Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(vanity)Yet another point of the Natural Born Cit. Requirement
none | 6/23/2012 | myself

Posted on 06/23/2012 6:13:41 AM PDT by urtax$@work

Contemplating about the subjects of Citizen and natural born Citizen , if anything, has shown me that the few words in the Constitution have sooo... many aspects that have been discovered, realized, understood thru discussions here on FR since 2008.

The FReeper postings from individuals across the country with varied backgrounds and educations have shown me all those varied aspects of better understanding of a subject, specifically the qualification aspects to hold federal office in our country.

Sometimes understanding or epiphanies of the NBC issues have come to me when i was not expecting such. The latest instance was yesterday when i was digging thru my college boxes (to show our youngest college bounder) and ran across my US History Survey text and leafed thru it. Flipped back to the appendices to the US Constitution . I was rereading the requirements to hold office and thinking about how to explain to a noob about the issue. ( I would show bar graphs of the stiffer requirements from US Rep to US Sen to President.)

Then it came to me that sometimes its more than just the plain words themselves that describe our laws but it's how the words are ARRANGED. Reread the qualifications of Rep., Sen., and president. There is one thing missing from the presidential citizenship phrase that is in the other two office holders citizen phrases.....It's the NUMBER OF YEARS. There are prescribed years for Rep and Sen to be Citizens. There are NO PRESCRIBED YEARS FOR NBC- which (again) reinforces the idea that it is attained only at birth.

I know NBC has been well discussed here but i don’t recall specifically the lack of prescribed years wording in conjunction with NBC and what that implies. If i did miss this little point in any previous discussion sorry to have wasted your time.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; rubio; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: philman_36
That is, the question of whether or not a person is a "natural born" citizen or not is relevant for only one purpose under our law and that is under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to test the eligibility of a person to hold the office of President of the United States--that was not the issue in Minor.

Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?

That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question. The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious. That is what the Ad Law Judge thought of Orly.

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II--the reference is technically "dicta"--loose language in the opinion from the court. The court called it a holding but it isn't--it has nothing to do with the issue.

51 posted on 06/23/2012 12:05:04 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Rubio’s parents were not naturalized until several years after his birth. Fortunately, the theory that a “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution means something different than the term “natural-born citizen” under federal law going back to 1791 has been disproven for well over a century (President Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject, as was the father of 1916 GOP presidential nominee Charles Evans Hughes). A natural-born citizen of the U.S. is a U.S. citizen at birth, plain and simple, and it is a misreading of the Minor Case to claim otherwise.

Romney should select a runningmate based on who can help him win and be ready to take over as president if need be, not based on a constitutional-law theory with almost no support among legal scholars and judges that apparently would only apply to Republicans (since every suit claiming that Obama is not an NBC due to his father’s citizenship has been laughed out of court). Personally, I think that Rob Portman would be a far better runningmate for Romney than would Marco Rubio, based on the merits, not on unilateral disarmament.


52 posted on 06/23/2012 12:11:32 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; jjotto

“What makes naturalization unnecessary?”

Ummm...naturalization is what makes a non-citizen a citizen. If they are born a citizen, then there is no need. And with a few rare exceptions, if you are born in the USA, or born to two US citizens while overseas, you are born a citizen of the USA - a ‘natural born citizen’, per the understanding of the folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution.


53 posted on 06/23/2012 12:16:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: David
"Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"

That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question.
That is a straightforward question. There either is or there isn't a definition.

The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious.
If the answer is "so obvious" then why don't you answer it with a straightforward answer?
The answer to the question can't be "it's a technical question". That's a statement, not an answer.

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II...
I know the case. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you...Does Minor v. Happersett have within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"

54 posted on 06/23/2012 12:20:11 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: David
I think you are mistaken. Even Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 that the Article II natural-born citizen meant a child of two citizen parents. Plain meaning of the Framers doesn't get better than a book by a Founder written just two years after ratification.

-PJ

55 posted on 06/23/2012 12:22:14 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Brown Deer
I don't even see a more Constitutionally committed Court kicking an elected President or Vice President out over the birthplace of his parents...

Could you see a more, or even a less, Constitutionally committed Court kicking an elected President or Vice President out over the citizenship of his parents?

OK you have got me there--that is sloppy writing on my part.

I didn't mean birthplace where you have it underlined; I meant citizenship.

