“But people are less likely to betray a people to whom they are bound by blood and where their family is.”
Hmmm...Barry had a bond of blood thru his mother. I don’t see much reason for a bond thru someone who didn’t live with your mother, didn’t live with you, and left both of you by the time you could talk.
Marie had no relatives here, while Obama had mother and grandparents, and his grandparents raised him.
“We don’t even know if his mother ever renounced her US citizenship or not. She did marry and Indonesian and may have renounced her citizenship in the process. Who knows?”
She divorced in Hawaii. Since her husband was Indonesian, the court would have no jurisdiction unless she was an American. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that she renounced her citizenship, and she lived in the US for some time.
“The Constitution does not say that you can be president if you have a likelihood to hold allegiance to the US. It says you have to be a NBC.”
From Indiana’s Court:
The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called ‘ligealty’, ‘obedience’, ‘faith’, or ‘power’ - of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem’,- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom.
Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”
For their definition of NBC, they don’t refer to Vattel but common law. Some are unconvinced by that reasoning. I find it completely reasonable, and think other courts will take the approach the Indiana Court did.
Yes, his mom did give him a blood connection to the US. Even if you want to argue that Obama has a closer connection to his mom than his dad, it still doesn't make him a NBC.
Marie had no relatives here, while Obama had mother and grandparents, and his grandparents raised him.
The Constitution doesn't say that being raised by your grandparents makes you an NBC. So this discussion of loyalties is kind of an irrelevant side argument to what the law actually says. NBC is not proof of loyalty to the US, just an insurance policy to protect the US from a serious possibility of foreign influence. Marie's situation is still NBC, but provides a loophole around the intent of NBC clause. She still is NBC.
For their definition of NBC, they don’t refer to Vattel but common law. Some are unconvinced by that reasoning. I find it completely reasonable, and think other courts will take the approach the Indiana Court did.
Yeah, that is probably the closest that the Supreme Court has ever broached the topic of Natural Born citizen status and is currently the established precedent. However, it is difficult to discuss the relevance of Wong Kim Ark when we don't know where Obama was born yet. Once his place of birth can be established, the Wong Kim Ark argument would be a little more persuasive, if you accept the premise that it was decided correctly of course. However, if Obama ever lost his US Citizenship or voluntarily took up another citizenship voluntarily, then there's going to be a problem.