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".

“Mr. Rogers, could you please answer the simple question, so that we then can have an intelligent conversation, is that too much ask???”

Hmmm...let you make demands that I have to jump to meet...no thanks. There are posters here that I respect, but you are not one of them.

If you understood the Constitution, you would understand how ridiculous it is for a Lt Col in the Army to decide he gets to disobey orders until the President PROVES to him personally that he is President.

It goes to that ‘standing’ thing - the birther idea that being one of 300 million gives them the ‘standing’ to challenge the election on an issue known to everyone before, during, and after the election.

You don’t. Lakin doesn’t. Under the Constitution, you as individuals don’t get to determine what NBC means, or how it applies. Protect and defend the Constitution - NOT Lakin’s opinions, and NOT danamco’s opinions! You two do not determine how the other 300 million have to live. You do not have standing to challenge the election of Obama based on information known to everyone before the election began.

Hmmm...let you make demands that I have to jump to meet...no thanks. There are posters here that I respect, but you are not one of them.

Your lack of respect, will certainly not keep me awake or ruin my sleep, BTW, how is your meds, hopye/change doing for you???

OK Mr. Tap-dancer, you wouldn't answer that question, so I take that you never took that oath either, because your postings doesn't reflect that!

So I went and looked it up and it says the following: "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. "!!

My own Oath was a little different from the above, when I became a legal U.S. citizen: ""I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I presume that Lt.Col. Lakin took the same oath to the "CONSTITUTION", NOT to the pRESIDENT. There is no doubt in my mind that he believe firmly (like I and many other Freepers do) that he does NOT have a legitimate C-i-C and he thereby, like the rest of us, has to defend the Constitution. The primary and very first thing mentioned in that Oath, is to DEFEND against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it's nothing more and nothing less. It's a real sad thing that we have or have had people in the military who are afraid to stand up and defend the Constitution. If you still don't believe that our Constitution is being attacked by foreign and domestic enemies, then not only have you knee-pads on but large horse-blinders. Very sad time in our nations future!!!

“Lakin cannot defend the Constitution against the electorate, the Congress & Supreme Court.”

Hmmmm? Well, it is refreshing and encouraging to see there still are some other forward looking people in America today speaking up together with Lt. Col. Lakin despite some fifth-column former soldiers who just keep their knee-pads on!!!.............................................Does the ABC reporter’s remark sound familiar to you???

Tea Partiers in Oceanside, CA learn about the Columbia Treason Trial
SPREADING THE WORD ABOUT THE TRIAL TO BE HELD BY DR. JAMES MANNING AND AMERICAN GRAND JURY

contributed by Neil Turner

Snapshot of the flyers distributed at the Oceanside, CA tea party as well as in other venues across the country

(Apr. 30, 2010) — The Oceanside, CA Tea Party on April 15 was a huge success, with signs advertising the Columbia Sedition and Treason Trial to be held in New York City from May 14-19, 2010, prominently displayed.

After meeting “America’s Sheriff” Joe Arpaio-endorsed candidate for San Diego Sheriff, Jay LaSeur, I had the opportunity to tell LeSeur of the evidence (repeated often throughout the evening) to be presented at the trial. When I asked Jay if he would prosecute Obama when the Grand Jury returned indictments against him, San Diego’s next Sheriff responded, “Absolutely!”

I distributed many flyers and sent several photos to radio show host Roger Hedgecock, who had asked for photos from tea parties around the country.

Finally, I asked a question of CA Gubernatorial Candidate Larry Naritelli:

As Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the CA National Guard, would you be willing to follow the lead of several other near and border-state candidates and demand that Mr. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of our military, show proof that he is Constitutionally eligible to be Commander-in-Chief, and if he is not, then will you return all of our National Guard troops to California and deploy them on the border to defend us from the illegal alien invasion?

“Absolutely!” said Candidate Naritelli. “Not only that, but I will secure our borders, and will even call out the local ‘Minutemen’ to help in this endeavor.”

An ABC reporter was handed a copy of the C.I.A. COLUMBIA OBAMA Sedition and Treason TRIAL flyer and then asked if ABC would be covering the trial in New York City in May. She said “Absolutely,” then looked in greater detail at the flyer and said: “I don’t know about that one.”

The evidence which I have been told will be presented at the trial in New York is as follows:

* Barry Soetoro was recruited, as a foreign student at Occidental College in CA, by the C.I.A., who was looking for Arabic-speaking, Muslim, non-U.S. citizens to go to Afghanistan to assist the Mujahedeen in driving the Russians out of the country;
* They arranged with Columbia University to act as a “cover” (and to give him a “Degree”) while he was working for them in Pakistan and Afghanistan;
* Saudi money then got him into Harvard, but when he got his “law degree” there, he couldn’t get a job with any major law firms because he couldn’t pass any “vetting”;
* He went to Chicago where he met attorney Michelle Robinson (working with the now convicted and imprisoned Tony Rezko), who married him – and she “arranged” for his “U.S. citizenship.”

It is expected that additional evidence about Obama’s true past will be presented by Dr. Manning and his associates. Further information can be found here.

When I reflect on this great photo at the top in combat gear, especially strapped in “KNEE-PADS”(?) the words below is probably what you will hear/read from you dear leader in 2016, if he ever leaves , don’t you think???

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It’s been my responsibility, my duty and very much my honor to serve as Commander in Chief of this nation’s Armed Forces these past eight years. That is the most sacred, most important ask of the Presidency. Since our nation’s founding, the primary obligation of the national government has been the common defense of these United States. But as I have sought to perform this sacred task as best I could, I have done so with the knowledge that my role in this day-to-day-to-day effort, from sunrise to sunrise, every moment of every hour of every day of every year, is a glancing one compared to yours. ... But it’s not just your fellow Americans who owe you a debt. No, I believe many more do, for I believe that military service in the Armed Forces of the United States is a profound form of service to all humankind. You stand engaged in an effort to keep America safe at home, to protect our allies and interests abroad, to keep the seas and the skies free of threat. Just as America stands as an example to the world of the inestimable benefits of freedom and democracy, so too an America with the capacity to project her power for the purpose of protecting and expanding freedom and democracy abroad benefits the suffering people of the world.” Yours truly..xxxxx

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.