Posted on 12/27/2009 2:36:30 PM PST by patlin
Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com ...
It should have been banned decades ago. For VERY OBVIOUS reasons.
Obonzo is a good example of why the Founders did it.
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
Because the United States has always recognized the definition of citizenship of common law, as outlined in Blackstone, as compared to that of European continental civil law, as defined in Vattel?
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution.
**********************************************
If US Legal History came AFTER the Constitution, how could you use it to define a term in the Constitution?
Please, our forefathers did not want our citizenry subject to British Common Law. Our country was bore of free men not subjects. British Common Law, made anyone born anywhere a subject, even in territories.
During the War of 1812 the British tried to use British Common Law to force our citizens into fighting.
They wanted citizenship for those who wanted to be American voluntary and they wanted ALLEGIENCE!!!!!!
The most bizarre claim of the birthers is this one. It uses a law system utterly foreign to US legal history to define a term used in our Constitution. ********************************************** If US Legal History came AFTER the Constitution, how could you use it to define a term in the Constitution? ---ROTB
ROTB's comment makes more sense to me. Thanks, ROTB...you are thinking straight!
Here’s a question for you: what if Hugo Chavez declared all US citizens to be Venezuelan citizens, a right passed that cannot be renounced? Then who could you elect as the next President?
We should ignore what other nations may try to bestow on an individual; it matters what the individual claims for themselves.
If you are born on a US Naval vessel to two US citizen parents, you are considered a natural born citizen by the US. But if that naval vessel was in Canadian waters, then Canada also considers you a Canadian citizen. Does the fact that Canada conferred citizenship to you make you a non-natural born citizen?
Many of us are duals. It depends on the country where one was born under their laws…like McCain who is dual but won’t admit it.
At this point, with all the crooks in congress, president, and the U.S. Supreme Court, I would love to kiss my U.S. citizenship goodbye. The problem is, according to U.S. law, I would have to continue paying U.S. taxes for at least the next ten year.
I am totally fed up with my own robber country.
Further, if one puts folks with duals to choose, the U.S. will no longer be their first choice.
I am fed up. I realized a few months ago I have no desire to return to my country. It is a total mess.
Thank you. I blow it from time to time, so when I do, please don’t think I am above correction.
I love this country, and am sad to see it falling.
I hope we get to see another Presidential election.
I hope Sarah won’t backstab us like every one else.
Would that be the same law system used by Congress in the 1790 Immigration Act wherein two American citizen parents were required for one to be considered a "natural born citizen"??? or would that have been the one used by Senate Resolution 511 in 2008 with the same two-parent definition??? or both???
In Obama’s case, your reply makes no sense to me. He was born to a foreign father and according to US law at the time of the adoption of the constitution, children followed the condition of the fathers and according to current US law, as long as the parents are married, the child still follows the condition of the father. That is why we find this in the guide to ‘naturalization’.
I concur that children born to 2 US citizens serving in the military is a very touchy subject and the fact that Congress dropped the bill to amend the Constitution for military, goes to show how corrupt they are.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/
The fact of the matter is, is that Congress has not brought these attempts to ammend the Constitution to the public for scrutiny, because they know full well that the general public(those educated in true American history) would never go for changing it.
And then we have the problem that NO national media outlet will touch the subject, despite all the Congressional historical records of attempts to change it.
btt
Have you ever taken time to read early Commentaries on American Law and what references the Founders used to draft the Constitution?
My guess is not, or you wouldn't have posted up such a ridiculous question. You can find all that you need at the following links and what they have to say is specifically that the definition of the English common law subject was NOT the definition adopted by the US for its citizens.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/understanding-your-constitution-historical-references/
Don’t personalize it to Obama or anyone else...
Fundamentally, would having citizenship of another nation bestowed on you cause you to not be a natural born citizen?
Can I, a person born of two American citizen parents, born in Seattle, be eligible for the Presidency if Canada grants me citizenship?
As an adult, if you take an oath to a foreign nation, yes, you renounce your birth status for POTUS, however, if you reside in a foreign country and return to the US 14 years prior to running for office, you are still eligible.
A natural born citizen can only loose his/her status by a legal act during adulthood.
These hypotheticals of foreign nations somehow changing their laws to claim people whom have never stepped foot on their soil to be citizens is ludicrous. There is something called the ‘Law of Nation’, it does exist and ALL nations & sovereignties are bound by it to some extent. That is why treaties are made between countries such as the Expatriation Act of 1868 and other treaties between the US and other foreign nations regarding citizenship.
I would recommend you go to my site, click on the scribd link to Wilson & Story's commentaries and read them as well as get your hands on Edwin Meese’s Guide to the Constitution.
Well in that case, just never mind why 0bama has spent upwards of a million bucks to hide the details of his birth, his school records, his travel history, ad infinitum.
It must be just something ‘personal’, eh Sherman?
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.