Posted on 07/27/2023 1:23:56 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
The child of that Chinese spy would be a U.S. citizen. But there’s no need to consider if the child is “natural born” or not.
That’s because of a little-known requirement to be eligible for the presidency: The person must be a United States resident for at least 14 years. So the child would be ineligible based on you saying that he lived his whole life in China.
Side note: Kinda clever for the Founders to throw that requirement in.
“His father was a British subject. Therefore Obama was also a British subject making him a dual citizen.”
Therefore, the British law that states that persons born to British subjects are also subjects of Great Britain has a direct impact on American constitutional law and who is and who is not a Natural Born Citizen?
What year did SCOTUS state that?
Absolutely correct.
Vivek Ramaswamy’s parents were not U.S. Citizens in 1985 when Vivek was born. When Vivek was born he acquired dual citizenship, one by place of birth and another via his parents. He was not born with singular citizenship and sole allegiance at/by birth to only the USA as is the case for a “natural born Citizen”. He was not born a “natural born Citizen” with the required three legs of being born in the USA to a father and a mother who were U.S. Citizens when Vivek was born. Vivek Ramaswamy fails “The Three Legged Stool Test” for being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Vivek Ramaswamy was born to a Citizen of India father (minus one stool leg) and to a Citizen of India mother (minus the 2nd stool leg).
The normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years. Vivek Ramaswamy was born in 1985 . His father and mother emigrated from India to the USA about 40 years ago per the April 3rd, 2023 article in the Washington Post. Calculating back from 2023, that yields the immigration year to the USA for Vivek’s parents as being about 1983. Allowing +-2 years, i.e., 1981-1985 for that calculated “about” year of 1983 for the deduced year of immigration to the USA, there was not sufficient time for either of Vivek’s parents to become naturalized U.S. Citizens when Vivek was born in 1985, since it required at least five years to become a naturalized U.S. Citizen.
If Obama and Vivek could be president so could Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin
After the presidency of Hussein O’Bama the Natural Born clause is a dead letter. Anyone on earth is eligible to be US President so long as he is the minimum age and probably needs to be present on US soil.
He’s a Soros plant.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/07/vivek_ramaswamys_soros_connection.html
> It’s in the booklet that is given to people who are studying to take the citizenship test… <
I’ve never seen that booklet. But I’ve read what the Supreme Court has said on the matter. It’s a confusing, jumbled mess. You’d think that they could be clear about such an important matter. But, no.
Well, the amendment coming later isn’t a convincing argument. If it were, then none of the amendments would carry any weight, because they are all passed after the thing they are amending. That’s the very nature of amendments.
Maybe there is a convincing argument to be made, but this isn’t it.
—> Obama was born in Hawaii
Probably not.
LOL...maybe not.
The simple fact is that Citizenship at birth is defined by the 14th Amendment. That supersedes the common law interpretation in the Original Constitution. So now, if you were born a Citizen under the 14th Amendment you are a Natural Born Citizen for all intents and purposes.
Get over it. You won’t win this argument in any court in the nation.
By the way, the Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution in such a fashion, despite your foolish assertion.
“Obama was born in Vancouver Canada.”
I am sure your evidence for this is rock solid.
Wrong!
Nowhere in the 14th Amendment are the words “natural born Citizen”.
If you know where it’s located the please post it. Thanks!
28 US 99
Two things usually concur to create citizenship; first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign; and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words, within the ligenance of the sovereign.
The case describes 2 exceptions: children born of ambassadors and children born of occupying soldiers.
Concurring Dred Scott opinion-
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen". It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth.
The very case you cite Wong Kim Ark permits citizenship to an individual solely virtue of the locus of the subject of parturition, and makes no distinction for "natural born", as your inference of a distinction is chimeric.
The booklet was printed by our government!
So argue with them; not me.
If he becomes a democrat it will be OK.
—-> After the presidency of Hussein O’Bama the Natural Born clause is a dead letter.
Solid maybe, unless the SC takes up a challenge…
This issue was rendered moot in 2008.
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.