Posted on 04/01/2010 9:08:40 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.
The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a "natural born citizen" must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The 14th Amendmant states that Children of Diplomats are not US citizens.
What type of visa did Obamas father have ? A diplomatic Visa?
If yes, and if his father then documented it in the birth records ... he’s an illegal Alien not an NBC.
No -- I just think that it sums up the two of you.
If yes, and if his father then documented it in the birth records ... he’s an illegal Alien not an NBC.
He had a student visa and even if he didn't, American citizens (Stanley Ann) don't give birth to illegal aliens. It doesn't work that way.
She may have listed herself as a Kenyan Citizen on the BC.
Why Rahm went go to Kenya? To locate and destroy documents.
What if she attaind Kenyan citizenship when she Married Obama Sr?
What is she put that on the BC ???
I havent seen a copy of his Visa, have you?
I have not seen the longform BC either.
I am convinced that his BC has “Kenyan” on it. Born in Hawaii, with Kenyan Parents and Kenyan Citizenship.
So what? It's immaterial to Barry's citizenship status. You might as well be asking what color dress she was wearing when she gave birth, because it's equally germane to his citizenship. If she gave birth to Obama in HI, he is a citizen of birth, and a natural-born citizen. That is the Constitutional Law as it exists today.
"What is she put that on the BC ???"
Again, who cares? Whatever she put on his birth certificate, and whatever she placed on his visa application to Indonesia, is again wholly irrelevant to Obama's personal citizenship status.
I thought about this for a year now. Its the only thing that makes sense.
When a woman marries, she usualy takes up the citizenship of her husband. Sometimes immediately by law, depending on the country.
It would not surprise me if she applied for kenyan citizenship, and then documented her son as Kenyan.
This is normal for a man and wife to do.
Whatever else you can say about us, we’re definitely not amateurs.
And it seems we’ve been pretty consistently correct in predicting legal outcomes on this issue, precisely because we understand practices and precedents that you simply do not want to acknowledge.
Many US citizens born in the US were and children of [both parents] naturalized US citizens. The heritage before the parents becomes irrelevant for citizenship purposes.
So, describe, with particularity, the circumstances that lead to your dual citizenship at birth. One of your parents was not a US citizen, I take it. But if both of your parents were born in the US, under Wong Kim Ark, they are at least citizens, even if not qualified to be president, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
No.
All the ancestors except my paternal grandfather date back to the 1700's. On one side all the way to the Mayflower.
Both parents born in the US to grandparents who were at the time citizens of the US.
My paternal grandfather, naturalized prior to the birth of my father, was a native citizen of a Euro country which confers citizenship by right of birth on all descendants of native citizens through the third generation.
All I had to do to prove my citizenship was produce my grandfather's birth certificate; my father's birth certificate; and my own birth certificate.
And further, no, there has never been any doubt in my mind that I am a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President.
When a woman marries, she usualy takes up the citizenship of her husband. Sometimes immediately by law, depending on the country.
It would not surprise me if she applied for kenyan citizenship, and then documented her son as Kenyan.
This is normal for a man and wife to do.”
Not in this country. American women are not required to give up their US citizenship upon marriage to a foreign national, and they do not normally do so. For obvious reasons.
There are a few guys who post on here wish it was not so because of the reason above. I suspect they are personally being selfish and dishonest.
If he had a Diplomatic Visa, and she attained Kenyan citizenship, Obama is then in fact a Kenyan Citizen, unless he gets a green card and then is naturalized.
Thats the law , case closed. You can check it out at USICS.
I have never seen a copy of Obama Sr. visa or Obama Jrs BC.
So we dont know if he is a citizen.
On what birth certificate is parental citizenship listed, much less a child's citizenship?
What is important to remember (assuming that what you say is true, although there's no evidence that it is), you DO NOT lose your American citizenship when you marry a foreign national, even if you obtain citizenship in that national's home country, either as a matter of law or a matter of application.
To lose one's citizenship, one must appear before a federal magistrate and complete a series of tasks. Simply proclaiming one's self a citizens of country "x", doesn't strip that person of the American citizenship.
There's ample case law addressing this very question, much of it evolving out of tax delinquency cases where people tried to avoid paying US income taxes by declaring themselves no longer citizens of the US. Essentially, you are a citizen right up until the time that the government says you're not a citizen.
Donofrio discloses and discusses a new (to him) 1905 Law Journal article that aligns with his previous analysis and conclusion that Wong Kim Ark did not extend NBC status to all born on US soil via the 14A. While Donofrio hasn't yet published in top tier law reviews, such as Obama’s Harvard Law Review with its politically correct bias, he has been able to find law review articles over the past decades that support him.
Donofrio from the WND article:
A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous.
end quote
While you are a natural born citizen of the US, I think your actions demonstrate a lack of resolved allegiance to the US.
American women are not required to give up their US citizenship upon marriage to a foreign national.
Not Required. But they do and they have, voluntarily.
She could have, and you and I just dont know until we see the birth records, or get Obamas native country of Kenya to cooperate while they recieve billions of aid from him.
I suspect the Birth records have been destroyd for this reason. I know we will never see them, and there is a reason why they have been hidden or destroyd. That reason is “KENYA” is cited in his birth documents.
Well, good luck to him with that.
I think the issue has never been before the Court, and that it is plain error to read Wong Kim Ark for the proposition that anchor babies are constitutionally qualified. But you opened with the remark that dual citizenship is irrelevant to the question of constitutional qualification, which strikes me as an entrenched position on the other side.
"You can't have it both ways . . . . " I don't know why not. I am a real Constitutional Lawyer, admitted to practice before the U S Supreme Court and having argued Supreme Court cases; I get paid lots to render opinions based on my reading of existing cases, statutes, and other law; no doubt in my mind that if and when asked, the Supreme Court is going to hold that born in the USA is sufficient; but still hypothetical in that the Court has not yet been asked that precise question.
I don't know many lawyers that would agree with your proposition that anchor babies are not constitutionally qualified; and no I don't think dual citizenship is necessarily relevant to Natural Born status. Lots of Natural Born Citizens are dual citizens.
As set out below, lots of the Euro countries confer citizenship by right of birth on descendants of citizens who are citizens of other countries--there are lots of dual citizens in the US who don't know they are dual citizens.
My view is an entrenched position only in the sense that I think my opinion on the subject is correct. All these contrary views expressed here show a real lack of understanding of how the Supreme Court operates and decides cases.
But there is a real bottom line here and it is that Obama was born in Kenya, pretty clearly under circumstances in which he was not even a citizen at birth, and there is no way he is a Natural Born Citizen for purposes of the Constitutional eligibility question.
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.