NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP NOT DEFINED BY BIRTH CERTIFICATES

The Daily Pen ^ | 02/26/2012 | Dan Crosby

[Natufian]

If that was an amendment of a previous law, there would be a reference to the previous law and dates. There is no other reference in 338-17 except 1982.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, they did not. They translated ‘sujets naturel’ as NBS.

Yes, the "sujets" part translates to "subject" and the "naturel" part translates to "natural born", same as we've been telling you. :)

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

my point was that Hawaii was just BARELY a state, and had the Republicans not tried to make a deal with the Democrats, it is possible that it wouldn't have been a state at all.

I think that for the purposes of this discussion, "barely a state" is like "a little bit pregnant." Can we agree that birth in Hawaii counts as birth in the United States, and skip the "remote, multicultural, migratory island hub" nonsense?

unlike all the other states(as far as I know) Hawaii is the ONLY state that you cannot trust on the question of whether or not a child was really born there. Do any other states have such a screwy law?

I don't know--I don't know how we would know without researching all 49 other birth certificate policies. But that doesn't mean that said Hawaii birth certificate would list the child's birthplace as "Hawaii." I seriously doubt Hawaii was that lax.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, he was a member in good standing with the communist left. I have pointed out before (to others) that associating with communists or supporting communism was an automatic denial for a visa. (As was polygamy.)

I still do not reconcile the reports of Obama Sr. struggling with money with the notion that he could fly people back and forth to Kenya. To what purpose? To get his then wife Keiza pissed off at him? How is THAT going to help anything?

I've never bothered to look into the background of Don Wilkie, but I don't regard him giving money to Phil Gramm as any sort of discrediting of him. Back in the eighties and nineties, Phil Gram was about the only one talking about fiscal sanity.

As for his theories, I thought he provided references to the documents he cited. Do these documents not stand on their own merits? I would think that they do. Wilkie just points out the connections, and what he says makes sense to me. I do not accept what he says because it is Don Wilkie Saying it, (I do not know him in the slightest) I accept it because it seems reasonable.

I am willing to look at other information, but as yet I have seen very little that convinces me that Barack or Anybody else could afford to, or wished to send himself and Stanley Dunham to Kenya for any reason. Not to say it is impossible, but it makes far less sense than other likelier scenarios.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for the link.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think that for the purposes of this discussion, "barely a state" is like "a little bit pregnant." Can we agree that birth in Hawaii counts as birth in the United States, and skip the "remote, multicultural, migratory island hub" nonsense?

Oh absolutely. I count birth in Hawaii as birth *IN* the United States. I was not trying to suggest otherwise, I was merely pointing out that Hawaii was an "accidental" state. As I mentioned before, even were it not a State, it would still have been a territory, upon which the 14th amendment and other laws would still be operational.

I don't know--I don't know how we would know without researching all 49 other birth certificate policies. But that doesn't mean that said Hawaii birth certificate would list the child's birthplace as "Hawaii." I seriously doubt Hawaii was that lax

And yet I have seen no proof one way or the other. I read articles about Hawaii being used to provide birth citizenship to foreigners in some sort of corruption scheme, but I do not know with what credibility I should regard such charges. The fact that it actually has a law which would ALLOW this, says to me that we cannot be sure they behave in the same manner as other states.

*I* do not know if Hawaii recorded them as having been born in Hawaii, or if they actually DID put down the real place of birth. I do know that what I have so far seen presented as a "certified copy of the original... or an abstract of the record on file" is not convincing as an actual 1961 document.

I have postulated that it is a replacement birth certificated created by the Hawaii Department of Health by a court order regarding an adopted child. I suspect Obama was adopted by his Grandparents in 1971, and his original document is sealed. I think his lawyers got a judge in Hawaii to order the creation of an amended birth certificate or an annulled adoption to produce the document he has now.

As I have mentioned constantly, *I* am an adopted child. I have a birth certificate which was created 6 years after I was born. Very little of the information on it is factually correct. My birth date, time of birth, weight, etc. are all correct, but My name, my parents names, addresses, vocations, etc are all incorrect. I know this because I happen to have a copy of my original as well. :)

I believe there is SOME sort of hanky panky going on with his document, and there are several possible reasons. We Americans ought not to have to guess about this stuff. Hawaii should not be permitted to apply it's privacy laws to the Presidency. All the states have a stake in his legitimacy, and therefore all of them deserve to know what his original proof of citizenship looks like.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Subjective loyalties?? A primary allegiance is NOT a subjective loyalty.

Actually, in that context, that's exactly what it was. Madison was not making a citizenship argument. He was making a moral argument about where the loyalty of colonists should lie. But he certainly wasn't arguing that the colonists were not lawful citizens of England prior to them opting out via the Declaration.

But this criticism really pales to the other blatant misrepresention in your post:

"When Madison says "I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community;" the only way that such persons are members is through their parents. That's how one has a 'right of birth. It's why Madison said: "Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the dishonesty of many people pushing the birther agenda. I bolded your language claiming that Madison was talking about parentage to illustrate how badly you've misrepresented the actual quote in question. The full quote, that you omitted, is as follows, and I will bold Madison's critical language that you deliberately omitted:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony.

So as you can see, when you look at the full quote, it is apparent that the reference to his ancestors being there for so long was illustrative of that fact he was clearly born in that place. Because, as Madison said, it is place of birth, NOT PARENTAGE, "is what applies in the United States."

Here is the source for any who care to check it for themselves:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives

That being said, if you were just repeating this quote and argument because it appeared somewhere else, and were not aware of the other language, then you are simply misinformed, and it is someone else who is deliberately misleading people. But if you were aware of the entire quote, and deliberately misled people by omitting the rest of the paragraph, that is pretty lousy.

[edge919]

I didn't say it was an amendment of a previously existing law. There was no exclusion of children born outside of Hawaii from getting birth certificates. We know they could already register such births according to the HI DOH spokesbabe Janice Okubo:

“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate."

Look at the law you cited. Notice that there's nothing in about verifying the facts of birth, but only proof of Hawaiian residency.

[edge919]

Actually, in that context, that's exactly what it was. Madison was not making a citizenship argument. He was making a moral argument about where the loyalty of colonists should lie.

I'm trying not to laugh out loud, but this is simply ridiculous.

I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.

So as you can see, when you look at the full quote, it is apparent that the reference to his ancestors being there for so long was illustrative of that fact he was clearly born in that place. Because, as Madison said, it is place of birth, NOT PARENTAGE, "is what applies in the United States."

Madison says place of birth is ONE criterion, not that it's the ONLY criterion. And you are ignoring that he IMMEDIATELY follows his comment by talking about Smith's birthright through his ancestors. Smith was being challenged because he was born a British subject, which would be based on place of birth, same as what you want to believe Madison was arguing. Madison had to explain there were differing levels of allegiances in determining citizenship AND he specifically rejects the British common law argument by saying:

In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.

Going by what YOU want to believe, Smith should be a natural-born British subject at birth, but Madison argues that a naturalization law would have been required to do that because the King could only make those born in the colonies to be denizens, which is neither an alien nor a subject.

[Natufian]

“Look at the law you cited. Notice that there’s nothing in about verifying the facts of birth, but only proof of Hawaiian residency.”

Yes, there is.

The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

[edge919]

This doesn’t specifically prescribe rules for verifying the facts of birth. It’s a conditional clause. Again, we have a statement from a DOH employee acknowledging births can be registered in Hawaii that occurred out of state in direct reference to a person who was born well before the residency law was added.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Here is the testimony of Dr. Edward J. Erler Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Bernardino and Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, testifying Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, June 25, 1997. He says that the founders EXPLICITLY rejected the English Common law as the basis for American Citizenship.

So what? Plenty of professors and legal scholars have opined on all sorts of things, and there's nothing in particular about this guy that makes him any more authoritative

Overall, it's a not a terrible article, but much stronger in some places than others. The biggest hole relating specifically to this issue is this:

"James Madison wrote that one "fundamental principle of the revolution" was the assertion of the competence of American legislatures to pass legislation independently of the common law. In some cases, aspects of the common law were accepted as a matter of convenience, in others it was rejected outright as incompatible with the principles of a free and self-governing nation...."

This is accurate, and a commonly accepted principle of American jurisprudence today. The new nation and states clearly had the right to pass legislation varying from Englich common law, so to the extent we pass legislation doing so, the common law is abrogated. No quibble with that. But then your professor makes a gigantic leap after semi-quoting Madison:

"Surely the notion of birth-right citizenship, with its requirement of indefeasible allegiance to a king, was one of those aspects of the common that was rejected by the principles of the Declaration of Independence."

No proof, no argument. Just a "surely" that's what they meant. "Surely", "Clearly" etc., are things lawyers say when the facts are neither sure nor clear. Because if they "surely" meant that, then why didn't they actually say it? It would have been incredibly easy to make it clear that this was one of those instances in which they were vaarying from the common law. Do what Madison said and write legislation, something clear, making the point. Didn't happen. And this professor asks us to believe that all the Framers and (far more importantly) the people who voted on ratification, all somehow knew that this particular aspect of English common law was being abandoned in the Constitution despite the complete absence of any written statement to that effect.

As I said, it is preposterious.

[noinfringers2]

I don’t recall that it has been argued explicitly that it was a translated version of Vattel that the Founders were aware of and definitely had copies of. I think many of the Founders were knowledgeable with the French language. You are correct as to dates and incidents but the knowledge of the Founders needs to be in the context.

[justrepublican]

I think that for the purposes of this discussion, "barely a state" is like "a little bit pregnant." Can we agree that birth in Hawaii counts as birth in the United States, and skip the "remote, multicultural, migratory island hub" nonsense?

Deep in "the long thread" it is posited the state of Hawaii being new, was eager to develop as large population base as federal monies were calculated from this number.

[DiogenesLamp]

No proof, no argument. Just a "surely" that's what they meant. "Surely", "Clearly" etc., are things lawyers say when the facts are neither sure nor clear. Because if they "surely" meant that, then why didn't they actually say it? It would have been incredibly easy to make it clear that this was one of those instances in which they were vaarying from the common law.

Strangely enough, I have heard this question before. I used to be very heavily into supporting gun owners rights, and people were always asking why they didn't make the second amendment more clear. My answer was always "They did."

They made it very clear for the language of their time. That they made it no clearer was because they did not see any need to do so. It is only with modern liberal twisting that anyone could develop the false notion that the Second Amendment protects the National Guard's (Militia) right to have guns.

That over time, the meaning of "natural born citizen" could be so twisted as it is today, was an idea of which they could not conceive. Prior to 1922, birth to dual citizen parents wasn't possible. How could the founders foresee Women's lib? (dual citizenship was accidentally created by the unintentional consequences of the Cable Act of 1922.)

Do what Madison said and write legislation, something clear, making the point. Didn't happen.

New York and other States did write legislation. Here is a copy of the New York Legislation prohibiting citizenship from the children of Transient Aliens.

And this professor asks us to believe that all the Framers and (far more importantly) the people who voted on ratification, all somehow knew that this particular aspect of English common law was being abandoned in the Constitution despite the complete absence of any written statement to that effect.

I have other scholars, that indicate the same thing, this is just one of them. I also have references to Vattel in the Ratification Debates among the States. I'll post them if you want to see them. Are you familiar with this document? It is a page of a Newspaper printed in 1811, and purportedly written by James Madison under his Pen Name of PUBLIUS.

It tends to indicate that the founders very much intended that FEDERAL citizenship be defined as being something more than born on the soil.

[DiogenesLamp]

Deep in "the long thread" it is posited the state of Hawaii being new, was eager to develop as large population base as federal monies were calculated from this number.

And Representation in Congress. I can see where there would be little pressure to worry much about veracity, as long as any errors were to the benefit of the new state.

Not sure it is an effective means of motivating petty bureaucrats, but who knows? :)

It is a piece to keep in the back of our minds though.

[x]

Madison was president then, and had a lot more to worry about. I guess it’s possible he could have written the article, but Roman pseudonyms like Publius, Brutus, and Cato were pretty common in the journalism of the day.

[DiogenesLamp]

Madison was president then, and had a lot more to worry about. I guess it’s possible he could have written the article, but Roman pseudonyms like Publius, Brutus, and Cato were pretty common in the journalism of the day.

Publius was well known as one of the authors of the Federalist papers. (The other two were Alexander Hamilton (dead) and John Jay. The original author of the Natural born citizenship clause.) It might be possible that someone would attempt the scam of borrowed prestige from the Successful Federalists, but two different newspaper editors would have had to allow it. Noticing that Both were In Virginia, it makes me wonder how likely it was that someone OTHER than John Jay or James Madison could have gotten away with it.

Even if it were someone else, the fact remains they pointed out that citizenship in a state was not the same thing as Federal citizenship. This is a direct refutation of the notion that all which is required is to be born here. There are others who support this claim as well, not the least are the two supreme court justices mentioned above.

This is just another piece of evidence that doesn't fit the jus soli solution.

[PA-RIVER]

But it is undeniable that those who ratified the constituion knew this:

A born British Subject would not be eligible for the presidency.

Now what was Obama?

[Plummz]

The SSDI index online is not all-inclusive. I have a relative who was born in the 1890s and died in the 1970s. He is not listed.