See: 
Posted on 03/18/2010 12:24:55 PM PDT by Polarik
From Barack Obama's own website, Fight the Smears, a statement as to his citizenship status embodied in the masthead and email to forward:
BO is destroying the country and this crap is still being paid attention to.
Its the same as if during a code blue, the hospital staff were fretting about a paint chip on the wall.
For the roughly 5000th time.
We are all agreed the President must be a natural born citizen.
There is considerable disagreement on what makes one a “natural born citizen” as opposed to a native-born citizen, if indeed one believes there is any difference, which I don’t.
Since no court has ever ruled definitively on the issue, the definition remains arguable.
For the roughly 5000th time.
We are all agreed the President must be a natural born citizen.
There is considerable disagreement on what makes one a “natural born citizen” as opposed to a native-born citizen, if indeed one believes there is any difference, which I don’t.
Since no court has ever ruled definitively on the issue, the definition remains arguable.
So Polarik, your back to Free Republic after leaving in August 2009. And now you feel a need to post about Obama’s Birth Certificate the same week as the most important debate is about Health care. Who’s pulling your strings?
Doesn’t matter what’s in the U.S. code. NBC is defined extraconstitutionally in line with Vattel’s definition that one must be born of citizens in the country of the father.
I've heard that but have never seen even the slightest bit of proof.
Right.
I believe there are two groups of US citizens.
Citizen at birth = native born = natural born.
Naturalized.
No third category of native born but not natural born.
While there has been no definitive court ruling, I think the Supreme Court cases that have some limited bearing on the case imply support for my position.
SAD probably filed a Consular Report of Birth Abroad so Maya could have U.S. citizenship ... this may have been misconstrued to thinking Maya had a birth certificate ... although it may be possible that Maya was also registered in Hawaii.
The two types of citizenship in the U.S.are at birth and by naturalization. In some countries, adoption is the third method. U.S. statutes grant at birth citizenship beyond the borders of the United States, so it's wrong to call this type of citizenship 'native born.' Natural born citizenship is a subset of native born, but it's not a statutory type of citizenship. Basically it means born to citizen parents in the country of the father. Not all persons who are native born become citizens because the parents are not citizens (hence the subject clause of the 14th amendment).
The stupid... It hurts...
Back again Polarik, what new fake degree/credentials do you have this time.
IIRC, he has something of a history of that here on FR.
I remain unclear as to whether or not he does out of malicious intent or out of fascination with how people react to false information that they really want to believe.
See:
I made no effort to smear anyone. Have a long an healthy resentment
BTTT
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born). Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.
That clause has generally been interpreted to apply only to diplomats present in this country representing their countries, with diplomatic immunity and therefore not subject to this country's jurisdiction, and of course their children.
All others born in USA have been considered to be citizens by birth despite their parents' status.
You may argue that it should be interpreted otherwise, and perhaps you're right, but them's the facts.
Actually five current members of the Supreme Court have issued rulings that support your position.
At least five of the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court cited Wong Kim Ark approvingly in Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1997). A case about whether the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and an American soldier (born abroad) should have to jump through more hoops to affirm her American citizenship than if she were born to an American mother and Filipino father.
Stevens, the majority opinion, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).”
Scalia and Thomas in concurrence: “The Constitution ‘contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ Ibid.”
Breyer and Ginsburg in Dissent: “I recognize that, ever since the Civil War, the transmission of American citizenship from parent to child, jus sanguinis, has played a role secondary to that of the transmission of citizenship by birthplace, jus soli. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S., at 828; see also Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669—671 (1927) (citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674 (1898), and id., at 714 (Fuller, C. J., dissenting)).”
Sotomayor quoted Wong in a dissenting opinion from a 2nd Circuit opinion that suggested that because Bermudans were not “subjects” or “citizens” of the UK, they were not covered in the alienage jurisdiction of federal courts. Sotomayor wrote that this gave foreign jurisdictions the power to trump our laws in a way that was unacceptable. [1]
Her view was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 2002 in JPMorgan Chase v. Traffic Stream (in another case that cited Wong Kim Ark) which brings Kennedy into the group of justices that have endorsed Wong.
Of the current sitting justices, only Alito and Roberts haven’t cited Wong. Alito, however, came from the third circuit where the circuit decided the same issue as Sotomayor faced and decided it the same way as Sotomayor and the Supreme Court – Southern Cross v. Wah Kwong.
That clause has generally been interpreted to apply only to diplomats present in this country representing their countries, with diplomatic immunity and therefore not subject to this country’s jurisdiction, and of course their children.
All others born in USA have been considered to be citizens by birth despite their parents’ status.
You may argue that it should be interpreted otherwise, and perhaps you’re right, but them’s the facts.
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.