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

Skip to comments.

Obama Got Served
American Thinker ^ | February 1, 2012 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 02/01/2012 7:17:02 PM PST by Sallyven

[snip]...Jablonski remained true to his word -- neither he nor Obama showed up for the January 26 hearing. I noted last week that Obama was not scheduled to be anywhere near Atlanta on the date of the hearing, although I had wondered if still, perhaps, Georgia might be on his mind. According to reports in the blogosphere, the president's schedule on the morning of the 26th was open, and according to an unnamed source, Obama watched the live feed of the hearings.

Perhaps Obama, as well as the several mainstream media news outlets I spotted at the hearing, were merely watching in hopes that the "crazy birthers" would really do something...well, crazy. Or unlawful. In fact, though, it was the president himself and his defense team who were the ones defying the rule of law.

The mainstream media, in lockstep with Obama, reported nothing of the events, in a stunning blackout on a truly historic hearing -- one that discussed the eligibility of a sitting president to run for a second term. And more troubling was the fact that the media failed to acknowledge the even more sensational news -- that the president and his defense attorney snubbed an official subpoena.

Today, Attorney Van Irion, on behalf of his client, Georgia resident David Welden, filed a "Motion for Finding of Contempt" with Judge Malihi...

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2012election; abovethelaw; areyoubeingserved; ballot; bho44; bhocorruption; bhofascism; birthcertificate; blog; bloggersandpersonal; braking; certifigate; constitution; contempt; contemptofcourt; corruption; democrats; election; election2012; elections; fraud; georgia; imom; impeach; lawless; liberalfascism; naturalborncitizen; naturalized; nobama; nobama2012; nonserviam; obama; scofflaw; snot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 651-693 next last
To: Stepan12
Incidentally, since my mother was born in Canada, I am not a natural born citizen either.

Where she was born doesn't matter. Was she a citizen of the US at the time you were born? That's what counts. Children of naturalized citizens are as eligible as those of natural born citizens.

201 posted on 02/01/2012 10:14:18 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer

CONCLUSION AND REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes and hereby
reports to the Secretary of State that Plaintiffs’ challenges to the qualifications of Defendant Barack Obama should be sustained and upheld;

that Defendant Barack Obama is not entitled to appear on the primary or general election ballots in the State of Georgia as a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States; and that Defendant Barack Obama’s name should be withheld from the presidential ballot or, if the ballots have been printed, should be stricken from the presidential ballot.

This day of , 2012

Michael M. Malihi
Administrative Law Judge


202 posted on 02/01/2012 10:14:23 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
“until the 14th Amendment”

As soon as you mention the 14th amendment, you show your ignorance. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with Natural Born Citizen.

203 posted on 02/01/2012 10:15:24 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

If I wanted a dodge, I would go to a car dealership. Cite a LEGAL source.


204 posted on 02/01/2012 10:16:06 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Those applications list several different citizenship dates and requirements during those dates.
What the hell are you talking about? I see no such thing there.
205 posted on 02/01/2012 10:16:23 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“The Founders wanted to deny NATURALIZED Citizens the ability to become President.
That is the purpose of “Natural Born” -— to distinguish between NATURALIZED.”

A distinction without a difference, plus the Constitution already allowed that exception given the fact that no one alive at the time met the NBC requirement since none of their parents were USA citizens. AND you claim Not to be ignorant?? What a hoot!! I can get more intelligent discussions out of used car salesmen...

JC


206 posted on 02/01/2012 10:18:24 PM PST by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U
"Wasn’t he adopted by soeroto (sp?)"

Nope. Soros.

207 posted on 02/01/2012 10:20:18 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
The English Language says so. Congress defined citizenship. Again, look at any passport application.
I just looked at, and linked to, a passport application and citizenship is nowhere defined on that application.
208 posted on 02/01/2012 10:22:17 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Thank you for your service. Thank you also to that fine American who killed that evil son of the devil. Apparently you are informed on issues dealing with abortion. Brush up on citizenship issues.
209 posted on 02/01/2012 10:22:58 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Kansas you are the one wrong.


