Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHO IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
YOUGOV ^ | 05/25/2014 | by Kathy Frankovic

Posted on 05/25/2014 6:04:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

American attitudes to who is and who is not a natural born citizen are as varied as the country itself, with partisan disagreement on whether a child born in the US to immigrant parents is a natural born American

Partisanship plays a major role in how Americans decide who should be eligible for the Presidency, and the concept of what being “natural born” means also plays a role.  The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, states that only “natural born” citizens are eligible to serve (it also sets an age limit and grandfathered in anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution).  In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, saying someone is eligible to serve depends on who you are.

Nearly everyone agrees that someone born in the United States with two citizen parents is a natural born American, and nearly everyone agrees that someone born outside the United States to NON-citizen parents is not. About three in four – Republicans, Independents and Democrats – believe having only one citizen parent and being born in the United States qualifies you as natural born. 

If you are born outside the United States, most Americans say you need to have two American-citizen parents.  That would make John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, natural born, as his U.S. citizen U.S. military parents were stationed in the Panama Canal Zone when he was born.  But more than half say that if you are born outside the United States, and only one parent is a citizen, you are not a natural born American, 

That means more than half of Republicans (53%) would disqualify Texas Senator Ted Cruz from the Presidency on principle.  Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen, while his father was not.   But fewer than one in four Republicans think Cruz was born outside the country; only 10% know his mother was a citizen and his father was not. 

Of course, some of those Republicans may be answering the question by making a statement about President Barack Obama, and not Ted Cruz.  Nearly half of Republicans say they believe the President was born outside the United States, not in Hawaii, and most of those say his mother was a citizen and his father not.  

Consequently, most Republicans say Cruz is legally eligible to be President, while President Obama is not.

Tea Party Republicans are even more sure Cruz is eligible (68% think that), but most of them don’t know he was born outside the United States.  Tea Party Republican say the President was born outside the United States, and less than a third think he is legally eligible to serve as President.  

There are large party differences for one option.  Is someone a natural born American who was born in the United States, but to two immigrant parents?  Democrats say they are, while Republicans disagree.  Parties have nominated children of immigrants for the Presidency (Michael Dukakis in 1988), but no child of two immigrants has been elected President since Andrew Jackson in 1828 (and he was born in the Carolinas before the adoption of the Constitution, and therefore grandfathered in to presidential eligibility). 

Florida Senator Marco Rubio was born in the United States, but his parents, immigrants from Cuba, were not yet citizens when he was born.  Half of Republicans say that would disqualify someone from being “natural born,” as the Constitution requires to run for President.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: citizenship; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

1 posted on 05/25/2014 6:04:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

On my challenge, by the ancient laws of combat...
...we are met at this chosen ground...
...to settle for good and all...
...who holds sway, over the Five Points.
Us Natives, born rightwise to this fine land....
...or the foreign hordes defiling it!
Under the ancient laws of combat I accept the challenge of the so called Natives.
You plague our people at every turn!
But from this day out, you shall plague us no more!
Let it be known, that the hand that tries to strike us from this land...
...shall be swiflty cut down!
Then may the Christian Lord, guide my hand, against your Roman popery!
Prepare to receive the true Lord!


2 posted on 05/25/2014 6:08:56 AM PDT by KingLudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Those questioning Cruz eligibility on 'natural born citizenship' have had short tenures here on FR. Jim has clearly stated that Cruz is qualified to be president, and has show little patience with those that want to stir up trouble in that regard.

/johnny

3 posted on 05/25/2014 6:12:38 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Constitution, Art. II, says in pertinent part:
“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;”

Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead and likely to remain that way, we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? It is a matter of allegiance.

A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.

If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. (*)

Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.

(*)[footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throughout much of the world and the Founders wished to forestall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]

4 posted on 05/25/2014 6:16:09 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes EVERYTHING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If < ZERO is eligible then anybody including Putin is eligible.
5 posted on 05/25/2014 6:24:50 AM PDT by DeaconRed (Conservative is the common sense choice. Liberalism is the wacko choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The closer you get to the Founders on the timeline, the more perspicuous the true intended meaning of “natural born” appears. As recently as the 1880’s, the viability of Chester A. Arthur’s candidacy was doubted because his true birthplace was suspected of being in Dunhan, Quebec, where his father moved the family briefly.

