Birthers and Perkins V Elg

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 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.

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.

"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.

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."

"First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866,

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.

"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".

"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 seem to assume Barry owed allegiance to the UK. He did not, not under US law. Unless Barry applied for UK citizenship or took some steps as an adult to live in the UK, US law assumes he is totally American.

Our constitution doesn't say what a natural born citizen is. That was probably their intention, but in truth the constitution does not spell it out. If you really believe it does, please show the article and the line that specifically says your had to have two US citizen parents(if born in the US)to be a natural born citizen. You can't because it doesn't say that.

According to the constitution there are only two types of citizens, naturalized and citizens born to US parent(s). I want to get rid of the a**hat as badly as anyone, but lying and making shit up or trying to fool yourself into believing something that isn't true does not help out cause.

"Like this from The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) which states the obvious:"

1845? You're dumber than I thought. It's a good thing that the judiciary stopped issuing opinions in 1846, otherwise someone might question the relevance of the that article. /s

Why don't you try this one, from the Yale Law review, written just a paltry 143 years later.

Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

"According to the constitution there are only two types of citizens, naturalized and citizens born to US parent(s)."

Sorry, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

The Constitution says no such thing. First, the word parent(s) isn't found anywhere in the Constitution. Second, it wasn't until the 14th Amendment was passed, did the Constitution say anything about citizenship.

The 14th reads, in part...

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.

Do you see the word "parent(s)" in there? Nope. That's why we had US. Ark.

The Constitution, by omission, leaves it PLAINLY to the Congress to establish criteria of citizenship. Congress has asserted that authority a number of times throughout the history of the Republic.

"The Constitution, by omission, leaves it PLAINLY to the Congress to establish criteria of citizenship."

I should clarify that I meant when the Constitution was initially authored. Clearly, the 14th Amendment limits to some degree Congress's ability to define citizenship.

If Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and neglected to file the appropriate paperwork in 1979, he's still an Indonesian citizen.

I recall Obama spend a half a year in Indonesia writing his first book in the early 90s that Commie boy Ayers probably ghost wrote for him. Obama was probably in the country as a citizen.

NBC can ONLY be established at the instant of Birth.

And NBC is a person born to TWO parents and born on the soil of our Nation.

NBC means you had NO POSSIBLE CITIZENSHIP OTHER THAN THAT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA at the instant of your birth.

Obama is an Usurper.

That is YOUR definition. The courts have trended towards another one...and Congress, the States, and voters have all accepted the idea that a natural born citizen INCLUDES someone born in the US with one foreign parent.

Why don't you try this one, from the Yale Law review, written just a paltry 143 years later.

Wow -- a redefinition dating all the way back to 1988??? Surprise!!! Surprise!!! She lost her credibility at this: "The traditional approach has not established the clause's full and precise meaning"

So for all these years no one knew the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" until she came along in 1988???

Is that the authority that you choose over historical writings of the authors of the clause and Supreme Court Justices throughout history??? The Founders wrote the clause in 1787 and didn't know what they meant by it and no one did until 1988?? Is that your claim???

"Is that the authority that you choose over historical writings of the authors of the clause and Supreme Court Justices throughout history??? The Founders wrote the clause in 1787 and didn't know what they meant by it and no one did until 1988?? Is that your claim??? "

What has become clear is that either you are so obtuse that you just cannot grasp scholarly essays found in law journals, to say nothing of the import of those essays, or you are intentionally argumentative. Either way, I'm tired of your rantings.

The argument saying that only constitutional attorneys can say what is plainly written in the US Constitution is all folly. The sacred document was written for the people to easily understand and not have some intermediary to tell you what it means. Anyone can understand it if they take the time to study the intent and meaning behind the written words.

Forward the article to your cleaning lady. She'll know what to do with it.

What do you think of Leo Donofrios work on Obamas Citizenship issues?
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/world-net-daily-exclusive-why-obama-is-ineligible-%E2%80%93-regardless-of-his-birthplace/

Are you saying that what is being espoused by him in court, is invalid?

“Why don't you try this one, from the Yale Law review, written just a paltry 143 years later.”

Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

Despite the pedigree and extensive footnotes, a word search and visual scan of the article finds no reference to Vattel and the extensive knowledge and deep respect for Vattel by the founders and particularly no mention in the article of the footnote referencing Vattel in Farrand, one of her primary contemporaneous sources.

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.