Replies

There's something very basic that you're misunderstanding, here.

It has to do with the division of powers between the three branches of government under the Constitution. Those three branches, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial, have powers enumerated; numbered and limited essentially.

So, you're citing immigration and naturalization statutes, in an attempt at defining the Constitutional term of art natural-born citizen.

The reason that these statutes must be understood to pertain to immigration and naturalization only, is that the Legislative branch, which is Congress, was responsible for those Acts, and the power of the Legislative branch is limited, enumerated, to immigration and naturalization.

So, if a form of citizenship is determined via statute, then that form of citizenship must be construed as naturalization. That is why you've no doubt seen myself and others insisting that naturalization at birth is a necessary understanding under the Constitution.

It's useful to remember, that a natural-born citizen is not dependent upon any law to determine his or her citizenship status. It is innate; a state of nature, without a doubt. Subject to the undivided, complete jurisdiction of the United States. No competing claims from foreign states, and no competing allegiance to such a state.

I completely disagree.

Walk with me thru this...

In order to be eligible and qualified to serve as the President of the United States you must be a “natural born” citizen, be at least 35 years of age and have resided in the U.S. for 14 years. (United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5).
Whereas, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: “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. “ This means that, in modern times, you cannot legally or legitimately serve as President of the United States, unless you are: . at least 35 years of age . a resident of the United States for at least 14 years . a natural born citizen. Since allegiance of the potential President and Commander-in-Chief was the main concern of the Founding Fathers, ‘Natural Born Citizen’ has been understood to mean meeting the following two requirements: . You must be born in the United States; “on US soil” and . Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth.

Your statement: So, you’re citing immigration and naturalization statutes, in an attempt at defining the Constitutional term of art natural-born citizen.

Incorrect, I am quoting the Constitution of the United States.

So, if a form of citizenship is determined via statute, then that form of citizenship must be construed as naturalization. That is why you’ve no doubt seen myself and others insisting that naturalization at birth is a necessary understanding under the Constitution.

I have no problem with this statement. As it is clear that Natural Born citizen is defined as meeting the following two requirements: . You must be born in the United States; “on US soil” and . Both of your parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of your birth. So how is determination made for children born of two US citizens, on active duty for the military of the US, but not born on US soil? Hence the need for statutes to determine those cases
The U.S. law in effect during Obama’s birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for a least 10 years, five of which were after the age of 14 in order to register the child’s birth abroad in the United States as a “natural born” U.S. citizen. (Nationality Act of 1940, revised June 1952 and affirmed several times since). Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this law does not directly apply to him. It does, however, offer another specific definition of “natural-born” citizenship - one which confers “natural-born” status to multi-national children insofar as the US parent has resided in America for 10 years, five of which occur after the age of 14. Unfortunately, Obama’s American mother was just 18 when she delivered him. So he fails to meet even this definition of “natural-born.”
So what we see here is the Constitution definition of Natural Born, really important only for the offices of President of the US and Vice-President, issues on Natural Born and Naturalized citizenship then mover to:

Title 8 of the U.S. Code to fill in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 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.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship

So, if a form of citizenship is determined via statute, then that form of citizenship must be construed as naturalization. That is why you’ve no doubt seen myself and others insisting that naturalization at birth is a necessary understanding under the Constitution.

I believe I have demonstrated a general knowledge of the differences between Natural Born, and Naturalized, the constitutional defination and the Immigration and Naturalization processes, and even the additional terms spelled out above. Indeed most citizenship is determined by statute, and the Constitution provides the only defintion of Natural Born Status, again, required only for the office of President and VP, and from Personal Experience, high level clearances for the government also require Natural Born status.

It’s useful to remember, that a natural-born citizen is not dependent upon any law to determine his or her citizenship status. It is innate; a state of nature, without a doubt. Subject to the undivided, complete jurisdiction of the United States. No competing claims from foreign states, and no competing allegiance to such a state.

Where does this leave us? Well, we know that a child born of two US citizens on US soil certainly is a “natural-born” citizen. We also know that if a child has just one US parent and is born abroad, he can still be considered “natural-born” if that parent is over the age of 19 and has lived in the US for 10 years (five of which were after the age of 14). There is no clear precedent to extend the definition beyond that. So to those MSM who have so actively said, “He was born in Hawaii to an American mother, case closed!” - think again!

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born to Stanley Ann Dunham (a U.S. citizen) and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (a National of Kenya and, therefore, subject of the United Kingdom). There is no American precedent which specifically suggests that “natural-born” citizenship might be conferred to a child of dual nationalities. Congress or the Supreme Court could easily make such a ruling so as to define “natural-born” status as conferred simply by being born on US soil, but doing so would not retroactively make Obama a natural-born citizen.

Yet, as I said earlier, legal precedent regarding the specific definition of “natural-born citizenship” is quite murky. Far be it from me to issue a finite definition of the term. All I’m seeking to prove here is that there is no justification for the self-righteousness I’ve seen in the MSM and other critics of the birther movement who assume that simply being born in America means one has “natural-born citizenship.” The people who make such suggestions only show their very limited knowledge of the legal precedent.

So, the question of whether or not Obama is, definitionally, a “natural-born” citizen is the first concern of those “crazy birthers.” It’s a concern, by the way, which is entirely unrelated to any conspiracy whatsoever. It’s merely a question of legal precedent. Doesn’t seem like much of a conspiracy to me... it’s a pity the Supreme Court won’t hear any case bringing this issue up. Why? The Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens don’t have “standing” to sue their president for this info. Why? Because a private citizen is not “uniquely damaged” by this problem. Lovely, right? God forbid the Supreme Court be asked to make a difficult decision on a matter of Constitutional definition which could massively effect the entire country...