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

Skip to comments.

Georgia and Birthright Citizenship
American Thinker ^ | February 20, 2012 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 02/20/2012 8:19:49 AM PST by Sallyven

Some interesting events have been transpiring in Georgia over the last few weeks. At least, that is, in the right wing blogosphere's view -- the mainstream media orchestrated a complete blackout. And it wasn't because big media missed the show, since I personally saw them holding the spotlights and cameras. The footage was simply left on the cutting room floor.

[snip]

Judge Malihi has now ruled that no citizen parents are necessary -- essentially putting anchor babies, "birth tourist" babies, and those like Obama, with his dual citizenship and only one citizen parent, on the same "natural born" bus.

[snip]

In Georgia, whether the mainstream recognizes it or not, the ballot challenges have brought both the topic of the grant of citizenship and the inextricably related definition of natural born eligibility into the spotlight.

[snip]

If a candidate, asked about his views on immigration reform and specifically the birthright practice, answered that citizenship should not be granted "solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth," would he be labeled "birther"?

It seems to depend on who's doing the talking, and when. Because that was a quote from Harry Reid's 1993 proposed bill.

How times have changed.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; immigration; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
Another attempt to explain the sweeping significance of the judge's broad ruling in favor of Obama, on citizenship law in this country.
1 posted on 02/20/2012 8:19:54 AM PST by Sallyven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sallyven

When you live in the land of pirates, the Constitution is really a bit more like guidelines. Broken on a whim because of the wants of today.


2 posted on 02/20/2012 8:25:44 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sallyven
Judge Malihi has now ruled that no citizen parents are necessary -- essentially putting anchor babies, "birth tourist" babies, and those like Obama, with his dual citizenship and only one citizen parent, on the same "natural born" bus.

Did Bill Richardson ever face any problems being an anchor baby when he ran for President? Did anyone ever tell him that he was ineligible?

3 posted on 02/20/2012 8:28:33 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sallyven

Article 2
Clause 5: Qualifications for office
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Sure judge, the Framers were simply in a hurry and just repeated themselves—Natural born citizen = Citizen: same/same. It’s just tautology. The Constitution is a living, breathing instrument. Words are not crystals, immutable and unchanging but rather are the skins of living thought and they mean whatever we say they mean, because all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others; that is, when I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean, and nothing more, and so forth and so on in Wonderland.


4 posted on 02/20/2012 8:29:31 AM PST by tumblindice (Whitey-American: Taxed Enough Already)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: All

how many times has immigration laws changed in the USA?

Immigration laws are constantly changed.

Originally whe had no immigration laws.
then the individual states controlled it.
then it becaume national
then we had quotas
and since then every ten years or so we have had reforms.

through out all that there have been two types of citizens, those who became citizens and born elsewhere and those who were citizens by being born on american soil. That is it.

Instead of focusing on changing the law one more time, this focus on the 2008 election only serves to make a change for iron clad clarity next to impossible.


6 posted on 02/20/2012 8:42:10 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Simple question: do you believe your children meet the NBC eligibility requirements for the office of POTUS or VPOTUS as intended by the founders of our nation?


7 posted on 02/20/2012 8:42:15 AM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota
Georgia's charter of 1732 recognized two types of persons at birth: the natural born subjects and denizens, based on your birthright ... or who you were born to:
wee Do for us our Heirs and Successors declare by these Presents that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said Province and every of their Children and Posterity shall have and Enjoy all Liberties Franchises and Immunities of Free Denizens and natural born Subjects within any of our Dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this our Kingdom of Great Britain or any other of our Dominions

Denizens are basically legal alien residents, but they are not citizens, thus their children are born as free denizens. Lest there be any doubt that these are separate classes of inhabitants, the next quote from the charter affirms it.

... by these Presents Granted to the said Corporation unto such of loving Subjects Natural born or Denizens or others that shall be willing to become Subjects and live under our Allegiance in the said Colony upon such Terms

By their own state history, there's a difference in class between those who are natural-born and those who are born as legal residents ... the denizens. The birthright of "our heirs and successors" is divided by class. They didn't just say, "You were born here so now you are a natural-born subject," so the jus soli argument is defeated by this state's own historical legal compact.

8 posted on 02/20/2012 8:43:37 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
Simple question: do you believe your children meet the NBC eligibility requirements for the office of POTUS or VPOTUS as intended by the founders of our nation?

Yes, I do.

9 posted on 02/20/2012 8:50:27 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Was Richardson’s father a U.S. citizen??


10 posted on 02/20/2012 8:50:56 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sallyven
Malihi is a low level Administrative Law Judge, not much higher then a Justice of the Peace.

The obvious thing is for this to be taken a lot further.

The real story here is not Malihi's obsequiousness but the obstructionism of the rest of the Georgia legal system - clearly there is a Ruling Party edict filtering down to "kill this thing" - and the unbelievable arrogance of the Prince and his agents in sneering at the entire process.

The central feature of Anglo-Saxon law is that the King is not above the laws.

Quite aside from the fact that in our Republic, the people are sovereign and we have no King, it is commonly understood that our President is a quasi-King, a guy who gets a pass on a lot of things at least for a few years of his life.

But the unspoken truth is that you don't ignore the system in doing that. The system is merely used to legitimise what you do - that's what all those White House lawyers are for...

And they crossed the line on that, and did so openly.

Now they have a ruling that blows open the whole damn thing - so the son of the Chinese Communist party leader can be President of the U.S. just because his mommmy dropped him in L.A. on a shopping trip?

There's no walking backwards on this one. As usual, to accommodate a black affirmative action case, rules were relaxed to the point of meaninglessness - but we're talking about who rules us now.

The guy should have never been anything past state senator.

This needs to be a grudge match. The Republican Party has been AWOL on this thing for the usual reasons: don't want to look "Racist!".

But either they jump in now on the side of sanity or they simply let the whole disaster happen and face the consequences: another freak from the immigration disaster gets put up as a "symbol" who they can't criticize because of his ethnicity but who clearly has no loyalty to the Americans.

Will we end up being ruled by foreigners?

That's what it's about folks. And the answer from the World Socialists is....yeah! We can't wait to take over!

11 posted on 02/20/2012 8:51:15 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

The blame can hardly be placed on the modern era alone. The entire natural-born clause has never been rigorously enforced. There was the election of Chester A. Arthur with a Canadian father in 1880. Charles Curtis’s mother didn’t hold American citizenship, and was in fact a Kaw, yet he was elected in 1928. Wikipedia has a long list of other potential presidential or VP candidates in major parties that had questions as to their qualifications as natural-born citizens, but who still ran. Heck, even on this forum, there are many who would like to see Rubio as a VP candidate, despite the fact that at his time of birth, neither of his parents held American citizenship.


12 posted on 02/20/2012 9:02:10 AM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; Regulator

Wonderful! Regulator says it better than I can...

>>> Now they have a ruling that blows open the whole damn thing - so the son of the Chinese Communist party leader can be President of the U.S. just because his mommmy dropped him in L.A. on a shopping trip? <<<


13 posted on 02/20/2012 9:08:28 AM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
America has been stolen by foreign invaders and communists.

Nobody stole anything. It was willingly sold, bartered, and traded for power, redistribution of weatlh programs, and feel good circular reasoning/self justification (because its "historic," or to prove you're not homoracisexophobicist).

Some of us may feel we've been cheated or robbed. Suppose you are married (repubs married to dems/black to white/men to women) and you share the household (country) together.

Sometimes you and your spouse disagree. You disagree severely and argue and fight and at times, your marriage appears about to rip apart. Your spouse decides they want to sell all of the dining room furniture and use the money to plant plastic pink flamingoes in the front yard....for the children of course

You stand by and watch as your spouse enlists the children's help. Together, they carry out the chairs, the table, the curio cabinets, the hutch, the dinnerware, the tablecloths, the serving trays, the chandelier. You stand by and do nothing. One after the other....every day a new item is sold off. You don't want to be presumed "mean" or "against the children."

You watch as all of these items are placed on the front lawn and disposed of. To your disgust, useless plastic pink flamingoes are displayed all over your yard; you can no longer use your dining room. As a consolation, your spouse gave you a cheap watch (some miniscule progam of no consequence the [R] party votes for so they don't feel completely raped), which you willingly accepted so you didn't feel left with nothing.

Can you blame your spouse when they want to sell the bedroom or living room furniture to satisfy some needless desire? Can you really say that the furniture was stolen when you did nothing to stop it? Would it be any wonder that your spouse realizes they can't sell off everything, so they begin to purchase with credit cards...and then more and more credit cards? If you do nothing to stop it, why would it stop? If your children grow up in this environment, why is it a surprise that they squander real assets and freedoms for cheap thrills and nonsense....all on credit?

If we allow things to be taken from us.....it isn't robbery.

I admit that deception has been used. But we were not robbed. We willingly gave away tomorrow for today and we've been doing this since right around WWI; we accelerated under FDR, took off like a rocket with Johnson's 'Great Society' and went into hyperdrive with Hope and Change.....now the bill is coming due.

This is with everything.....laws, freedoms, economics. None of them exist in a vaccuum. "Is" doesn't really mean "is" and is now hard to define. "Natural Born" doesn't mean anything. No legal tender money coined except gold and silver now equals fiat paper not backed by gold or silver. Legislation now needs to be passed in order to read what was legislated.

14 posted on 02/20/2012 9:10:36 AM PST by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
It's taken a usurper of Soebarkah's magnitude to bring to light the compelling reasons why our founders contemplated and instituted the NBC clause into our Constitutional fabric.

I agree that the original intention has all but been ignored. One need only look to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and to the destructive policies of it's occupant(s) to derive the lessons of consequence, as the NBC clause is NOW for all intent and purpose; meaningless.

Is Georgia's latest ruling the period at the end of the sentence?


15 posted on 02/20/2012 9:33:06 AM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
“how many times has immigration laws changed in the USA?”

This is the WRONG question. (on purpose I'm sure, no sarc)

The right question is ....

how many times has “Natural Born Citizen” status, in Clause 5, been changed changed? Constitutional amendment required.

NEVER.

Now, Amendment XII “.... But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” only ADDS Vice President to Clause 5.

The Constitution is the SUPREME “Law of the Land”. Get used to it.

16 posted on 02/20/2012 9:41:35 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

No sane Judge will accept an appeal and review that decision if they value their career or life.

The “ law “ now is, a Saudi Prince can have his wives birth babies on USA soil and a Foreign Prince can also be President of the USA.

Barry Soetoro`s job is done here.


17 posted on 02/20/2012 9:52:06 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Chester Athur hid the facts and it was only discovered years later that he was not elig.
Candidates elig have been challenged but none who was inelig became the pres/vp.

So there was no precedent set, i.e. until obozo!

Now they are floating names of inelig candidates because they think precedent has been set - to them there is no more nbc requirement!


18 posted on 02/20/2012 9:58:46 AM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sallyven

No matter what the argument, one thing is perfectly Clear//

Judge Mahili did what he was told to do.


19 posted on 02/20/2012 10:14:58 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

Who profits from destroying the USA we once knew? What do the communists gain?

Is it just power? International bankers who never have enough? Muslims who want world domination?

Maybe all....the enemies of freedom seem to be everywhere now - out in the open and proud of it.


20 posted on 02/20/2012 10:39:51 AM PST by Aria ( "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

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