I believe birthplace was considered critical in determining natural born status by the Founders and the generations which followed.


6 posted on 05/25/2014 6:31:45 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Isn’t the definition of “natural born citizen” set by law, not opinion polls? Why should opinion matter?


7 posted on 05/25/2014 6:32:27 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Great find! Very interesting and revealing on many levels.

I wish similar polls were available from the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. to see how our understanding and beliefs have changed.

8 posted on 05/25/2014 6:33:03 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Legal definition of citizenship by polling the affected individuals.

What a unique means at arriving at a point of “settled law”.

“Natural born” is one of those terms that is expanded or twisted to mean what the speaker seems to want it to mean.

A child of parents who are NOT citizens of the nation in which the child is born actually falls into two categories. One is of which the parents are only transients, either as tourists or as temporary visitors, and the parents have no intention of becoming permanent residents or proceeding to naturalized citizenship at a later date. The other category applies to those parents who have migrated here with the intention of becoming citizens and are at present residing here to meet the residency requirements for naturalization.

Persons who arrive within US borders, who are neither some kind of refugees from persecution in their home country, nor with intent to become a permanent resident and a naturalized citizen at some time in the future, cannot, and should not, claim the birthright for their children, without the children also undergoing the same requirements for naturalization that is required for all other applicants for that objective.

Those parents who have immigrated according to all the legal standards set by Congress, and upheld as a Constitutionally acceptable statute, with intent to become citizens at some time in the future, may be granted the opportunity to have any children born while on US soil choose US citizenship, or to have citizenship revert to the nationality of the parents, at the child’s option. “Anchor babies”, born of parents who do not have clear legal status as either legal residents, or on a path to legally defined naturalized citizenship, would become a meaningless term.


9 posted on 05/25/2014 6:35:47 AM PDT by alloysteel (Selective and willful ignorance spells doom, to both victim and perpetrator - mostly the perp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
‘zackly.
The nat born argument has become extremely tiresome.
10 posted on 05/25/2014 6:40:48 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Rip it out by the roots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No more anchor babies. Every child born here should have the same citizenship status as their parents. Period.


11 posted on 05/25/2014 6:47:52 AM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

RE: Isn’t the definition of “natural born citizen” set by law, not opinion polls?

Is there a law? I know the constitution is the law, but then the INTERPRETATION of what it means is in dispute.


12 posted on 05/25/2014 6:52:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: umgud

RE: No more anchor babies. Every child born here should have the same citizenship status as their parents. Period.

We’ll need a constitutional amendment for that.


13 posted on 05/25/2014 6:53:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Opinion matters because it is what gets you elected.


14 posted on 05/25/2014 6:55:57 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

It is precisely that sentiment which makes the Constitution easy to disregard.


15 posted on 05/25/2014 6:58:01 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Due respect to Jim, Mark Levin has also asserted Cruz’ eligibility, and Cruz has, himself

This could be a response to Harry Reid’s litlle amnesty tantrum the other day when he said something about letting president Cruz handle somthing about it in 2017

It has to burn them to hear

And this is all they have


16 posted on 05/25/2014 6:59:27 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So does “natural born” remain a matter of opinion and not definitively spelled out anywhere?


17 posted on 05/25/2014 7:00:23 AM PDT by luvbach1 (We are finished. It will just take a while before everyone realizes it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

Natives are not necessarily citizens. Indians weren’t citizens (the natives are restless?) until the 14th Amendment for the most part.


18 posted on 05/25/2014 7:01:31 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Even Mark Levin now understands something that I knew 25 years ago. The 14th Amendment is clear, all persons born in America must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in order to have automatic citizenship status. If your parents are NOT citizens you are NOT within the jurisdiction of the national social contract... Period.


19 posted on 05/25/2014 7:07:38 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Who is Natural Born Citizen -- born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens: Yes 91% -- No 5%

Who the h are these 5%???

