Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The best definition of natural born I've seen
The Federalist Blog ^ | November 18, 2008 | P.A. Madison

Posted on 12/07/2008 10:47:56 PM PST by The Watcher

What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.

(Excerpt) Read more at federalistblog.us ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 2008; certifigate; citizenship; naturalborncitizen; naturalization; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; president
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 next last
This is the best commentary I have read, bar none, on what is the meaning of natural-born, and just as importantly, what is NOT.

The author has researched well. Although not based on case law, the logic and reasoning are clear and easy to follow and seem flawless.

1 posted on 12/07/2008 10:47:56 PM PST by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
logic and reasoning
Well, there's your problem. The libs don't have any.
2 posted on 12/07/2008 10:57:35 PM PST by smokingfrog (I'll go green when they plant me in the ground.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

An interesting read but I disagree. Natural Born Citizen means anyone who receives citizenship by birth, and not through a naturalization process.

I get this from two documents by John Jay and Hamilton provided on pg 888-889 of this paper, I think they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone born a US citizen who didn’t renounce that citizenship, can be US president.

http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf


3 posted on 12/07/2008 11:14:09 PM PST by zarodinu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarodinu

Welcome to Free Republic.....


4 posted on 12/07/2008 11:16:46 PM PST by BossLady (Ok Everybody......Get Ready For ......'THE MOOD RING PRESIDENCY'......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zarodinu

I think the case is compelling that it requires a person be a citizen without reliance upon any law.

That is, both parents being citizens, and birth where no other jurisdiction exists.


5 posted on 12/07/2008 11:19:09 PM PST by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

Those born in the US are citizens not by a law or statute, but by 14th amendment. Hence natural born citizens.


6 posted on 12/07/2008 11:25:03 PM PST by zarodinu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog
" logic and reasoning Well, there's your problem. The libs don't have any. "

You might as well add in there accountability, the Liberals are never held accountable.
7 posted on 12/07/2008 11:38:44 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM .53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zarodinu
Natural Born Citizen means anyone who receives citizenship by birth, and not through a naturalization process

I concur, Natural born is the opposite of Naturalized. There are citizens and non-citizens. Of the citizens, you are either natural born or naturalized. This is not rocket science people.

8 posted on 12/07/2008 11:51:31 PM PST by DCBurgess58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DCBurgess58

Follow this: Obama was a dual citizen at birth by his own admission, so when his British/Kenyan citizenship expired he became solely U.S. thus naturalized not natural born ... cannot be natural born citizen if born with dividied citizenship.


9 posted on 12/07/2008 11:54:29 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zarodinu

Wrong, but nice try. Reach back tot he days of the founders and see what it was they were trying to acvoid in a POTUS ... divided loyalties. Having citizenship in two countries at birth is divided loyalties. If born on a ship at sea under no nation’s flag, what would determine if natural born or not? ... Both parents being American citizens would make the child a natural born citizen.


10 posted on 12/07/2008 11:58:37 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

Well, at least we know if something happens and Obama does not get sworn in, he could go torture the Brits by trying to be Prime Minister!


11 posted on 12/08/2008 12:03:20 AM PST by dianed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I believe my link (pg 888-889) show the founders did not share your view of natural born citizenship. Furthermore, there is evidence that at least one former US president (Chester Arthur) was born of one non-US citizen.


12 posted on 12/08/2008 12:10:58 AM PST by zarodinu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

The U.S. has never recognized dual citizenship. One is either a citizen or not a citizen. If one is a citizen, one is a citizen by birth (i.e., a natural born citizen), or by naturalization. There is not, nor has there ever been, a third “type” of citizenship.

Yes, the founders wanted to ensure that a President was wholly loyal to the United States, but they sought to do so by requiring that the President be a citizen from birth, not through naturalization.

Your argument sounds nice, but, frankly, it lacks Constitutional, statutory, historical, and case-law support of any kind.


13 posted on 12/08/2008 12:19:26 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: zarodinu

I don’t no who this Jill Pryor is; her conclusions are nothing but Bull Crap. I doubt anyone has taken her writing in the Yale Law Journal seriously. It appears to me you pick a Loon to cite.


14 posted on 12/08/2008 12:21:49 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Why do you say that? Why not respond to Pryor’s argument instead of attacking the messenger by calling her a loon? Ad hominem attacks are rarely productive.


15 posted on 12/08/2008 12:26:11 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, inserted the phrase:
“... All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means ... Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens ...”


16 posted on 12/08/2008 12:28:11 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
” ... I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”


17 posted on 12/08/2008 12:29:15 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Read pg 888-889. I don’t care what this guy says. I care what Hamilton and John Jay said.


