Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rxsid; Alamo-Girl
The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).

Exceptionally well-put, rxsid.

It seems too few Americans think about citizenship issues nowadays; or if they do, only very carelessly. And our lack of attention is costing us all a humungous bundle.

It is crystal clear (to me at least) that Obama occupies office illegitimately, because he is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States within the historic meaning of that term. He is not, because his father was a British citizen under international law. Not to mention that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a minor at the time of his birth, and thus, under the naturalization statutes of the time (1961) incompetent to convey her American citizenship to her son.

But most people nowadays seem to think that since he was born within the territory of the United States (i.e., in Hawaii — but even this is uncertain), he is a U.S. citizen "natural born."

At best, given his parental situation, he would qualify under the "anchor baby" understanding of American citizenship: a native-born child, or any child born on American soil irrespective of parentage.

But even the Fourteenth Amendment does not sanction such an understanding of how one achieves American citizenship. It does not make American birth per se the standard by which we recognize an American citizen. For right off the bat, in Section 1, the Amendment declares: "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." [emphasis added]

The "anchor baby" interpretation of American citizenship does not seem to me to meet this test. A child born on U.S. soil is only subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if his parents are so subject. A child born on U.S. soil to foreign national parents is subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign national parents' home country — not to the U.S.

The jurisdiction into which Obama was born — regardless of the actual geographic location of his nativity — is the same jurisdiction to which his father owes his allegiance — i.e., the British Crown. Stanley Ann contributes nothing from her side to remediate any uncertainty on this question, she having been underage when Obama was born.

Thank you so very much, rxsid, for your excellent research here!

138 posted on 05/08/2010 2:02:57 PM PDT by betty boop (Nil desperandum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop
The jurisdiction into which Obama was born — regardless of the actual geographic location of his nativity — is the same jurisdiction to which his father owes his allegiance — i.e., the British Crown. Stanley Ann contributes nothing from her side to remediate any uncertainty on this question, she having been underage when Obama was born.

Indeed. Thank you so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

142 posted on 05/08/2010 7:51:05 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson