Posted on 11/30/2008 6:09:20 PM PST by Red Steel
Citizenship Issue on MSNBC Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the childs birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. The parents would be issued a Certification of Live Birth.
This is not proof of where the child was born. It only proves that the parents claimed Hawaii as their main place of residence for the prior year.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
A natural born citizen, would not be a citizen of any other nation than the United States. That is what "natural born" means. By nature, the child, would be only a US citizen, because both of his parents were US citizens, and NO OTHER NATION, can by law claim him to be under their jurisdiction, at the moment of his birth. That was not the case with Obama. He was, by law, a Citizen of the United Kingdom, the moment he was born, and then, by law, he became a citizen of Kenya on Dec. 12, 1963.
For a more detailed explaination of natural born citizen, see my other related video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2kKN...
“Still the man was elected in a bloody landslide!”
Maybe. Maybe not. When the Chicago political machine is going full steam ahead, brings in ACORN, has voters register and/or vote multiple times, brings in more voters than there are adults in an area, etc., nobody will ever know if he actually won or, if he did, if it truly was a landslide.
Please see post 203 and the Supreme Court decision it references.
The (long) decision makes it very clear that citizenship under the common law and under US law has only been derived primarily derived from place of birth. Only in rare exceptions was the parentage of the child relevant. And, yes, at the time it was the father who was relevant. Given changes during the last century to make the laws sex-neutral, I suspect this has been changed and the mother’s status is now equally relevant.
If you and the baby's father are both natural born citizens and your baby is born in Kenya or wherever, your baby is a US citizen but not a natural born citizen. My understanding of “natural born” means born of two US citizens and born on US soil. This distinction refers only to the President and Vice President per the constitution.
Leo Donofrio’s case assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, Obama’s father was not a US citizen and that made Obama a British subject at birth. Therefore he is not a natural born citizen.
We will just have to wait and see what the SC Justices decide on Friday to see if they will fully hear Donofrio’s case. Also waiting to hear what Obama’s response to Justice Souter is today.
The (long) decision makes it very clear that citizenship under the common law and under US law has always been derived primarily derived from place of birth.
Sorry for the typo.
According to the US Supreme Court in 1898, children born overseas to American parents were considered naturalized by act of Congress, and therefore not native-born or natural-born. Presumably not eligible to be President, although this question was not addressed specifically in the ruling.
Other laws and decisions since may have altered this. Certainly McCain was not born “in the US” in the terms of the 1898 decision.
Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
In the scenario given by Janee the child is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Leo Donofrio’s case assumes that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, Obama’s father was not a US citizen and that made Obama a British subject at birth. Therefore he is not a natural born citizen.
If he was born in Hawaii then the citizenship of his father in this case is irrelevant; Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen. Donofiro's claim is contradicted by federal law. the 14th Amendment, and earlier Supreme Court decisions.
We will just have to wait and see what the SC Justices decide on Friday to see if they will fully hear Donofrio’s case. Also waiting to hear what Obama’s response to Justice Souter is today.
I imagine Obama's response to Justice Souter will mirror his original response to the lower court. That resulted is a dismissal so why change?
Your understanding is not that of the Supreme Court. I suggest you read the decision in US vs. Wong Kim, 1898. It explains the types of citizenship in great detail.
There are only two classes of American citizens, natural-born (citizens at birth) and naturalized (acquired citizenship after birth.)
If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is natural-born. If he was born outside the US, he might still qualify as natural-born through his mother's citizenship, but the question gets a great deal messier.
Meanwhile, the only thing the American Voters have seen is a FORGED Certification of Birth (short form) and nothing else.
Even to the most ardent Obama fans, this is FISHY!!!
VITAL INFORMATION: (please bookmark to show to Obama fans)
Dr. Polarik’s video summarizing that Obama’s Birth Certification is a FORGERY
If you have not already done so, PLEASE sign these two online-petitions:
AND:
Petition from Concerned American Voter
PLEASE pass them on!!
