Natural Born Criteria

Vanity

[markomalley]

Unlike you, I’m enough of a man to admit when I make a mistake.

The word you used was utter.

My apologies for misrepresenting your statement.

[markomalley]

The British Nationality Act of 1948 says children born of their subjects in foreign countries are subjects. We must respect that by acknowledging Usurper Barry cannot be an indigenous American, ie a natural-born citizen.

It must be of great solace to John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg that they have found an ally in a highly-revered FReeper like you.

Imagine, allowing a foreign statute to take precedence over a statute of the United States.

Yup, Ginsburg must be smiling right now.

[trumandogz]

While you may disagree with me on my reading of Wong, it would appear that Justice Roberts, by the fact that he delivered the Oath or Office to Obama, holds the same view as me.

But that would depend on what your definition of “As Much As.”

Again “As Much As” means “Equal to.”

So for example 8 is Equal to 4+4.
Or, 8 is As Much As 4+4.

So the sentence:

“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. “

Is the very same as:

“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is Equal To a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. “

[Spaulding]

I did not realize it was etiquette to ‘ping’ people when I mention them. Somewhere on Free Republic there is a glossary of terms which I have found only with some searching. I was obviously thanking others who were attempting to clarify what they too regarded as your misinformation. Thanks. Now I need to find the definition of ‘ping’

A clue to someone’s motives is assertion with no attibution. You seem to need to imply that I havn’t read the cases I've mentioned. Those are Alinsky tactics, though certainly not exclusive to Alinsky acolytes. Of course I've read The Venus, and Marbury, and Wong Kim, and Elg, and Nguyen - but I hadn't before Obama became an issue. Why would you need to make such an assertion? I've experienced some master intimidators, John Holdren for example, and long ago realized their motives were personal rather than the honest exploration of ideas. I only mentioned The Venus because Marshall includes the Vattel definition of natural born in his definition of who were the citizens.

You quote a Vattel statement about who are the citizens which doesn't contradict any assertions regarding natural born citizens. Vattel, who certainly understands the meaning of natural-born-citizenship, though is not the only legal philosopher to have defined it or used the same definition, is talking about citizens. There is no doubt that nations make laws defining citizens, as we did with the 14th amendment. The issue is children defined by nature, whose allegiance is not changeable by laws. That is the remarkable insight expressed by Vattel, perhaps drawn from his philosophical mentor, Gottlieb Leibniz. I have not traced the sources, but have read that both Leibniz and Vattel were scholars of Greek and Roman history, and many of the ideas so remarkably collated and expressed in Law of Nations, and which you will see referenced in Vattel's examples are from Roman and Greek law.

Vattel understood that for political advantage some party might, for example, make all Latin Americans citizens, and then define Chavez a ‘natural born citizen’ because he was born on ‘American’ soil. I know that's a stretch, but look what they've done here; promoted the son of a Kenyan radical to our highest office for political payoffs. I have had friends over the years from South America who point out that we are, after all, all Americans. Both parties conspired to make their own non-natural born candidate appear to be eligible. All law makers, so far, plead ignorance. “That's nonsense! Everyone has seen the birth certificate and Twittered about it.” Lawmakers assert, both provisions, depending upon who their candidate is. That is the genius of an independent judiciary, to protect the meaning of the constitution. Because no president's parentage before Obama had been questioned (Chester Arthur was taken at his word about the date of his father's naturalization), the USSC has not had to intervene to clarify the common law.

Our common law has been deemed to come from Vattel by many legal scholars, and that interpretation affirmed by Justice Marshall, even though citizenship, and not natural born citizenship, was the issue in The Venus.

I'll look up ‘ping’.

[Plummz]

There is no US statutory issue here, just the Constitution of these united States which bars British anchor babies from being President. Try to keep up.

[El Gato]

For sure he isn’t the son of Malcolm x. He would have been welcomed as the second coming of Christ by the black community.

