth. I take this to mean yes. But until SCOTUS rules (and afterwards, too), that’s just my opinion. Someone really ought to settle it at some point.
One thing that continues to nag me. Everyone knows the natural born clause was intended to prevent people with foreign allegiances from becoming commander-in-chief. I take it that they had the rich princes of Europe more in mind than the locally-born son of a random pleb. Whatever the case may be, they could have specified that the president must be a second-generation citizen. They didn’t. To say that they wanted no split loyalties and to say that they outlawed presidents with split-loyalties are two seperate matters.
They demanded that the president must be a citizen from birth, which to them meant the child of citizens. But once resident aliens could produce citizens from birth (or natural born citizens, as I understand the term), that changed. That’s just a guess. I’m not sure.
But it stands to reason, since I can’t see why the term natural born in itself should mean two citizen parents. I understand why people want it to mean that. If the framer’s cared so very much about a generational buffer, maybe they should have said so out loud.
“Dual Citizen means you can’t be a Natural Born Citizen”
Do you have a source for this?
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.
A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.
Intent can be shown by the person’s statements or conduct.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.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S.citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.
Information on losing foreign citizenship can be obtained from the foreign country’s embassy and consulates in the United States. Americans can renounce U.S. citizenship in the proper form at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The founding fathers listed in the constitution that no candidate for POTUS be a dual citizen because of Issues of Loyalty.
Article II section 2
“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”
I’d recommend some peripheral reading. If you search my posts since yesterday you’ll see several posts on this along with links.
Those links provide detailed discussions with a great deal of linked documentation.
If you read some of the essays and follow the links you’ll become conversant in the topics, otherwise it is just regurgitating what may or may not be accurate here on FR.
Distilled down it goes like this:
Obama claims dual citizenship at birth.
The 14th was aimed first at slaves then others.
The authors of the 14th spoke of sole jurisdiction and undivided allegiance and how the intention of NBC status was for children of citizens, those without undivided loyalties.
The US State Dept states clearly that those with dual citizenship have dual loyalties and are under dual jurisdictions.
Find the links. Follow the links. Read more than just a few quotes from FR.
I don’t see anything there which holds that natural born citizens can’t hold dual citizenship.
“and are under dual jurisdictions”
Dual jurisdictions, one which is the U.S., meaning that they are, indeed, under U.S. jurisdiction. The 14th amendment does not say that you must be under the jurisdiction of U.S. law and no other, just that you must be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. And dual citizens are. If they wanted to say that one must be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the U.S. alone, it should have said so.
Oh, and what about Wong Kim Ark? He was born to resident aliens, and was of dual citizenship, yet he was a citizen by birthright.
It was the clear intent of the founders.
That no issues of divided loyalty be present. For instance, you could not be a citizen of England and of the US and run for president. They wanted to make sure that could not happen. So they made the distinction between Natural Born and Citizen. Unfortunately they didn’t define it clearly.
Me neither. Actually it strengthen's my resolve.
Let me ask you this, do you believe that Obama is hiding something?
Are you willing to DEMAND (as a subject of the "Ruler" in Chief) that he release his "vital records"?
Do you have any reason to doubt that Obama actually holds not only dual citizenship, but that he is a citizen of Indonesia, Great Britan, Kenya, and the United States.
Has Obama ever renounced his Indonesian or British or Kenyan citizenship?
Does any of that concern you?
If I understand your point here, it's that the 14th amendment worked a change to the definition of natural born citizen as expressed in the constitution.
-- Whatever the case may be, they could have specified that the president must be a second-generation citizen. They didn't. To say that they wanted no split loyalties and to say that they outlawed presidents with split-loyalties are two seperate matters. ... If the framer's cared so very much about a generational buffer, maybe they should have said so out loud. --
Maybe they did, by distinguishing between citizen and natural born citizen. Only those "plain" or "naturalized" citizens who were citizens at the time the constitution was ratified were eligible to hold the office of president. From then on, one would have to be "natural born," whatever that meant.
Given the very presence of the Wong Kim Ark case, one can see that at some point in our history, citizenship didn't automatically attach (as a matter of common-knowledge routine, as though, gee-whiz, everybody knows if you are born in the country, you are a citizen of that country) by dint of being born in the country, even if born to resident aliens.
At any rate, I can't fault the founders for not anticipating the effect the 14th amendment might have on arguing over the qualifications for the presidency; in such a way that they would anticipate a merger of "person born on US soil, regardless of citizenship of parents" and "natural born citizen."
See BZ @ 12.1.2008 2:49pm for what I think is an outstanding summary of the Wong Kim Ark case and how it fits into a larger context:
For three decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court recognized the jurisdiction requirement of the Citizenship Clause as including a non-geographical distinction between those with allegiance and those without. In The Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73 (1873), this Court noted that the jurisdiction clause was "intended to exclude from its operation . . . citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 (1884), the Court described the jurisdiction clause as covering "all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power."See too the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. Not that it has the force of law, but it may shed light on what the founders intended by limiting the presidency to "natural born citizens."In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), however, Justice Gray wrote an opinion which eviscerated the jurisdiction requirement. Justice Gray felt that, once within a national territory, an alien gives up allegiance to all other governments, at least temporarily. 169 U.S. at 693 (alien’s "allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory."). Thus, any alien born within the United States would automatically gain citizenship without reference to the jurisdiction requirement.
On March 9, 1866, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, said the following in a speech before House of Representatives:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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. (John Bingham, 1866, as quoted in Defining Natural Born Citizen)
“That no issues of divided loyalty be present”
Not no issues, altogether. Maybe no issues emenating from parentage and the laws of other nations. I’ll concede that. But they didn’t say so. They simply said the president must be natural born, which I believe in my heart of hearts means the exact same thing as a born citizen or a native. The 14th amendment modified it’s meaning, if the framers in fact meant no dual loyalties. That’s the thing to remember.
Oh, Vattel again. As I’ve said before, Vattel appears to say that the only people who qualify as subjects or citizens at all are those born to citizen parents. As we all know, children need not be born to citizen parents to be citizens in the contemporary U.S.
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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.”
I realize that’s what the guy said, and it may be what he intended, but it’s not what the amendment says. And it’s not what SCOTUS has said since. If nothing else, he’s wrong about it being declamatory of what is written in the Constitution concerning children born of parents owing no foreign allegiances. That does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
So, Arnold can run for president then!
Incorrect. See Book 1, para 214, last sentence.
Hope this helps.
“Find the links. Follow the links. Read more than just a few quotes from FR.”
Did I not just quote to you from the link, and analyze several arguments from the link? Who is this message for?
“So, Arnold can run for president then!”
No. He was not born a citizen.
Prove Obama was.
You can’t with out seeing his complete Birth Records.
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.