18 posted on 12/08/2008 12:29:31 AM PST by zarodinu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

That is in fact the point of the lesson ... because Barack Obama by his own admission had British citizenship at birth that his father registered for him, Barack Obama could not be an American citizen naturalized until his British citizenship expired. You tell me the U.S. has never recognized dual citizenship (false, I have a cousin who is now naturalized here and still holds her Mexican citizenship) yet you expect that Barack Obama can claim British and American citizenship? Is that what you’re trying to tell me?


19 posted on 12/08/2008 12:31:55 AM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

no = know


20 posted on 12/08/2008 12:33:58 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
That quote seems to be suggesting that the child of a foreign citizen is not a citizen at all. This is a position that has been consistently rejected for over 100 years - if the framers of the fourteenth amendment wanted citizenship to attach only to children of people "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," they would have said that; they didn't. The word "complete" appears only in this one senator's interpretation of the amendment, not in the amendment itself.

Also, that is a quote that deals with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the Fourteenth amendment. It says nothing about the interpretation of the phrase "natural born citizen" in Article 2. Unless, again, you are arguing that the children of non-citizens are not citizens, in which case you'd be ignoring 100+ years of consistent caselaw & statutes.

21 posted on 12/08/2008 12:36:14 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DCBurgess58; zarodinu; The Watcher; smokingfrog; BossLady; Prophet in the wilderness; MHGinTN; ...
Natural Born Citizen means anyone who receives citizenship by birth, and not through a naturalization process

I concur, Natural born is the opposite of Naturalized. There are citizens and non-citizens. Of the citizens, you are either natural born or naturalized. This is not rocket science people.

Well, I'll be interested in what John Jay did say (not much, Hamilton) but you will find in this article, apparent sources and resources relevant to the framers, which require both components (birth in state and birth by citizen father).

They include John A. Bingham (framer of 14th Amendment), St. George Tucker (foremost commentary on Blackstone vis a vis U.S. Law) and Emmerich de Vatel (The Law of Nations).

The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge

Zarodinu why don't you do us the favor of excerpting and posting what you deem most relevant from John Jay? And yes, welcome to FR.

22 posted on 12/08/2008 12:36:34 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Pryor makes the argument that naturalized citizens are actually natural born citizens and therefore eligible for the presidency. She’s probable a loon on the left.


23 posted on 12/08/2008 12:39:25 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The U.S. does not recognize the concept of dual citizenship. You are either an American citizen, or you are not an American citizen. Whether you also hold citizenship in another country does not matter. In other words, your cousin's Mexican citizenship has no bearing on her U.S. citizenship. The U.S. government doesn't care that she is a Mexican citizen; the relevant question is not "which country(ies) is she a citizen of?" but rather, "is she a citizen of the United States?"

Look at it this way - if Britain enacted a law stating that any person who has at least one British grandparent is a British citizen, would that mean that the grandchild of a British citizen, born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents would not be a "natural born citizen"? After all, under British law, that child would be a British citizen.

The point, of course, is this: It is absurd (and in fact dangerous) to think that an American's citizenship - or eligibility to be President - can depend on the operation of foreign law. I do not want any foreign country to have any say, even incidentally, over who can or cannot be my President.

24 posted on 12/08/2008 12:43:41 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: zarodinu; DCBurgess58; The Watcher; smokingfrog; BossLady; Prophet in the wilderness; MHGinTN; ...
I believe my link (pg 888-889) show the founders did not share your view of natural born citizenship. Furthermore, there is evidence that at least one former US president (Chester Arthur) was born of one non-US citizen.

OK, I read those two pages. They say that they don't say.

I.e., they say that neither Jay's nor Hamilton's correspondence are specific about the matter of what exactly constitutes a "natural born citizen." And they say that correctly, because the excerpts this book lists are not definitive on the matter.

Therefore, one must look at the contempraneous sources that these founder and framer folk frequented -- and the documentation of others. That is what I have just given you. ;-)

Now, the significant point is that Jay sought to exclude foreign allegiances for the Commander in Chief, in requiring a "natural born citizen" -- something that Donofrio is explicit about in his suit.

25 posted on 12/08/2008 12:46:49 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; MHGinTN
The point, of course, is this: It is absurd (and in fact dangerous) to think that an American's citizenship - or eligibility to be President - can depend on the operation of foreign law. I do not want any foreign country to have any say, even incidentally, over who can or cannot be my President.