210 posted on 02/01/2012 10:23:11 PM PST by W. W. SMITH (Obama is an instrument of enslavement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“Try to be a bit more mature, would you?
I can’t stand Obama but I refuse to make a fool of myself with issues or tactics that do not hurt Obama.”

Sorry, but you have already accomplished the latter. Have some breakfast with those waffles, OK?

JC


211 posted on 02/01/2012 10:24:28 PM PST by cracker45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Mortrey

{Why no reaction to the TWO Certificates of Nomination Pelosi and DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond put out? They KNEW he was ineligible and tried to cover for him.}

All too true, but the lawyers and the wannabes are here immediately to ply their trade of obfuscation and big words that mean nothing. Even if they agree that it is likely that the above is true, there are precedents to invoke and money to be exchanged.


212 posted on 02/01/2012 10:25:55 PM PST by itsahoot (Killing humans can't be immoral else pulling weeds from the garden would be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Is this a prediction or is it actually from Malihi??


213 posted on 02/01/2012 10:28:14 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
You have absolutely no concept of the law, at all.

The 14th Amendment caused the “Anchor Baby” problem. However, since that Amendment contains the “-— subject to the jurisdiction thereof -—” clause, Congress can easily, through simple legislation, fix the Anchor Baby issue.

Also, since even the “Case Law” you Birthers post says, clearly, from the COURTS YOU CITE, that the Constitution does not define the term, and since said Case Law CLEARLY refers to Common Law -—

Legislation trumps Common Law!

NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!

The Constitution expressly allows for Congress to determine the Jurisdiction of the Courts, and the Constitution also allows for Congress to define, interpret, enforce and enact the Constitution.

You are CREATING a “Constitutional” issue where no such issue exists.

214 posted on 02/01/2012 10:28:30 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: WMarshal
The Constitution meant what it said the moment it was written

Like any legal document, the parties are not free to change the meaning of it's terms once the document is enacted, except in cases where the document itself provides procedures for doing so. In the case of the Constitution, that's called the amendment process. I'm aware of no amendment that changes the definition of natural born citizen. Yes an amendment does declare that all persons born here are citizens, but it doesn't not define them as natural born citizens. So, whatever the term meant when the Constitution was written and ratified, it means the same today.

215 posted on 02/01/2012 10:29:33 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/


216 posted on 02/01/2012 10:33:24 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I must admit that Hillary Clinton has changed the passport application a bit, since she came to be Secretary of State.

However, that application you posted DOES list other government forms you must fill out, if you were born outside of the United States and claim citizenship at birth.

The law has not changed, but the application does not list the dates and times of the law changes anymore.

The application STILL asks for the dates of birth and residences of the parents, and the ages of the parents, as those are all controlling factors.


217 posted on 02/01/2012 10:33:55 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I must admit that Hillary Clinton has changed the passport application a bit, since she came to be Secretary of State.

However, that application you posted DOES list other government forms you must fill out, if you were born outside of the United States and claim citizenship at birth.

The law has not changed, but the application does not list the dates and times of the law changes anymore.

The application STILL asks for the dates of birth and residences of the parents, and the ages of the parents, as those are all controlling factors.


218 posted on 02/01/2012 10:34:01 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I’m sure you know this, but we must not confuse the ignorant.

Immigration Act of 1790

“....and the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:...”

and REPEALED by the Immigration Act of 1795

“.....and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as CITIZENS of the United States: .....”


219 posted on 02/01/2012 10:36:58 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: edge919

No the judge has not signed.. its part of Hatfield’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions.


220 posted on 02/01/2012 10:38:21 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Even they're more lucid than you.

221 posted on 02/01/2012 10:38:29 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: edge919
the very case rulings you Birthers cough up cite, from the Court, that there is little or no guidance on these issues, and they refer, therefore, to COMMON LAW on citizenship issues.

We have several acts of Congress, since those cases, concerning citizenship.

222 posted on 02/01/2012 10:38:55 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!”

Woah, are YOU late to the party!

