Posted on 03/18/2010 12:24:55 PM PDT by Polarik
From Barack Obama's own website, Fight the Smears, a statement as to his citizenship status embodied in the masthead and email to forward:
In fact, can you cite any precedent where “citizen by birth via statues” is differentiated from being a “natural born citizen”?
The language of 8 USC 1401 is perfectly compatible with a “natural born citizen” being the same as a “citizen of the United States at birth”.
There is no such citizenship as “naturalized at birth via statutes” described in the US Constitution or in US law.
Neither have I seen any precedent for calling anyone who was a US citizen at birth a “naturalized” citizen in any way shape or form.
It can only do that by changing the definition.
Neither case (and no case, to my knowledge) defined natural born citizen.
You've already copied the passage that did in post No. 95.
Well, yes, and I wouldn’t disagree. Obviously, the Constitution itself does not define the term.
The 14th amendment IS part of the Constitution. If the 14th amendment changed what it means to be a natural born citizen, then they would have been able to say so. They didn't.
Little did they know the 14th amendment would swoop in and make soil babies citizens from birth.
They did know and still cited the "Vattelian" definition. Being a citizen from birth doesn't mean natural born citizen, unless you have citizen parents (father, in particular).
However, once the 14th amendment becomes law, soil babies are citizens from birth, which to my ears and the ears of most everyone in the world, is equivalent to natural born citizen.
Just because people have bad ears, doesn't mean the definition is any different. A lot of people think a lot of things that are wrong, like potatoes are from Ireland, penguines are from the north pole or that Columbus discovered the United States.
I think you’ll find that some “citzen-at-birth” types are considered, by the Supreme Court, to be “naturalized at birth”, because naturalization is the only power Congress has over citizenship. (those born outside the country, but qualifying under the statutes as citizens due to the status of their parents)
They didn't confirm anything. Fukino claimed she saw unknown vital records that supposedly verified Obama to be born in Hawaii. No vital record in Hawaii verifies ANYONE to be a natural born American ctizen. Without providing actual documentation, nothing is confirmed.
No lawsuit any any level challenging Obama’s eligibility on “jus soli” (place of birth) grounds has gone forward since Dr. Fukino issued her definitive statement.
I don't recall any that had gone forward before her statement. Her statement is not determinant of anything regarding the legal cases.
While you may waste time parsing Okubo’s and Fukino’s statements, it is obvious that judges and justices across the nation do not engage in such parsing and paranoid speculation.
Most of the cases have been dismissed on the basis of standing, and none on the basis of the spokesbabe's or directorbabe's comments.
I’ll conclude with a quote from Linda Lingle, the Republican Governor of Hawaii and supporter of John McCain for President.
This shows nothing other than them taking Obama's claims on faith, like all the other faithers.
A judge can issue a subpoena for Obama’s birth records but no one has sought a subpoena. Under Hawaii Statutes 338-18(b), a birth record can be released without the permission of the person named on the record to: “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Don’t you find it strange that in the two years since Obama posted a photoshopped copy of his COLB on the internet, that no one, repeat no one, has sought a subpoena for his original birth records? Any judge in America could issue such a subpoena and any prosecutor in America could seek such a subpoena to examine the authenticity of those documents.
The law of the land says a person born in the United States is a Citizen-at-birth. Fukino is capable of looking at a vital record and determining if it says “Hawaii” as the birth place and if the person was born after 1959 and statehood being achieved.
The overwhelminig majority of Obama eligibility lawsuits haven’t gone forward because defendants in those cases such as the Republican Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels have had their attorneys (such as the Republican Attorney General of Indiana) submit legal briefs to judges and justices who have read those briefs and then have dismissed the lawsuits and denied the applications for Writs of Certiorari.
Furthermore in the case of Craig v US, the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled in the US favor in a civil rights action requesting a Writ of Mandamus to stop an illegal person who was not a natural born citizen of the US from running for and assuming the presidency.
The court ruled in the government’s favor and against defendant Steven Lee Craig.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/craig-us-complaint.pdf
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/craig-order.pdf
Plaintiff Craig then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. They also ruled against him. I quote from a section of their decision: “In any case, the Supreme Court long has rejected the notion that naturalized citizens may or should possess rights different from those of other citizens under the law:
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual.”
In other words, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that native born and natural born are identical terms and that native born is defined by the 14th amendment which would mean that natural born is also defined by the 14th Amendment.
As we have already discussed, in the case of “Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana,” the Indiana Court of Appeals DID rule that Obama is a natural born citizen for purposes of eligibility to receive Indiana’s electoral college votes.
No court has yet ruled him to be ineligible out of 74 court actions and attempts to have Obama be declared legally ineligible.
No. To do so, you would need to have criminal jurisdiction and a willing court, not to mention a strong constitution (not Constitution).
The law of the land says a person born in the United States is a Citizen-at-birth.
But it doesn't say a person born in the United State is a natural born citizen. "Citizen-at-birth" is NOT the same thing. Repeating a false assumption doesn't make it right, j.
Fukino is capable of looking at a vital record and determining if it says “Hawaii” as the birth place and if the person was born after 1959 and statehood being achieved.
If she's going to make a public statement, then the public has a right to demand the document that confirms her statement. Instead, she has played the part of a chicken and hidden behind a law, while there are other laws that would protect her.
In other words, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that native born and natural born are identical terms and that native born is defined by the 14th amendment which would mean that natural born is also defined by the 14th Amendment.
Those are "other words" alright, as none specifically say anything close to what you imagine in what you cited.
As we have already discussed, in the case of “Ankeny v The Governor of Indiana,” the Indiana Court of Appeals DID rule that Obama is a natural born citizen for purposes of eligibility to receive Indiana’s electoral college votes.
No, it ruled that it believed persons born in the country = natural born WITHOUT declaring Obama to be a natural born citizen. And yet, they undermined the basis of their own conclusion by admitting that its guideline, Wong Kim Ark, did not declare anyone to be a natural born citizen. It's good misdirection, but not a direct ruling about Obama's status. They simply shrugged off the plaintiffs arguments without the benefit of allowing a trial.
“But, citizen at birth is not the same as ‘natural born’”
Yes, and 2+2=5.
No. To do so, you would need to have criminal jurisdiction and a willing court, not to mention a strong constitution (not Constitution).
There has never been a court ruling that separates the terms “citizen-at-birth” from “natural born citizen.” There is a body of case law that uses those terms interchangeably.
Nowhere in the US Code is “natural born citizen” defined.
Barack Obama is the duly elected President of the United States and all attempts to challenge that fact on an Article 2 Section 1 basis have failed.
There you go parsing words again. The Court ruled that Obama had the right to receive Indiana’s Electoral votes.
Citizen-at-birth vs. Natural Born Citizen (From USConsitution.net)
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.
If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(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.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A “national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
Becoming a citizen
A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character.
Losing your citizenship
For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult. The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.
Moving to another country for an extended period of time does not constitute an act that presumes renunciation. Neither does taking a routine-level job with a foreign government. This stand is quite different from U.S. policy of the past, where even being naturalized in another nation could be seen as renunciation. The sections of the law that pertained to losing ones nationality for many of these cases was found at 8 USC 1482 and related sections.
The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that may force you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:
•Becoming naturalized in another country
•Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
•Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
•Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
•Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
•Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
•By being convicted of committing treason
“I think you’ll find that some ‘citzen-at-birth’ types are considered, by the Supreme Court, to be ‘naturalized at birth’”
I’m not familiar with the language “naturalized at birth” having ever been used by SCOTUS.
“naturalization is the only power Congress has over citizenship”
First of all, I might remind you that it’s not laws passed by Congress that I’m concerned with, but what it says in the Constitution. Specifically, the 14th amendment.
“those born outside the country, but qualifying under the statutes as citizens due to the status of their parents”
I assume you mean to say that these people cannot be “natural” because not nature but merely Congress says they are citizens. As I said before, without man-made laws there are no nations (at least not in the sense that we understand them, although there are organized human collectives that preexist the development of law), and therefore no citizens. As such, there are no truly “natural” citizens. Maybe citizens of the kingdom of God, or something, but not citizens in our sense of the word.
Yes, it is true that Congress only has power to define as citizens people with qualities beyond what everyone automatically recognizes as belonging to citizens. For instance, it never was in doubt that the children of two citizen parents born on U.S. soil are citizens. And though it may have been prior to the 14th amendment, it is not now doubted that children born on U.S. soil (and subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law) are citizens. However, people might be confused as to when citizens pass on their status to children born overseas.
Congress steps in, with its statutes, which to you cannot be anything but naturalizers, since if the people to which they applied were “natural” citizens, it would be obvious they were so, I guess. But this is all silly, because if it were not for laws, collectively known as the Constitution, passed by legislatures (not by Nature, nor God), there would be no citizens. So who’s more “natural”? Those who are citizens by reason of the Constitution, or those who are citizens by reason of a law passed by Congress?
In conclusion, “naturalized at birth” is a crazy, meaningless phrase dreamt up by cranks who have been backed into a corner.
Wasn’t it Nancy Pelosi who certified Obama as qualified for a Democrat presidential candidate. Maybe she just “ Deemed” him constitutionally eligible.
“’What I said is that it changed what constituted a natural born citizen.’
‘It can only do that by changing the definition.’”
To be clearer, I suppose I should have said it changed WHO constituted a natural born citizen. You can do that, easily, without changing the definition.
“If the 14th amendment changed what it means to be a natural born citizen”
Pay closer attention, please. Nowhere did I say the 14th amendment changed what it means to be a natural born citizen. I said it changed what constituted a natural born citizen. Natural born status always and forever has meant that you were born a citizen. The 14th amendment didn’t alter that meaning. What it did is change who may be considered to have been born a citizen, which automatically changed the natural born constituency.
