Posted on 04/29/2010 9:14:44 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume. I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation. I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.
That report was closely followed by a historical discovery of Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email which highlighted the legal opinion of lifelong Democrat Breckenridge Long - an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:
“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”
There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth. Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?
The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible. A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:
The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.
That is serious on point historical research. At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain. That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself. And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court. Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.
In a previous article, I highlighted the opinion of Alexander Porter Morse, taken from the Albany Law Review article entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT”:
“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.”
It’s a rather clear testimony to the fact that simply being “native born” does not mean that one is “natural born” but “accuracy and intelligent discussion” are not the goals of propaganda. A fraudulent blogger who shall remain nameless attempted to justify Obama’s eligibility with the following lie:
“Some people have confused Alexander Morse’s paper on child born (abroad) to two US citizens being natural born citizens as a necessary requirement. Of course, anyone familiar with Alexander Morse realizes that he never held such a position…”
It appears the liar has selectively failed to read the quote above as well as Mr. Morse’s letter to the Albany Law Journal of December 18th, 1884, which states:
It seems to the undersigned, aside from judicial sanction, that the children of aliens born in the United States are, to use the language of Judge Cooley in another connection, ” subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in a much qualified sense; ” until they take some steps submitting themselves to the jurisdiction ...
This letter was written in 1884 – before Wong Kim Ark was decided. His article quoted above, was written in 1904 – after Wong Kim Ark. The historical evidence proves that Morse held the same point of view before and after Wong Kim Ark. The article and the letter both indicate clearly that Morse would not have agreed Obama was eligible.
History, what a concept.
Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Pidgeon & Donofrio GP
Well, your comments are notoriously silly.
The following quotes directly come from Barack Obama’s own website: “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.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1964 that:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. [the naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”
“Schneider v. Rusk,” 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
He held, for a short period of time, Kenyan citizenship. Since he didn't reaffirm his desire to KEEP his Kenyan citizenship, he lost it (per Kenyan law). In other words, since his "gained" Kenyan citizenship was NOT by birthright, if he wanted to keep that "gained" citizenship, he needed to expressly state so.
However, he was born with British citizenship (assuming Sr. was his legal father at birth) and he was born with U.S. Citizenship (assuming birth in HI). Both being his birthright.
Hey James, you do realize that President Jackson was grandfathered past the NBC require, right?
Born March 15, 1767 - he was a "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Therefore, he was Constitutionally Qualified.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1964 that: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. [the naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”
“Schneider v. Rusk,” 377 U.S. 163 (1964)"
From your very own quote:
"The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President.
CLEARLY, that decision is making a distinction between native and natural born.
jamese777,
You have incorrect information.
Every President born before the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 was eligible because of the grandfather clause of Article 2, Section 1:
“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;”
Both Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson are covered by that clause.
James Buchanan’s father emigrated to the U.S. from Ireland in 1783. When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787 (and ratified in 1788), it conferred citizenship upon everyone living in the States. Therefore James Buchanan’s father was a citizen of the United States when James Buchanan was born in 1791. So, James Buchanan was a natural born citizen.
Woodrow Wilson’s mother became a U.S. citizen by Congressional act in 1855. Wilson was born in 1856. Therefore, both of Wilson’s parents were U.S. citizens, which makes Wilson a natual born citizen.
Herbert Hoover’s mother became a citizen in 1870 under the same 1855 Congressional act that conferred citizenship on Wilson’s mother. Hoover was born in 1874 to two U.S. citizen parents and he is therefore a natural born citizen.
Chester Arthur is a different story and a long one at that. So, I’ll refer you to these groundbreaking discoveries regarding the citizenship of Arthur.
The same applies to Andrew Johnson. His parents were naturalized before he was born. Therefore he was natural born citizen too.
Regards,
Tex
P.S. The above facts are courtesy of the following article by Leo Donofrio.
(None of the above links works anymore.)
Same as Elg? Not really. Elg took steps to claim it by 21. Obama has ZERO interest in being a UK citizen.
Another country can make you eligible, or even claim you for citizenship, but it doesn’t mean you have any natural allegiance to it.
As I’ve said before, if Putin made all US citizens automatic citizens of Russia, would that mean we all have allegiance to Russia? Of course not!