20 posted on 05/25/2014 7:07:40 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Because the Founders used “every day” terms so that the people could understand the Constitution.

So, obviously it had a precise meaning that was well understood at that time. I don’t believe the definition has been settled to modern understanding, however it does seem that our betters are trying to make laws to define it now.

When I read those attempts to amend Art. 2, and/or make laws to end run it, it did seem to me that the Senators and Reps were doing a LOT of massaging, and that it seemed settled that the understanding was there that a person must be born in the US to be a natural born.

I got hollered at here for simply pointing that out, but it is a fact and so why hide our eyes from it? I don’t try to argue the point because it seems to make everyone so itchy, but it is something that should be settled.

Again I will say that the UNDERSTANDING of what the word meant to our Founders is what is the important thing, and that probably won’t be found in a court case or law book. It will probably be found in period writings. It sure can’t have simply been legend since the Constitution was written. How you can know that is by realizing that there has been such a effort to remove that clause, and ask yourself who benefits once that protection is gone?


21 posted on 05/25/2014 7:12:13 AM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

it’s very simple.

a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives at birth.

cruz is as eligible as 0bama. just like rubio.


22 posted on 05/25/2014 7:23:08 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

Over the last few years, we have seen that elections don’t really matter. Judges keep overturning voter-approved laws and even inventing new laws that have never before existed (e.g. gay “marriage”). I seem to recall that a few years ago, a Republican won the governor’s race in Washington, which was overturned by repeated vote counting which turned up a few “new” votes each round until the Democrat finally won. Not to mention that election fraud is blatant and the left does not even try to hide the fact that it will not tolerate any efforts (like voter ID) to make election fraud more difficult.

In brief, the opinion of the people has not mattered in a long time.


23 posted on 05/25/2014 7:28:49 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I won’t argue over the definition other than to say neither Obama or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens.


24 posted on 05/25/2014 7:33:31 AM PDT by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am. Do I get a prize?


25 posted on 05/25/2014 7:37:34 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (If Cancer were Contagious, they would call it Liberalism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sten
as eligible as 0bama

That's not saying much --

26 posted on 05/25/2014 7:38:57 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Gee, I don’t recall this topic ever being discussed before on FR. /s


27 posted on 05/25/2014 7:39:58 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

We have three choices. 1. Revolution (my fav) 2. Elections 3. Submission


28 posted on 05/25/2014 7:41:53 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

Probably true.


29 posted on 05/25/2014 7:43:24 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Next time you checkout at Walmart ask the cashier who won the Civil War. There you will find your answer grasshopper.


30 posted on 05/25/2014 7:46:17 AM PDT by HMS Surprise (Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not me, I was a C-section.


31 posted on 05/25/2014 8:11:50 AM PDT by Go Gordon (Barack McGreevey Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

Paine is exactly right. The true intent of the founders is crystal clear. For some reason, every since this country was founded, there have been people trying to twist the founders words. Another good one is “shall not be infringed”...... wonder how many explanations we will come up with for that one before it’s all said and done? History will look back on us and shake it’s collective head.... wondering how in the world we could’ve thrown away such a wonderful gift given by the founders.


32 posted on 05/25/2014 8:48:39 AM PDT by walkingdead (It's easy, you just don't lead 'em as much....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

Have you checked under your bed ?


33 posted on 05/25/2014 9:32:46 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Rip it out by the roots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If we want to salvage what is left of American civilization we need ditch birth right citizenship all together. Too many unassimilated foreigners are born here with foreign ways and foreign pathologies. They may be geographically American but they aren't culturally American and never will be. This includes people whose ancestors shave been here for generations.

The only things being born here of two citizen parents should give you the right to is residency and a chance to take a citizenship test at the age of maturity. Citizenship is too precious to just be given away. It should be earned and maintained.

34 posted on 05/25/2014 10:27:22 AM PDT by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This very well illustrates the hypocrisy of Democrats as they deem Obama a Natural Born Citizen no matter what his lineage or place of birth, but impose of much stricter standard on Cruz, Rubio and Jindal when their names are mentioned as presidential contenders.


