Posted on 05/30/2012 6:10:45 AM PDT by circumbendibus
Birtherism -- the belief that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not in the United States -- pretty much died last year when the White House released a copy of the president's long-form birth certificate showing he was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. After that, the number of Americans who doubted Obama's place of birth dropped dramatically.
But not to zero. In recent days, there has been a mini-resurgence of birther talk, from Arizona, where the secretary of state questioned Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot, to Iowa, where some Republicans want to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility for office.
The talk has gone beyond Obama, with some buzz on the Internet suggesting Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a leading Republican vice presidential contender, is not a natural-born American citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
IOW, both the alien’s child and the US citizen parents’ child are “citizens,” but only the US citizen parents’ child is a natural born citizen.
My couzin and her husband were livinbg on a US base in Poitiers, france between 1961-1964, during which time two daughters were born to them.
Both girls received a letter from the US government and one from the French government when they reached the age of 21 years. They were required to announce then as adults what their citizenship preference was. Of course, they chose to be US citizens. Prior to that time, both were considered to possess dual citizenship.
My biggest concern with Obama’s status is that his Mother was well-known to be an anti-American person. Stanley Ann married two foreign men who were both Muslims. So, I think his status is more confusing than most. She was thought to be an ex-patriot. So, what exactly was her status? Did she renounce her allegiance to the USA?
As for Marco Rubio, he was born in the USA to immigrants who were not yet naturalized. It’s a different scenario.
When I was growing up in the 50’s, I was told that any person who was born in the USA was automatically a citizen. That is the rationale for all the Mexican/Latino illegal immigrants, is it not? To give birth to anchor babies?
When I was growing up in the 50’s, I was told that any person who was born in the USA was automatically a citizen. That is the rationale for all the Mexican/Latino illegal immigrants, is it not? To give birth to anchor babies?Here's where there seems to be a bit of confusion. The actual law states: "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
However, from my earlier post we know that Trumbull and the Senate Judiciary Committee meant "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean "not owing allegiance to anyone else." The US-born children of aliens may very well owe allegiance to other sovereigns/nations depending on their parents' country's nationality laws.
Unfortunately, the actual intent of the 14th Amendment is little known because the US school system does such a poor job of teaching US History, and activist judges have expanded the interpretation of the jurisdiction clause WAY beyond its original intent.
"What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means"there's several more explanatory statements that you seem to have omitted (Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2893 of 384):
“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 themand continues on (next column)
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."Jurisdiction means “subject to our laws.” Diplomats were not “subject to our laws.” Indians were mostly outside the jurisdiction of our laws, because they were held to be under Tribal authority akin to living in a sovereign foreign nation even while within US borders. Are you claiming that a child born in the US of a foreign father (non diplomat), while in the US is not "subject to our laws"?
You are just muddying the water. What do indians have to do with this thread? WKA defined what a NBC is. I gave you the quote from Madison describing birth as more important than parentage and it is the U.S. policy to ignore foreign parents PROVING that our framers with the exception of John Jay had NO concern about divided loyalty.
And even Jay didn’t say the president shouldn’t have foreign parents - he just didn’t want a foreigner to sit in the office. There isn’t conclusive proof that Jefferson’s mother was a citizen before Thomas was born; not that it has any bearing since he was grandfathered in.
Believe what you want but know this. There is no judge, politician, political analyst, conservative talk show host, NO ONE who believes birther propaganda - maybe 1 out of a 1000 if you do manage to find an odd ball and quite a few of them are on this forum. There is no written document that says (even by logic) that you need citizen parents unless you are born overseas.
I have visited birther websites out of curiousity. Just about all of them solicit contributions. Leo Donofrio must have made a fortune because I heard he quit law and as we speak Apuzzo is getting his hat handed to him by 3 judges in NJ. Let’s hope he doesn’t get fined for wasting the court’s time.
If we could just focus on finding more productive ways to get Obama out of office, that time would be better spent than messing around with this stuff.
You say, “The Framers were very aware of the fact that location of birth alone does not command automatic allegiance.” Yet Madison said it is birth alone that is U.S. policy. Who do I believe, you or Madison?
Great pickup! I didn’t take the time to research the Trumbull reference Rides3 referred to. Sometimes it just isn’t worth the time or effort. But you nailed it down.
I thought it was just Elizabeth Warren who claimed to be Cherokee. I didn’t realize Obama had followed suit...
The belief that there are ‘native citizens’, born in the USA from alien parents, and NBC, born in the USA of citizen parents, is false.
As noted in the 1913 US Supreme Court decision:
“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/231/9/case.html
I had the advantage of having done all this for similar threads in the past. Lots of cherry picking occurs, and lots of self delusion because people (understandably) want a short cut so badly.
“Today, an illegal alien who drops a baby on this side of the border - the child is considered a “natural born american”
Not so, except in the media, and among certain members of the looney left.
In order to provide cover for Obama, the eligibility question is restated, intentionally it seems, (I’ve heard it incorrectly stated 3 times today on the radio), to one of simply birthplace. That is not the Constitutional standard and they well know it.
Obama’s oft quoted “I was born here, I am a citizen.” is not sufficient to make him eligible per Article II of the Constitution.
Funny how even on the threads here on FR, born citizens, which both Rubio and Obama appear to be, magically become “Natural Born Citizens” at the drop of a hat, without any concern to what that exactly means historically.
Like in the World of Dogs, a pedigree poodle bred to a mutt will not result in a pedigree poodle puppies. The AKC would protest. Yes, that breeding will result in born puppies and eventually they’ll grow into dogs....but pedigree poodles?.....No. Not ever.
