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

Skip to comments.

Native Born vs. Natural Born (vanity)

Posted on 10/19/2012 11:59:50 AM PDT by NTHockey

I visited the Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Wednesday. While on the tour, one of the staff members came up and asked me if I wanted to be President. I said that I was ineligible, since my mother was naturalized after I was born. He argued that since I was born here that I was born here that I was natural.

We went back and forth; he not knowing the difference between native born and natural born and I refusing to back down.

I plan to write the head and tell him that their staff needs to be a) better informed and b) less combative. Comments.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: barrysoetoro; constitution; eligibility; indonesia; kenya; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-166 next last

1 posted on 10/19/2012 11:59:53 AM PDT by NTHockey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

ignorance is one of the primary tools they are using to undermine our nation


2 posted on 10/19/2012 12:03:57 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Since you have opened that can of worms, ;)

If you are born in the US to legal residents who are NOT govt officials of another country or the child of a foreign occupier, you are a natural born citizen. If your parents were here legally, then you are nbC.


3 posted on 10/19/2012 12:04:51 PM PDT by Perdogg (Vote like the US Constitution depends on it - it does!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Less combative, maybe. But just because they disagree with you doesn’t make them less informed.


4 posted on 10/19/2012 12:05:09 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

You are correct.

It is totally amazing how people do not understand the difference between “natural born” and “native born”. Heck, even on the GOP side we have a lot of people stuck on stupid with the issue...this election would not be as close if people understood it better.

I was not born in the USA, but was born in a military hospital in Germany. I have to explain to people that I am not natural born....and the Senate RESOLUTION that was passed when McCain ran is just a RESOLUTION...it is not a BILL or LAW. I also have Naturalization papers, yet people still insist I would be “natural born” because I was born on US military installation

As for writing a letter...maybe just explain to the supervising person the difference between “natural” and “native” born....and not so much on the deportment of the staff member. Sometimes those staff members are there only for a paycheck


5 posted on 10/19/2012 12:09:21 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (Political maturity is realizing that the "R" next to someone's name does not mean "conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

C’mon—they’re just doing to history what the feminists did to language: “Everyone will now take their seat.” No big deal; it’s simply slipped into the vernacular, the news, and the history books. And all of a sudden it’s common usage, correct.


6 posted on 10/19/2012 12:10:31 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

You know that, I know that, the State Department knows that, the Supreme Court knows that, but several FReepers do not believe that.


7 posted on 10/19/2012 12:11:02 PM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Not true.

No operation of law (statutes or amendments) can make a natural born citizen out of a person who would otherwise not be a natural born citizen.

Natural born citizens are people who have NO ALLEGIANCE to any other place.
They have NO ALLEGIANCE to another country because their parents may happen to be citizens of that country.
They have NO ALLEGIANCE to another country by virtue of being born there.

They are citizens of the soil by being born here, and citizens by birthright by having parents of citizens.

No other description meets the true, intended meaning and criteria of Natural Born Citizen.


8 posted on 10/19/2012 12:13:07 PM PDT by djf (Political Science: Conservatives = govern-ment. Liberals = givin-me-it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: douginthearmy; Perdogg; NTHockey
You know that, I know that, the State Department knows that, the Supreme Court knows that, but several FReepers do not believe that.

Yes, because NEITHER side actually provides links, documents and proof to support their side which would be useful to us idiots.

9 posted on 10/19/2012 12:17:58 PM PDT by tsowellfan (KEEP WORKING like we are 10 POINTS DOWN!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Yeah, you were wrong.


10 posted on 10/19/2012 12:18:08 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this idiocy is popping up now, but once again:

Emmerich Vatell did not define “natural born” or “native born,” let alone “natural-born citizen.” He defined, in French, “Les naturels.” This was NOT translated to “native born” or “natural born” in the translations of Vatell from the days of the founding father, and, in fact, would be better translated, “natives.”

Further, Emmerich was arguing against the citizenship of those born with a country whose parents were not born in a country. This is in direct opposition to American concept of birthright citizenship, so cannot be seen as defining it!

Jefferson, on the other hand, wrote this: “A Natural subject is one born within the king’s allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person’s being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.”