35 posted on 05/25/2014 10:34:05 AM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever

Well, of course, they’re lying pieces of crap about Obama, but correct on the others.


36 posted on 05/25/2014 10:46:56 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I haven't done this in forever so I don"t know if this picture will attach correctly.
37 posted on 05/25/2014 3:12:49 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest

I got sort of yelled out for bringing this stuff up. I was attempting to point out that our betters USED to all seem to think one had to be born in the US, then when they really got down to trying for an amendment, they little by little began to blur that bit, by using terms like, “maybe it meant”.

There are over a DOZEN of these since the 70’s. Why are they trying so hard? Hummm?

According to them it’s ... for the children. I’m not kidding.


38 posted on 05/25/2014 3:18:05 PM PDT by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
Natives are not necessarily citizens. Indians weren’t citizens (the natives are restless?) until the 14th Amendment for the most part.

Indians born in the USA were not citizens until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. (With some exceptions)

http://thomaslegion.net/indian_citizenship_act_of_1924.html

39 posted on 05/25/2014 6:58:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
An extremely informative and valuable post. Were it not for Free Republic I would not have been able to peruse it. Now I am from up Canada way. Being from the country that screwed things up with the American Colonies, I am taking a chance here.

My interest is in the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States. I have a belief that the practices of certain things of my native country England were taken into account. There was a horror and revulsion on the methods of execution of criminals in England. "No cruel and unusual punishment" I believe was the edict on sentencing criminals.

Kings of England as follows.
George Ist. Born Hanover. Germany.
George 11. Born Hanover. Germany.
George 111. Born England.

All three men had wives born in Germany, I believe.

I have observed the attitude of the now President of the United States. I would mention that his father was a British Subject of East Africa, later of the Republic of Kenya. His step father was a subject of Indonesia.

The Framers of the Constitution were not amenable to outside influences on any future President. They had good reason.

40 posted on 05/25/2014 8:09:27 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
The meaning of the term-of-art natural born Citizen is only in dispute, because people have chosen to dispute it.

First, there are rules when construing the Constitution, and one is that every word have a purpose. You can not interpret any part of the Constitution such as to give any other part no meaning. So, immediately you can see that those who say natural born Citizen is the same as Citizen at birth, are wrong. In that definition the word natural is ignored.

So, what does natural born Citizen mean? The first thing to understand is that there are two basic forms of law, 'positive', and 'natural'. Positive law is every man made law, form your local ordinance's to the Constitution. Natural law is the law that exists even without positive law. It is often referred to as the law of nature or the divine. Positive law takes precedence over natural law.

So with that in mind, what does the term natural born Citizen mean? Simple, it means a Citizen at birth, according to natural law. Who is a Citizen according to natural law? Anyone who does not require positive law.

Many law have been written that describes who shall be Citizens. If you would not be a Citizen had that law not been written, then you are not natural born. There were Citizens before the 14th amendment. There would be Citizens without the Immigration and Nationality Act (unfortunately that does not include Cruz), and there would be Citizens without any law declaring them. We know this because the Constitution says they exist - the natural born Citizens.

Who are these persons? The are the children of Citizens born in the country of their Citizen parents. Their Citizenship can not be denied, and needs not be legislated.
41 posted on 05/25/2014 9:42:45 PM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MMaschin

My younger son was born in Spain, of two American parents. His original birth certificate is Spanish. He also has a US birth certificate issued by the State Department.

I think that he is natural born, because of his parentage.


42 posted on 05/25/2014 10:23:45 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
We’ll need a constitutional amendment for that.

Nope just a sensible court ruling will do.

Or we could just ask for an Executive Order, they seem much easier than amendments and are just as powerful, apparently.

43 posted on 05/25/2014 10:44:44 PM PDT by itsahoot (Voting for a Progressive RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise
If your parents are NOT citizens you are NOT within the jurisdiction

If your parents didn't have diplomatic immunity, they and you are within the jurisdiction.

If you have diplomatic immunity, you don't have to pay your parking tickets.

