Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Yes you are. 'Naturalized', 'natural born', and your new type, 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen'. Look up 'natural born' in the dictionary. Been in the language 200 years longer than the COTUS has been in existence. If it meant more, other, different or what ever adjective you want to apply from the dictionary definition, wouldn't there be another dictionary definition to evidence that? There isn't another definition, therefore, there isn't another definition.
You know, I’m starting to catch up really fast, since I can skip over most of your posts as you are just spamming the thread and refuse to accept anybody else’s evidence or to provide your own.
The Constitution doesn’t recognize ‘naturalized citizens of the United States.
The Constitution recognizes TWO types of citizens:
Natural born citizens of the United States
and
Citizens of the United States
Is there a place in the Constitution that says ‘naturalized citizens of the United States’ cannot be President? No, there isn’t.
Article II, Section 1:
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.
Unless a ‘citizen of the United States’ was around at the time the Constitution was adopted, they cannot serve as President today.
Our Founding Fathers were ‘citizens of the United States’. They made provisions for themselves to be able to serve as President but that provision expired long ago. James Buchanan was the first President that had to be a natural born citizen in order to serve as President.
The 14th Amendment ONLY defines ‘Citizens of the United States’. It doesn’t not define ‘Naturalized citizens of the United States’. A person that goes through the naturalization process is considered a ‘citizen of the United States’.
Let’s say this. Everyone that is a ‘citizen of the United States’ gets a blue sticker.
Everyone that is a natural born citizen gets a red sticker.
Arnold gets a blue sticker. He is a citizen of the United States because he was naturalized here. He is NOT a ‘naturalized citizen of the United States’. The 14th Amendment says anyone naturalized in the United States is a ‘citizen of the United States’.
Anchor Baby (provided his parents aren’t foreign diplomats, enemies of the US, or native Indians) gets a blue sticker. Wong Kim Ark was a ‘citizen of United States’ by virtue of being born on US soil.
Barack gets a blue sticker. He is a citizen of the United States because he was born on US soil to a British Subject and a US citizen.
This is from FactCheck:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
Please read the last line. How can a Natural born citizen’s status be ‘governed’ by Great Britain?
Perkins V. Elg says the child is a ‘citizen of the United States’.
Not a natural born citizen.
LOL!! Good one!
It’s not that there was or wasn’t a decision, nothing was reported by the Court. No one knows for sure. At this point it is all conjecture. A decision could have been made, late in the day, and it simply wasn’t reported. Leo was again on Plains Radio last night. He is pessimistic by nature, yet he’s maintaining a degree of hope. Leo took calls last night from the audience. Some where nonsensical, others upbeat; in the vein of encouragement.
If he was born in the US. The evidence that he was not, or rather, lack of evidence that he was, is becoming very compelling.
I have to get back to my personal life for a while, I'll finish catching up later
“1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
‘And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States’.”
Was not Obama’s father a resident of the U.S., given that he was here legally before Obama was born? I don’t see how this definition is substantially different from the 14th amendment’s definition.
“Please read the last line. How can a Natural born citizen’s status be ‘governed’ by Great Britain?”
Why should we care whether the United Kingdom’s laws address the progeny of it’s colonials? We fought two wars with them and made it quite clear we were not subject to their jurisdiction. Why would you assume we’re forced to succumb to it because some pasty-faced socialist gets enough votes in Whitehall to pass a bill about their own business?
I maybe muddied the waters a bit on tossing in War of 1812 as it didn’t settle “natural born” but rather was simple, direct refutation of the British claim, and affirmation of then very clear definition of what I’ll call at minimum: regular American citizenry. That some of these enforced conscripts were eligible to become president being born at time of Constitution’s ratification was the LONE further permission beyond “natural born”.
I simply want to underscore Donofrio’s (and Madison’s) point that reverse application of the British claim is very much in play in both what the founders intended to counter with further test of ArtII Sec 1 AND the failure of Bam Bam to pass the same test. British subjects of any “political” education such as Bam Bam’s (known) papa should have known better. The “crown” makes its stinking “realm” a possibilty and we have to remove ourselves by a generation from the pestilence thanks to “Mother England” stench. Sorry, thems the rules.
A proven forgery (link on this thread). Why would he do that if he's not hiding anything?
"Hawaii officials verified the original is on file in Honolulu."
But not its contents.
My mother, an American citizen, worked for the Pakistani embassy in Bonn as a translator for several years including 1981. I'd guess from this admittedly circumstantial evidence that relations weren't quite as chilly as has been presented. I had Pakistanis in my American school at that time. I still have the plaque they gave her.
