Birthers and Perkins V Elg

US Supreme Court Records ^ | 24 April 2010 | Self

[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

[Mr Rogers]

A quick search reveals that at least in 1903, all passport applicants took an oath of allegiance:

http://books.google.com/books?id=r3I3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=passport+oath+of+allegiance+1900s&source=bl&ots=O05bQCfBKv&sig=PIY1zhkPOEWJQsGPaKgd7302zSU&hl=en&ei=p2zXS5iHBJHwsQOzqOGrBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

You are welcome.

[Red Steel]

Did you apply in 1939?

Even if it did, it does not make Kawakita a natural born citizen. Here was a guy with split allegiances and having two citizenships. Was he a natural born citizen as it pertains to natural born citizen clause? Noway. Kawakita was the very essence to why the Constitutional natural born citizen clause exists. Kawakita committed treason because he had split allegiances.

Well, another logical inference is that the traitor wasn’t running for President.

Yes, and if he did and won, he could not constitutionally hold presidential office, but the constitutional safeguard is not infallible check on the treasonous. Alas, Obama being the prime example.

In other cases, native born and natural born are used interchangeably, and that seems to be the current consensus of legal authority.

I don't know how many times it has been explained to you as you still always get it wrong.

[Red Steel]

You are welcome.

I rebutted it in the post above.

[Mr Rogers]

Allegiance as would be normal is the standard, not allegiance by itself. Bill Ayers is a natural born citizen by anyone’s standard, and a traitor. Ditto JFKerry. The Rev Jeremiah Wright is an America-hating natural born citizen.

By any normal standard, Barry OUGHT to be a patriot. Born in the USA with an American mother. His foreign father not only abandoned them, but never seems to have lived with his mother, and was a bigamist at the time (if he did live with her).

Barry is half-black, but raised by whites...but unfortunately, the entire Dunham clan seems to have been wacked out weirdo freaks.

But legally, the more I read, the more I am convinced this is settled law - a person born in the USA is native born and natural born in the eyes of the law.

[Mr Rogers]

You suggested an oath of allegiance was given to dual citizens, not natural born citizens. That was false.

And you did NOT refute that false suggestion.

[Red Steel]

And you did NOT refute that false suggestion.

The rebutted part is if that was so that everyone did, it still would not make Kawakita an NBC as I stated above.

[Red Steel]

Allegiance as would be normal is the standard, not allegiance by itself. Bill Ayers is a natural born citizen by anyone’s standard, and a traitor. Ditto JFKerry. The Rev Jeremiah Wright is an America-hating natural born citizen.

Natural born citizen allegiances are total to one country and not split up between countries. The subject is not about Ayers or other malcontents who may be NBC. As I have pointed out, that the NBC clause is a safeguard which is not infallible against foreign influences, but it is a Constitutional safeguard that would be effective if the citizens of this nation employ it as intended. Treasonous domestic people like Kerry or Ayers is another subject.

[little jeremiah]

None so blind as he who does not wish to see.

[Red Steel]

Completely.

[Candor7]

No seriously. You are advocating on behalf of a national socialist occupant of the white house, Now you do not seem to be that dis-intelligent. You make cogent ,reasoned arguments which are skewed simply because they ignore the salient facts. You can fact shop on this all you want but the fact is we have vile person In the White House who actively obscures his history. Now you either do not understand the threat that Obama and his Junta pose for our nation and its heritage , ulikely , you're not that stupid, or you are simply on the other side of the politics on the issue from what one would expect on Free Republic.

Think you can play tautological games here and wow the kids? I think you are an effing traitor just like Obama is, an obfuscator and a manipulator and I call you on it.

Thats not attacking your character,everyone here can see that, rather thats attacking your politics, which do not belong here.You sound like a leftist and act like one. That means you are one.

So pish off, go over to DU and sell your schtick there.

Little poseur leftists like you are a dime a dozen.

[Mr Rogers]

“Now you either do not understand the threat that Obama and his Junta pose for our nation and its heritage , ulikely , you’re not that stupid, or you are simply on the other side of the politics on the issue from what one would expect on Free Republic.”

The courts are not the place to beat Obama. They have no role to play in his removal from office, and Obama is entitles to the same legal protection any other citizen of the USA would receive.

If that bothers you, you are in the wrong country. We are a nation of laws, and the repulsiveness of a Clinton or Obama is not a reason to abandon the law or the Constitution - which gives the courts no role to play in determining who is President.

“I think you are an effing traitor just like Obama is, an obfuscator and a manipulator and I call you on it.”

Another bitter birther, who cannot win in court or even in elections, calling names to cover his inadequacy. I can’t speak for ODH, but I lost my Dad to Vietnam, spent 25 years in the USAF, deployed roughly half the year for 10 years to cover the no-fly in Iraq, did a remote to Korea and was on the ground in Afghanistan as a bifocal wearing 49 year old Lt Col.