If you have to pay your parking tickets, then you are "subject to the jurisdiction", and if you are pregnant, you can "drop anchor", so long as the 14th remains unrepealed.

44 posted on 05/25/2014 11:18:40 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
My younger son was born in Spain, of two American parents. His original birth certificate is Spanish. He also has a US birth certificate issued by the State Department.

I think that he is natural born, because of his parentage.

He's natural born because he is entitled to citizenship due to the circumstances of his birth.

Unlike, say Kissinger, Schwarzenegger, or Granholm, each of whom was born foreign (German, Austrian, Canadian, respectively) and each of whom needed to be naturalized in order to acquire US citizenship. Thus, those three are not eligible.

Your son is eligible, as are Cruz, Jindal, Haley, Rubio, McCain, and Obama.

45 posted on 05/25/2014 11:26:21 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Your son was a US Citizen from the moment of birth according to US law. The specific law is the Immigration and Nationality Act section 301. The title of the chapter containing that section is Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization.

Your son is a US Citizen through "Collective Naturalization", and therefore a naturalized US citizen, and not 'natural born'.
46 posted on 05/26/2014 4:50:00 AM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF ain't.
His father was a TRANSIENT ALIEN.

One other thing.
Obama is NOT black !
The ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF is ARAB-KENYAN. The Arab-Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama II, (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), ( the one guilty of TREASON ! ) has NO legitimate Social Security Number.
His father was NOT an immigrant to the United States.
Barack Obama Sr. was a "Transient Alien" because he did NOT intend on residing in the United States permanently.
Barack Obama Sr. was a dual citizen of Great Britain and Kenya, and NEVER a United States Citizen.His mother could NOT impart U.S. citizen to her son, Barack Obama II, because she did NOT meet the legal requirements to do so, at the time her son was born IN the Coast Provincial General Hospital, MOMBASA, KENYA at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961.
Democrats knew this and tried to eliminate the "Natural Born Citizen" requirement at least 8 times BEFORE Obama won his election in 2008.

Obama is NOT a United States Citizen, and is NOT a LEGAL IMMIGRANT.
He has no VISA allowing him into this country.
Barack Hussein Obama II IS ILLEGAL !
He should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY, tried for TREASON, SENTENCED to death, and then have his body deported back to Kenya. British National Archives Show Son Born To Obama Sr. In 1961 In Kenya!
47 posted on 05/26/2014 4:56:41 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

According to the SCOTUS, when determining what the Constitution means, you must give every word purpose, in your understanding of the term natural born Citizen, what purpose do you assign the word ‘natural’? The writers could have simply said “born Citizen”, or “Citizen from birth”. Why the extra word ‘natural’?


48 posted on 05/26/2014 5:03:34 AM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Here is the current law of the land that applies to the birth circumstance of your son:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(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;”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401


49 posted on 05/26/2014 9:12:34 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MMaschin
According to the SCOTUS, when determining what the Constitution means, you must give every word purpose, in your understanding of the term natural born Citizen, what purpose do you assign the word "natural?" The writers could have simply said "born Citizen," or "Citizen from birth." Why the extra word "natural?"
You are not likely to get an honest or a logical answer to this key question.

The usual weaselly answer (if any answer is given at all) is to claim that the phrase "natural born" is somehow equivalent to a single word because it is a very special phrase taken from English law. This is bogus on its face because 1) it actually is, in fact, two separate words, and 2) the founders considered using the simpler, single word "born," but rejected it after much deliberation (about the importance of exclusive allegiance) in favor of the phrase "natural born," so an honest person cannot claim that the two mean the same thing.

To me it is clear that the founders considered that requiring that our presidents just be born citizens would not be enough of a check on foreign intrigue. They wanted the office restricted to Americans who were exclusively 100 percent red blooded Americans. The lengthier phrase was to ensure a natural exclusive allegiance to America with no possibility of anything else.

50 posted on 05/26/2014 9:22:21 AM PDT by elengr (Benghazi betrayal: rescue denied - our guys DIED - treason's the reason obama s/b tried then fried!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson