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

Skip to comments.

NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP NOT DEFINED BY BIRTH CERTIFICATES
The Daily Pen ^ | 02/26/2012 | Dan Crosby

Posted on 02/29/2012 7:17:11 AM PST by TexasVoter

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last
Every public official, every candidate for public office, every registered voter and every media employee should be required to take three minutes and read this. Heck, just make that everyone.
1 posted on 02/29/2012 7:17:16 AM PST by TexasVoter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter
It's a blog.

If you think it's so important for everyone to read, why not post the whole thing?

2 posted on 02/29/2012 7:22:43 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter; Tex-Con-Man

When the state of Hawaii is described as “a remote, multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean”, and the blog writer has no knowledge of the law (see http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html), then please spare us the blog ping.


3 posted on 02/29/2012 7:25:49 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

There’s only 1 cookie from Blogger and nothing else.

Nobody’s making money off this one.


4 posted on 02/29/2012 7:39:34 AM PST by Salamander (You don't know what's going on inside of me. You don't wanna know what's running through my mind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter

The Saint Francis School Foundation (St. Francis Assisi School, Djakarta, Indonesia) is an entity incorporated in the State of Connecticut.


5 posted on 02/29/2012 7:58:53 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
If you think it's so important for everyone to read, why not post the whole thing?

Hey, this topic is stupid, and a waste of time. Isn't that your opinion? Funny how certain of you always seem to find the time to bother with it.

You are either obsessed conservative loons, or agents provocateur.

6 posted on 02/29/2012 8:02:31 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“The Saint Francis School Foundation (St. Francis Assisi School, Djakarta, Indonesia) is an entity incorporated in the State of Connecticut.”

Interesting! Got link?


7 posted on 02/29/2012 8:03:39 AM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter
Only sonemone who defends someone whoFORGED not one, not two, but THREE FALSE Birth Certificates, would write such garbage!!!
8 posted on 02/29/2012 8:04:33 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Scratch that. How about another theory. You have family that falls into the category being discussed, (Like Mr. Rogers) and as a result you have an emotional attachment to your position. *THAT* would explain your opinion AND your obsession.

Texas huh? And how might members of your family fit into the objectionable category? Seems as though it shares a border with a foreign country.

Do you HAVE a personal interest in this issue? Would it affect members of your family were it decided as my side suggests?

9 posted on 02/29/2012 8:09:36 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Declarartion on Stanley Ann's Passport renewal: If a person included the original passport has been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state, then strike their name out.






10 posted on 02/29/2012 8:12:10 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Your distance from the truth increases with each subsequent delusional post...continue....
11 posted on 02/29/2012 8:18:58 AM PST by Tex-Con-Man (T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII 2012 - "Together, I Shall Ride You To Victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“...strike thier name out.”

It’s amazing how much we are learning as we persevere. Can you offer a source for the instructions for passport renewal which you suggest directs the applicant to identify a citizenship change in this way?


12 posted on 02/29/2012 8:21:51 AM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
When the state of Hawaii is described as “a remote, multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean”, and the blog writer has no knowledge of the law (see http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html), then please spare us the blog ping.

He may know more about History than do you. From MY reading, Hawaii was only given State status as a Trade to the Democrats for agreeing to allow Republican Alaska into the Union. Were it on it's own merits, it likely wouldn't have been a state at all, but would have instead been "a remote multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean" classified as a "territory."

13 posted on 02/29/2012 8:24:10 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Do you think that has some connection to the Connecticut SS#?


14 posted on 02/29/2012 8:25:06 AM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man
Your distance from the truth increases with each subsequent delusional post...continue....

My theory makes more sense than your presence for any other reason. Why does someone who considers the issue ridiculous spend so much time involved with those who would discuss it?

Occam's razor dude. You are either an obsessed loon, or you have a personal interest in a specific *SIDE* of this issue. Mr. Roger's personal interest is known. Your's, if any, is not. How about stating for the record that you have no relatives which would be affected were citizenship to depend on the Parent's nationality?