And the answer is still "no"--if the person elected was born in the United States. And of course "yes" if he was born outside the territory of the several states whatever the citizenship of his parents.

As to the guy in the White House, Barry, his issue is a place of birth problem only whoever his parents were. That is your opinion, correct?

Yes. But with a couple of narrow exceptions, you won't find knowledgeable opinion's to the contrary. The lawyers who have been involved on our side really aren't up to the level of sophistication required here.

The one exception to that is the last ten pages of the opinion for the Congressional Research Service.

He says the answer is the same even for a person born outside the US.

The Liberals would prefer that answer--they would like to strike the Natural Born clause from the Constitution. In my opinion, the Liberal bar and academics got so locked in on the disqualifying element of the place of birth issue with Romney Sr. and Goldwater that I think they would have trouble extricating themselves from that answer--if you get someone born outside the US, absent a strong Liberal reconstruction of the Court that can afford not to be concerned about the history of this language, my view is that the Court would come down on a person born outside the US as not eligible.

...the kid was born in the US but because they were sojourners or other happenstance presence persons, the kid was subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of the place of the parents citizenship.

Isn't that the very case with Sr. who was only here on a student visa?

Good argument but I think the Court would see even the student who was here only for one term as distinguishable. I think the no jurisdiction because of limited contact concept is like the airplane flying across the country that stops in Omaha for fuel where the kid is born. Doesn't take much in the way of contact to attach sovereignty.

Senior was here for at least five years. If his kid was in fact born here, he is natural born.

And since his father was an "alien" (the legal definition) doesn't the citizenship follow the father?

No. That is only the subject of citizenship law of the father's jurisdiction. He might be a citizen somewhere else also. That's how you get dual citizenship. But in the US, born here is a super citizenship right under the 14th Amendment.

56 posted on 06/23/2012 12:31:10 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; philman_36

You missed philman_36 on this, so I took the liberty:

In 1898, the US Supreme Court discussed at length the meaning of both NBC & the 14th Amendment, and concluded they were interchangeable - that anyone who met the NBC clause met the 14th Amendment wording, and vice-versa.

Thus, since 1898, there has been no doubt in the law. A natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen by birth, not needing naturalization. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up your butt. You will notice that no birther arguing for a two citizen parent requirement has EVER won in court. You should also notice that 0 of 50 states agree with them.


57 posted on 06/23/2012 12:37:54 PM PDT by Flightdeck (If you hear me yell "Eject, Eject, Eject!" the last two will be echos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If they are born a citizen, then there is no need.
Well aren't children born of aliens made, or declared, US citizens via naturalization legislation?
58 posted on 06/23/2012 12:38:35 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: David
See this post for one of many references to Paine's writings in The Rights Of Man where he lays out that the intent of Article II NBC was to require a citizen child of citizen parents to be president.

The fact that you refer to "knowledgeable opinion" to the contrary only reinforces that this is lost history. But lost or not, it is what the Framers intended if Paine is to be believed.

-PJ

59 posted on 06/23/2012 12:39:44 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

“Well aren’t children born of aliens made, or declared, US citizens via naturalization legislation?”

No. Not when they are born in the USA.

The US Congress has the power of naturalization, and they can pass laws setting up the criteria for making someone a naturalized citizen. If they are born a citizen, then they do not need naturalization, since they are NBC/14th Amendment citizens.

“This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/case.html


60 posted on 06/23/2012 12:45:24 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
"Would you say that Minor v. Happersett has within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"

That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question.

That is a straightforward question. There either is or there isn't a definition. . . . The answer to the question can't be "it's a technical question". That's a statement, not an answer.

Not so fast. The technical question is not construction of the "natural born" clause; the technical question is settled law about how you read opinions and what the affect of a court decision is.

That's what I am trying to alert the reader to with the statement--the issue in citation of Minor as a holding is not the question of what the natural born clause means; but rather the fact that the decision doesn't address the issue you want to focus on (natural born) at all--the language is just excess verbiage from the court. Technically, the language is what lawyers call "dicta".

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II... I know the case. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you...Does Minor v. Happersett have within it a definition of, or what constitutes, a natural born citizen?"

That's why the answer to your question is "no".

61 posted on 06/23/2012 12:46:20 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
In 1898, the US Supreme Court discussed at length the meaning of both NBC & the 14th Amendment and concluded they were interchangeable - that anyone who met the NBC clause met the 14th Amendment wording, and vice-versa.
What case was that? @ United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
Could you provide the exact words where this was stated since I've given you the link?

Be sure to read this...

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...
And be sure to read this... ...the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Hmmmmm...By virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

62 posted on 06/23/2012 12:50:06 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
See this post for one of many references to Paine's writings in The Rights Of Man where he lays out that the intent of Article II NBC was to require a citizen child of citizen parents to be president.

The fact that you refer to "knowledgeable opinion" to the contrary only reinforces that this is lost history. But lost or not, it is what the Framers intended if Paine is to be believed.

Well it isn't "lost"--but it isn't "law" either.

I don't have my book of the history of the convention handy but as I recall, Paine wasn't even a delegate.

However there are other writings from people who were delegates to the contrary; further, there is an argument that whatever some delegates or observer's thought it meant, particularly with others who thought something else, what it means now is what we say it meant in that context.

The Supreme Court doesn't look much at legislative history on Constitutional interpretations unless the history supports the decision to which the Court has agreed. (Except in Tax Cases.)

Further, you are engaging in a misrepresentation of what Paine actually said. All he said was "native" and yes the arguments about half native and whatnot might or might not mean something but Paine was neither a delegate nor a lawyer and the technical point at issue on meaning of the natural born clause is the ability of a foreign sovereign to exercise authority over the head of state of the United States.

Native was in fact the issue the real delegates viewed as controlling alright--but they viewed it in the legal sense--someone who was born in the territory of the several states so as never to have been subject to the sovereignty of a foreign head of state.

63 posted on 06/23/2012 12:59:17 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
If they are born a citizen, then they do not need naturalization, since they are NBC/14th Amendment citizens.
So to you the 14th Amendment endows natural born citizen status to anyone born in the US, even the children of aliens, both legal and illegal?

Did you miss this right before your snippet?

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
"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,"
and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

Doesn't say they're all natural born citizens, just citizens. Not all citizens are natural born citizens.

And what of this from after your snippet? It's really important as it makes a critical distinction.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

You have to read this stuff in context as you well know.
Nothing makes these people natural born citizens, just citizens.
An alien visiting on a student visa retains his, or her, citizenship due to a dependent power...their home nation's claim to its own citizens.

Your snippet even emphasizes this...

The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.
64 posted on 06/23/2012 1:13:27 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: David
Whatever, man. You're too slippery for me.
Thanks for the info above about the German national tax case. Most interesting reading.
65 posted on 06/23/2012 1:23:06 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Flightdeck
And I'm done with the two of you as well.

Your arguments come down to white is black and black is really blue.

66 posted on 06/23/2012 1:25:25 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work; David; rockinqsranch; TheOldLady; WildHighlander57; netmilsmom; tomdavidd; Freeper; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

. . . . This thread is generating a lot of interest from sp's , so a second ping seems necessary.

Good work, urtax$@work. Apparently, you started a brush fire.

Check out these, and other, comments:

# 32 , 39 , 40 ,

# 51 , 56 , 61 , 63 .

.

67 posted on 06/23/2012 1:25:42 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Probably a Revelation to several since i dont recall seeing that aspect argued in past 4 years over many many articles and posts here on FR.

Another example is the 2nd amendment. Rather than just reading the content , look WHERE it is in the overall structure outline of the document. Just another one of those aspects that i never hear used in argument.

68 posted on 06/23/2012 1:59:33 PM PDT by urtax$@work (The only kind of memorial is a Burning memorial !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: David
Well it isn't "lost"--but it isn't "law" either... but as I recall, Paine wasn't even a delegate.

True, Paine was not a delegate. But as I pointed out, Thomas Jefferson wasn't a delegate either, but his letter in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association has become the justification for the "wall of separation between church and state." Also not "law," but Jefferson's letter is apparently treated as such.

However there are other writings from people who were delegates to the contrary;

I'd like to see those. Can you point me to some?

Further, you are engaging in a misrepresentation of what Paine actually said. All he said was "native" and yes the arguments about half native and whatnot might or might not mean something...

I think you are engaging in the misrepresentation, becuase you say that " All he said was 'native'..." which is not true. Paine went on to refer to "foreigner" and "half a foreigner," and contrasted that with the words "full natural or political connection with the country." Paine goes on to say that "The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded..." He clearly intended this to mean the full or partial foreigner that he had just finished describing.

Native was in fact the issue the real delegates viewed as controlling alright...

Read further down in the linked thread to see other posters' documentation on what the word "native" meant at the time.

-PJ

69 posted on 06/23/2012 2:10:48 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Brown Deer
Native was in fact the issue the real delegates viewed as controlling alright...

Read further down in the linked thread to see other posters' documentation on what the word "native" meant at the time.

Sure, but the point about foreign and half foreign is the same thing.

But there is also correspondence among others (some of which as I recall is a fairly recent discovery) who were delegates and all they talk about is place of birth.

But there is a reason for that and it comes back down to what the US tries to do to people on the other side of this coin--make them citizens and levy taxes on their income even though they aren't here. Under international law doctrines, the sovereign of the place of birth has significant jurisdiction.

On the other hand, a country can make a person a statutory citizen and that doesn't extend any power at all. Maybe a third of all American's with European ancestry are citizens of some other country in Europe--most don't even know it. Irrelevant.

Jefferson's letter happened to be consistent with where the Court was going at the time the religion issue appeared but as a general proposition, the Court doesn't give a lot of weight to argument's like this in much of any case.

Bottom line, and this is the end of our discussion; the weight of whatever history there is sits on place of birth. And the legislative history is not the only reason the Court is going to come down on this side of the issue.

70 posted on 06/23/2012 2:27:14 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: David
My last point: there is a separation between the definition of citizen, and the further qualification for president that the citizen be natural-born.

Citizen can be based on whatever definition you choose, place of birth alone if you wish. But after passing the citizen test, one must pass the natural-born test to be president.

You haven't addressed why the Founders added the additional qualifier of natural-born (and excluded it in the grandfather clause) if place-of-birth is enough to define ordinary citizenship.

-PJ

71 posted on 06/23/2012 2:37:01 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Flightdeck

You fail to distinguish between Indians, whose nations are also located totally inside the USA, and aliens. The law understood that distinction:

“An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution.”

However, that changed by law in the 1900s.

WKA also noted that exception:

“The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a “person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the clause in question.

That decision was placed upon the grounds that the meaning of those words was

not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;

that, by the Constitution, as originally established, “Indians not taxed” were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives in Congress and direct taxes were apportioned among the [p681] several States, and Congress was empowered to regulate commerce not only “with foreign nations” and among the several States, but “with the Indian tribes;” that the Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes and were not part of the people of the United States; that the alien and dependent condition of the members of one of those tribes could not be put off at their own will without the action or assent of the United States, and that they were never deemed citizens except when naturalized, collectively or individually, under explicit provisions of a treaty, or of an act of Congress; and therefore that

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

And it was observed that the language used in defining citizenship in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, was “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 112 U.S. 99-103.

Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Woods, dissenting, were of opinion that the Indian in question, having severed himself from his tribe and become a bona fide resident of a State, had thereby become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; and, in reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, said:

Beyond question, by that act, national citizenship was conferred directly upon all persons in this country, of whatever race (excluding only “Indians not taxed”), who were born within [p682] the territorial limits of the United States, and were not subject to any foreign power.

And that view was supported by reference to the debates in the Senate upon that act, and to the ineffectual veto thereof by President Johnson in which he said:

By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood. Every individual of those races, born in the United States, is, by the bill, made a citizen of the United States.

112 U.S. 1114.

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html


72 posted on 06/23/2012 3:32:27 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
You haven't addressed why the Founders added the additional qualifier of natural-born (and excluded it in the grandfather clause) if place-of-birth is enough to define ordinary citizenship.

I shouldn't need to.

A person born offshore might become a statutory citizen under ordinary citizenship statutes which Congress has the power to adopt; not naturalized but a citizen at birth under the circumstances of birth--in fact we have a bunch of statutes like that.

That person shouldn't be natural born and shouldn't qualify to become President because the person is subject to the sovereignty of the head of state of the place of birth which might override his decisions as President.

We could (but do not) have a statute that says a person who resides here twenty-five years becomes a citizen on the twenty-fifth anniversary. Same answer; same reason.

Naturalized citizens shouldn't be eligible either--same reason.

73 posted on 06/23/2012 3:38:07 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Does anyone know the date on which Marco Rubio's parents were naturalized?

I thought Marco was four years old when his parents became citizens, naturalized citizens :-)

74 posted on 06/23/2012 3:39:14 PM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Does anyone know the date on which Marco Rubio's parents were naturalized?

Marco Rubio

born May 28, 1971 in Miami, FL (Meets the Jus Soli Requirement)

Parents were
Mario Rubio born in Cuba, naturalized Nov. 5, 1975.
Oria Garcia born in Cuba, naturalized Nov. 5, 1975.

Parents were NOT US Citizens at the time of his birth (Does NOT meet the Jus Sanguinis Requirement)

Marco Rubio is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Marco's status is the same as that of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

75 posted on 06/23/2012 4:00:24 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: David

So, legally speaking, we still don’t have a definition of “natural born citizen” as it relates to the constitutional requirements for president?


76 posted on 06/23/2012 5:30:51 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57 returning after lurking since 2000))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

The law defines both natutalized and born citizenship. Over time the exact definition and requirements for each has changed....

For instance, Wong Kim Arc, born in the US to legally residing non-citizens, was declared by the USSC to be a “born” citizen through the application of the 14th amendment which was written to provide born citiznship (ie no need to naturalize) to former slaves (born in the US of non-citizen parents), and the British custom (actually Feudal Europe) that says all those born in the king’s land belong to the King....Birth to the soil, the statis of a feudal serf. The so called “natural born subject” whose loyality from birth is to the land/crown. (Jus solis.)

Both an older, and at the same time more modern, concept is that of a Natural Born Citizen. A citizen being someone that the Government was responsible TO. Old Roman law was the first in Europe to use this term, followed by later 18th Century European jurists, who refined the term to it’s modern definition.

A construction of language, rather than law, a Natural Born Citizen is someone whose Citizenship is due to the birthright bestowed by birth on the native soil AND the bloodright bestowed by citizen parents. In others words...a “Native” (as opposed to the very different construction of “native born.”) Therefore a Natural born citizen is someone born in a country to parents who are it’s citizens. These people form the majority of most societies and form the foundation for it’s continuation.

As a sidenote you’ll note that women, prior to the passage of women’s sufferage did not hold citizenship separate from their father/husband, so in effect, prior to the 22nd Amendment, (and the 14th), the citizenship of the father was the real determing factor of a child’s citizenship as the wife/mother shared the father’s citizenship.

In US law the distinction of being a Natural Born Citizen matters in only one area....that of being eligible for holding the Office of President. It has no other cachet for a citizen, or in a citizen’s rights/responsibilities. There is scant, actually no, legal decisions concerning the application of Article II eligibility requirements, probably due to the fact that it has only mattered less than 44 times in our Nation’s history, although the judicial record is replete with many instances of the USSC, in deciding citizenship cases, refering to the term and it’s meaning, most notebly in Minor v Happersett. Although the definition of naturalized and born citizenship have changed over time the term Natural Born Citizen has remained constant. It is, after all, a matter of language not law. Keep in mind that either born or naturalized, there are no “classes” of US citizenship.

This requirement of birth on the soil to citizen parents is not something that was added by Freepers in posts to a 21st Century public forum. Far from it.

As I stated above it is a matter of language, intentially used by the Framers in writting the Constitution, whose understanding of a Natural Born Citizen is a “Native”,...someone born to the soil AND To citizen parents. Jus solis AND Jus sanqunis
(to the soil and to the blood.)

So no, I’m sorry, your children are not Natural Born Citizens, although they certainly are “born citizens.” Take heart, your grandchildren, if your children marry US citizen spouses, and have their children in the US, WILL be NBC and eligible to become President......It’ll just take another family generation....


77 posted on 06/23/2012 5:31:48 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

“Rubio is now engaged in a farce.”

My hope has always been that Rubio, after being asked to be Romney’s VP (or not asked) declines the offer giving as a reason that being born in the US to non -citizen but legally residing parents, makes him a “born” citizen but not a Natural Born Citizen, and thus is ineligible to be considered for the VP/Presidency per Article II of the Constitution. Let the MSM chew on that one a while!

Don’t be so quick to condemm Rubio for the misplaced enthusium of his “flavor of the month” VP candidacy boosters.

And if he comes through with the above, he’ll earn my respect as a true American Hero and a “Profile in Courage.”


78 posted on 06/23/2012 5:52:47 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57
So, legally speaking, we still don’t have a definition of “natural born citizen” as it relates to the constitutional requirements for president?

In the sense of trying to predict what the Supreme Court would do with the issue in case, in my opinion we do. If we have a person who was born in the United States, he will be held eligible to hold the office whoever his parents are; wherever they were citizens.

And if he gets to the Court on a record that demonstrates that he was born outside the United States, the Court will hold that he is not eligible to hold the office and will rule that what he has done acting as President including but not limited to appointment of two Supreme Court Justices is void.

The dreamworld view that is so widespread here that would have him held ineligible because he has said that his father is Barack Obama Sr. who was not a citizen has no prayer--serious Constitutional Lawyers view the suggestion as a non starter.

The dreamworld argument has damaged our tactical case. Because had our counsel focused on the proposition that the only real evidence of his place of birth was his oral statement against interest that he was born in Kenya, we would have been able to get a court ruling that would have forced Barry to appear with evidence about where he was in fact born or be ejected from the ballot in Georgia.

79 posted on 06/23/2012 6:09:44 PM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: atc23

Rubio is NOT naturalized. He was born in Miami, Florida.

His parents were Cuban refugees who were naturalized when he was four years old. There are those who hold that a “natural born citizen” should be one whose parents were citizens at the time of birth and who therefore hold that Rubio is ineligible for that reason.

However, the constitution did not clarify that point and, according to those who know constitutional law, that is not the prevailing opinion among the legal establishment.

If Rubio is nominated, he will be considered eligible. After Obama’s election, the question of required parental citizenship is probably over.


80 posted on 06/23/2012 6:43:41 PM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I didn’t know of that angle yet either.
I thought that perhaps the botching (on purpose) was so that in private, Roberts could swear the bustard in using his potential real legal name which may be Barry Soetoro, or one of his other aliases.
Doing a quick naturalization was not on my radar. Of course doing that still wouldn’t help The Fraud anyway as far as eligibility.

I am seeing “Thank you Governor Walker” signs on I-94 between Lake Mills and Johnson Creek. Great big signs!

Bet the libs love to see those as they drive by in their clown cars!


81 posted on 06/23/2012 6:52:10 PM PDT by TheConservativeParty (My Governor's a JEDI, Wisconsin for the WIN ! June 5, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheConservativeParty

I LOVE the news about the Walker signs... Thanks.


82 posted on 06/23/2012 6:54:39 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; David; melancholy; LucyT; edge919; DiogenesLamp; Mr Rogers; Flightdeck; ...
"Whatever, man. You're too slippery for me. "

Not for me. I notice that the Jus Soli pontificators on this thread have all managed to conveniently avoid the simple logic exercise that points quite clearly to what the intent of the founders was in requiring that POTUS/VPOTUS, and only POTUS/VPOTUS be a Natural Born Citizen:

The Framers wanted to ensure to the greatest degree possible that any aspirant to the presidency would have loyalty to, and only to the US. Ergo, citizenship derived by birth in the US to parentS who are themselves citizens. Anything else opens the door to the potential for divided loyalties.

By the "reasoning" of some here, a child born to illegal alien parents but on US soil has better legal NBC status than one born to US servicemember parents on a military base overseas.

Flies in the face of logic.

Thanks for the Pings, melancholy and LucyT.

83 posted on 06/23/2012 8:16:03 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Marco Rubio is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Certainly not according to the Vattel definition of the term, which informed the framers of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution when they used "Natural Born Citizen" as a requirement for the presidency.

Marco's status is the same as that of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

Granted Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen because his father is (alleged to be) a Kenyan who was never a US citizen. But unlike Rubio, we still do not know whether or not Barry was born in the United States, since we've never seen a bona fide US Certificate of Birth for him.

84 posted on 06/23/2012 8:51:20 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; philman_36; David; melancholy; LucyT; edge919; DiogenesLamp; Flightdeck

The child of an illegal is arguably one of the few exceptions. To qualify as a natural born subject, the parents had to be present “in amity” with the King. The children of an invading army, for example, were NOT natural born subjects. Thus, they would also not qualify as natural born citizens.

The Founders COULD have written “born of citizen parents”, or even followed Vattel and written “native”. They did not. They used a term with a recognized legal meaning. It was ratified by state legislatures that themselves used the term interchangeably with natural born subject.

There is no legal dispute.

Remember the NBC clause was an afterthought. It was not in the original draft. Originally, the President could have been a naturalized citizen. Time of residency was added for Congressional offices, and the President was then required to be citizen from birth.


85 posted on 06/23/2012 9:37:23 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
"Remember the NBC clause was an afterthought."

John Jay thought it was an important enough "afterthought" that it ended up in our founding document. Way to downplay and otherwise duck the importance of the divided loyalties issue. You make my case for me.

86 posted on 06/23/2012 10:21:31 PM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: urtax$@work
There is one thing missing from the presidential citizenship phrase that is in the other two office holders citizen phrases.....It's the NUMBER OF YEARS. There are prescribed years for Rep and Sen to be Citizens. There are NO PRESCRIBED YEARS FOR NBC- which (again) reinforces the idea that it is attained only at birth.

Don't you just love those "AHA!" moments?

Good work.

87 posted on 06/24/2012 5:45:40 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; campaignPete R-CT; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj

I’m sick and tired of this nonsense. Play time is over, the democrats are laughing at those who are turning birther arguments against Republicans like Rubio and Jindal.

It doesn’t matter if his parents were naturalized or not as long as they were legal resident aliens as I believe they were.

And hell unfortunately under current interpration of the law even the child of 2 illegal immigrants would be regarded as kosher.

No court is gonna stop Rubio from being sworn in if he is elected and that’s the end of the story. There is a case to be made he doesn’t deserve to be VP based on the MERITS. Those that don’t like him should stick to that (you know stuff people actually care about).


88 posted on 06/24/2012 5:55:09 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
By the "reasoning" of some here, a child born to illegal alien parents but on US soil has better legal NBC status than one born to US servicemember parents on a military base overseas.

Flies in the face of logic.

And this is the salient point. The Jus Soli interpretation is just plain stupid. It yields ridiculous results, and requires a series of exceptions*, therefore it is wrong.

.

.

* Indians were an exception. Slaves were an exception. Children of Diplomats were an exception. British Loyalists after The War of Independence were an exception. None of these are exceptions according to Jus Sanguinus.

89 posted on 06/24/2012 9:40:18 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Impy; InterceptPoint; bgill; melancholy; LucyT; American Constitutionalist; edcoil; Beckwith; ...
Play time is over, the Democrats are laughing at those who are turning birther arguments against Republicans like Rubio and Jindal.

The Democrats are laughing because they don't give a rat's behind about the Constitution, as they've demonstrated over and over again on many fronts. On the other hand, we constitutionalists do and we know what Natural Born Citizen means, or at least what it meant to the people who wrote it into the Constitution.

This is not exactly a "birther argument" about Rubio and Jindal, nor is it any personal grudge we hold against them. We know they were both American born. It's just that no man is above the law (as Theodore Roosevelt famously said), regardless of his political ideology or popularity, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (That holds for women as well, BTW.)

Rubio and Jindal can continue to excel in their present positions for which they are, respectively, constitutionally and legally qualified. It's just that, due to circumstances beyond their control, they don't qualify for VP or POTUS.

It doesn’t matter if his parents were naturalized or not as long as they were legal resident aliens as I believe they were.

That's not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they required that the President be a Natural Born Citizen (if born after the adoption of the Constitution). The Natural Born Citizen requirement was extended to the vice presidency by the Twelfth Amendment.

90 posted on 06/24/2012 6:27:41 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks justiceseeker93.
91 posted on 06/24/2012 7:22:09 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Impy; justiceseeker93; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; campaignPete R-CT; unkus; DarthVader; ...

“And hell unfortunately under current interpration of the law even the child of 2 illegal immigrants would be regarded as kosher.”

This MUST be changed. Both as matter of national security as well the GIGANTIC economic costs associated.


92 posted on 06/24/2012 8:03:28 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Glove don't fit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

A statutory citizen (child born overseas with US citizen parent(s)) does not have to renounce the country of their birth before a Certificate of Citizenship is issued. A naturalized citizen must first renounce their citizenship of their home country before they are issued a Certificate of Naturalization.

The State Department has issued guidance it is the policy of the US to consider a statutory citizen to be a citizen at birth. Its debatable a statutory citizen, a citizen with dual citizenship after the Certificate of Citizenship is issued, it a Natural born citizen because of divided loyalty.

John McCain never renounced his Panamanian citizenship.


93 posted on 06/24/2012 8:09:51 PM PDT by SvenMagnussen (Gossip is Satin's talk radio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA; Impy; justiceseeker93; BillyBoy; unkus; campaignPete R-CT; Clintonfatigued

I agree, Congress should pass a law clarifying that persons born in the U.S. are citizens at birth only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident; children of persons with tourist visas or student visas, or of illegal aliens, should not be entitled to citizenship at birth. We won’t know how the Supreme Court will interpret the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” until we try to limit birthright citizenship.


94 posted on 06/24/2012 9:22:19 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
My hope has always been that Rubio, after being asked to be Romney’s VP (or not asked) declines the offer giving as a reason that being born in the US to non -citizen but legally residing parents, makes him a “born” citizen but not a Natural Born Citizen, and thus is ineligible to be considered for the VP/Presidency per Article II of the Constitution

That would be a brilliant move for his career!

95 posted on 06/25/2012 5:24:47 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; All
“We won’t know how the Supreme Court will interpret the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” until we try to limit birthright citizenship.”

I suspect there will be a “Red” state that initially attempts to tackle this cauldron of bullish*t. And like gay “marriage”, the battle lines will be drawn and the SCOTUS is going to have to decide.

The SCOTUS is arguably THE ONLY reason to support Glove. Although his judicial appointments here mostly sucked. OTOH, there aren't many GOPs to pick from here.

96 posted on 06/25/2012 5:27:01 AM PDT by GOPsterinMA (The Glove don't fit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA

How could a state, as opposed to Congress, take the lead here? The issue is the language of a federal law and an anendment to the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress could legislate to stop birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, tourists and other non-residents.


97 posted on 06/25/2012 5:47:26 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The founders already defined “naturel” as native born in 1781. Obviously this was how those members who read French understood the term “naturel,” thus when the read Law of Nations, they understood “naturel” to mean natural-born, which Vattel defined as born to citizen parents. Vattel also noted that those aliens born in England were naturalized. They would have understood this as well. Just because a state legislature may used natural-born subject and natural-born citizen interchangeably to fit their own states law, has no bearing on what the framers of the Constitution were doing, especially when we have Supreme Court precedent that says otherwise. For the same reasons you argue the framers didn’t just write “born of citizen parents” they also could have just written “born in the country” but they did not do that.


98 posted on 06/25/2012 6:58:10 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: David
That is what I have tried to explain in #39--that is a technical question. The lawyer looks at that question as a joke the answer is so obvious. That is what the Ad Law Judge thought of Orly.

Minor has nothing whatever to do with the natural born citizen question under Article II--the reference is technically "dicta"--loose language in the opinion from the court. The court called it a holding but it isn't--it has nothing to do with the issue.

The ALJ in Georgia cited dicta from a state appeals decision. This fails because it's not the highest legal precedence and it its not even the holding of this lower court decision. Nowhere in the Ankeny decision is Obama ever declared to be a natural-born citizen. The Ankeny court made a conclusion about a definition based on misinterpreting dicta from the Wong Kim Ark decision, which they ended up admitting was neither part of the holding nor part of any legal precedent.

We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution's Article II language ...

Now contrast that with a Supreme Court decision which cited Minor with WKA nowhere to be found:

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.

This quote is from Luria v. United States, decided about 15 years AFTER Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court has no problem recognizing Minor has something to do with the NBC question from Article II. Luria uses the term "native citizen" which was defined in Minor as "all children born in the country of citizen parents."

99 posted on 06/25/2012 7:07:15 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: David
Senior was here for at least five years. If his kid was in fact born here, he is natural born.

This is a false assumption. Senior was never admitted a resident alien. Even if one were to accept that the WKA decision redefined NBC (which it did NOT do), the court still required the parents to be resident aliens with permanent residence and domicil in order to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment:

the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens ...

they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence ....

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States ...

civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil

the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ...

when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship ...
I hope you start to see a pattern and get the point. Senior never had a permanent residence and domicil, and upon marriage, neither did his wife. Senior was sent home when his last extension request was denied. Had Obama's mama not divored his father, they would have been sent to Kenya along with Senior. Because of this, Obama could not have been a citizen under the 14th amendment and he certainly was not a natural-born citizen.
100 posted on 06/25/2012 7:17:50 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson