Posted on 12/08/2009 6:22:12 PM PST by blueyon
This is an oldie, but it needs to be revisited, since the Obots still argue that Obama is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was a 'natural born Citizen,' as specified in the Constitution and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, that’s why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause.
It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:
"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.
"That is mine, too," said Leahy.
What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents.
Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.
Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case.
(Excerpt) Read more at theobamafile.com ...
Which one other than Chester Arthur, whose lack of a citizen father at the time of his birth was well hidden? At least his father *did* become a naturalized citizen about the time Chester was 14.
Actually as far as the US government is concerned, your brother is not only a citizen, but a Natural Born one. This is because your parents were serving the country, and had not taken up residence in Germany. The law is very explicit that anyone born to two US citizen parents is a US citizen, but Vattel's "Law of Nations" has an explicit exemption to the usual "Born in the county of citizen parents" requirement to be Natural Born, for children of citizens born outside a country but "in the armies of the country". It's the same situation as McCain, even if your brother was not born on a US installation.
8 USC 1401:
; (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
Law of Nations
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.
For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
The Germans may of course have other notions, but it is my understanding that in order to be a German Citizen, one must have German citizen parents, and that it's almost impossible to become a naturalized German citizen under most circumstances.
I appreciate the clarifications fellas, but be sure, I watched as my father, sitting in Ft. Eustis, filled out that waiver exempting my brother from being drafted into the German military.
Ask and you shall receive.
That's a '63 certificate, or more correctly a certified copy of a '63 certificate, obtained, IIRC in the 1990s.(the certification part has been cropped off) But the '61 certificate has all the same fields, and no addtioinal fields as you can see by this one, which is kind of hard to read: (It's the Nordic twin certificate, she was born the day after Obama allegedly was):
No, but there doesn't really need to be. It's up to each country to say who are it's nationals and citizens. Most countries recognize children of citizens/nationals born outside the country as citizens. The US does. But they may or may not be natural born. Applying the definitions of "Law of Nations", that child of French tourists would not be a Natural born French citizen, although she probably would be a French citizen at birth. That would indeed be the case if were an American couple vacationing in France. That is the child would be a US Citizen at birth, but not natural born. Now if one of the parents was serving at a US Consulate or the Embassy, then the child would be natural born.
As US citizens, yes. Native born even. But not natural born. But the only time that "Native born" verses "Natural born" matters is for eligibility to the office of President.
Those children are in the same position as Wong Kim Ark, born of alien parents in the United States. Wong was ruled to be a US citizen under the 14th amendment. But the question of his Natural born status was not at issue, and any discussion in either descent or majority opinions is mere dicta, not bearing on the case, and not having any value as precedent.
This can be seem by reading the following two paragraphs from the decision of the Court, the first shown is the 3rd paragraph of that decision, while the second shown is the last paragraph of the decision.
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
...
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
I think you are missing the point. What the Germans wanted to do, and what they considered your brother to be, is completely separate, absent some provision of the "status of forces" agreement, from what the US government considers him to be.
And just what did the Germans consider him to be? Certainly not a German citizen, since Germany has a large population of native born non-citizens, most of them of Turkish ancestry. I met one of them a year or two ago. A most fetching young wench, and apparently a very sharp engineer as well.
That waiver process was likely the US government intervening on behalf of one of it's citizens with the German government.
It would be very interesting to see who signed in fields 18a and 19a or BHO Jr.'s Certificate of Live Birth.
Understood.
I had looked this up at one time, but have forgotten which one. I think it was one of the forgettable ones between Lincoln and TR.
If I remember correctly, his mom moved across the border from Canada when quite young. I couldn't find any information on naturalization proceedings, and I'm not sure there was much in the way of a formal process during most of the 19th century.
I do know that in the early part of the century a woman automatically took her husband's citizenship when she married, so it may not have been relevant anyway. I believe during the first part of the 19th only the father's status was considered when determining citizenship. As women acquired more rights as individuals over the course of the century this changed, but I'm vague on dates for specific changes.