Minor V. Happersett, 1874 DID make precisely that ruling. It defined a Natural Born Citizen, and differentiated it from someone who is a 14th Amendment Citizen. GO READ IT. It isn’t even that long for a SCOTUS case!


223 posted on 02/01/2012 10:40:12 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

“NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!”

With my limited knowledge of the English language and my sophomoric attempts at Logic, I come to the conclusion that Minor v. Happersett discussed the subject of native or natural-born citizenship, leaving the interpretation open for future courts to decide on a case by case basis.


224 posted on 02/01/2012 10:40:43 PM PST by map
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
NOBODY with any authority agrees with your interpretation.

The Supreme Court is all the authority I need. So is the Constitution. Both trump any and all other authorities.

Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH and nothing else.

You have no Supreme Court precedent that says any such thing. Nor any Constitutional clause that says it. Nor the words of any Founder. I have all three.

Worse, were "citizen at time of birth" perfectly synonymous with "natural born citizen," then anyone naturalized at birth by Act of Congress—even those born outside the US to parents neither of whom were ever or ever will be citizens—would then be classified as "natural born citizens" and so eligible to be President.

That cannot be what the Founders intended, since those naturalized at birth cannot possibly be "natural" citizens. One is either a natural citizen, or one is a naturalized citizen. It is no more possible to be both at once that it is possible to be a citizen and not a citizen at the same time. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

Also, per Marbury vs. Madison:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such a construction is inadmissible.” 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1805).

Every word in the Constitution must be some effect. The fact that the phrase "natural born" precedes "citizen" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 must make a substantive difference relative to all occurrences of the word "citizen" without that prefix.

Since the difference between "citizen" and "natural born" citizen cannot simply be the difference between "born a citizen" and "made a citizen after birth," it must be something else. We can infer from the phrase itself that one such difference must in fact be whether or not one was born a citizen. But there's another essential difference: "natural" vs. "naturalized."

Based on that, it could be that the difference is between "citizen from birth without naturalization" and "citizen either by naturalization or else not from birth" (e.g, those who became citizens after birth without any naturalization law when the US came into existence.)

However, it has always been the case that those born in the US to even one parent who was not a citizen became citizens as an act of positive, man-made law, and were not regarded as citizens by nature without need of any such law. Such persons are naturalized citizens, not natural citizens.

Even the 14th Amendment is a law. And it makes no claim to be defining anyone as a natural citizen, by birth or otherwise. It is logically impossible to make a natural citizen by law, since the definition of a natural citizen is one who is such without the need for any legal fiction created by a legislative act. The term "naturalization" means to make someone a citizen by law who would not be one naturally without such positive law.

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause defines both a) those born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, and b) those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, to be citizens of the US, and does so using a single sentence with a single phrase that is the subject of the sentence and a single phrase that is its predicate. The subject phrase is of the form "<A> and <B>", and the predicate phrase is "are citizens of the United States."

That single predicate phrase, "are citizens of the United States," must intend to apply that exact same meaning of the word citizens to both noun phrases in the conjunctive phrase that is the subject of the sentence, since it's but one predicate phrase applied to but the one conjunctival phrase that is the subject of the sentence. Therefore, the semantics of the word citizens in the 14th Amendment must encompass both those born in the US (and subject to its jurisdiction) and those naturalized in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. That is flat-out impossible unless the intended semantics of the term citizen in the 14th Amendment is that of general citizenship, and is not intended to signify any other, more specialized meaning.

Therefore, the 14th Amendment simply naturalizes anyone who is not already a citizen naturally without need of the 14th Amendment to be one. And per Minor vs, Happersett, the only ones who don't need to be naturalized by the 14th Amendment are those born in the US to parents who were citizens.

You have NO case law that says otherwise. The Case Law you claim to have does not count, since Congress had no Citizenship language in place at that time.

The Minor Court's definition of “natural born citizen” was pivotal to reaching its holding, the Court's definition is part of its holding and is, therefore, also precedent. In addition to Ogilvie (as cited in the essay,) also see Black’s Law Dictionary 737 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed., West 1999) (see also Id. at 1195 defining “precedent” and quoting James Parker Hall, American Law and Procedure xlviii (1952); see also Black’s Law Dictionary at 465, distinguishing “dictum gratis”).