“Being a citizen from birth doesn’t mean natural born citizen, unless you have citizen parents (father, in particular).”
You and I both know SCOTUS never said that. That has yet to be declared officially one way or the other.
“Just because people have bad ears, doesn’t mean the definition is any different. A lot of people think a lot of things that are wrong, like potatoes are from Ireland, penguines are from the north pole or that Columbus discovered the United States.”
You’d think Birthers one day would wonder why they are in the extreme minority, even amongst avowed conservatives. Can’t be that the issue is just that simple (born a citizen=natural born citizen). I guess you’re just ahead of the times. Or behind the times. Whatever’s better.
The case law you've presented so far doesn't use those terms interchangeably. And you keep repeating a flawed premise about the definition being in the law or now, in the U.S. Code, when you've already been told that the definition is extraconstitutional. Again, repeating a false assumption doesn't make it right.
Wrong, Dr. Fukino would be violating federal law and Hawaii law to release any records without the permission of the person named on the record.
Hawaii law would protect Fukino as she has discretionary authority under 338-18(d) to release ANY information as she chooses and under the Uniform Information Practices Act which acknowledges that public interest OUTWEIGHS personal privacy. What federal law do you think would be broken and WHO would try to prosecute??
The issue at hand in Craig v US was is Obama a Natural Born Citizen or not, and if he isn’t were Mr. Craig’s civil rights violated by electing Obama. The court found for the defense.
Craig didn't seem to be challenging Obama's elegibility directly but was asking for the court to come up with a definition or for the court to force Congress to define it. The original court order dismissing Craig's complaint as well as the appeal, doesn't mention Obama at all. Both dismissed the complaint on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing.
The Court ruled that Obama had the right to receive Indiana’s Electoral votes.
No, the court said the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and basically that the governor didn't have the responsibility to qualify presidential candidates on the ballot.
Wasn’t it Nancy Pelosi who certified Obama as qualified for a Democrat presidential candidate. Maybe she just “ Deemed” him constitutionally eligible.
The definition hinges on parents, specifically the father being a citizen. How do you change who can be a natural born citizen without changing that definition??
Pay closer attention, please. Nowhere did I say the 14th amendment changed what it means to be a natural born citizen. I said it changed what constituted a natural born citizen.
Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense, since the definition is very specific.
You and I both know SCOTUS never said that. That has yet to be declared officially one way or the other.
Nonsense. You can compare the Minor definition and the Wong Kim Ark definition side by side and see that it's virtually identical. They don't start talking about fathers, but there's not much denial that this country was patriarchical prior to the 20th century. Look at the naturalization act of 1790:
"And 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States ...
That last line shows they did NOT worry about the citizenship of the mother ...
You’d think Birthers one day would wonder why they are in the extreme minority, even amongst avowed conservatives.
I don't think about birthers at all. It's a nonsense label used by people who carry water for a fraud. I've supported my points and you resort to labels and faux bemusement.
“...the United States...exists because of a set of man-made laws known as the Constitution. No Constitution, no U.S., no natural born citizens of the U.S. Therefore, natural born status, however indirectly it may seem, is the result of statute.”
You’re correct to call the U.S.Constitution “law” but it isn’t actually a “statute”. Statutes set out in detail how the “law” functions.
The Declaration of Independence said, in essence, “that we are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government...” (Cato Institute publication). The U.S. Constitution provides the plan for government that protects those creator endowed rights against the functioning and power of govenment, and as such is the seminal law of the our land.
That said, when those documents were written our nation’s founders had just liberated their colonies from the British Empire and were determined to prevent a British subject from surreptitiously becoming President and turning the nation back over to British rule. Since no one has rights superior to anyone else, they created an eligibility requirement based on natural law. There does not exist a reason for there to be a legal statute. It does not, in any way, affect the rights of all other citizens as no one has the “right” to become President. This is important and seems to be a form of national security affirmation, which our government uses all the time in our military.
Security requirements exist in the military for good reason, and circumstances surrounding birth can be very important when determining clearances. There was a woman in my company during recruit training (1980) who couldn’t get a security clearance because she had a living grandmother in Kiev, with at that time was a part of the USSR and the birthplace of her mother. The military feared she was blackmailable, all because her relatives could be threatened by that communist government.
We see the same problem operating in the U.S. during the last twenty years with Americans who have living relatives in the Republic of China. There have been serious security breaches at, for example, White Sands, New Mexico, where nuclear information has been lifted and transferred to China, all because family members were threatened by that government.
I’ve had a Top Secret clearance in the past and can’t emphasize enough how important it is that an individual not have split allegiences.
Obama has admitted that he was a British subject because his father was a British subject. Once a British subject, always a British subject; the only way that to terminate that status is by naturalizing with another nation. There is no evidence Obama has done so, and if he had it would still not make him eligible to be President.
Yes, I know that was the document that you were referring to and I was referring to the process under the law that could have been used to investigate that document in Congress before certifying Obama’s electoral votes and before swearing him in as President.
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.