If citizenship is granted at birth, thus, is not allegiance to a nation owed at birth? Have we given people citizenship who do not owe allegiance? If so, how can we possibly argue that being born a citizen does not make someone naturally born?

So why say, “natural-born,” at all? The alternative is not “unnatural-born” but naturalized! If, as some would suppose that there are who are not natural-born to start with, and have not been naturalized, how are they made natural? Is there another alternative to “natural from birth,” “made natural after birth,” and “never made natural?”


11 posted on 10/19/2012 12:18:40 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Since this has been such a hotly argued topic as a result of Obama’s ascension to the office of President, I think that it would be useful if the SCOTUS would define, once and for all, the difference between Natural and Native born citizens and to lay out the criteria necessary to qualify for POTUS.

I think you are correct, but there are many who argue differently. If the country wants the criteria changed, then we should have a Constitutional amendment to do so. Then we might see President Jindal, or President Rubio, or President Haley inaugurated.


12 posted on 10/19/2012 12:19:48 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; NTHockey

You are purposly misleading people the way they tried to carting out our Senator Marco Rubio. However, he ALWAY ducked the question because he KNOWS he’s not eligible!!!


13 posted on 10/19/2012 12:20:16 PM PDT by danamco (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan

No need for a link. There is no entry on a long form birth certificate for current citizenship of parent at time of birth. It is also possible to have a long form birth certificate without the father information completed.


14 posted on 10/19/2012 12:28:55 PM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
Why are people delivered by C-section not allowed to be president? Seems odd to me.
15 posted on 10/19/2012 12:32:15 PM PDT by GalaxyAB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
Here's the simplest definition, taken directly from the Constitution.

If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.

-PJ

16 posted on 10/19/2012 12:37:13 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
this has been such a hotly argued topic as a result of Obama’s ascension

Whether or not Obama was born within the boundaries of the United States has been a hotly argued topic by maybe 10% of the population. In my opinion the jury's still out.

Whether he is a "natural born citizen" even if born in the USA is a hotly argued topic by perhaps 0.05% of the population. No one else really cares. Not even Donald Trump went there.

..there many who argue differently. If the country wants the criteria changed...

Those who "argue differently", (including me) see no requirement that any criteria be changed. I'd happily vote for Jindal for president any time he's on the ballot.

17 posted on 10/19/2012 12:44:36 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
It is impossible to get a consensus on what "natural born citizen" means. But I will never believe there isn't a serious compromise lurking in Obama's past having to do with voluntary renunciation until we get to see the college admission applications.


18 posted on 10/19/2012 12:46:05 PM PDT by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: douginthearmy

I’ll try to find it. One of my favorite exchanges on FR, was the poster who told me that children of unknown paternity (such as in cases of rape) were not eligible to be president. I still chuckle at the mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion.


19 posted on 10/19/2012 12:47:16 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Melas
...children of unknown paternity (such as in cases of rape) were not eligible to be president.

For fear of reopening up an old conflict, I'd answer that point this way.

At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, communities were small enough that people knew who the others were. Lineage was not in doubt, because travel was difficult, and the influx of new people was recognized.

Someone who ran for the highest office in the land would be expected to offer affirmative proof that they qualify, not argue that others should prove that they do not qualify.

For the person of unknown parentage, I recognize that it is a life hardship to have been born under that circumstance, but life is not always fair. If someone has difficulty affirmatively establishing that they meet the criteria for becoming President, then the citizenry should not look favorably on that candidacy, even if it is of no fault of the person.

-PJ

20 posted on 10/19/2012 1:02:43 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dangus
The alternative is not “unnatural-born” but naturalized!

Exactly. If one is a citizen at the time of his birth, then he is naturally a citizen. They don't have to be "naturalized."

21 posted on 10/19/2012 1:05:22 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
This will give you a good idea what NBC really means. Not the emotional stuff promulagated what they want it to be you get here and there.

- - - - - - - -

Defining Natural-Born Citizen

by P.A. Madison on November 18th, 2008

“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason

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 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.

What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined,” and those “which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was simply an exercise of a States “numerous and indefinite” powers. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.

Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence perpetual allegiance was abandoned for expatriation and, as Madison stated, laws over defining citizen and alien “have obtained in some of the States,” and “if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us” (question of Rep. William Smith being a citizen or not).

Furthermore, all of the States required everyone including aliens to take an oath of allegiance to the State as a condition of residency. Children born to these residents were considered born into the allegiance of the State. In addition to this, States also had specific laws that banned citizenship to alien born who were not resident aliens. New York for example, responded through enactment of law to the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) that had used common law rules of citizenship by birth to specifically exclude children born to “transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”

In other words, unlike under the common law, birth by itself did not create allegiance to the State to non-resident aliens due merely to locality.

Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?

It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of “natural-born subject.” The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demand of expressed allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.

Fourteenth Amendment

Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.

This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one claim of allegiance.

The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”

Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their native country.

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

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. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:

Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))

Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.

This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to.

The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.

Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.

Conclusion

Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*

When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.

Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.

* Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state per state law.

UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/


22 posted on 10/19/2012 1:16:59 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
"I think that it would be useful if the SCOTUS would define, once and for all, the difference between Natural and Native born citizens...
__

Several recent court decisions, like Ankeny, have held that SCOTUS has indeed settled the matter once and for all:

'Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.' (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf)

The Ankeny decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Indiana, and was ripe to be appealed to SCOTUS, but the plaintiffs chose not to do so.
23 posted on 10/19/2012 1:33:01 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

sfl


24 posted on 10/19/2012 1:38:57 PM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

There is historical precedent for you being wrong. Chester A. Arthur was born in 1829. His father was born in Ireland and became a naturalized US citizen in 1843, when Arthur was 14 years old. Therefore, we either HAVE had an ineligible president, or you are incorrect.


25 posted on 10/19/2012 1:50:55 PM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
If your parents were here legally, then you are nbC.

Not true. Suppose a French couple were working here on a visa, and had a child. It would be natural of them to want French citizenship for that child.

26 posted on 10/19/2012 2:04:41 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

“Suppose a French couple were working here on a visa, and had a child. It would be natural of them to want French citizenship for that child.”
__

According to U.S. law, the child would be a natural born citizen of the United States. Whether it would also be a French citizen is a matter for the government of France to decide.

That’s the key to all these citizenship questions. Every country has an absolute right to determine whom it considers to be its citizens (and into which category of citizenship they fall), completely unencumbered by the laws of any other nation. We can’t dictate who is a French citizen, and they can’t dictate who is a U.S. citizen.


27 posted on 10/19/2012 2:14:04 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

Unless Obama’s father is somebody other than Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen at all. BHO, Sr. was never any kind of citizen of the US and his mother was too young to confer her citizenship on him, according to hawaiian law at the time. At best, he is a dual citizen of Britain and the US — a fact he stated in his Bio.

Now, if his real father is somebody else, then he is (perhaps) a natural born citizen. But, where does that leave his adoption by Lolo Soetero and little Barry Soetero’s declaration of Indonesian citizenship? Did he ever reinstate his US citizenship after Ann Dunham divorced his adoptive father? Since all of the records are deliberately sealed, we’ll never know.

The questions linger.


28 posted on 10/19/2012 2:16:12 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

>> Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” <<

Intriguingly, this definition includes Marco Rubio as a natural-born citizen (since his parents had fled defected), but includes Barrack Obama only if citizenship can be traced through only the mother alone.

Personally, I would argue that the expatriation to Indonesia negates Obama’s citizenship; there was an early case where a woman born in the US but whose parents returned with her to the UK was deemed not a citizen.


29 posted on 10/19/2012 2:26:53 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
According to U.S. law, the child would be a natural born citizen of the United States.

This is the way people misinterpret the law. It is done to justify otherwise inelligable persons. A person is "Natural Born" ONLY when both parents were already citizens. Go read the Founder's letters to each other. The issue is all about having a President who is fully vested and fully loyal to the United States. A "downloaded citizen" is not generally loyal to the US. Know any Mexicans who were born here to illegal immigrants? I do. They generally have no love for the US.

30 posted on 10/19/2012 2:31:08 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
According to U.S. law, the child would be a natural born citizen of the United States.

We can’t dictate who is a French citizen, and they can’t dictate who is a U.S. citizen.