A baby becomes a natural born citizen if a citizen at birth. Either because of being born on US soil, or through being born to a parent who is a citizen.
This idea about parental citizenship - other than being one way to become a natural born US citizen - is very, very unique.
Every anchor baby can grow up to be President, which I personally think is a good thing in the case of Bobby Jindel and my godson.
Where is talk radio on this issue? I’ve heard nada from Rush, Hannity, Ingram, et al.
Other presidents have had more than enough family, friends, neighbors, first and second cousins ( etc.) to testify of their natural born origins that a legal argument was never necessary. No rational person would never have taken it to court due to the preponderance of witnesses.
So?....I say hold Obama to the same standard as other presidents. Where are his cousins, aunts, uncles, neighbors, parish priest, doctor, nurses, photos of his mom holding him on the porch swing, etc.?
Since Obama can not produce the same evidence that other presidents have, I am willing to settle for a valid 10$ birth certificate.
Okay...so it is WIERD that Obama has no history of relatives, friends, and neighbors who are witnesses to his newborn days, but being weird is not enough to keep him from the presidency. If he can provide some form of proof such as a birth certificate or witnesses, give the man the job! .
1. Your parents must be U.S. citizens;
2. You must be born within the United States or on U.S. territory
Again, you are making up requirements out of whole cloth. Article II does not mention either of these conditions.
On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:
John Jay came up with the natural-born citizen requirement, but his letter makes no mention of either of the two requirements you have listed above.
The reason for excluding the U.S. born children of foreign nationals is because of split allegiences and that nations, such as Great Britain, claim the children of its citizens as being born British.
Again, until you can show some support, in the Constitution or in Federal statutes, that natural-born means "born in the US to 2 citizens," the conditions you listed above are purely of your own making.
Senator Obama’s father was a British citizen, and Barack Hussein Obama II was registered as a British citizen at birth by his father!
So what? Dual citizenship is legal under US law and is not a bar to the Presidency.
The question before the court in that case was whether Wong was a citizen of the US or not. The case had nothing to do with whether or not he qualified to serve as President.
You cannot rely on that case for any questions dealing with the definition of natural-born citizen, as that is not an issue dealt with by the court.
First of all, you have to assume that (a) any of them are still alive; and (b) any of them remember one specific birth 47 years ago.
Isn't it extremely odd that nobody wants to bask in the glory of having been present at the birth of supposedly the most "historic" presidential candidate of all time (not to mention the opportunity for lucrative book deals, interviews, etc.)?
Any medical professional who came forth to discuss the birth would be in violation of medical ethics rules regarding privacy, as well as state and Federal medical privacy laws. Medical professionals cannoth reveal that they treated someone or had them as a patient without that person's consent to such revelation.
Just to give you an example, when my wife gave birth to our son a couple of months ago, the hospital would not even tell friends of ours that she was a patient there when they called in to confirm where to send the flowers.
Except for a few exceptions dealing with very rare circumstances, your child would be a natural born US citizen, regardless of where he was born.
“they have a name for babies born without a father, and it ain’t pretty” Jake Roedel, Ride with the Devil.
“Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;”
“If he was born in Hawaii then the citizenship of his father in this case is irrelevant; Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.”
I do not understand. Your first quote does state “of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States”. So how can the citizenship of Obama’s father be irrelevant?
thanks LucyT.
OBAMA ANNOUNCING HIS CABINET FOR NATIONAL SECURITY LIVE
ANY RADIO STATION THAT IS NEWS TALK | DEC 1, 2008 | RACEBANNON
Posted on 12/01/2008 7:57:54 AM PST by RaceBannon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2140820/posts
Scroll up to 223, the post I was replying to. That should make it clear.
As to your question, the citizenship of Obama's father is irrelevant if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His father could be a Martian and Obama would still be a natural born U.S. citizen because of the 14th Amendment, federal law, Supreme Court precedent, and so forth.
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.