“The Constitution doesn’t recognize ‘naturalized citizens of the United States.”
Yes it does. Please reread the 14th amendment. It uses the word “naturalized” to refer to citizens who become citizens after their birth.
“The Constitution recognizes TWO types of citizens:
Natural born citizens of the United States
and
Citizens of the United States”
That is correct, i suppose. Naturalized citizens are on an equal footing with all other citizens, except in regards to the presidency, which requires you be born a citizen. So, in that sense, there are two types of citizens: those who can be president and those who can’t.
“Is there a place in the Constitution that says ‘naturalized citizens of the United States’ cannot be President? No, there isn’t.”
Of course there is, and you go on to quote it presently. The Constitution says that to be president, you have to be a natural born citizen. If you were naturalized, then by definition you were not born a citizen, and are therefore not a natural born citizen.
“Unless a ‘citizen of the United States’ was around at the time the Constitution was adopted, they cannot serve as President today.”
I cannot make sense of this sentence. The exception you refer to was created to grant the founding generation presidential elligibility. This was necessary because they were all older than the United States, and as such could not be natural born citizens. Everyone born a citizen after the passage of the 14th amendment, on the other hand, is in fact a natural born citizen, in my view.
“The 14th Amendment ONLY defines ‘Citizens of the United States’. It doesn’t not define ‘Naturalized citizens of the United States’. A person that goes through the naturalization process is considered a ‘citizen of the United States’.”
It does indeed define citizens of the U.S., including people born as citizens of the U.S., who are, by extension of my logic, natural born citizens.
“Everyone that is a natural born citizen gets a red sticker.”
And how do you pick which citizens get to wear a red sticker? Does a genie tell you something about Article II, Section I that I don’t know?
“Anchor Baby (provided his parents aren’t foreign diplomats, enemies of the US, or native Indians) gets a blue sticker. Wong Kim Ark was a ‘citizen of United States’ by virtue of being born on US soil.
Barack gets a blue sticker. He is a citizen of the United States because he was born on US soil to a British Subject and a US citizen.”
Why do they get blue stickers? Please tell me what part of the Constitution denies them red stickers.
“Please read the last line. How can a Natural born citizen’s status be ‘governed’ by Great Britain?”
Uh, I’m not responsible for FactCheck’s language. I suppose it’s perfectly fine to say that Great Britain “governs” how they view Obama’s citizenship status, just as the U.S. governs its own business. The U.S. government doesn’t care who the Brits recognize. We take care of our own, thank you very much.
“A proven forgery (link on this thread).”
“Proven” by whom? I followed a lot of these links and they all ended back at Berg and his compatriots. Having some experience enduring the photo “proof” of 911 conspirators that the Pentagon never got hit etc. I’m a little leery of said ‘proof’ from that quarter. I also came across rebuttals more compelling that claimed those experts either didn’t know their business or were fudging on the supposed ‘discrepancies.’
“Why would he do that if he’s not hiding anything?
If it’s fake, why would they do it at *all?* If there was something to hide, trying to pass a fake off to the world on the internet would seem the height of lunacy. Better to release nothing than to damn yourself completely with a fake that lots more people outside 911 ‘truthers’ and their ilk would be exposing.
“Perkins V. Elg says the child is a ‘citizen of the United States’.
Not a natural born citizen.”
Well, natural born citizens are citizens from birth, right? And Elg was a citizen from birth, right? Please tell me what part of the Constitution says Elg isn’t a natural born citizen.
“Sorry, thems the rules.”
If you say so. Only, could you tell me where I can find a copy of the rules? Do you have a Secret Constitution, or something? Oh, is it Dick Cheney’s Shadow Constitution, ‘cause I’ve been wanting to read that.
Welcome to 1933 Nazi Germany.
Tublecane- the Founding Fathers “in their wisdom” made the rules. I had them posted in my clubhouse in Spanky-form, which went something like this (I don’t have copy, the cereal box I wrote them on got musty):
It not what the Limey skunks or any other deranged legislative body so claims, its that jerk-o-la subjects to its law don’t fully renounce their citizenship and depart...and its just THE FATES that they can’t drop a baby on Uncle Sam’s head. Its the fates the lineage has to wait a generation.
It’s a very small penalty in the scheme of things, really. Its the rules: you come from voracious place attempting this insidious doctrine, we make you wait a generation before you and yours have the very highest right to run our country. Its really very simple. Dare say Spanky and Our Gang would have understood.
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.