You see, the preceding two statements are not compatable.

31 posted on 10/19/2012 2:36:32 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GingisK

“You see, the preceding two statements are not compatable.”
__

Please, explain what is incompatible about them. Each country confers its own citizenship. How can you disagree with that?


32 posted on 10/19/2012 2:52:09 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
For the person of unknown parentage, I recognize that it is a life hardship to have been born under that circumstance, but life is not always fair. If someone has difficulty affirmatively establishing that they meet the criteria for becoming President, then the citizenry should not look favorably on that candidacy, even if it is of no fault of the person.

So which is it? Is natural born citizenship a form of legalistic arcana as the above would suggest, or a common sense directive to insure that our leaders owe allegiance to no foreign power? If the latter, then this nonsense about unknown parentage is just that, nonsense. You can't exactly be entangled by any allegiance your father may or may not have had, if you don't know who the Hell he is now can you?

No, your post pretty much confirms my opinion about the subject in general. Those who are most passionate about the issue aren't really concerned about anything important. Rather they're consumed a pedantic devotion to legalism. They make as much sense as the rare (but existent) nutbar who insists that the Air Force is unconstitutional because the constitution only addresses sea and land forces.

33 posted on 10/19/2012 2:52:34 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dangus
there was an early case where a woman born in the US but whose parents returned with her to the UK was deemed not a citizen.

Can you provide more details on this? For rebuttal, I point you no further than one of my favorite authors, Frank McCourt.

34 posted on 10/19/2012 2:55:37 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

If your father was an American citizen at the time of your birth you probably have ‘more’ right to hold the office than you-know-who.

Citizenship followed via Paternal lines. Hence why those true to their country are PATriots and not MATriots.

One way to measure if you are ‘natural born’ is if there is absolutely not law or act on the books to ‘make’ you a citizen. After all a ‘natural born’ citizen does not need a man made law to establish citizenship. It is ‘natural’.

If there is an immigration law or act that is needed to validate your citizenship since your mother was still legally a foreigner (and believe there must be) then the citizenship would not totally and by itself ‘natural’.

The intent of the ‘natural born’ clause is simple. And so is how it can be determined.


35 posted on 10/19/2012 3:27:33 PM PDT by bluecat6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Call me pedantic if you wish, but I don't think we adjust the Constitution for a one-off situation. And I do not equate it to calling the Air Force unconstitutional because only land and sea were mentioned.

As I wrote earlier, I believe that NBC's are the Posterity of We the People, as laid out in the Preamble. We the People are citizens, and their Posterity are their citizen children. The Framers wrote that they wanted to secure liberty for themselves and their Posterity. That is the hereditary nature of nations.

-PJ

36 posted on 10/19/2012 4:46:45 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
Unless Obama’s father is somebody other than Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen at all. BHO, Sr. was never any kind of citizen of the US and his mother was too young to confer her citizenship on him, according to hawaiian law at the time.

The father's citizenship requirement is debatable and the mother's age is applicable only if he was born overseas.

37 posted on 10/19/2012 5:01:49 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: stremba; NTHockey

That is a great catch on Chester Arthur. Had not heard it before. Do you have a citation on his father not becoming a citizen until after his birth??


38 posted on 10/19/2012 8:12:10 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Suppose the French people didn't want US citizenship for their child? You say under US law, their child would be a US citizen. Then you say we respect their views. The two don't work together.

By the way, your interpretation is not correct. It is a false liberal interpretation designed to create more Democrat voters. I'm going with the Founders' view on citizenship.

39 posted on 10/19/2012 8:39:48 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
If you are born in the US to legal residents who are NOT govt officials of another country or the child of a foreign occupier, you are a natural born citizen. If your parents were here legally, then you are nbC.

No you are not. This is a widespread misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark decision. If this were true, we would not have needed a 14th Amendment or an Indian Citizenship act to make citizens out of Former Slaves and Indians.

40 posted on 10/19/2012 9:30:44 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: douginthearmy
You know that, I know that, the State Department knows that, the Supreme Court knows that, but several FReepers do not believe that.

