Posted on 08/30/2011 5:13:00 AM PDT by tutstar
Evidence continues to mount that President Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, raising concerns over his presidential eligibility.
Obama’s American mother, Ann Dunham, separated from her first husband, Barack Obama Sr., in 1963 when the president was 2 years old. Dunham and Obama Sr. are reported to have later divorced.
In Hawaii, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, in 1965 and moved to Indonesia in October 1967.
Divorce documents filed in Hawaii on Aug. 20, 1980, refer to Obama as the “child” of both Soetoro and Dunham, indicating a possible adoption in the U.S.
The divorce records state: “The parties have 1 child(ren) below age 18 and 1 child(ren) above 18 but still dependent on the parties for education.”
(Excerpt) Read more at kleinonline.wnd.com ...
This is what I’m saying:
“People who think that being born of foreign enemies of the US, on US soil, and then raised as a foreigner and taught to hate the US, makes a person a NB[American]C have no conception of what a true American citizen is. They are so caught up in legalism and endless, increasingly absurd labyrinthine nitpick-style argumentation they’ve lost all sight and conception of the Founders’ goal. It was to protect and preserve this great nation. Thank goodness the Founders had greater wisdom than the soil-only crew.”
Yes. It is an indication that one of the foremost legal and Constitutional scholars from the first half of the 19th century believed that there were two forms of citizenship, natural-born and naturalized. And that children born in the U.S. were natural born-citizens, regardless of the nationality of their parents. Remember, this conversation started when I replied to your post 75 and your allegation that you could find few quotes supporting against the "two citizen parents" argument. I've produced two. And if that third person you're speaking of is James Madison, who said in 1789:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
Then that makes three indisputable Constitutional authorities who disagreed with Vatel's definition of natural-born citizen. So the idea that everybody who was anybody in the U.S. in the 18th and 19th centuries swore blind allegiance to Vatel and his claim that only citizen parents could produce a natural-born child, and then only in the U.S. is just not correct. At the same time all three clearly disagree with the idea that there are more than two types of citizenship.
Ahem-
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
-----
For those of us who prefer actually having clickable sources for our positions; Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor
Your previous post was rather cherry-picked concerning Story's opinion:
With these principles in view, let us now come to the consideration of the question of alienage in the present case. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776,
he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.
If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.
The time-line here is very important as he is ONLY a citizen if his birth occurred during the time when the area of his birth was in contention....from the time of the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Revolution.
UNLESS his parents themselves became American citizens after the Revolution, he was STILL A BRITISH SUBJECT.
Your post insinuates Story's opionion was that anyone born on American soil was automatically an American citizen..... and that is certainly not the case.
OK, sure.
So we can agree that being born in America of an American and an American ally and raised in America by an American grandparent doesn’t create the same level of problem, right?
I will get back to you if and when more of Obama’s secret records are revealed.
So she needs to time her pushes with the orbit. :)
Seriously, this is a sensible standard for citizenship? Happening to be over American territory when born makes you a "natural born citizen" ?
Well it was a rather silly example to begin with.
Happening to be over American territory when born makes you a "natural born citizen" ?
According to U.S. law, yes. But it's worse than that. Say a Canadian woman flying British Airways gives birth over New York state. Since international law recognizes the aircraft as the territory of the country that the carrier originated in then the child could conceivably be a Canadian-US-British citizen.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The children of foreign diplomats and occupying forces have always been excluded from jus soli. If you read the debates on the civil rights bill and the 14th amendment, you will see several Senators, such as Senators Williams, Morrill, Trumbull, Cowan, etc. take it as given that the children of aliens except as excluded (children of foreign diplomats, etc.) would be natural born citizens by this amendment.
Here is Senator Jacob Howard's speech introducing the 14th amendment:
The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the original States citizens of the United States. And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; [emphasis added]You will note two categories only - birth or naturalization.
The time-line here is very important as he is ONLY a citizen if his birth occurred during the time when the area of his birth was in contention....from the time of the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Revolution.
UNLESS his parents themselves became American citizens after the Revolution, he was STILL A BRITISH SUBJECT.
If you read down to the portion marked Page 28 U. S. 167, you find this
To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. This is clear from the whole reasoning in Calvin's Case, 7 Co. 6, a. 18, a. b. [Footnote 11] Now in no just sense can the demandant be deemed born within the ligeance of the State of New York, if, at the time of his birth, his parents were in a territory then occupied by her enemiesSo it was not that his parents hadn't elected American citizenship, but rather than he was born in occupied territory, controlled by Britain. In effect, he was not born in the United States. This is also seen page 128 U.S. 189 where he would not be a US citizen "If he was born after the British took possession of New York, and before the evacuation on 25 November, 1783".
Perhaps you missed that Justice Story was talking about American citizenship?