Congress has no power over citizenship per the Constitution to make any law affecting or defining natural citizenship. By definition of natural citizenship, it cannot have any such power, which is why the Founders pointedly only granted it the power to make rules regarding naturalization (the making of citizens by political law or edict, instead of recognizing citizens by natural principles which require no law.)

So whether Congress had any "citizenship language in place at the time" is irrelevant with respect to the decision in Minor or with respect to the meaning of "natural born citizenship."

But you're also quite wrong on another point: Congress has had citizenship law in place since 1790.

225 posted on 02/01/2012 10:41:43 PM PST by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You might have simply cited U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and provided the link. Actually the part of the decision most helpful to the view that “natural born citizen” is analogous to the British notion of “natural subject” rather than to Vattel’s notion of “native” is later than the part you provided.

Nonetheless, although as the Court noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court in Minor asserted it was appealing to common law, the decision in Minor explicitly defined the phrase “natural born citizen” as equivalent to “native” and gave Vattel’s definition.


226 posted on 02/01/2012 10:42:00 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: faucetman
Much of birther case law has NOTHING to do with showing any difference between “Citizen at Birth” and “Natural Born Citizen” -— since there is no difference.

You demand proof from the opposition, when our side is obvious, logical, legal and historical.

You provide “proof” which supports my side. Your Judges, in prior case law, refer to Common Law, in cases that WERE NOT POTUS CASES! And Common Law is now moot on citizenship issues.

227 posted on 02/01/2012 10:42:07 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
We have several acts of Congress, since those cases, concerning citizenship.
Which acts of Congress?! Can you name even one?
228 posted on 02/01/2012 10:42:11 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: cracker45

HUH?
You just stated that there is no difference between “Naturalized” and “Natural Born”??

Is that what you meant to say?


229 posted on 02/01/2012 10:44:06 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

The dates and requirements are not printed on the form anymore, but those rules still apply.

I grant you that Hillary Clinton did a good job scrubbing that form since I, and a few others, were posting it all the time on FR and elsewhere, a few years back.

find a PRINTED pp AP prior to this Administration, the rules are spelled out very well on the application. Those rules still apply. This is why they ask for ages of the parent and dates of residence.


230 posted on 02/01/2012 10:48:31 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

You are a resounding gong.


231 posted on 02/01/2012 10:50:26 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Then, legislation was passed by Congress as to what requirements had to be met, to be a Citizen at Birth.

Which provision of the Constitution gives Congress the power to do this?

The only power I see delegated to Congress involving citizenship issues is the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".

So, any person who is a citizen at birth due only to a law passed by Congress, must therefore be considered to be a naturalized citizen.

The 14th amendment defines persons born in the US to be citizens, but does not define them as "natural born" citizens.

232 posted on 02/01/2012 10:51:16 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Wrong way to look at it.
Natural Born Citizen has always meant Citizen at Birth.

However, when Common Law controlled this issue, both terms still meant the same thing.

The Founders meant that you had to be a Citizen at Birth, and at the time they wrote and ratified those words, they also gave Congress the power to define Citizenship clearly.


233 posted on 02/01/2012 10:52:59 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Brown Deer; GregNH; LucyT

FYI - interesting.


234 posted on 02/01/2012 10:55:31 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Brown Deer; LucyT; Fractal Trader
FYI - interesting.

BO was supposed to have been watching a live feed of the hearings?

Think of all the antacids he was consuming.

235 posted on 02/01/2012 10:58:36 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Barry, (or someone who works for Barry)

“Your example depends on the age of the parents and the year of said birth.”

Finally! Something you said that is actually technically correct.

My statement only covered about 99% of the possibilities, I forgot about the other 1%.

I assumed they were of legal age in the year in question, silly me. If it was between 1790 & 1795 he would have been an NBC. If the father didn’t have the child until he was over 100 and the poster is over 100, it could be true! (1%)


236 posted on 02/01/2012 11:04:48 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Legislation trumps Common Law!

