Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
A "natural born citizen" does not have a choice to be a citizen of another country, he has only ONE CHOICE, and that is his "natural" country.

The only reason Obama had a choice was because of a foreign citizenship law. It's still amazing to me that there are people on FreeRepublic who cling to the idea that foreign laws should determine who can and can't be President of the United States.

162 posted on 02/18/2012 2:30:00 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]


To: Kleon
The only reason Obama had a choice was because of a foreign citizenship law.
You're not doing yourself any favors. Look at what you just said!

In order for him to even have that choice he would first have to be eligible to make that choice.
You've just established that he has dual nationality and isn't a natural born citizen.

164 posted on 02/18/2012 2:39:26 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]

To: Kleon
The only reason Obama had a choice was because of a foreign citizenship law. It's still amazing to me that there are people on FreeRepublic who cling to the idea that foreign laws should determine who can and can't be President of the United States.

It is not a foreign Law, it is part of the English Common law that so many of you keep going on about. Here is a quote to enlighten you.

The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

Link.

And Look, it was PRIOR to Obama's winning the election!

The United States Recognized that other nations could make a claim on someones citizenship based on their having been born on that Nation's soil, (such as England) or by having been born to parents of that Nation. (France.) The United States sensibly chose to recognize that if a person Had only parents who were American Citizens, and was born only on American Soil, then No other Nation could have a legitimate claim to them. They could not be drafted into another nation's army because they did not meet ANY nation's recognized criteria for having allegiance to them.

They were solely, and totally American, and they had no divided allegiance whatsoever. THESE were the Kind of People the founders wanted to require for the Executive Branch of our Nation. These and ONLY these.

Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool, and I don't care if that includes all the Law Schools, the Entire Supreme Court, the Media, and the Entire Congress as well!

175 posted on 02/18/2012 4:04:32 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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