Your point is? How would they treat him differently than most already have and are treating him?

[Danae]

There was and still is a lot questioning if he is black enough since he is half white. Yea, and they call white people racists. Go figger.

[AmericanVictory]

It’s the old Helmut Sonnenfeldt “as...as” construction.

A Hippo is as much of mammal as a man.

I really don’t think your argument about Justice Roberts makes sense even for a troll. It is in fact absurd.

[El Gato]

As I understand it “The Laws of Nations” is not a governing document.

True, but there is no governing document in this case. There can't be. The Congress has no power to redefine the terms of the Constitution.

[El Gato]

Lot's of people say that, but not a single one can point to legislation that defines natural born citizen in the manner that you claim.

I wonder why that is?

Because there is no law that defines Natural Born Citizen.

[El Gato]

Now this law has been repealed.

Yes it was, in 1795, five years after first passage, not in 1952 as you seem to wish to imply. Basically the same law was passed again (at least that section of it) in 1795, without the language you quoted..

It's thought that they realized they could not define the term, that it was beyond their delegated power to do so.

[El Gato]

If so, please note that the subject is reiterated in the Naturalization Act of 1795:

…the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United State…

Here's the language from the 1790 act.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:

You see that it's not the exact same language, they left out "natural born". Consdiering that the title of the 1795 act was "The Naturalization Act of 1795" they could hardly do otherwise.

But the title of the 1790 act was ""An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization", it seems to me that someone noticed the conflict between a "naturalization act" or "defining a uniform rule of naturalization", and "natural born citizen".

[markomalley]

Thank you for responding directly to me this time.

I'll look up ‘ping’.

You do that. Generally, it is considered the same as talking about somebody behind his back.

A clue to someone’s motives is assertion with no attibution. You seem to need to imply that I havn’t read the cases I've mentioned. Those are Alinsky tactics, though certainly not exclusive to Alinsky acolytes. Of course I've read The Venus, and Marbury, and Wong Kim, and Elg, and Nguyen - but I hadn't before Obama became an issue. Why would you need to make such an assertion? … I only mentioned The Venus because Marshall includes the Vattel definition of natural born in his definition of who were the citizens.

You also might want to look up Weedin v. Chin Bow (274 US 657)...also an interesting one in regard to natural born citizenship.

Why would I make such an assertion (that you hadn't read the case) is that the context of Marshall's quoting Vattel is important to understand its pertinence to the decision and whether it has any pertinence to this case.

You quote a Vattel statement about who are the citizens which doesn't contradict any assertions regarding natural born citizens.

Actually, it does, sort of. The quote from Book 1 §215 shows that Vattel believed that countries may regulate the citizenship status of children born to citizens while oversease through their laws and that those laws are to be respected. That would include laws enacted by our country as well as laws enacted by other countries, in regard to their citizens. I believe it is pertinent because of the gravity with which you apparently hold his writings.

For example, in Chitty's Commercial Law (a compendium of UK commercial law published in the early 19th Century), it says:

And if an English merchant, residing beyond sea, marries a woman of the country, by whom he has a child, and then dies, this child is born a denizen, and shall be heir to him, notwithstanding the wife be an alien.

Why is that pertinent? Just an example of one country's law on the subject.

Vattel understood that for political advantage some party might, for example, make all Latin Americans citizens, and then define Chavez a ‘natural born citizen’ because he was born on ‘American’ soil. I know that's a stretch, but look what they've done here; promoted the son of a Kenyan radical to our highest office for political payoffs.

You absolutely have a good point here. And, frankly, they could do that by modifying the Immigration and Nationality Act. I addressed that in post # 78, where I raised the question, is the goal of these folks to have §301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ruled unconstitutional (using the judicial review principle established in Marbury) because it violates the original intent of the founders (as could be demonstrated using Vattel as a source to show the founders' intent)?

That would be a laudable goal. That could have a major impact on children born of US citizens (non-government civilians, at least) living overseas, but that's life.