If you say so, i'll consider the matter settled. While I think you're a kook, (or an interested party) I do not suspect you of being a liar.

15 posted on 02/29/2012 8:33:34 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I found the blog accurate in all the things that I have knowledge of. I did not find that the author ever stated that Obama wasn't a citizen. He just isn't an Article II Natural Born Citizen which is correct. The law you linked is about how difficult it is to lose your citizenship and that no one can lose it for you. The author never said this happened. I fail to see your point.
16 posted on 02/29/2012 8:34:00 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

“Do you think that has some connection to the Connecticut SS#?”

Yes. Obama returned to Hawaii and lived with his grandmother who had been nominated as his guardian. Legal custody of Obama was maintained in Connecticut until the age of majority. Permanent Resident Aliens are eligible for a SSN.


17 posted on 02/29/2012 8:39:14 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; faucetman

Is Hawaii a state, and was it so in the 1960s?

Yes. Just as much a state as Iowa, Virginia or Utah.

“The law you linked is about how difficult it is to lose your citizenship and that no one can lose it for you. The author never said this happened.”

“then suddenly reappear back on the island four years later under suspicious circumstances without any evidence of repatriation”

Repatriation means to return to the land of your citizenship, so if Obama returned at age 10 without repatriating, it meant he had lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia.

“I found the blog accurate in all the things that I have knowledge of.”

Hmmm...you mean like quoting from the 1797 translation of Vattel as if it was available during the 1787 convention?


18 posted on 02/29/2012 8:42:05 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Hawaii became a state in 1959. Only two years later Obama is born there (supposedly). Hawaii is still in transition from “a remote, multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean”, to a state, with goofy laws that allow anyone, no matter where they were born, to become a citizen of Hawaii, thus a citizen of the United States. Obama may have obtained his Hawaiian birth certificate (if he even has one) in this manner.


19 posted on 02/29/2012 8:43:05 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Mr. Roger’s personal interest is known.”

Really? What is it?

I’ll give you a hint: I think birthers are delusional...


20 posted on 02/29/2012 8:44:49 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Here's something to ponder. Now think about those facts,and statements.
21 posted on 02/29/2012 8:50:51 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: faucetman; DiogenesLamp
Hawaii is still in transition from “a remote, multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean”, to a state, with goofy laws

Wait, is this the new birther line of attack? That Hawaii somehow wasn't a "real" state but some kind of semi-state that hadn't really earned its statehood yet? People have been joking for years that birthers would eventually start demanding Hawaii's statehood certificate--has that day come?

But seriously: do you guys accept that Hawaii qualified as one of the United States for Article II purposes, or not? If so, why even bring up its remoteness or its multiculturalness--isn't that irrelevant?

22 posted on 02/29/2012 8:57:36 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

“The Saint Francis School Foundation (St. Francis Assisi School, Djakarta, Indonesia) is an entity incorporated in the State of Connecticut.”

Could you please document or source this compelling citation?

Do you know if St. Francis Assisi School received funding from or had some other kind of relationship to the Ford Foundation’s Asia program? That program was headed by Peter Geithner, father of Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geithner. I understand Stanley Ann Soetoro was an employee or even a developer of the Ford Foundation’s Asia program while she lived in Indonesia.


23 posted on 02/29/2012 9:01:07 AM PST by TexasVoter (No Constitution? No Union!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Consider these witnesses:

Case CLOSED!!!

Now ... think about it.

24 posted on 02/29/2012 9:01:24 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born outside of Hawaii, as a number of other states will do. However, those certificates show the birth location as a foreign country.


25 posted on 02/29/2012 9:07:52 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Repatriation means to return to the land of your citizenship, so if Obama returned at age 10 without repatriating, it meant he had lost his US citizenship while in Indonesia.

Words mean things. There is a QUESTION about Obama’s citizenship. I think he was born in Kenya, but there are only questions no proof. Unless of course you believe a birth certificate. I agree that IF Obama was born in Hawaii, the law is clear that, not being the age of majority, that his parents could not take away his “citizenship”. No foreign could take away his citizenship. IF HE WAS BORN IN THE USA. A BIG if. It is just unknown.

