Posted on 04/24/2010 9:18:10 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one, so what follows is just IMHO on how the case of Perkins v Elg affects the definition of natural born citizen. I offer it, not as definitive, but as evidence that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past in a way that might well lead to its ruling in favor of Obama, if the case is based on the citizenship of Obama's presumptive father.
The facts as stated in the decisions:
"The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.
Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year. In 1911, her mother took her to Sweden, where she continued to reside until September 7, 1929. Her father went to Sweden in 1922, and has not since returned to the United States. In November, 1934, he made a statement before an American consul in Sweden that he had voluntarily expatriated himself for the reason that he did not desire to retain the status of an American citizen and wished to preserve his allegiance to Sweden.
In 1928, shortly before Miss Elg became twenty-one years of age, she inquired an American consul in Sweden about returning to the United States and was informed that, if she returned after attaining majority, she should seek an American passport. In 1929, within eight months after attaining majority, she obtained an American passport which was issued on the instructions of the Secretary of State. She then returned to the United States, was admitted as a citizen and has resided in this country ever since."
Both parents were originally Swedish. The father was naturalized as a US citizen the year before Marie was born. It is unclear to me if her mother was ever naturalized - one sentence would indicate yes, the other no. Some say the mother would have been automatically naturalized when her husband was...and I don't know how naturalization law read at the time. The summary states " A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States."
Again, I concede that I do not know the naturalized status of the parents at her birth.
When Marie was 4, her mother took her to Sweden, where she and her mother lived as Swedes. This was IAW a treaty the US had with Sweden.
The father later returned to Sweden and formally renounced his US citizenship.
Marie was just short of 21 when she asked about returning to the USA. She was 22 when she returned.
The government argued that she was not a US citizen at all, IAW a treaty signed with Sweden.
In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court found:
"1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329."
"6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing "That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . " was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
Page 307 U. S. 326
This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.
7. Recent private Acts of Congress for the relief of native citizens who have been the subject of administrative action denying their rights of citizenship cannot be regarded as the equivalent of an Act of Congress providing that persons in the situation of the respondent here have lost the American citizenship which they acquired at birth and have since duly elected to retain. P. 307 U. S. 349."
In a bit more detail, it found:
"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,
Page 307 U. S. 329
14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the
"inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."...
... As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles."
Notice they found that her citizenship rested, not in the citizenship of her father, but in being born in NY. This is true even if the child has alien parentage. They later cite "According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country." In that case, the parents were NOT US citizens.
Notice they also quote approvingly of the decision involving Steinkauler:
"The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be 'right reason,' and I think it is law."
Notice that "native born" is used as sufficient basis that "He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..."
The Court makes no distinction between "native born" and "natural born citizen".
This is true later on, when the Court says:
"Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
Please note that the Court rejects the idea that she lost her "native born American citizen" and had instead remained a "natural born citizen".
You can read the full decision at:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html#328
<>Then you should have absolutely no problem citing any number of articles published in known law review journals, of which there are dozens.<>
Your favorite journal.
Like I said, the worthless musing of internet bloggers.
“If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and neglected to file the appropriate paperwork in 1979, he’s still an Indonesian citizen.”
File the appropriate paperwork with whom?
The United States government — specifically the INS.
a self-description of your posts.
Lord, I would hope that no idiot would be quoting and republishing the opinions found on a pseudo-anonymous political chat board. That would equal the absurdity of people quoting legal opinions of authors who aren't attorneys, legal scholars or even historians, writing in obscure and unknown internet blogs. That would be absurd, wouldn't it?
I prefer the evidence for the meaning of “natural born citizen” that we have to the evidence to the contrary that you don’t have.
OK. Let me get this straight. Your assertion is that it is possible for someone to file "paperwork" with the United States Immigration & Nationalization Service that, once executed, would somehow sever or undo any citizenship bestowed upon them by another country. Is that correct?
That my friend, is a fascinating interpretation of US and international law. Fascinating.
Only in your birther mind.
<>Only in your birther mind.<>
and in the minds and writings of a number of Supreme Court Justices that even your cleaning lady could understand:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
With all due respect and as former Merchant Mariners that we both are, would you mind to post YOUR similar credentials as Mario Apuzzo, Esq.'s since seems you have to be in judgment of his qualifications instead of bashing a lawyer who is trying to show the your C-i-C is NOT eligible for that high position. As far as I know, I think he is in a court appeal case right now???
I am NOT in that position to judge him negatively, but I'm looking forward to see your similar qualification posted here on line vs. Mario Apuzzo's!!!
Now OldDeck, that answer of yours to UncleChip reflects exactly what Judge Clarence Thomas said on YouTube, - very evasive!!!
What the relevance of my qualifications are with respect to Apuzzo's "esteemed" reputation, is elusive to me. His own credentials should speak for themselves. His own advertised areas of law do not include appellate, constitutional, election or immigration law - all areas that would presumably lend themselves to the subject-matter at hand.
Yes, he has moved for appeal of his cases dismissal by a lower court. My statement was self-evidently about previous cases to wit, I cannot find any record of his involvement in.
You are the one criticizing his qualifications. So post your qualifications to criticize. You've already admitted that you were not trained in the Constitution. So then what is your authority to say anything in that regard???
Elusive?
Is that not close to Clarence Thomas' Evasive??
See post 231???
Wasn't trained in the Constitution? I said I'm not a constitutional attorney - that is to say, an appellate lawyer that focuses on constitutional issues. And for the record, neither is Apuzzo.
But, I don't purport to be a constitutional lawyer, nor would I expect my postings to be disseminated to en masse and referenced as authoritative, as Apuzzo's seem to be with great frequency.
If you had a DUI case, or a personal injury claim, Apuzzo might be the go-to guy. But on the subject-matter at hand, his CV seems more than wanting.
As I said before, I'll say again - find me well-researched articles, essays and opinions from people who actually make their living in the appropriate areas of law, and have some reputation for excellence & accomplishment in their field, and people like me would start to listen. But, the opinions, assertions, claims and musings of amateurs or unremarkable attorneys, I don't find compelling, and neither should anyone else.
Then, I'm not sure what your assertion is, or what "paperwork" you believe Barack Obama was expected to file with the INS.
Barack Obama returned to this country while still a minor child, and under the guardianship of his citizen-parent. Obama, per US Statute 8 USC § 1481, has no obligation to do anything to either reaffirm, or maintain his US citizenship.
Whatever the status of his adoption, and whatever the status of his alleged Indonesian citizenship is plainly irrelevant to his the status of his US citizenship.
<>As I said before, I’ll say again - find me well-researched articles, essays and opinions from people who actually make their living in the appropriate areas of law, and have some reputation for excellence & accomplishment in their field<>
Like this from The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) which states the obvious:
“The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2500780/posts
<>and people like me would start to listen.<>
I doubt that there is any chance of that, but we will send it to your cleaning lady.
“If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and neglected to file the appropriate paperwork in 1979, he’s still an Indonesian citizen.”
Please read this case, and others. By living here since he was 10, Barry did everything required to assert his US citizenship...even if you could prove adoption by Soetoro, and even if Indonesia had made Barry a citizen.
He didn’t need to file anything - his living here was sufficient.
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.