Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

nobarack08 | Feb 12, 2010 | syc1959

[syc1959]

Being born in the United States does not even make one a 'NATIVE' citizen.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition Under Jus Soli, the following is written "The Supreme Court's first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the court held, mean "not merely subjct 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 allegiange." Most Indians could not meet the test. "Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through 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,'*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102. It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the 'Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

“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.

Barack Hussein Obama did not have sole jurisdiction under the United States.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment clearlt state the following;

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Note: 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'

[EnderWiggins]

By definition and by law, you are wrong. A certification of live birth is a birth certificate.

[Las Vegas Ron]

anotherview
Since Apr 19, 2002

You might want to be a little careful on the troll accusations.

Uninformed on this subject maybe but not very likely a troll.

[Las Vegas Ron]

A certification of live birth is a birth certificate.

You're FOS, noob

[syc1959]

The COLB forgery ONLY states a birth took place, not to where or when or other vital statstics.

Please tell us the name of the witnesses, and doctor, the hospital.

The Dr Rodney west story, was debunked in mere hours.

[EnderWiggins]

"what is being born in Hawaii have to do with BaracK Hussein Obama being a British Subject, under British Law."

Absolutely nothing. There is no connection whatsoever between those two things.

"Barack Hussein Obama was and still is under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and as such no matter where he was born, he fails with any percent of foreign whatever fails as a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution."

Oh, darn. And you were doing so well.

The Constitution does not say that.

[Hexenhammer]

Hahaha

[DoctorBulldog]

Yeah, here's my "Birth Certificate:"

It's real, I swear it! Now, make me President, dang-it!!!

[EnderWiggins]

"The COLB that has been posted is a forgery."

Great.

If you actually have evidence that that is true, then you now have everything you need to completely blow the lid off this thing. If the COLB is forgery, then the Hawaii DOH is fully complicit in a criminal act, because they know it is a fake and have done nothing to expose it.

Time to get one of those awesome Birther lawyers and file a criminal complaint against the hawaii DOH. There will be no hurdle of standing whatsoever.

So... what's keeping you?

[FelixFelicis]

This is counterproductive - and, if you have to fall back on a technicality like this, kind of pathetic. Even if this is an accurate reading of the law, the average American (myself included) has a deep aversion to judging people on their parental/familial backgrounds. People also dislike technicalities. Saying Obama is unqualified to be president because his FATHER may have been a British subject? Not gonna fly, even if true.

I have other problems with the Birthers. Do you really think Obama was born in Kenya? Fine - do the leg work, find the evidence, and show us. Until then, quit yapping. You sound crazy and you make the rest of us look crazy. And make no mistake, the media will play up the “crazy” angle to the best of its ability.

Appearances matter. To openminded folks who might consider voting GOP in the next election, you look like conspiracist maniacs who are still stuck on losing the election and care more about that than the real issues of the day, of which there are many. Who wants to jump on a bandwagon like that?

[El Sordo]

See what I mean?

[Gay State Conservative]

The President was born in Hawaii. His birth certificate has been seen over and over again. Hawaii is part of the United States. He is a natural born citizen. Get over it.

I'm not as familiar with this matter as are some. However,I'm almost certain that I've read several quotes from one or more Founding Fathers and at least one from an early Supreme Court Justice that essentially say that to be considered to be "natural born" one must not only be born *in* the US but must be born of two US citizens.

[syc1959]

Barack Hussein Obama regardless of where he was born, Kenya, Hawaii, the Washington Momument, is a British Subject, under British law, and as such fails as the United States Constitution requires only a “Natural Born Citizen” is eligilble for the Presidency.

How is a British subject a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States?

How is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States governed by British Law?

“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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, 1774.

Thus we see, that the subjects of the king, though they reside in foreign countries, still owe the duties of allegiance, and are still entitled to the advantages of it. They transmit to their posterity the privilege of naturalization, and all the other privileges which are the consequences of it.{q}

{q} Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour; the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the law. 1. Bl. Com. 371.

[EnderWiggins]

"You're FOS, noob"

Uhhh... probably on some issues, but not this one. I am my family's historian. I have scores of birth certificates from eleven states and four foreign countries.

COLBs are definitely birth certificates.

[Las Vegas Ron]

The Constitution does not say that.

What part of Article II Sec. 1 do you not understand?

[syc1959]

Elder;

The date stamp is on the template.
There is no Seal nor is there the registar’s signiture.

[EnderWiggins]

"The COLB forgery ONLY states a birth took place, not to where or when or other vital statstics."

Hmmmm.... so what then are those dates, times and places about if not where or when the birth took place?

"Please tell us the name of the witnesses, and doctor, the hospital."

Why? Are those secret requirements in the Constitution for Presidential Eligibility? Did somebody slip in a 28th Amendment while we weren't looking?

[Las Vegas Ron]

• “Minor v. Happersett - yes, it’s been mentioned on FR but not fully hashed out. I don’t see how, if this was decided by the SCOTUS then they did indeed give a definition of the term NBC.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html";
Not only has it been discussed, but so too have other SCOTUS cases that have that exact definition that the framers (no doubt) used when they entered the NBC requirement without debate.
Attorney Apuzzo mentions these cases in the “Kerchner v Obama” & Congress case:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

[SkyDancer]

So at what point in history are Indians not native born?

[EnderWiggins]

"I'm not as familiar with this matter as are some. However,I'm almost certain that I've read several quotes from one or more Founding Fathers and at least one from an early Supreme Court Justice that essentially say that to be considered to be "natural born" one must not only be born *in* the US but must be born of two US citizens."

You do not recall correctly. No such a quotation form any of the Founders or Framers exists.

[EnderWiggins]

"How is a British subject a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States?"

It's called dual citizenship. It happens all the time. Most Americans who are dual citizens (and there are tens of millions of them) don't even know it.

"How is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States governed by British Law?"

He can't. Only his status as a British subject can.