Posted on 08/23/2017 3:47:18 AM PDT by GregNH
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, a Republican candidate for US Senate, has cast doubt on former President Barack Obama's citizenship repeatedly and as recently as December 2016, fueling the debunked "birther" movement that sought to delegitimize Obama's presidency.
Moore, who started questioning the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship back in 2008, last year told a meeting of the Constitution Party that he personally did not believe Obama was a natural-born citizen. "My opinion is, there is a big question about that," Moore said when asked how he defines natural-born citizen as it relates to qualifications for president. CNN's KFile reviewed video from the event.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Also, non-citizens have INS files, not just naturalized & green card holders.
Since, per the Lakin case, there is an INS file on 0,
and since only naturalized citizens & green card holders have INS files,
and since per the constitution naturalized citizens & green card holders cannot be president,
therefore 0 can’t be president.
Also, non-citizens have INS files, not just naturalized & green card holders.
Thanks, Wildhighlander57.
I never quite got this thing straight in my mind. If his mother is American, isn’t he American no matter where he was born?
Where'd you get that idea?
Needs more.
To be eligible, he needs to be born here of two US citizen parents.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.
The U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Deep state gave us a zero.We in turn gave them a TRUMP.
Yep - Remember Obama’s statement? It sure worked on liberals, but then, what didn’t?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKZlZHLPrzg
And that would mean the mom (Stanley Ann) would have had to have lived in the US from August 1960 to August 1961.
But there’s a 6 month gap between Feb 1961 and August 1961; she is nowhere to be seen, neither Hawaii nor Seattle.
So, even if she was a single mom, she could not have conveyed US citizenship to 0.
LucyT wrote:
“Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.
The U.S. citizen mother must be the genetic or the gestational mother and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
No. If his mother was above a certain age, he becomes an American no matter where he was born, but the Naturalization act of 1952 (which is the one I think he falls under) says that a mother has to have lived in the United states for so many years after she reaches a certain age, and Stanly Ann Dunham did not meet the requirements. Therefore if he was born in a foreign country, he's not a citizen at all. If he was born in the US, then he is a 14th amendment citizen.
But none of this makes him a "natural born citizen." A Natural Citizen is one who is a born citizen without reference to any law.
The son of a bitch never was President. But thanks to the traitors and America haters he occupied the White House for 8 years. That the Democrat Party nominated, ran , and elected a bastard that was ineligible proves what traitors they are to America. That the Republican Party knew of the scam and was complicit and said nothing proves what traitors they are America.
Baynative wrote: "I never quite got this thing straight in my mind. If his mother is American, isn’t he American no matter where he was born?"
Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii to Stanley Dunham, he was considered "native born"...not "natural born".
Back in the 60's-70's, I was clearly taught that to be considered "Natural born", both the birth mother and birth father had to be "native born" American citizens.
John McCain's birth was legally determined to be Natural born because both his mother and father were 'native born' and thereby qualifying McCain as candidate despite his birth taking place outside of this country.
I cannot qualify for "natural born" status despite being born in PA. My parents were both refugees who became citizens five years after my birth. However, since I was born in the US and my spouse was also born in the US, our children are qualified as Natural born citizens since all were birthed here in the US.
The originals laws on citizenship based on the Constitution place much weight on the citizenship of the father. Onama senior was a Kenyan/Brit citizen, so I doubt at the time of the Founders obama would have been viewed as natural born.
And, as a fan of Ted Cruz, the same.
-PJ
He could have been born in the Lincoln Bedroom and he’d still not be a natural born citizen if Barak Sr. was his daddy.
Political Junkie Too wrote: "I don't think the parents had to be native-born themselves . . ."
Questions would still remain of 'naturalized parents' ... That's why I used myself as an example.
My parents were each refugees arriving separately during the 50's. They met here in the US and married. Assimilation to their adopted culture involved signing up for adult evening classes to learn the language and take citizenship classes.
They eventually 'naturalized' as citizens around the time I was four or five years old. In other words, when I was born, they were not yet 'naturalized' citizens...only legal residents. That makes me a 'native born' citizen, not a 'natural born' citizen.
