Skip to comments.4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
Posted on 04/25/2011 1:33:23 AM PDT by Veristhorne
click here to read article
When this first came up two years ago, the text and the link to the actual immigration and naturalization law (which was in effect at the time of Zero's birth) was posted here.
I wish I had it now, but what it said, is that, if a mother is an American citizen, and gives birth to a baby whose father is a foreign citizen, while outside the boundaries of the territorial US, then the mother must be past the age of 14, plus 5 years for her to be able to confer US citizenship on that child.
This is one HUGE reason that it's vital for Obama's LFBC to be released. Stanley Ann Dunham was just short of her 19th birthday when Zero was born. If she gave birth to him outside the territorial US, then he's not even a US citizen, much less, a Natural Born Citizen.
Assuming overseas birth, AND assuming Sr. and SADO were legally married, he would not have received U.S. citizenship based, only, on his mother's citizenship status.
Per U.S. law at the time of his birth (December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986). Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: "For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child." http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
**************PAGE AT LINK ABOVE NOW REMOVED sometime around August 2010 (http://replay.web.archive.org/20100820225004/http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html - USE BELOW LINK***********************
Also found here:
"1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Title3 Chapter1" http://www.scribd.com/doc/8693236/1952-Immigration-and-Nationality-Act-Title3-Chapter1
Thanks for bringing that data out of your archives, rxsid. Much appreciated.
it worked for John McCains citizenship qualification when born in the panama canal zone.
A senate resolution was passed, which has absolutely no effect on the questions at issue. It is still not clear that McCain was eligible to be President, but it certainly established that the present occupant of the Oval Office knew of the issue and the doubt surrounding his own eligibility. A senate resolution does not alter, define or override the Constitution.
Wasn’t Barry’s mom SINGLE at the time of his birth? I believe she was. According to what I have read, at the time of Obummers birth, the law was that when a child is born to an unmarried mother....the fathers status does not count. Citizenship is based solely on the status of the mother, who clearly was a US citizen (even though she was a commie lib). So, he could have been born in Kenya, Australia or anywhere else and he still would have been an American citizen at birth, and therefore a “natural born” citizen rather than a “naturalized citizen”. The age stuff you mentioned applies to MARRIED mothers. HOWEVER, it’s the COVERUP that could bring him down. Shades of Watergate!
Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution - No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
“There are two groups here that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, were eligible for the presidency: 1. natural born Citizens, 2. those who, though not “natural born,” were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The second category no longer exists, unless you can find someone that is over 224 years old.”
I agree with this “second category” logic above but just to double check myself, what if I get a response arguing, “well there are no 224 year old natural born citizens either?”
The person I was debating with (on Facebook, LOL) was trying to argue that the 14th amendment redefined who a citizen is but I explained it says nothing about who is a natural born citizen nor overrides article 2 for presidential qualifications requiring you be a natural born citizen. His response - “well take it to court you will lose.”
Obama ... WHO’s YOUR DADDY?!?
By the way...IF Barry was born in Kenya or elsewhere outside the country, he would have obtained U.S. citizenship via his mother by way of current U.S. statue. U.S. statue can not "make" one a "natural born Citizen." If it could, Congress would not have had to repeal the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Okay but if it would be valid to read the two groups of people separately as:
‘No person except a natural born Citizen, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...’
‘No person except a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...’
Now being after the fact how does the rule apply to both equally? Instead of saying “who were still alive, they would still be eligible” and “Once dead, the second category is inoperative” so why isn’t the first category (natural born citizens) inoperative too? I’m just playing devil’s advocate here in case this comes up in order to best defend it as it comes up on conversation to make them understand. I don’t want it to appear as if we are picking and choosing to suit our position, if you see what I mean.
As far as I know there are only two types of US citizen these days (assuming there are no survivors from the time of the adoption of the Constitution). One is “naturalized”, where you were not born a citizen but became one later. That kind of citizen can not become president. The other kind of citizen (including Barry) IS eligible to become a president. There isn’t a third flavor of citizen.
They are currently afforded citizenship status, but are not naturalized.
By the way, from where do you derive your definition of "natural born Citizen?"
First, let me say that I think we absolutely need to stop the whole “anchor baby” thing. I say that just to let you know where I’m coming from.
I know the phrase “natural born Citizen” (for purposes of who can become president) is written in the Constitution. I have also repeatedly read that it absolutely, positively excludes “naturalized” citizens from becoming president. I do not know of, nor have ever read, that the REMAINING classification of citizens (as of the time of Barry’s birth) is split into other catagories, those who can or can not become president. I don’t care to argue the anchor baby point since that definition does not apply to BO. From what I have read and understand, his mother was unquestionably a citizen. She was single when the little b*stard was born. As a result, Barry was a US citizen from birth and eligible to be president no matter where she popped him out. That said, if they lied to avoid controversy THAT could bring him down.
|Office||Citizenship||Age||Residency (or years citizen)|
|Commander in Chief||natural born Citizen||35||14 years resident|
|Senator||Citizen||30||9 years a Citizen|
|Represantative||Citizen||25||7 years a Citizen|
You might not want to argue the anchor baby issue because they fit right into your theory of who a natural born Citizen is.
Barry very well *might* be a citizen, but he could never be a natural born Citizen. It's unnatural for a multinational like Barry to be a natural born Citizen. A citizen can be a multinational...but a natural born Citizen can not.
The easiest way to look at it, is if it takes "man's" law...a/k/a a statue to give someone their citizenship status...that person is a citizen but not a natural born Citizen. That person can hold any political office in the land, save for the Commander in Chief and V.P.
There is only 1 known definition for Citizens who are natural born in 1787, and it comes from a widely known and respected legal treatise the framers read and referenced during the Federal Convention itself.
That is the Dublin edition, not the New York edition. Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com .
I’m not lying. I found a picture that says it is from the 1787 edition. But of course, I’m SURE you have a picture, validated, of a supposedly different 1787 New York edition...
Oh wait. Further research with Google shows there is no online picture anywhere of this supposed version of Vattel. Just claims that someone has seen it - rather like Bigfoot.
Maybe you’ll believe this, since you don’t believe me:
“3. The first American edition of Vattel’s book was published in 1787 in New York. The text for Section 212 in this edition was identical to that of the first English-language edition from 1759; specifically, is used the phrase “natives, or indigenes.””