Obama’s father, Barack Obama according to Jr., sits in the middle of the parlor like a pink elephant, and no one seems to notice.
Obama is a mutt.
Obama is a mutt - no argument from me, I’d even go further but let me tell you he is a mutt who is a natural born citizen of this country IF his birth certicicate is legitimate.
There are a lot of people on this forum that wish there was a two parent rule but wishing doesn’t make it so and wishing offers no concrete proof and a million words of bullshit doesn’t make it so either.
We are a nation of laws and the SCOTUS has declared that aliens can produce NBC’s. An Arizona court ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen - it’s in writing.
That battle is over. The law has spoken and it is time to obey the law of the land. Got a problem with that?
Any time I have put up proof that this country is based on jus soli, I never get an argument about that. I ALWAYS get a bunch of other crap that is nitpicked from who knows where.
I’ll ask you this and ask for a direct answer.
What did Madison mean when he said: 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 IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
I see you didn’t lose your “stuff” on Paine when they pulled that thread. Keep beatin’ that drum! I’ve got my own fife and bugle going on too. Actually I’m trying to work my way through “The Age of Reason.”
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdictionExactly.
Now let's see what the US State Department says about dual nationals like Obama..."Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person's allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws"
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Those born dual nationals, like Obama, are NOT born completely within US jurisdiction. As the US State Department declares, either country to which the dual national owes allegiance has the right to enforce its laws, and dual nationals are required to obey the laws of both countries.
As you know, it's all about winning the hearts and minds. ;-)
I wish I knew what happened to that other thread. I was away for a few days and missed the end of it. I try to keep it civil and not make it personal. I say my piece and let the readers decide.
I hate it when these threads degenerate into a "you're a liar, no you are" back and forth. A part of me is wondering if that's becoming an intentional tactic to get damaging threads pulled by the mods before the masses get to see them.
Having these debates archived for others to search on is very nice, especially if the source article is agitprop or psyops. Using abuse as a weapon to get them tossed is a shame, if that's what's going on.
-PJ
-PJ
it is the U.S. policy to ignore foreign parentsYou seem to be just making stuff up. Read the US State Department publication I posted, above. It most definitely is NOT US policy to ignore foreign parents. Those born dual nationals, including those born to a foreign parent, are required to obey the laws of BOTH countries to which they owe allegiance. The US State Department explicitly states such. Foreign parents are NOT ignored.
Sorry, to disagree.
Minor, and other USSC decisions have have consistently defined NBC as ‘born in country to citizen parents.’ That is settled Law in the US. What was left open in Minor was the question of what other qualities of birth resulted in citizenship. (born citizenship, we all know what naturalized citizenship means) Not Natural Born Citizenship, that was understood, but just old plain wrapper citizenship. Simply put, Minor breached the issue of: “Who else BESIDES NBCs are citizens at birth?”
The Justice did list several circumstances that did not meet the NBC standard, but were recognized by various jurisdictions as being citizens at birth. Who is a citizen at birth was a question left open in Minor, but NOT who was an NBC.
Later Wong Kim Arc decision partially answered the open ended question posed in Minor. The Court, using the 14th Amendment, ruled at persons born in the US to parents legaly residing in the US, and in aliegence to it, were to be considered citizens. Not Natural Born Citizens, but citizens none the less. At the same time the cout was careful NOT to create “classes” of citizenship, noting that all citizens shared in the same rights of citizenship.
The qualities of birth that we consider to result in a born citizen has evolved over time, and is in fact still evolving, however, the definition of natural born citizen in it’s historical context has not, and can not change. It is not a matter of everchanging laws that makes this so, and pouriong over and arguing laws and legal decisions will not change the simple intent of the Framers when they used that term in writting Article II of the Constitution.
The logic used in Vittals “Law of Nations” in his use of the term NBC and the importance of those individuals to a nation’s stability and continued existance is as valid today as it was when Vittal wrote those words in 1757, and when the Founders read those very same words and applied them to the eligibility requirements for the highest office in the land.
To try and argue otherwise is just plain wrong.
Yes, Obama is a mutt, as we both agree, so why is he in center ring of the Westminster Dog Show? He hasn’t the Pedigree. Usher??????
That quote doesn’t help you, because it’s citing Minor which said that only the “native” citizens born to citizen parents were eligible for the office of president. It doesn’t say all native citizens are elegible. And notice how it doesn’t quote Wong Kim Ark regarding eligibility for president. Thanks for disproving your entire belief system. What an idiot.
The Arizona court’s conclusion is not founded by the legal precedent in Wong Kim Ark. It cited and affirmed the exclusive Minor definition of NBC. The Ankeny decision admits that there was no legal precedent in Wong Kim Ark to declare anyone not born of citizen parents to be natural-born citizens. The Arizona court simply brushes this aside with a very flawed misinterpretation of the natural-born citizen predent, which actually is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Regardless of the arguments here or anywhere else about Obama’s eligibility... Obama himself obviously believes that he has an eligibility problem. Why else would he choose to endanger his presidency by releasing a poorly done forgery.
I have been using photoshop since version 2.5. There are so many problems with the document released that it boggles the mind. If the person responsible has already come to an untimely demise... I would almost have to support Obama on that decision. The person mixed fonts of different resolutions. They didn't try to maintain font spacing. They didn't bother “flattening” the image... in the document released you could still move the seal anywhere you wanted on the page. I could produce a better forgery in the next twenty minutes. How Obama has managed to keep the evidence presented by a legitimate law enforcement agency from being reported by the media is beyond me.
When I asked why they thought Obama claimed to have been born in Kenya for 16 years and through several revisions in the bio from his literary agent... that question was deleted immediately.
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.