I’ve spent too much of my life in tents and separated from my family to have someone on FR thinking he’s a rough, tough patriot because he can read BS websites and ignore the law.

It is the law and freedom that make this country, while the military protects it. If you don’t understand that Obama deserves the same rules in court that you would get, then you do not understand America or freedom.

Your home page indicates a respect for Sarah Palin. You might want to ask why she refuses to say Obama is ineligible for office based on his father’s citizenship...

[Candor7]

Obama is hiding the fact that he is ineligible. Any reasonable person would understand that.

Its not a factual question, it is a political one. And politics will indeed solve the situation.

No president will ever again be elected without verification of birth on US soil as a natural born citizen.

And the current pretender is now in very deep trouble, as are all of his supporters.The true facts on our so called president will come, and its only a matter of time. Meanwhile Obama seeks to do as much damage to America as he can.

This is why I do not believe Obama is entitled to the the protection which “every other American citizen is entitled,” because he is a traitor, and a usurper in his words thoughts deeds and policies , traducing the USA , our allies, and our economy.Watch him now create race riots in Arizona.

Enemies of the state like Obama are not afforded such protection, no more than enemy combatants should be. Anyone who does not realize that Obama and his junta are mot enemies of the state and the constitution are massivedreamers, and live in an alternate reality that bears no resemblance to the current perils facing America.

Look for example at the trillions of dollars of debt America now has. And do you haveany feel for how that willbe met? Let your lips form the silent mouthing of "seizure of private assets." This is the next round of the quiet desperation that these fascists of the Obama Junta mean to foist upon an otherwise free people , who are only now just beginning to awaken to the perils we face. You can wake up too, or stay asleep until forced to do otherwise. Like many , I am quite beyond caring, for now people must choose freedom or enslavement.The time for talk is drawing to a close.Arizona will be the fist battefield.

[LucyT]

Meanwhile 0bama seeks to do as much damage to America as he can.

"... the current perils facing America.

Look for example at the trillions of dollars of debt America now has.

And do you have any feel for how that will be met?

Let your lips form the silent mouthing of "seizure of private assets."

~"seizure of private assets."

This is the next round of the quiet desperation that these fascists of the 0bama Junta mean to foist upon an otherwise free people, who are only now just beginning to awaken to the perils we face.

[Thanks, Candor7.]

[Canadian Outrage]

It is also the fact that Kenya claims he was born there in that country. Also, the Constitution says that they must be born in the United States to two US citizen parents (obviously paraphrased). In any event, if Obamaggedon didn’t have so much to hide he would have taken care of this long ago. Even before the election which he of course won by Acorn fraud. The man seems to thrive on fraud doesn’t he? CO

[Canadian Outrage]

Sir if you were so concerned about the law, then you would be very concerned about the fact that Obama is the most lawless human being to ever disgrace the White House. He has simply cheated his way through life and continues to do so. He’s a very evil and wicked man who hates America and has pure disdain for her people. That very much should concern you. CO

[Mr Rogers]

I am strongly opposed to Obama. My point is that he will be beaten (or not) at the ballot box. The money wasted on court cases needs to go to candidates.

The court is not the right venue for everything. If someone can show Obama was born in Kenya, THEN a case can be made...but even then, it would go through Congress. The courts do not have, nor do we want them to have, the power to remove Presidents.

I got involved in these threads because of the Lakin case. Being ex-military, I found it incredible that anyone thinks a military court martial would consider investigating and judging the eligibility of Obama to run for President - yet Lakin will ruin his career with ZERO impact.

59 Democrat senators concerns me far more than Obama’s father being a British citizen.

[Canadian Outrage]

Well given that there are three branches of government, when the other two fail, then the third, the Court is supposed to carry out the check and balance. That’s my understanding. And also, if you think Obama is going to allow himself to be removed of even diminished at the ballot box, you are naive. No Tyrant is ever removed peacefully or by votes. They take care of that pesky little process and he is doing that now. Obama is a lawless, wicked and evil man. He has craftily declared himself King of the United States forever. You’ll see. CO

[Mr Rogers]

“Well given that there are three branches of government, when the other two fail, then the third, the Court is supposed to carry out the check and balance.”

You understand wrong. Congress is given the power to remove Presidents. The Court is not. We go by the Constitution, not feelings.

[danamco]

Another bitter birther, who cannot win in court or even in elections, calling names to cover his inadequacy.

Calling names, did I read that correctly, or is it a misstatement huh???

[Candor7]

You may pretend that your politics are conservative. They are not.You would chose faux details over liberty. Obama’s non qualification is a usurpation of the Constitution, a vile attempt to create our nation as a country ruled not by laws but by political correctness. Those are the wages of tyranny.

That is not “calling names.” That my patriot challenged friend is dedication to the constitution and the freedoms it preserves.You care little about that., SO what are you even doing here?Trying to spin and cork the truth? Too late.

This is now an election issue.