Posted on 05/17/2012 10:58:09 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
Real or Fake ones? Inquiring minds want to know.
In you attempt to make you daughter eligible to become President is astounding. Have you no shame sir?
Sorry, it is not settled law.
Here on WBT in Charlotte Joe Pollock is about to come on.
If this is something he knew about, they probably have a SH*TLOAD of stuff that they’re gonna drip drip drip.
Breitbart is gonna make Kurt Cobain and Bradley Nowell look like minnows in the posthumous fame department.
Doesn't matter if Barry was born in the US. Just as you correctly point out that children born overseas to U.S. citizen parent(s) obtain U.S. citizenship via statue, the same goes for foreigners' children born here. They inherit their parent(s) foreign citizenship. By birthright. Unless SR. was not his legal father at birth, and even if born in the Lincoln bedroom, Barry was born a British subject. He inherited his foreign fathers foreign citizenship at birth.
How do you think those 300,000 to 400,000 anchor babies born each year to illegal alien parents get US passports, access to Medicaid, food stamps, etc.?
Via a pure, 100% bastardization of the intent of the 14th Amendment.
"Original intent of the 14th Amendment
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens. "
And it continues.
Because of a liberal bastardization of the meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment, children born here to FOREIGNERS who aren't even DOMOCILED here and who happen to be here ILLEGALLY, are currently afforded citizenship. It's wrong. It was never meant to be that way, and is yet another wrong that needs to be righted.
You better save that before it’s scrubbed.
Yes.
The supreme court has changed its interpretation of the definition of natural born citizen from time to time over the last 200 years. It is not really known if a person’s status depends on the interpretation of today or the interpretation at the time of their birth. It has never been tested before.
But in your case, even if your child had been born 50 years ago I think she would still be a natural born citizen because you are and your wife was a naturalized citizen.
At one time, the law read that the FATHER of the child had to be a natural born citizen before the child would be considered natural born. Then they started relaxing the requirements.
at the time of obama’s birth, the requirement was kinda screwy. It stipulatted that the father had to be a citizen OR the mother had to be at least 19(or something, I’m going by memory) and lived on US soid for at least X number of years and herself be a natural born citizen.
I’m going by memory. At any rate, he did not meet the requirements at the time of his birth since his mother was under the age requirement and his father was not a citizen.
So we are left with a debate as to wether or not obama’s citizenship status is determined by the CURRENT interpretation or by the interpretation in effect of the time of his birth.
Which he was.
An American citizen can be from Oslo without inferring that he's a Norwegian national.
Let's give it a rest and let the communists, liberals and progressives twist the language to make non-existent points.
Unless you're prepared to argue that, in addition to being an nineteen-year-old American "anthropologist," Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was also an official American diplomat.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
The hospitals in Hawaii are forbidden by HIPAA from releasing info on patients. They have never claimed that he was born there. There was a letter where Barack Obama supposedly said he was born at Kapiolani and Kapiolani had it on display and used it in a fundraising letter but Kapiolani would never confirm that it was accurate. And the White House would never confirm that Obama had actually signed that letter (which had the White House seal on it).
However, according to Mike Evans,HI Gov Neil Abercrombie said that he had gone to the hospitals with a search warrant, looking for a record of Obama’s birth and could not find anything anywhere. Evans reported that on various radio stations. Shortly afterwards Evans denied that he had said any such thing, but the audio shows that he did.
“...who gains from this coming out?”
Bibi and the Israelis...
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother:
A person born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 309(c) of the INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth and if 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. The mother must be genetically related to the person in order to transmit U.S. citizenship.
Because you say so? That's some hubris!
When I saw it was blue, the first thing that came to my mind was: “Is this BO’s BLUE dress?”
It is the first truly tangible evidence we have. We can hold it in our hands and collectively hand it to the judicial and legislative branch of government.
“Was he lying then or is he lying now?” will become as well known as “What did he know and when did he know it?”
Nah, the media only vets conservatives. Homomarxists get a bye.
Let me guess which media outlet, which hardcore journalism dig this mystery man’s background up, after years of hard digging, fearful of their lives etc etc ......
//Heavy sarc
If it were settled law, then Obama wouldn’t be in the WH. Nor would the Tribe/Olson opinion on McCain even be necessary.
LOL!
‘And the father is....’
‘Dats riight, dats riight! I dun told ya’ll!’
‘Oh lawd, hep me, hep me...puhleeeeeze!!!’
According to the information given (yours and outside sources) there is a grandson born in the US of a citizen of the US and a person of another nation elegible for President of the United States (btw - grandson is mine and my spouse). Why not have the question of eligibility addressed by the SC regarding zer0 and my grandson? It has been tried to bring it before the SC hasn’t it? Thought Alan Keys tried.
But at some point the Drive by’s will sell out for the Beard for no other reason than to hold the White house for the CommieRat Party.
Seems the 'wisdom of the day' - wisdom, so called - is that a challenge would 'invite' a Constitutional crisis that our Country could not withstand(!).
This makes a perversion of Reason, of course; given that we are watching daily; our Constitution being shredded; and our Country being destroyed; with every new Executive Order. Of course; anyone with an IQ higher than 'dirt', knows that without our Constitution; America is NOT recoverable.
Do not doubt more have shared 'the secret'; but wonder if the truth of Obama has been held; however; as a 'wild card'. . .and perhaps, now; they are ready to play it; and play it in time, to kill two birds (with one nativity story) i.e. get rid of President; who it appears, is hated by not just 'foe's; but also by many of his own loyalists.
There are NO friends; of course; in a den of thieves. . . Why not make a challenge against a President whose 'second term' is looking precarious. And yes, the convenience of losing Biden; without having to put him in a mental hospital or worse. . .
So, they just 'let' Obama 'finish'; Repubs we know on board for 'smooth'; and then the Dems usher in Hillary for a fresh 'NEW DEAL' in November.
Who knows; Hillary did get a new hair-do; and Soros did have that meeting. . .and Bill Clinton cannot keep stop promoting his own 'Economic Renewal' plan; while ripping Obama's. . .
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.