There was a time when they meant virtually the same thing, [native born and natural born - ed] but the Cable act and the Women's citizenship act changed that. (Native born dual citizens)
The Cable act nowhere says that it makes a distinction between native born and natural born. As for "Women's Citizenship Act" that comes up as a synonym for the Cable Act, or possibly applies to a 1907 or a 1933 or a 2001 statute - which did you mean?
Of the above, only one can claim no foreign allegiances whatsoever, and that is the standard defined by Vattel and cited many times by name and/or by definition subsequently throughout our history.
It's a very pretty list, but the distinctions you make are not in the Constitution, and in the 14th amendment debate the words "native born" and "natural born" are used interchangeably. Further, Common Law is cited by name or definition frequently through our history and law. I will again bring up Rogers vs. Bellei, supreme court case which said
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
His US Passport was given to him when he became a Senator. It happens automatically. There is no proof of his Citizenship.
He is the how it is supposed to work. Millions of people voted for you because you told them certain things that they then believed. Then you spend untold amount of money hiding your past and your qualification to hold the office that those millions of people GAVE YOU!
Where does the burden of proof lie?
"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
I would say with the people who dispute his qualifications to hold the Presidency. He is already serving as President and CIC, which is prima facie evidence that he is eligible to hold the office. He needs to do nothing until it is proven otherwise.
I have already given you the comments from these people in the last thread we discussed this on. You didn't address those quotes, but instead posted that you wouldn't discuss it further. I'll repost for you:Edward Bates, Attorney General, letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, November 29, 1862
Funny, I recall nothing of significance. Perhaps you saw more importance in them than did I?
We have natural-born citizens, (Constitution, article 2, sec. 5,) not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority; In fact, the mass of our citizens; for all others are exceptions specially provided for by law. As they became citizens in the natural way, by birth, so they remain citizens during their natural lives, unless, by their own voluntary act, they expatriate themselves and become citizens or subjects of another nation
That quote does not support your argument at all.
The Constitution itself does not make tho citizens, (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.
If "natural" were a synonym for "home-born" it's usage would be redundant. That he used both terms indicates that the one thing is not the same as the other. This quote does not support your position either.
Note only two categories -"home born" and "foreign born."
I noticed two categories all right, but not in the way you were expecting. "Natural" and "Home-born" which are complementary but not mutually exclusive. The one word is an adjective of the other.
And our Constitution, In speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
This is closer to something that supports your claim, but it is not so very clear that he isn't using the words "born in a country" as a synecdoche for the vast majority born to citizen parents, as most citizens at that time were. That it isn't mentioned isn't proof that it is excluded. In the legal vernacular of the time it was most probably axiomatic.
A few more quotes for you from the Senate debate on the fourteenth amendment that contradict your point: Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Lyman Trumbull(reply to President Johnsons's Veto), William Horatio Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, pg. 254 (1868).
"And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father."
This quote supports your argument post 14th Amendment, it doesn't support it prior to that. [Hold up.] I found a footnote for this. *
Senator Williams p573 equates "native born" and "natural born" as the same thing:
The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native born citizen of the United States with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States...
Yes he does. For most of US History, the terms native born and natural born were used interchangeably. It wasn't until the Cable act and the Women's citizenship act did the meanings diverge.
Senator Morrill, p 570:
As a matter of law, does anybody deny, here or anywhere, that the native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?...the grand principle, both of nature and nations, law and politics, that birth gives citizenship itself.
There's lots more, but that's a taste.
Only one of the above quotes is not ambiguous. [And I found out even THAT one wasn't necessarily correctly understood as per the footnote. *] As I have mentioned, Most of US History the term "native born" was used interchangeably with "natural born." The population it referred to was for the most part born of citizen parents. The part that wasn't was trivial. What makes your quotes even more interesting is that your interpretation seemingly contradicts OTHER quotes from the Debate on the 14th amendment.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.”
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))
Note the use of the term "Native born" but the Vattel definition of "natural born"?
Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
.
.
* "It is important to keep in mind when reading 300 year-old discussions of citizenship to foreigners that all states required foreigners to renounce their allegiance to their country of origin and pledge their sole allegiance to the state as a condition of residency. Therefore, children born to these foreigners even though the father might not yet been a citizen himself were considered born into the allegiance of the state because of their father’s sole allegiance to the state and not simply because of locality."
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
That's it from me for a few days. I have a project I need to focus on. If I can get bits of time here and there, i'll come back and respond.
obumpa
Something I completely understand. Good luck with the project.
"The Constitution itself does not make tho citizens, (it is, in fact, made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former."
If "natural" were a synonym for "home-born" it's usage would be redundant. That he used both terms indicates that the one thing is not the same as the other. This quote does not support your position either.
This is actually quite common in writing, using a dash for emphasis. The dash is used in a very few ways, and has some similarity of use with a colon. It is used to set off a list (obviously no list here), to indicate an abrupt change of subject (obviously not the case here), or for emphasis or explanation (obviously does apply here, where he is equating "natural" with "home born" and "alien" with "foreign born."