“I found the blog accurate in all the things that I have knowledge of.”

Hmmm...you mean like quoting from the 1797 translation of Vattel as if it was available during the 1787 convention?

It WAS available during the 1787 convention. In French and English.

26 posted on 02/29/2012 9:15:34 AM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Not it the parents LIE, and "say" the child was born in Hawaii, but provide no proof, such as a Birth Certificate with a foot print on it.
27 posted on 02/29/2012 9:17:08 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TexasVoter
Interesting! Got link?

I don't recall Sven ever backing his theories up with actual sources.

28 posted on 02/29/2012 9:18:19 AM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
It's crackpot nonsense. They can't even arrive at a single legal theory among themselves. Is it two citizen parents, do both of those have to be only ever U.S. citizens, can the parents be naturalized, does location matter, etc., etc.

Once I discovered the first congress and president Washington added kids born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be "Natural Born Citizens" themselves, the Vittal-focused argument was senseless.

Congress could clearly define what NBC was and Vittal conflates "native" and "natural born" anyway which only strengthens the view that NBC means someone not naturalized or never a citizen and that birth-right citizenship, a.k.a natural born citizenship, is whatever Congress says it is whether it's a version of Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis or both.

29 posted on 02/29/2012 9:23:18 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Spelling flub: Vittal = Vattel


30 posted on 02/29/2012 9:25:47 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum: 18-point loss, voted for Sotomayor, proposed $550M on top of $900M Amtrak budget...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
The citizenship of every person in the Colonies at the time of the Revolution was determined by English law. Everyone knew that if you were born in one of the Colonies, you were a full citizen under English law. That's what everyone understood because that's what they were born into.

To assume that the people in the States who read the Constitution, and elected Delegates to ratify it, somehow understood that the entire definition of citizenship they had always known was being tossed in favor of the unmentioned (in the Constitution) interpretation of some Swiss legal theorist, is preposterous. There is absolutely no basis for inferring that the Citizens of the new United States understood that the basic English concept of birth citizenship had been changed in that document because it was not mentioned.

What some elites may have written in their own debates is irrelevant. What matters is the meaning of the words as commonly understood at the time by the citizens who approved the Constitution, because it is only from them that the validity of the Constitution flows. And any claim that de Vattel's citizenship theory was the one commonly understood by the average American at the time of ratification is simply preposterous.

31 posted on 02/29/2012 9:29:04 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Permanent Resident Aliens are eligible for a SSN.

But they are not elegible to be President of the United States.


32 posted on 02/29/2012 9:30:21 AM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Why was the SS# recycled? Supposedly it belonged to someone born in 1890, who died in the 70’s in Hawaii.
I do believe granny had something to do with the procurement of the SS#.


33 posted on 02/29/2012 9:32:38 AM PST by Josephat (The old claim your evengelizing people who haven't heard the gospel, but go to a Catholic country tr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

“It WAS available during the 1787 convention. In French and English. “

No. The 1797 translation was NOT available in 1787.

And in the French, Vattel NEVER used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ - it being, after all, a phrase that didn’t exist when Vattel was writing in the 1750s. The closest equivalent would have been ‘natural born subject’ - and the French for that is & was “sujets naturel”.


34 posted on 02/29/2012 10:10:55 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

“Why was the SS# recycled? Supposedly it belonged to someone born in 1890, who died in the 70’s in Hawaii.”

SSNs are never recycled. Any SSN issued to a person born in 1890 has been retired and not used again. Retired SSNs are publicly available by viewing the SS Death Index.

If Obama was using a retired SSN, it could matched with the person it was originally issued to by viewing the SS Death Index. Obviously, the meme of Obama using the SSN of a person born in 1890 is a scam to provide cover for Obama legally obtaining a Connecticut SSN through his legal custodian located in Connecticut.


35 posted on 02/29/2012 10:14:46 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (What would MacGyver do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
The citizenship of every person in the Colonies at the time of the Revolution was determined by English law. Everyone knew that if you were born in one of the Colonies, you were a full citizen under English law. That's what everyone understood because that's what they were born into.

Madison disagreed. He said the primary allegiance was to the colony of birth and that the allegiance to England was secondary. IOW, one was NOT a full citizen under English law, because the DoI dissolved that allegiance ... and under English law, citizenship requires perpetual allegiance.

I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship, but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. 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.

Madison explained further:

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; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign:

I doubt that English law recognized its citizenship as secondary allegiance. It's because of this principle that Madison references that the founders who were born in and to members of the colonies considered themselves to be natural-born citizens, not natural-born subjects.

36 posted on 02/29/2012 10:17:03 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Rogers, you’re being pathetic again. It’s already been shown that the founders translated the French word “naturel” as “natural-born” as early as 1781. Why do you think that 1797 translation was changed?? It reflected the common interpretation PRIOR to 1797.


37 posted on 02/29/2012 10:19:56 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Josephat

Dont’ get too wrapped up in Sven’s web.

He just makes this stuff up to see who he can get to beleive it.

It’s a running joke on FR.


38 posted on 02/29/2012 10:25:29 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“It’s already been shown that the founders translated the French word “naturel” as “natural-born” as early as 1781.”

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


39 posted on 02/29/2012 10:28:46 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: edge919
First, Madison did not disagree. Subjective loyalties don't change citizenship. Further, from what you cited, Madison said this:

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;

that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign:

Clearly, independence changed to whom loyalty and citizenship ran because the identity of the sovereign changed, but it did not change the rules that determined citizenship itself. Did people who were previously citizens of Massachusetts because they were born there somehow shift to being a non-citizen after independence? No. In fact, the Constitution doesn't define citizenship at all, and the only law in effect in the Colonies that could reasonably be assumed to define citizenship was the exact same pure birthright citizenship to which all the colonists had been subject under English law. It was all they knew.

But again what Madison or any other Framer may have held for an opinion isn't relevant. Power comes from the people, so it is their reasonable understanding of the normal meaning of those words, in the context of their time, that matters. You can't slip some ideosyncratic definition of citizenship into the Constitution silently, based on the unwritten opinions of some of the people involved in its drafting. the citizenship of their parents was suddenly an issue?

40 posted on 02/29/2012 10:38:06 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You are arguing with the wrong person over this. My understanding of the law is that one’s parents or guardians are not capable of renouncing anyone’s citizenship but their own.

A person who is born as an American Citizen cannot be deprived of their citizenship through any action of their parents or guardians, it must be done by themselves after reaching an age of majority.

Now I understand that Sven Magnussen (sp?) disagrees, and he may well have some statute or regulation that says so, but till I see something in statute that convinces me otherwise, I am going to continue believing that a person’s citizenship is not subject to the whims of their parents or guardian.


41 posted on 02/29/2012 11:29:56 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Hawaii became a state in 1959. Only two years later Obama is born there (supposedly). Hawaii is still in transition from “a remote, multicultural, migratory island hub way out in the Pacific ocean”, to a state, with goofy laws that allow anyone, no matter where they were born, to become a citizen of Hawaii, thus a citizen of the United States. Obama may have obtained his Hawaiian birth certificate (if he even has one) in this manner.

My current working theory is that Stanley Ann Dunham was sent to live with Aunt Eleanor Birkebeile, or Uncle Ralph Dunham in NorthWest Washington, (as was the custom for embarrassing pregnant girls of that era) and when her due date arrived, she took advantage of a Free Canadian Hospital, then called mom who filled out an "at home birth" affidavit to initiate paperwork in Hawaii. (Which by the way, allows a Hawaiian resident to get a birth certificate from Hawaii, regardless of where the child is born.)

I consider the theory to be quite plausible, and until evidence emerges which renders it implausible, I will continue to use it as my working theory. Had Obama an actual ordinary Hawaiian birth certificate, we would not have seen all these peculiar leaps, dodges, twists and gyrations.

42 posted on 02/29/2012 11:35:59 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Really? What is it?

You have family, about which this topic applies. If I am wrong about this, then I am misinformed. Am I wrong?

43 posted on 02/29/2012 11:37:42 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Wait, is this the new birther line of attack? That Hawaii somehow wasn't a "real" state but some kind of semi-state that hadn't really earned its statehood yet? People have been joking for years that birthers would eventually start demanding Hawaii's statehood certificate--has that day come?

But seriously: do you guys accept that Hawaii qualified as one of the United States for Article II purposes, or not? If so, why even bring up its remoteness or its multiculturalness--isn't that irrelevant?

I cannot speak for faucetman, but 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. It would still have been a territory though, so the jurisdiction argument would still apply.

Apart from that, I believe faucetman is pointing out that a territory newly transformed into a state might not have been so picky about the veracity of their records. I point out that it is worse than that. As an Island destination, it was not at all uncommon during most of it's American History, for children to be born in transit on ships. As a result, it's laws are EXTREMELY lax in regards to concerns about actual PLACE of birth.

Any child born in transit could receive a Hawaiian birth certificate at the first Hawaiian port at which the ship arrived. One might think this is bad enough for the "place" argument, but it is even worse. Hawaii, by statue, will issue a birth certificate to the child of ANY Hawaiian resident, regardless where the child is born.

What this means is that 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?

44 posted on 02/29/2012 11:52:17 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Find her or Barack Sr. on a passenger manifest and i'll consider that you've got something. The whole theory falls apart when you consider only one aspect of it. Money.

As this article points out, Barack Sr. didn't seem to have the funds even if he could fly now and pay later.

45 posted on 02/29/2012 11:56:47 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You’re arguing against yourself. “Sujets” = subjects, which means “naturel” = naturel born. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.


46 posted on 02/29/2012 12:07:15 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
You have a circumstantial case, and that is if you ignore SOME circumstances that contradict the case.

I'm not going to go through a litany of everything wrong with it, i'll just mention that I don't find it persuasive, and I am a person that thinks Obama may possibly have been born in a foreign country. (He could also have actually been born in Hawaii, though his behavior seems inconsistent with this notion.)

47 posted on 02/29/2012 12:15:51 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
Subjective loyalties don't change citizenship.

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

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.
Clearly, independence changed to whom loyalty and citizenship ran because the identity of the sovereign changed, but it did not change the rules that determined citizenship itself.

Nonsense. If the King of England agreed with this, there wouldn't have been a war.

Did people who were previously citizens of Massachusetts because they were born there somehow shift to being a non-citizen after independence?

What???? No one said anyone becomes a "non-citizen." Way to twist the argument.

In fact, the Constitution doesn't define citizenship at all, and the only law in effect in the Colonies that could reasonably be assumed to define citizenship was the exact same pure birthright citizenship to which all the colonists had been subject under English law. It was all they knew.

English law wasn't all they knew. Plenty of evidence has shown that the founders used the law of nations, which is actually referenced in the Constitution.

But again what Madison or any other Framer may have held for an opinion isn't relevant.

Bwaahhhhh????? It was certainly relevant to the Supreme Court when it defined NBC:

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.

48 posted on 02/29/2012 12:19:15 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born outside of Hawaii, as a number of other states will do. However, those certificates show the birth location as a foreign country.

How do you know this? I have read that Children born aboard a ship in transit have their birth listed as having occurred *IN* Hawaii.

I think if a woman filled out (in 1961) an affidavit of at home birth, Hawaii would have accepted it and initiated all the appropriate paperwork. My recollection is that the mother had up to a year to bring the child in for verification.

49 posted on 02/29/2012 12:21:07 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
It was available in 1760 in English. It used the word "native" which as Justice Waite pointed out, means the same thing in that era as "natural born citizen." Someone born to two citizen parents within the jurisdiction of a nation.
50 posted on 02/29/2012 12:24:08 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

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.

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