And veep, of course.
You are making the assumption, without much evidence that I'm aware of, that there is a difference.
No government statute or regulation I'm aware of draws such a distinction, which would create three classes of American citizenship: native-born, natural born and naturalized. In the Wong case I don't believe the justices drew such a distinction. In fact, I believe their implication was that native-born = natural-born. It's been a long time since I read thru the case, but if I remember correctly they used the terms somewhat interchangeably.
I know of no reason to believe native-born and natural born are not the same, leaving us with two groups of citizens, native/natural born and naturalized.
I was referring to the “other” American president I mentioned farther up.
My apologies that I can’t remember which one this was. Certainly nobody seemed concerned about it at the time.
In Arthur’s case, an opponent first claimed he was born in Ireland. When that was disproven, he switched it to claiming he was born in Canada. I’m unaware of anybody at the time being particularly concerned about his father’s citizenship status at the time of his birth.
Of course, Arthus was running for vice-president, not president.
Of course, and anyone else succeeding to the office of President. (That is if the Speaker of the House would be required to succeed to the office, she would need to be a Natural born citizen, else the next in line would do so in her stead.)
You are making the assumption, without much evidence that I'm aware of, that there is a difference.
From the majority opinion inWong Kim Ark:
Mr. Binney in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: 'The common- law principle of allegiance was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned [namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to], such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the states before the constitution, or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the congress of the United States.' Page 20. 'The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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.' [169 U.S. 649, 666] Page 22, note.
This certainly implies that "citizen" and "natural born child of a citizen" are not the same thing, and in fact gives a basic definition of "Natural Born". That is "child of a citizen'"
Of course, and anyone else succeeding to the office of President. (That is if the Speaker of the House would be required to succeed to the office, she would need to be a Natural born citizen, else the next in line would do so in her stead.)
You are making the assumption, without much evidence that I'm aware of, that there is a difference.
From the majority opinion inWong Kim Ark:
Mr. Binney in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: 'The common- law principle of allegiance was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the constitution; and by that principle the citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions before mentioned [namely, foreign-born children of citizens, under statutes to be presently referred to], such only as are either born or made so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or naturalized by the authority of law, either in one of the states before the constitution, or, since that time, by virtue of an act of the congress of the United States.' Page 20. 'The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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.' [169 U.S. 649, 666] Page 22, note.
This certainly implies that the "child of an alien, if born in the country" and "natural born child of a citizen" are not the same thing, and in fact gives a basic definition of "Natural Born". That is "child of a citizen'"
Please ignore post 64, I was a little quick on the “post” button, and my net was slow to respond.
I believe you are misreading the sentence. Notice he does not say "natural-born citizen," but "natural-born child of a citizen."
More critically he says the child of a citizen and the child of an alien are both citizens, by operation of the same principle.
IOW, they are citizens for the same reason and of the same type. There is no difference between them.
Native born = natural born, whether the parents are citizens or aliens.
The common-law principle of allegiance was the law of all the states at the time of the Revolution and at the adoption of the constitution
As I hope you know, the English common-law principle of allegiance and citizenship is that citizenship springs from location of birth, not ancestry. This is in direct contrast to de Vattel and his continental European civil "Law of Nations" in which citizenship is inherited from the parents.
Some on FR keep trying to drag de Vattel into the issue, when Blackstone is a far better authority on what the Founders would have taken natural-born to mean.
The statement, “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen”, makes no statement whatsoever about the ‘natural born’ status of a person born of one citizen parent and one non citizen parent.
This statement, in regards to Obama, is meaningless.
My opinion, or yours, or anybody else's as to what the term ought to mean is irrelevant. The only issue is what an average well-educated voter reading the Constitution in 1783 would have thought the term meant.
Since the common law was the background for all legal terms of the time, the common law meaning should apply as the default. Under common law, native born = natural born.
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.