As Reagan said: "The trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant. It's that they know so much which isn't so. "

The reason certain Freepers do not believe that is because certain Freepers have actually studied the issue and have learned what is the truth. Anyone who hasn't studied it is still stuck on the stupid theory that gives citizenship to "Anchor Babies."

Naturalization is like Adoption. To be an Adopted member of a Family, you must have the Family's consent. Just being born in the Family house does NOT MAKE YOU A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY. Neither does it make you a citizen.

41 posted on 10/19/2012 9:36:12 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan
Yes, because NEITHER side actually provides links, documents and proof to support their side which would be useful to us idiots.

You're kidding, right?

Start here. When your done with that, i've got plenty more.

Freeper "rxsid"'s "about" page is a good source of info too.

42 posted on 10/19/2012 9:40:16 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Melas
I’ll try to find it. One of my favorite exchanges on FR, was the poster who told me that children of unknown paternity (such as in cases of rape) were not eligible to be president. I still chuckle at the mental gymnastics required to come to that conclusion.

If the parents are unknown, then so is the place of birth, and so you are advocating support for an even STUPIDER argument. Pray tell, what kind of Idiot mental gymnastics did you have to go through to come down on that side of the issue?

43 posted on 10/19/2012 9:45:39 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Exactly. If one is a citizen at the time of his birth, then he is naturally a citizen. They don't have to be "naturalized."

This is absolutely not true. I have pointed out the case of Aldo Mario Bellei about 40 times now. He was born a citizen, but lost his citizenship because he did not meet the residency requirements stipulated in the ACT OF CONGRESS which bestowed citizenship upon him.

Natural citizens are not created by an Act of Congress, or any other act of man-made law. They are citizens inherently through their nature. The very word Nature Shares it's root with Natal, meaning "birth."

44 posted on 10/19/2012 9:51:07 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
The Ankeny decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Indiana, and was ripe to be appealed to SCOTUS, but the plaintiffs chose not to do so.

Anyone that cites Ankeny is a moron.

45 posted on 10/19/2012 9:54:02 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GingisK
Not true. Suppose a French couple were working here on a visa, and had a child. It would be natural of them to want French citizenship for that child.

It is, in fact, French Law that the child would have French Citizenship. As a matter of fact, virtually the ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD uses the citizenship of the parents as the criteria for citizenship.

The only people stupid enough to use birth over a landmass to define citizenship is North and South America.

46 posted on 10/19/2012 9:58:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
That’s the key to all these citizenship questions. Every country has an absolute right to determine whom it considers to be its citizens (and into which category of citizenship they fall), completely unencumbered by the laws of any other nation. We can’t dictate who is a French citizen, and they can’t dictate who is a U.S. citizen.

But according to your stupid theory, France can draft an American President to serve in their army. Doesn't that strike you as an extremely stupid problem with your theory?

47 posted on 10/19/2012 10:01:49 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Delhi Rebels
The father's citizenship requirement is debatable and the mother's age is applicable only if he was born overseas.

To be precise, not "overseas", but in a foreign country. Canada is adjacent to us, and if he was born there, he is not only NOT a natural born citizen, he is not even a citizen at all. At the moment, I see more circumstantial evidence placing his birth in Canada than I do in the United States.

48 posted on 10/19/2012 10:06:48 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
What amazes me is how much more birthers know about the Constitution than anyone else. In fact, birthers know more about the Constitution than Its very authors!

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. - James Madison
And of course, everyone, except the 13 brothers of the Holy Order of Internet Birthers, knows that the 14th amendment doubles down on this.

Noone born in this country is naturalized! The only exception is a child of a foreign ambassador born in America who later naturalizes. There's no point in arguing with you guys. I will end on this note so as to erase all uncertainty and ambiguity of my position.

Even if you are correct, which you are not but I am absolutely certain that you will maintain that you are, my finem respice is that noone, not a single person of note, nor of any social or political influence of any sort in any real world scenario where flesh touches substance other than a cheetos infested keyboard supports your position.. I repeat.. absolutely NO physical manifestation of your fantasy world will EVER occur.

49 posted on 10/20/2012 12:09:53 AM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
At the moment, I see more circumstantial evidence placing his birth in Canada than I do in the United States.

Really?

50 posted on 10/20/2012 6:04:58 AM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-166 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