Hardly, when it comes to being born by a father who passes one's citizenship to the child. That competing allegiance is exactly and explicitly what the framers and founders sought to avoid.

You can cite ridiculous examples of someone in the PRC calling Sarah Palin a Citizen of China all night long, but that is hardly the same thing.

26 posted on 12/08/2008 12:49:35 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Here's what Jill Pryor concludes. Her "research" is dubious at best.

IV. CONCLUSION

If the eligibility of a presidential candidate born outside the territorial United States were challenged under the natural-born citizen clause today, the outcome, based on traditional methods of approaching the clause, would be unpredictable and unsatisfactory. This Note's approach removes the confusion caused by Supreme Court dicta asserting that there are only two classes of citizens, native-born and naturalized. As historical and textual analysis has shown, a citizen may be both "naturalized" and "natural born." Under the naturalized born approach, any person with a right to American citizenship under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States at the time of his or her birth is a natural-born citizen for purposes of presidential eligibility.

27 posted on 12/08/2008 12:50:36 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"...naturalized born..."

LOL !!

28 posted on 12/08/2008 12:54:09 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: unspun

And what about my other point/question - is the child of a non-citizen, born in the U.S., a citizen at all?


29 posted on 12/08/2008 12:54:51 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Hardly, when it comes to being born by a father who passes one's citizenship to the child. That competing allegiance is exactly and explicitly what the framers and founders sought to avoid.

Once again: Yes, they sought to avoid competing allegiances, but they did so by ensuring that the President was born a citizen of this country.

You have still yet to cite anything suggesting that there has ever been a third "type" of citizen.

30 posted on 12/08/2008 12:58:27 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
And what about my other point/question - is the child of a non-citizen, born in the U.S., a citizen at all?

I believe it was customary at the founding, to allow the state the child was born in, to say so, or not. I've recently read that James Madison complained about that (he complained a lot, but I agree).

That is the "anchor baby" dilemma that remains a point of contention. Under current law, he's a Citizen. He, however was not a "natural born Citizen," to the framers, by all we know about them.

They used those two modifying words for good reason. They were our highly educated founders/framers and they were writing our Constitution, after all.

And why use extra words, anyway? The sheet of vellum is only so big.

31 posted on 12/08/2008 12:59:37 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

The following reference is by Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767). He was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He is most famous for his 1758 work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns." This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

From p. 183 of "The Law of Nations":

NOTE the words "born", "parents" and "citizens".

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Now here's a copy of the famous letter from John Jay to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention where he suggests the President be a natural born Citizen.

Notice how John Jay has Underlined the word "born". On the Constitutional drafts, he underlines born" in nearly all instances.



32 posted on 12/08/2008 1:01:22 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher
This is all very interesting, but SCOTUS will not overturn the results of an election. But suppose they did, what would happen? The electoral college would still meet. Would the Obama electors follow a supreme court ruling, or would they still elect Obama? If they did, would the court issue an injunction? What then? If the vote was declared invalid, does Joe Biden become president? Or does the whole thing got to the House, where Nancy Pelosi picks the next president? I can't imagine anything more damaging to the country; endless bickering, cynicism, charges of racism, not to mention the anger of the majority of voters at having their vote stolen from them. And in any case we would probably end up with someone as bad or worse than Obama.
33 posted on 12/08/2008 1:01:39 AM PST by Hugin (GSA! (Goodbye sweet America))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun

Why use extra words? Simply to distinguish between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.


34 posted on 12/08/2008 1:03:31 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

It’s what they get the big bucks for.


35 posted on 12/08/2008 1:04:03 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Simply to distinguish between naturalized citizens and natural born citizens.

You mean words meant things to the framers?

Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

So... somebody should tell Rush Limbaugh....

36 posted on 12/08/2008 1:05:14 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
You have still yet to cite anything suggesting that there has ever been a third "type" of citizen.

You have not read what I have cited. Read what BP2 posted, then read Tucker said -- and Bingham in the article which starts this thread.

They are both utterly clear: 1. born in the nation and, 2. born of an American citizen father.

37 posted on 12/08/2008 1:08:27 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

I’m no lawyer but even I understood most of the arguments here.
Excellent!


38 posted on 12/08/2008 1:17:21 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Except that all of those sources are, in context, discussing the notion of citizenship generally. To those writers, a person born of non-citizen parents was not a citizen at all. They were drawing a distinction between citizen and non-citizen, not between "natural born citizens" and "citizens simply born in the country." The writers you quoted still do not support the proposition that there is some sort of third type of citizenship - it's still simply "citizen" v. "non-citizen."