As for the "courage" of lawmakers, I agree that there are a lot of issues of his background that should have been brought up…not just this one. You can include the lack of medical records release, the tardiness of the income tax release, the non-release of college records, the Alinsky / Ayers connections, the radical ACORN background, and so on. They were afraid. They drank their own bathwater: that they should become more "moderate" and more "inclusive" -- the bottom line is that they were scared to death to get painted with the racist paintbrush.

Now that THE ONE is in office and now that the enemies of freedom have supermajorities in both houses of Congress, there's really not much on a practical basis that can be done. Sure, members could make impassioned speeches during Special Orders (watched by about 75 people across the country on CSPAN), they could introduce bills (that would be immediately shunted to Waxman's committee and gee, just never manage to get on the House Calendar), but there's nothing with any impact.

Could we get relief from SCOTUS? Well, they've denied cert on at least one case. Frankly, the only way that ANY relief could happen is if Orly Taitz could find ONE district court someplace who would hear the case and subpoena the Hawaiian documents (which, hopefully, don't exist). And then to get that court to order the Presidency vacated and to get an appeals court to uphold that order. The only way I can see SCOTUS actually granting cert is if they're FORCED to do so. Orly hasn't been terribly successful in that effort yet. Hopefully she will succeed. (Frankly, if a Kenyan BC could be somehow produced, that would help...and we both know from Corsi that the Kenyans are hiding something).

An independent SCOTUS? Do you recall the Judicial Reform Bill of 1937? If the other two branches of government are as utterly corrupt as they are now, SCOTUS could be compromised by a simple act of Congress, like FDR tried to get done when his attempts at "hopey-changey" were consistently ruled unconstitutional. And I think SCOTUS knows that. (After all, do you remember when Ø and "dead-fish" Rahmbo visited with Roberts? Do you know what was said during that meeting?)

The bottom line is that I think we both want the same thing: get the dude's citizenship by birth status removed (if not his citizenship altogether) and get him rode out of town on a rail.

I don't think we disagree on the goal. I think we disagree on the way to get from point "a" to point "b." My only point in even getting involved in these threads is to a) point out possible pitfalls in the method that you guys are advocating and b) to offer an alternative method to get to the same goal, one that I think would be more effective and less fraught with pitfalls. But as far as I'm concerned, if the methodology that you advocate works, great.

[El Gato]

Ah, I don’t think FUKINO did verify that he is a natural born citizen, I think someone else did. She doesn’t say SHE did in the press release

Yes, that's what she said. Or more precisely that the records verified his NBC status.

Her exact words, from the 27 July Press release:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

[markomalley]

Yes it was, in 1795, five years after first passage, not in 1952 as you seem to wish to imply. Basically the same law was passed again (at least that section of it) in 1795, without the language you quoted..

If the images shown below don't display, please click on the links which will take you to the appropriate page from the Library of Congress.

Please check section 3 of this page

And the 1795 bill was replaced in 1798. The bill in 1798 did not address the subject of children born overseas of citizens of the US.

And the 1798 bill was replaced in 1802:

Please note the verbiage in section 4 of the above

And the laws continued developing over time, but your assertion:

It's thought that they realized they could not define the term, that it was beyond their delegated power to do so.

Just isn't based in the facts. Sorry.

[markomalley]

You see that it's not the exact same language, they left out "natural born". Consdiering that the title of the 1795 act was "The Naturalization Act of 1795" they could hardly do otherwise.

So are you asserting that there is a difference, legally, between being a "natural born citizen" and "born as citizens" or "citizens at birth"?

Do you have a scholarly legal reference (such as a court decision or a legal textbook, such as Blackstone or Vattel or the like) that draw that distinction?

