Georgia eligibility challenge returns!

And if you look closely at the expressions he's using he's mostly using nationalities, not race.

This would meant that BP was NOT being racist since those quotes were about nationalities and not race. No disagreement here.

This would meant that BP was NOT being racist since those quotes were about nationalities and not race.
Well then go petition for BP's return. It's not my call.

Then maybe Gramps should have been deported.

Funny that in his 90 years, no one ever suggested he wasn’t a citizen. And of course if he wasn’t, then by the same rule my mother wasn’t and I’m not. Is that about right?

I don’t know enough of your family history to say.

Well, if you’re saying that being born here to non-citizen parents means my grandfather was a non-citizen who should have been deported, then doesn’t it follow that his children and his children’s children are also non-citizens who should be deported?

Only if your people reproduce via mitosis.

I think it may have been the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, but I can't be sure. There may have been preceding legislation passed during the war itself.

I assume you're looking into Santorum?

Either you recognize birthright citizenship or you don’t. Either my grandfather, born here to non-citizen parents was a citizen or he wasn’t.

If your great-grandfather was a legal permanent resident, your grandfather would have been naturalized at birth.

The Secretary of State would have been glad to strike Obama from the ballot as long as he didn’t have to take a politically-incorrect stance to do so.

Could you elaborate on the specific language of the Jay Treaty on this? Thanks.

The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ^ | 03/02/2011 | Leo Donofrio, Esq

“The Jay Treaty Strongly Indicates That Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President.

Those who support Obama’s eligibility – despite his admission of dual allegiance/nationality (at the time of his birth) – routinely offer a rather absurd hypothetical which sounds something like this:

“The US is sovereign and not governed by foreign law so British law shouldn’t be considered as to Presidential eligibility. What if North Korea declared that all US citizens are also citizens of North Korea? In that case, nobody would be eligible to be President if dual nationality was a determining factor. Therefore, nationality laws of the United Kingdom are irrelevant.”

Since the US recognizes both Jus Soli (citizenship born of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis (citizenship born of the blood) as to its own citizens, it has also recognized the same claims to citizenship from other nations. It is well established – by a multitude of case law and the State Department’s own foreign affairs manual [a PDF] – that the US government must respect foreign law with regard to dual nationals.

But those who support Obama’s eligibility fail to acknowledge that the far-fetched North Korea hypo has no relevance as to Obama. For we are concerned with the United Kingdom’s nationality laws. And with regard to relations between the United Kingdom and the United States there are numerous treaties which require the United States to respect British law and to recognize the status of “British subject”.

The simple concept I reference is taken directly from Article Six of the US Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Treaties are United States law. In fact, according to the Constitution, treaties are “the supreme law of the land”.

The State Department maintains a list [a PDF] of all treaties which are in effect. Articles IX and X of the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation (Jay Treaty)” are still in effect between the US and United Kingdom. (See pg. 281 of the list which is 291 for PDF pg. counter). That page also refers one to, Akins v. United States, 551 F. 2d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 1977), which states:

“The Supreme Court decided in Karnuth that the free-passage “privilege” of Article III was wholly promissory and prospective, rather than vested, in nature.
The Court stated in comparing Articles IX and III of the Jay Treaty:

‘Article IX and Article III relate to fundamentally different things. Article IX aims at perpetuity and deals with existing rights, vested and permanent in character…’”

So it is Article IX of the Jay Treaty to which we must now turn our attention:

“It is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the dominions of His Majesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and titles therein; and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives and that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as may respect the said lands and the legal remedies incident thereto, be regarded as aliens.”
In order to respect Article IX of the Jay Treaty (and other treaties between the US and the United Kingdom), the United States is required – by the supreme law of the land – to respect the status of “British subjects”. In order to respect the legal rights of British subjects, the US must be able to identify them. The only way the US can identify British subjects is by recognizing and giving authority to British nationality law.

Therefore, regardless of any far-fetched hypos concerning North Korea, or any other country for that matter, the US and the United Kingdom are required by the Jay Treaty to consult the nationality laws of each sovereign state. The Jay Treaty is both US law and British law.

By authority of the US Constitution, the Jay Treaty requires the US to recognize British subjects and to protect these rights. To properly do so, the US must rely on British law in order to recognize British subjects.

So, with respect to Great Britain, the Jay Treaty denies Obama supporters the ability to rely on their favored argument.

BRITISH SUBJECTS ARE NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS US NATIVES ACCORDING TO THE JAY TREATY.

And herein lies the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Pay special attention to the following text taken from Article IX, “…and may grant, sell or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives…”

The statement – “as if they were natives” – strongly indicates that, by this treaty, both countries agreed that British subjects were not “natives” of the US and could not be considered “natives” of the US. Article IX simply carves out an exception to this rule which allows British subjects to be considered “as if” they were natives of the US. There were numerous policies in play at the time this treaty was signed which could have influenced this choice of words. (But more on that in the forthcoming part 2 of this report.)

The plain meaning of these words bears testament to the fact that, by this treaty, the United States acknowledges that no British subject may be considered a “native” of the United States. The treaty also establishes that no US citizen may be considered a “native” of the United Kingdom.

As most of you are well aware, John Jay’s letter to George Washington was responsible for introducing the “natural born Citizen” clause into the US Constitution.

Furthermore, at the time the Jay Treaty was signed, the UK recognized “perpetual allegiance” which meant that no British subject could throw off their required allegiance to the King. Indeed, the theory of “perpetual allegiance” was one of the main causes of the War of 1812. So, just who was and who was not a “native” of the United Kingdom and the United States was an important designation which had grave national security implications.

The Jay Treaty sought to grant the highest form of citizenship rights to those British subjects and US citizens affected by Article IX. Both countries agreed upon the one word they knew would – according to the law of nations – serve the purpose. That word was “natives”. Both states could have agreed that “British subjects” were to receive the same rights as “US citizens” and vice versa, but they didn’t.

They specifically chose the word “natives” because that word had a definitive meaning in the law of nations.

In 1984, the US Supreme Court – in TWA v. Franklin Mint Corp. – stated:

“The great object of an international agreement is to define the common ground between sovereign nations. Given the gulfs of language, culture, and values that separate nations, it is essential in international agreements for the parties to make explicit their common ground on the most rudimentary of matters. The frame of reference in interpreting treaties is naturally international, and not domestic. Accordingly, the language of the law of nations is always to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties.”

The law of nations is “always” to be consulted in the interpretation of treaties. You all know where this is going now, right?

Consider this to be just the introduction. In part 2 of this report, I will go into much greater detail.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP”

From: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/the-jay-treaty-strongly-indicates-that-obama-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/

Donofrio is brilliant, and would make a great Supreme Court Justice.

He is certainly more qualified for the position than any of the current occupants.

I have just noticed yesterday that bushpilot1 has been zotted, and I am at a loss as to explain why. If I read him correctly, he is pointing out what was common knowledge in 1787. Many of the founders were racists.

Well Duh.

I was under the impression that everyone knew this. Apparently it was a revelation to some.

That is not to say that ALL the founders were racist. I posted information pointing out how James Otis was vehemently advocating the abolition of slavery and advocating equality for all people. Samuel Adams was well inspired by him. The efforts of many of the founders went into limiting and abolishing slavery as explicitly written into the Final Document. Even some of the Virginians were not so enamored of it, Thomas Jefferson being but one example.

Abraham Lincoln was horribly racist. I just read something from him yesterday of which I had not been previously aware. From Gerard Vanderleun

"Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form.
"Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world.
"You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.
"Turn it whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent." -- Abraham Lincoln. Speech at Chicago, Illinois | July 10, 1858

Nevertheless, His policies set about making all men equal under the law, as did those of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, etc.

It was the Democrats who have always been the racists, starting with Andrew Jackson (Indian Removal Act of 1830) to Slavery, To Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scot decision, to Nathan Bedford Forest's founding of the KKK, to Margaret Sanger's Eugenics policies, thru Jim Crow, to lynching, to opposition to the civil rights act of 1964, and numerous and sundry subsequent offenses (by Democrats) to the idea that people should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

That someone should be zotted for pointing out that (some of) the founders were racist indicates an excessive sensitivity to the issue in my opinion.

"I have just noticed yesterday that bushpilot1 has been zotted, and I am at a loss as to explain why. If I read him correctly, he is pointing out what was common knowledge in 1787. Many of the founders were racists.
Well Duh.

"That someone should be zotted for pointing out that (some of) the founders were racist indicates an excessive sensitivity to the issue in my opinion."

That was my thought as well. Apparently the moderator felt differently, or took the default safe position that it would be better to forgo giving the benefit of the doubt and instead zot a six-year member rather than take the risk that FR would appear to be somehow "tolerant" of "racism".

I have only been here (officially, lurker for several years) for slightly less than a year. Is there an appeal process? I think Bushpilot1 got a raw deal.

If I understand correctly, he was a Vietnam Era Helicopter Pilot who served in combat. He deserves more consideration.

"Is there an appeal process?"

I don't know that there is a formal one. I suppose an argument could be made directly to the Admin Moderator or even to The Man Himself. That's why I copied Fantasywriter in the forgoing.

It's my understanding that Bushpilot1 and FW were pretty tight, and since FW has been here since 2000, perhaps an appeal from that quarter would carry more weight than one by either you or I, who have relatively recent FR born-on dates.

Thanks for the ping, F_J. It’s not the same w’out bushpilot1. He was a good friend, and did not have a racist bone in his body. He was zotted for less than stellar communication skills. [I.e.: he tried to make a historical point, but didn’t phrase it correctly.] It’s a shame. I miss him A Lot.