Posted on 12/06/2008 7:12:59 PM PST by Deepest End
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
~~Historical fraud PING!
~~~~
“Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency.
He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.”
Born in US, US mother.
Sounds like he was an anchor baby . Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
anchor babies are natural born citizens.
Does this mean that any and all legislation or laws enacted by President Authur is null and void? If so, what are the repercussions?
I know .. how will we ever know?
“What a web we weave when first
we practice to deceive.”
Dang hornet’s nest... if true,
what a travesty .. a treason.
Authur was born in Vermont to an American mother who herself was a natural born American. That’s all it takes to be a natural born US citizen. This story is bunk.
Yeahbut yeahbut...did he have a COLB?
Per Donofrio's case before SCOTUS -
No, they are citizens, but not "natural born" and not qualified to be POTUS per Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
No. They are citizens, but arguably not natural born citizens.
Sez who?
Man, all the lawyers out there researching and reading precedents and the folks on this thread had all the answers from the start!
The Child naturalization Act from the 1980’s states that citizenship is based in the father’s nationality. Obama asserts that he held dual citizenship at birth (British and U.S. if he was in fact physically born in Hawai’i), then he asserts that his British citizenship expired making him a naturalized citizen by his own assertion at his website. Do you know whether a naturalized citizen can become president under Constitutional restrictions? ... [HINT: the answer is they cannot.]
Correction: the Naturalization act of 2000 states that a child born before 1983 has citizenship determined by the father’s nationality.
Sez the Constitution: 14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The C.A. Arthur article is moot.
It is amazing how few people actually understand Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Sad really.
I noticed it did not say “are natural born citizens.”
Well IF Arthur wasn’t a “natural-born” citizen under the law is pretty ridiculous he wasn’t, being born in the USA with an American mom.
If this birth certificate deal could really sink Obama (doubt it very much) though that’s terrific.
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.