Because, to my knowledge, in this country, there are two types of citizens: those that are born that way (i.e., natural-born) and those who become citizens at some point later in their lives (i.e., natural-ized)

[El Gato]

So any common-law definitions of the term really don't matter. This statutory definition takes precedence

No it doesn't. Statutory definitions are often only for the purpose of the law wherein they are defined. But even if if general, for purposes of Constitutional interpretation, the meaning of a term remains the same as it was when the Constitution was passed and ratified.

One example of the limited nature of statutory definitions is that of "firearm" in the National Firearms Act. Title 26 USC Chapter 53 That definition does not apply to Title 18 section 921>Title 18 USC Chapter 44 Which has it's own definition, which in turn applies only to that chapter.

the terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth" have been Statutorily defined...they have been so defined since the first Naturalization Act of 1790.

No they haven't. The 1790 act was repealed by the 1795 act, which did not contain any definition of natural born. Nor has any subsequent statute.

By the terms of Title 8 USC 1101, the definition of "residence" you give, is only applicable to Title 8 Chapter 12. The Constitution overrides any statute. Statutory definitions cannot be used to interpret the Constitution. Where there is conflict, the Constitution overrides any statute.

[El Gato]

INA §301 Which is 8 U.S.C. 1401, says nothing about "natural born citizenship".

Furthermore, there is no statute law, and AFAIK, no regulation that makes a distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" in terms of eligibility for any benefit or employment. There may be some indirect effect of being naturalized, mainly in obtaining some levels of security clearance, because of having so many foreign close relatives. Obama himself probably could not get a clearance, so called "YANKEE WHITE", to clean Air Force One or service it's sanitary tank, because of too many foreign relatives, but one of the requirements for that is only to be a US Citizen, not a Natural Born, or even native born citizen.One of the Disqualifying Criteria is:

E4.1.7.3. Immediate family are citizens of another country. Immediate family under this Instruction includes spouse, offspring, living parents, brothers, sisters, or other relatives or persons to whom the individual is closely linked by affection or obligation. It must be determined that family members are not subject to physical, mental, or other forms of duress by a foreign power and who do not advocate or practice acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the constitution or laws of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof.

[El Gato]

So are you asserting that there is a difference, legally, between being a "natural born citizen" and "born as citizens" or "citizens at birth"?

Yes, why else would they have left out "natural born" in all laws subsequent to the 1790 law, as your post of the laws through the 1802 law shows?

It has to be that way. Congress only has the power to define a Uniform Rule of Naturalization. Thus any law on the subject of acquiring citizenship, at birth, en mass or by individual application, must be concerned with "naturalized" citizenship, otherwise Congress would have been exceeding its delegated powers, and the law would be unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment makes all persons born in the United States "citizens", but the authors of that amendment also left off "natural born", thus leaving us to look at contemporary writings or writings known to be relied up by the founders, for the definition of Natural Born as used in the Constitutional requirements for eligibility to the office of President.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

While laws can't change the constitution, Title 8 does not refer to "natural born citizens." It refers to "Citzens of the United States at birth." The two are not equal. If one follows your assertion to its implications, anchor babies are natural born citizens. The reasoning, well explained in Law of Nations, for insisting on natural born citizenship for only the president and his backup is the presumption that allegiance is passed to the children from the parents. Obama is a poster boy for why that is important. Obama's supposed dad was a Muslim Marxist whose goal was the overthrow of the young Christian democracy in Kenya for alignment with the USSR and Cuba.

"Citizen at Birth" means exactly what it says. That is a law. But being natural born cannot be granted by law. It is what the Law of Nations said it was: born on the soil and of parents who are its citizens. Citzens have all sorts of rights. Only natural born citizens can be president. Most citizens are natural born citizens. Obama may or may not be a citizen. Jindal is, but isn't natural born because his parents weren't when he was born. McCain can't be made natural born by law - which seems unfair, but was put in the constitution for our safety as a nation.

I agree. Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth and the requirements are more stringent for the reasons you cited. Both parents must be citizens.

Has there ever been a President whose father or mother was not a citizen, outside of the first generation who were born in England? No.