Except in the case of defining the terms of the Constitution. Otherwise the Legislature could change the meaning of the Constitution itself. Only the amendment process can do that.

How would you like it if your landlord redefined the terms of your lease, without you being able to agree to them or not agree to them? That's the same as the legislature redefining the terms of the Constitution, without going through the arduous amendment process.

237 posted on 02/01/2012 11:08:13 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
at the time they wrote and ratified those words, they also gave Congress the power to define Citizenship clearly.

They gave Congress the power to define Naturalization rules, not citizenship, unless you can point to a Constitutional clause stating otherwise.

238 posted on 02/01/2012 11:12:49 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

The PP app used to contain some of this language, prior to Hillary as SOS:

Acquisition of citizenship

There are various ways a person can acquire United States citizenship, either at birth or later on in life.

[edit] Birth within the United States

Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States of America

Main article: Jus soli

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:
Is born in the United States
Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power
Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States
Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[6] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[7]

[edit] Through birth abroad to United States citizens

See also: jus sanguinis

[edit] Birth abroad to two United States citizens

A child is automatically granted citizenship in the following cases:
1.Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth
2.The parents are married
3.At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth. INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, “and one of whom has had a residence.”

The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states “no amount of time specified.”

A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. They may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have their citizenship recognized.

[edit] Birth abroad to one United States citizen

A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (different rules apply if child was born out-of-wedlock):[8]
1.The person’s parents were married at time of birth
2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child’s birth
4.A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization”. Additionally citizens who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.

A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.

Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual’s birth.

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[8]:
1.The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
2.One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
3.The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
4.A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

For persons born out-of-wedlock (mother) if all the following apply:
1.the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and
2.the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[9] (See link for those born to a U.S. father out-of-wedlock)[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law


239 posted on 02/01/2012 11:13:31 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Congress only has the power to naturalize. This is defined by the Constitution. Natural-born citizenship is defined outside U.S. law and outside the Constitution. This is what the Supreme Court said very clearly in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.""

240 posted on 02/01/2012 11:14:41 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law


241 posted on 02/01/2012 11:15:28 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

And every person who is now dead, once drank water and breathed air.


242 posted on 02/01/2012 11:19:00 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
States have already prevented people from being on the presidential ballot for either under age or not being a natural born citizen.

I am sure other FReepers have the info at their fingertips and can give it to you.

I seem to recall that the under 34 years old person was Stocky Carmichael (sp), and the "not a natural born citizen" had a middle name "Mohammad"

243 posted on 02/01/2012 11:21:22 PM PST by spokeshave (Mitt will release his tax returns when 0bambi releases his Birth Certificate and grades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Congress can and has changed citizenship rules, for those born on foreign soil, several times.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law


244 posted on 02/01/2012 11:21:57 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Wow, a massive C&P and not one use of the term “natural-born citizen” within. Thanks for disproving your earlier claim.


245 posted on 02/01/2012 11:22:42 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Yes, that’s called naturalization law. Thanks for proving my point.


246 posted on 02/01/2012 11:24:24 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

I’ve got to add you (again) to my “random little spur of the moment ping list”.

BTW did you see the Ma^^ing interview with Voigt? Freepmail if you didn’t.


247 posted on 02/01/2012 11:25:09 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Thanks. Looks like it would be easy enough to sign and forward to Kemp.


248 posted on 02/01/2012 11:26:01 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: edge919

And you post “case law” which also does not address Natural Born Citizen directly, and such “case law” refers to Common Law which is now MOOT anyway.

Besides, I have been told, falsely, on this very thread that Congress “can’t” or “hasn’t” changed citizenship requirements for those born on foreign soil or for those born on US Soil.

Congress has done exactly that, several times!


249 posted on 02/01/2012 11:26:07 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

And/or cigarettes/joints he was smoking.

HA HA HA HA. It’s only going to get worse for him and his handlers/followers/string pullers.


250 posted on 02/01/2012 11:26:23 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 651-693 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