Back in my school days, this is how it was explained to me. This explanation also increased the 'value' of American citizenship. Only those of "natural born" heritage could one day be president.
See my item #1 in my post #121. I use the language of the Constitution to show the difference between We the People, their posterity, citizens, and natural born citizens.
The issue is important because Kamala Harris is making waves about running for President.
Her mother came from India to go to graduate school here. Her father came from Jamaica for the same reason. They met at Berkeley and married after they graduated. Kamala was born five years after they arrived. Since a foreigner cannot apply for naturalization until after being resident here for five years, it was not possible for either of her parents to even begin the naturalization process when Kamala was born. Therefore, like with Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and apparently you, Harris had two non-citizen parents when she was born here. That means that she is not the "posterity" of "We the People," and is therefore not a natural born citizen - she is just a citizen.
-PJ
First place, let's drop the use of "American" and substitute "US Citizen" just to be clear.
And the issue is birth outside the geographical territory of the United States. Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, a child born in the United States gets US Citizenship in almost all cases, whether his mother is a US Citizen or not. Congress is looking at this question with a view to limiting 14th Amendment citizenship at birth with respect to anchor babies and perhaps other classes but at present the general rule is that a child born in the United States is a US Citizen at birth.
With respect to a child born outside the US, and assuming US Citizen is what you mean, the direct answer is that it depends on when the birth occurs or occurred. The statute has been amended several times and in most cases, modifications have been effective only for children born after a specific date. For example, in 1961, a child born outside the US to a US Citizen mother became a citizen at birth only if the mother had been a US resident for five years after age 14--so by definition a mother who is 18 years old could not confer citizenship on her child delivered outside the US.
In the case under discussion, there is an additional layer of complexity--Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States, a person must have been a "Natural Born Citizen". There is some debate about what that term means and it cannot be viewed as settled law.
Many people here would like to believe that the term excludes persons whose historical ancestry does not demonstrate a long term commitment to the United States. That argument is based on several archaic legal texts some of which may or may not have been accessible to the founders when the term natural born was written into the Constitution.
In the real world, I don't think that argument has much force--the US Supreme Court is a political institution and it is not going that far from general understanding of the printed word. Among other things, the Court has often stated that it considers only the words and not legislative history (what the drafters might have been thinking when they chose the words).
That still leaves open issues however.
The twentieth century understanding of the term was that it meant born within the geographical territory of the United States. However the plain meaning of the words Natural Born Citizenship arguably includes any form of Citizenship at birth--effectively birthright Citizenship.
So the argument for people like Cruz (who may in fact not even qualify under the more liberal reading) who are born outside the US to a mother who is able to pass citizenship at birth is that he was a citizen of right when he was born and thus is that he was Natural Born under that reading.
My own view is that if the Cruz facts really included citizenship under Congressional citizenship law at birth and if the case reached the Supreme Court under circumstances in which he was elected President, the Court would hold the term includes persons born outside the US who had birthright citizenship under then applicable citizenship law.
Maybe not. A person born in another country is born under the sovereignty of the head of state of that country. The historical argument would have been that head of state would have some control over the person born there. For example, the US claims the power to tax all lifetime world wide income of persons born in the US whether they live here or not; whether they want to be citizens or not.
The real bottom line result should probably exclude persons born outside the US but the legal issue is a close call and a political resolution may not get the correct result.
The issue came up in 1964 with respect to Goldwater who was born in the territory of Arizona prior to statehood under circumstances in which the area in which he was born was claimed by Mexico. At the time, Goldwater was running ahead of the incumbent Jack Kennedy in the polls so the Dems took the position that he was ineligible. By the time of the election, the issue was no longer relevant.
Thank you.
Ping to # 212, 216, 217 (mentions Kamala Harris,) 218.
Thanks all.
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.
![”Image](http://i61.tinypic.com/i6e5jm.jpg";;)
![”Image](http://i44.tinypic.com/9ulyxd.jpg";;;)