Posted on 01/25/2012 9:12:53 AM PST by Danae
Ping to the Usual Suspects!
Maybe you should print it out, march up to the White House and smack Obama in the face with it.
Then frog march him right on out of there.
Let me know how that works out for you.
The Plaintiffs v. Obama in the Georgia court could use this information tomorrow.
And, it explains why Obama’s “fightthesmears” website (now, “attackwatch”) NEVER claimed Obama was “natural born,” only “NATIVE born.”—Even Obama, himself, knows that he isn’t a natural born citizen.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080922222958/http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Cheers
Let me know how that works out for you.
Maybe you should act like a gentleman and respond to the article and not make uncalled for snide remarks. Do you disagree or agree with the article? Or do you just want to disrupt the thread?
Born under a bad sign,
if it wasn’t for snide remarks.
if it wasn’t for real snide remarks
he wouldn’t have no remarks at all...
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.”
- MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
See Osborn v. Bank of the United States - 22 U.S. 738 (1824)
Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to legislate the definition or the recapturing of Natural-born citizenship status.
The last line of the quote, “The law makes none[,]” is a reference to the fact the Court does not recognize a difference between a native born and a naturalized citizen.
Natural-born citizenship status can only be defined by a Constitutional Amendment.
Over 3 years, trolls have conflated the two term ‘native born’ and ‘natural born’ even when the proof was staring at them in their collective faces. Well trolls, here is what the US government unequivocally says are the facts. Hint, it is not what you guys “think” and spout...that’s nonsense.
The woman ``X`` came back to USA with her Mexican mother and later, woman ``X`` married, when she was 19, an American-born U.S. citizen in the USA.
Every year, before and after her marriage, the woman ``X`` had to register as a RESIDENT ALIEN. She had the option always, to renounce her Mexican citizenship and become naturalized by INS then, but opted instead for the Mexican citizenship. Her children, both born in USA, are American citizens claimed through their birthplace and through the American father.
Here is what I want to know. I have Google alerts for certain things and natural born citizen is obviously one of them. I have had that alert for over 3 years. The blog that Leo mentions above is loaded with that phrase yet I have never seen it before! How many other great sites are being blocked by this very phrase?
I really thought you should see this thread by Leo
Distinction made by the INS on Natural, Native, Naturalized citizen.
I have already sent it to them.
The typical Obot is argument is “There are only two types of citizenship: natural-born and naturalized.” This new find is going to leave some massive welts. Ouch.
As I recall, an American women would lose their US citizenship prior to circa 1934, if they married a foreign man.
She could not have come a Kenya Citizen since Kenya - as a stand-alone nation did not exist in 1961. Kenya (which was a defined region) was part of British East Africa. In 1963 it became independent along with 2 other countries in the region. Thus terminating the geo-political entity of British East Africa.
Interesting point - The LFBC refers to ‘Kenya, East Africa’ for OBIs country. There never was such a thing as ‘Kenya, East Africa’. There was Republic of Kenya (after 1963) or prior to that and in the late 50s it was referred to as Kenya since it was defined as Great Britain laid out the path to independence. Many of OBI’s INS records refer to ‘Kenya’. But not ‘Kenya, East Africa’ or ‘Republic of Kenya’.
Here is a document with a very, very good write-up on the trail possible citizen for Obama II during that time.
See the end of the document for in-depth discussion on like citizenship path as Kenya become independent. Bottom line - Obama never ‘lost’ British Citizenship. He could - to this very day - claim British citizenship.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/hannigan/Eligibility_Dialogue.pdf
It sure looks that way.
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.