This is closer to something that supports your claim, but it is not so very clear that he isn't using the words "born in a country" as a synecdoche for the vast majority born to citizen parents, as most citizens at that time were. That it isn't mentioned isn't proof that it is excluded. In the legal vernacular of the time it was most probably axiomatic.
Good try, but a real stretch. Much simpler is that the nation's attorney general, responding in a letter to a question, says exactly what he means. Especially since this accords with the other two quotes that you dismissed - that born in the United States ("home born") is what a makes a citizen at birth.
For most of US History, the terms native born and natural born were used interchangeably. It wasn't until the Cable act and the Women's citizenship act did the meanings diverge.
As I said in another post, there is nothing in the Cable Act that says these definitions are distinct. If you think there is such a distinction made, please quote the section. As for the Women's Citizenship Act, there are three different acts where that is part of the name. Which are you referring to? Where is the precise language drawing the distinction?
This quote supports your argument post 14th Amendment, it doesn't support it prior to that. [Hold up.] I found a footnote for this. *
Your footnote is from a blog, the blogger's opinion, with no supporting evidence cited. Worthless.
I draw your attention to Senator Howard's speech introducing the 14th amendment:
The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the original States citizens of the United States. And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; [emphasis added]And a few more, Representative Broomhall Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1266 (1866).
There are only two classes of citizens, so far as I can detect, provided for in the Constitution of the United States. In the second article, I think, it is declared that none but a "natural born citizen" shall be president of the United States. That clause, and the one relating to naturalization, implying that there may be naturalized citizens, are the only two clauses designating the classes of citizens within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States."An exchange between Senators Cowan and Trumbull:
Mr Trumbull on page 572:
- Mr. Cowan: “I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, born in this country?”
- Mr. Trumbull: “Undoubtedly;”
- Mr Trumbull: “Under the naturalization laws, the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens... Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?”
The Senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of a child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment [to the Act] so as to make citizens of all people born in the United States who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens;' but upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer."So the concern with allegiance is that even foreign ministers owe "a sort of allegiance" and they did not want to make children of foreign diplomats into American citizens.
As to your trying to bring in the exclusion of Indians to support your point
"Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.
I would point out to you again that the Indian tribes were regarded as akin to separate nations. I will let Senator Trumbull speak to this (Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, p 498):
Our dealing with the Indians are with them as foreigners, as separate nations. We deal with them by treaty, and not by law...
For most of US History, the terms native born and natural born were used interchangeably. It wasn't until the Cable act and the Women's citizenship act did the meanings diverge.
We agree, that "native born" and "natural born" meant the same thing at the time of the Constitution, and the time of the 14th amendment.
You maintain that the meanings changed with two statutes, and that those statutes then changed the meaning of the Constitution? The Constitution trumps any statute, any law short of a Constitutional amendment. Therefore, those interchangeable terms still mean, for Constitutional purposes, the same thing they did in 1787.
This is now out of context, and I have no idea what you mean.
The Cable act nowhere says that it makes a distinction between native born and natural born. As for "Women's Citizenship Act" that comes up as a synonym for the Cable Act, or possibly applies to a 1907 or a 1933 or a 2001 statute - which did you mean?
First of all, I speak of the two acts as a pair, both the 1922 act, and the 1934 act. They are complimentary acts. Secondly, Their stated purpose was not to make a distinction between native born and "natural born", that was the unintended consequence. Allowing women to pass on citizenship created dual citizens where none before existed. American males automatically had natural born citizens because their mates were naturalized on marriage. The Cable act and the Women's citizenship act of 1934 resulted in Males no longer receiving automatic naturalization for their wives, and now females no longer became automatic foreign citizens upon marriage to a foreign males. SPLIT nationality births were the result. Native born no longer meant "natural born" because the parents could thereafter be of different allegiances.
It's a very pretty list, but the distinctions you make are not in the Constitution, and in the 14th amendment debate the words "native born" and "natural born" are used interchangeably.
That is *MY* point! At this time in History, they meant pretty much the same thing. Native born was a synecdoche for "natural born." I pointed out how one Congressman used the term "native born" but described the Vattel definition requirements (not owing allegiance to any foreign country) for "natural born."
Again, the terms diverged after the Cable act of 1932, and the Women's citizenship act of 1934. Prior to that, dual citizen births were not possible.
Further, Common Law is cited by name or definition frequently through our history and law. I will again bring up Rogers vs. Bellei, supreme court case which said
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
Bellei was a citizen by statute only. Natural born citizens are not citizens by statute, but by nature. (English common law statutes are irrelevant to natural born citizen status.) Had he been a natural born citizen, he would have had no residency requirement. Had he been born in America, he would have only been a 14th amendment "citizen" not a "natural born citizen."
Cascade and Herd theory.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/confessions_of_a_birther_evangelist.html
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.