If the UK drafted Barry, would he have to serve? Not hardly! US Courts would laugh at their claim. You cannot make someone your citizen against their will. If they refuse to move there or accept citizenship, then they do NOT have divided loyalties.
So would the US Supreme Court rule that Barry needed to be removed from office because he had divided loyalties to the UK? Nope. If they tried, I think Congress would pass a Constitutional amendment in days making Barry a natural born citizen, and the states would ratify it in weeks - even Arizona. It would be a naked power grab by the courts, and I would support their getting smacked down.
See post 25 for my thoughts. I understand your arguments, I just disagree about their impact.
I want to make sure I understand your position. Is it your contention Elg took affirmative action to claim her U.S. citizenship by applying for a U.S. passport? And that if she had not done so, she would not be a U.S. citizen?
Obama was born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England and there isn't a darn thing US law could have done to prevent that from happening.
The U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs manual says otherwise.
b. Dual nationality results from the fact that there is no uniform rule of international law relating to the acquisition of nationality. Each country has its own laws on the subject and confers its nationality on individuals on the basis of its national policy and law. For example, the laws of some countries provide for automatic acquisition of citizenship at birth or through marriage. Some persons born in the United States may be surprised to learn that they also possess derivative nationality of another country through a grandparent. Today, it is not uncommon for individuals to possess not just dual nationality, but multiple nationalities. While dual nationality can provide the individual with many benefits, such as the ability to work freely in the other country, it can also impose burdens, including military service, taxes, etc.
c. If you receive inquiries about dual nationality, you may refer the inquirer to our brochures on this subject, Dual Nationality and Advice About Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality, which are available on the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs Internet page.
d. International law recognizes that each country determines who is a national of that country.
e. U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality: While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person. A foreign country might claim you as a citizen of that country if (a) you were born there; (b) your parent or parents (and sometimes grandparents) are or were citizens of that country or (c) you are a naturalized U.S. citizen but are still considered a citizen under that country's laws. (The oath you take when you are naturalized as a U.S. citizen (8 CFR 337.1) doesn’t mean the foreign country does not still regard you as a citizen of that country.) Public inquiries about the citizenship laws of other countries should be directed to the embassy or consulate of that country in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1185(b) (Section 215(b) INA) and 22 CFR 53.1 require that U.S. citizens exit and enter the United States on a U.S. passport, with certain limited exceptions (22 CFR 53.2).
If we stepped foot in Russia, they would have dominion over us as Russian nationals. So says international law and the information I referenced in the U.S. Foreign Affairs manual.
Would such a Russian law prevent natural born citizens of America from being POTUS? Definitely not those who were born here to two American citizens. They're natural born citizens of the U.S. because OUR laws say so.
The issue is not just that another country's laws can extend citizenship to an American. The issue is that an American citizen born to a foreign citizen obtains citizenship by blood AND foreign statute. The blood relationship is essential in determining whether or not such a person is a natural born citizen of the U.S.
The country in which a dual citizen resides has primary dominion over that person. (See the Foreign Affairs manual on dual nationality that I referenced above.) So, no, the U.K. could not draft Obama. If he moved to the U.K. or took up extended residence there, they certainly could draft him.
The courts have focused on NBC from the perspective of allegiance. The idea that Barry feels any loyalty of any kind for the UK is laughable.
Yes, he could move to England and declare himself a subject of the Queen - but he hasn’t, has he.
And we fought a war over the idea that another country cannot force an American to be a citizen of their country against his will.
No court will ever rule that Barry is a British subject. Nor will any ever rule that he has divided loyalties to the US because his father was British, and then Kenyan. It is as silly as saying that my sister has divided loyalties to Germany because she was born there.
Barack Obama needs to be beaten on ideas, and in politics. If you have evidence he was born abroad, THEN you could beat him in the courts and Congress too.
Otherwise, you’re pissing in the wind. When Barry visited England, no one in England thought he was now a British subject since he set foot on English soil. Had anyone tried, we would have gone to war, as we did in 1812, to reject that idea.
And if we fought a war to reject the idea in 1812, do you think we have revoked our position since? No! Any government can claim anyone they want as a citizen, but if they are a US citizen, it doesn’t make it so.
And I can’t think of anyone on the planet who is LESS a British subject that Barry Obama. He hates the UK with passion. Sorry, but that argument ain’t going anywhere.
“I want to make sure I understand your position. Is it your contention Elg took affirmative action to claim her U.S. citizenship by applying for a U.S. passport? And that if she had not done so, she would not be a U.S. citizen?”
As I read it, if Elg had desired to remain in Sweden, she could have done so. The courts did not have to decide if she would then be a Swedish citizen. If at 40 she applied to come to the US, that would have been a different case.
I don’t know how the court would have ruled then, but I’m guessing they would now rule she would always be able to claim US citizenship if she wanted.
So you feel that it is not whether a president’s parents were BORN as US citizens but whether they ever became US citizens?
Could you point me to a law in the US Code, a Supreme Court decision or a clause in the Constitution that backs up your point of view?
With specific regard to Barack Obama, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last November that: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the 1898 US Supreme Court decision in US v] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person ‘born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject’ at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.’”—Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009
The country in which a dual citizen resides has primary dominion over that person. (See the Foreign Affairs manual on dual nationality that I referenced above.) So, no, the U.K. could not draft Obama. If he moved to the U.K. or took up extended residence there, they certainly could draft him.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Obama’s British citizenship expired on Dec. 12, 1963 when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom.
The Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
However the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug. 4, 1984.
The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984.
The allegiance of which the courts speak is allegiance that is owed by the subject not allegiance that is felt by the subject. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is an essential phrase. I agree that Obama doesn't feel any allegiance to the U.K. and has clearly demonstrated his utter contempt for the U.K., but his feelings don't change the circumstances of his birth as a British citizen.
And we fought a war over the idea that another country cannot force an American to be a citizen of their country against his will.
Very true. However, that was based on American citizens residing in America being forced to obey the laws of another country.
No court will ever rule that Barry is a British subject. Nor will any ever rule that he has divided loyalties to the US because his father was British, and then Kenyan. It is as silly as saying that my sister has divided loyalties to Germany because she was born there.
Agreed. The courts will not issue a ruling on Obama's British citizenship or allegiance owed to the U.K.
If your sister was born in Germany to U.S. citizens, then she is a natural born citizen. She may or may not be a natural born citizen for Constitutional purposes and eligible to hold the office of POTUS. We don't know because the courts haven't ruled definitively on that.
Barack Obama needs to be beaten on ideas, and in politics. If you have evidence he was born abroad, THEN you could beat him in the courts and Congress too. Otherwise, you’re pissing in the wind.7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
Agreed. I believe he was born in Hawaii. Agreed.
When Barry visited England, no one in England thought he was now a British subject since he set foot on English soil. Had anyone tried, we would have gone to war, as we did in 1812, to reject that idea.
Stepping foot on British soil does not somehow activate his British citizenship. He was born a British citizen. But in the scenario you presented, visiting is the keyword. Obama's primary country of residence (U.S.) has dominion over him.
Any government can claim anyone they want as a citizen, but if they are a US citizen, it doesn’t make it so.
Yes, it does. However, I will stipulate that U.S. citizenship is not affected by another country's citizenship laws.
7 FAM 081 SUMMARY
(CT:CON-106; 06-06-2005)
d. International law recognizes that each country determines who is a national of that country.
Absolutely. A child born in the U.S. to two naturalized U.S. citizens is not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen.
Could you point me to a law in the US Code, a Supreme Court decision or a clause in the Constitution that backs up your point of view?
Sure.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)Note that the Court does not claim that the child's parents must be natural born citizens but simply citizens.The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The 14th Amendment defines who shall be citizens.
14th AmendmentI'm aware of the Indiana decision. I disagree with it. I also believe that if it were ever tested, it would not be upheld.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.
This conversation is an example of the civility that should be displayed when two freepers disagree about an issue.
Birthers should take note of and learn from this example.
What about this?
“The British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the peace, lost their character of British subjects, and our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country, and adhering to the British government, they lost, or perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/99/case.html
By remaining in America and choosing to live here, would Obama have ‘never acquired’ or lost his characterization as a British subject?
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.