To the writers you quote, an individual who met your qualification (1), but not (2) would not be a citizen. This is a concept of citizenship that has been rejected in this country - via statute, case-law, and understanding of the Fourteenth amendment - for well over 100 years.

39 posted on 12/08/2008 1:18:12 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher; wndawmn666; Grampa Dave; Buckarow; PhilDragoo; SE Mom; LucyT; Windflier; Fred Nerks; ..

The definition for every president from 1837 to present:

(1) American Citizen + (1) American Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Barack Obama's Revisionist Definition:

(1) American Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on US Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

Barney Frank's "We are the World" Definition [if his 2000 Bill had been approved]:

(1) Foreign Citizen + (1) Foreign Citizen + Birth on ANY Soil = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN


40 posted on 12/08/2008 1:28:00 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Added your post to article, by link:

To cite Donofrio's own words from his blog:
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. [I.O. ed., letter by John Jay] The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
...in http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/donofrio-dual-citizenship-natural-born.html
41 posted on 12/08/2008 1:35:50 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: zarodinu
I do not understand what you disagree with. The article states quite clearly the same argument you make.

From the article:
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.

42 posted on 12/08/2008 1:50:22 AM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

Bookmarked it... Thanks for the link!


43 posted on 12/08/2008 2:17:00 AM PST by JDoutrider (Heading to Galt's Gulch... It is time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
To the writers you quote, an individual who met your qualification (1), but not (2) would not be a citizen. This is a concept of citizenship that has been rejected in this country - via statute, case-law, and understanding of the Fourteenth amendment - for well over 100 years.

That has no bearing upon the meaning of the United States Constitution. It is always to stand as written. The only way to change the meaning and intentions of the Consitution is via amendment.

44 posted on 12/08/2008 2:29:37 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

The HYPHEN also makes for DUAL Loyalties.


45 posted on 12/08/2008 2:30:11 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion.....The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: unspun

I’ll ask again - based on this interpretation of the 14th amendment, is Obama even a citizen (assuming he was born in Hawaii)?

My point, once again, remains the same: the writers you quote speak only to the definition of “citizens” as opposed to “non-citizen.” They do not, as you have presented them, draw any distinction between “natural-born citizen” and “citizen by birth, but not natural born.” To them, the latter category simply did not exist.

Considering that the latter category does exist under the 14th Amendment (as it is currently interpreted) - that is, considering that individuals born in the United States to non-citizen parents - please explain how these writers/writings support any distinction between natural-born citizens and citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens.

Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.


46 posted on 12/08/2008 2:40:35 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: The Watcher

ping for later.


47 posted on 12/08/2008 2:59:02 AM PST by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
I’ll ask again - based on this interpretation of the 14th amendment, is Obama even a citizen (assuming he was born in Hawaii)? My point, once again, remains the same: the writers you quote speak only to the definition of “citizens” as opposed to “non-citizen.” They do not, as you have presented them, draw any distinction between “natural-born citizen” and “citizen by birth, but not natural born.” To them, the latter category simply did not exist. Considering that the latter category does exist under the 14th Amendment (as it is currently interpreted) - that is, considering that individuals born in the United States to non-citizen parents - please explain how these writers/writings support any distinction between natural-born citizens and citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens. Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd. I'm not sure I understand you... But your notion of a citizen by birth - but whose parents were not citizens... Doesn't exist. They are citizens by legislation, court order and by the decision of their parents. A mother with an "anchor baby" is an interesting connundrum. She could leave once the baby is born, take the baby back to some other country, and that baby would be a citizen there. My children, for instance, do not need any decision on my part, any judge, legislated law, court ruling, nor any other act to be citizens - AND - this is the relevant part - nobody can make them citizens of another country. In other words, there is NOTHING but American jurisdiction covering them. However, if mother decides to stay here, the baby becomes a citizen, and this is by an action and exercising a law that can be altered by Congress. The "born citizen from non citizen parents" is a legal fiction, but we can make that person a citizen, just not a natural born one, by law or that person can be a citizen of another country by choice of the parent. In other words, there is another power who has authority over their citizenship. This anchor baby problem is due to improper law and interpretation of the Constitution. That mistake does not invalidate the rest of the Constitution.
48 posted on 12/08/2008 3:06:04 AM PST by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Frantzie; Smokin' Joe; OL Hickory; Poincare; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; ...

Note the questions at BOTTOM regarding 14th Amendment issues and how thed might affect Barack Obama Jr's status...

Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr., Ph.D.
Stanley Ann DUNHAM

Husband:  Barack Hussein OBAMA, Sr.
Birth:  1936, Alego, Kisumu Dist., Nyanza Prov., KEN
Death (car crash):  1982, Nairobi, KEN
Education:  University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI; Ph.D. in Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Occupation:  Senior Economist, Kenyan Ministry of Finance
Religion (according to son):  "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist"
Tribe:  Luo
Other Spouses:  m1. Helima (no issue); m3. Sarah, who is the woman Barack Jr. refers to as his (paternal) grandmother
Father:  Onyango11, a.k.a., Hussein OBAMA (1895-1979) — Obama10, Obiyo9, Okoth8, Obongo7, Otondi6, Ogelo5, Kisodhi4, Owiny3, Sigoma2, Miwiru1
Mother:  Akuma / Akumu
Marriage:  1960; Divorce: 1963
Wife:  [Stanley] Ann DUNHAM
Birth:  29 Nov 1942, Fort Leavenworth, Leavenworth Co., KS
Death:  7 Nov 1995, Honolulu, Oahu, HI
Education:  University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Oahu, HI; B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
Occupation:  cultural anthropologist
Religion (according to son):  raised by non-religious parents and "detached" from religion
Transhumance:  1967, from Honolulu, HI, to Jakarta, IDN; 1971, son back to Honolulu, HI
Other Spouse:  m2. aft. 1963, Lolo SOETORO (2 Jan 1930 - Jan 1987); divorced late 1970s
Other Child:  Maya SOETORO, b. 15 Aug 1970, Jakarta, IDN; m. Konrad NG
Father:  Stanley Armour DUNHAM
Mother:  Madelyn Lee PAYNE
Children:
1.  Barack Hussein "Barry" OBAMA, Jr., b. 4 Aug 1961, Kapiolani Medical Center, Honolulu, HI 

[At the time of Barack's birth, both of his parents were students at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii at Manoa; Barack's stepfather, Lolo SOETORO, was also a student at the East-West Center.]

Keywords for search engines:  Kenya, Indonesia, Java; USA, US, United States, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts

Sources:

1.  Barack Obama's Birth Certificate.

2.  William Addams Reitwiesner, compilier.  Ancestry of Barack Obama.

3.  Anon.  9 Sep 2007.  "The Obama Family Tree."  Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago, IL (PDF file online at suntimes.com).

4.  Photograph: Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, Maya and Barack (online at kansasprairie.net).

5.  Photograph:  Barack Obama and Half Sister, Maya (online at kansasprairie.net).

6.  Miscellaneous sites on the web, including Wikipedia.



DOES Barack Obama Sr's status as "Kenyan Ministry of Finance" affect his status and his son's status as they traveled together? Would both Baracks's citizenship be affected if they were operating as a diplomatic envoys, minister plenipotentiary, or resident representative with the rank of Ambassador or minister plenipotentiary?

7 FAM 1116.2-2 Officers and Employees of Foreign Embassies and Consulates and their Families:

a. Under international law, diplomatic agents are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. Diplomatic agents are also immune, with limited exception, from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the state. The immunities of diplomatic agents extend to the members of their family forming part of their household. For this reason children born in the United States to diplomats to the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and do not acquire U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the laws derived from it. Barack Jr was born in ’61, and his father assumed Ministry in ‘64-’65).

Now, DOES Barack Obama Sr's status as "Kenyan Ministry of Finance" affect his citizenship status and his son's status as they travelled together or even if Barack Jr lived in the US under diplomatic protection or graces. Would both Barack’s citizenship be affected if they were operating as a diplomatic envoys, minister plenipotentiary, or resident representative with the rank of Ambassador or minister plenipotentiary as governed by the 14 Amendment and existing Immigration Laws?

Also, after Barack’s parents’ divorce (reportedly in ’64), while in Indonesia, Ann got a job at the American embassy teaching English after getting married (’67) to Lolo Soetoro (possibly once her former Kenyan husband “pulled some strings”).

Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries.

Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon "taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state...after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1) Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record. HOWEVER, were Barack Jr and Ann Dunham traveling under the diplomatic auspices of Barack Sr, even though he and Ann were divorced? Where would the records be: in Kenya, Indonesia, or the UK?


49 posted on 12/08/2008 3:07:09 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Again, let me be clear...

You said: “Quite frankly, you are using these writers to attempt to prove a point (that there can be citizens by birth who are not natural-born citizens) that the writers themselves would consider absurd.”

No, the current operative interpretation of the 14th Amendment is is absurd, not the point being made about the meaning of “natural born”.


50 posted on 12/08/2008 3:08:25 AM PST by The Watcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-106 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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