Talk Elections

General Politics => U.S. General Discussion => Topic started by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on August 17, 2009, 02:55:18 PM



Title: Born abroad
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on August 17, 2009, 02:55:18 PM
Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on August 17, 2009, 02:57:17 PM
Probably, (http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html) although the Constitution doesn't go into detail on what a "natural born citizen" is. However, a person who acquires U.S. citizenship by birth, either by virtue of being born in the United States or by virtue of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad, would probably qualify.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 17, 2009, 05:58:53 PM
Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?

A birthers arguement would be that he only had one American parent, instead of 2.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 17, 2009, 07:00:10 PM
Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?

A birthers arguement would be that he only had one American parent, instead of 2.

Irrelevant.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: ag on August 17, 2009, 07:25:55 PM
Ok, even if we assume that Obama was born in Kenya (which I don't believe), isn't it true he'd he still natural born citizen, because of his mother U.S. citizenship?

For example Lowell Weicker, when thought about 1980 presidential bid, asked his lawyers if the fact he was born in Paris makes him ineglible. They said no, because he was born to U.S. citizens.

What do you think?

A birthers arguement would be that he only had one American parent, instead of 2.

Irrelevant.

I am not so certain. It would depend on the US citizenship law at the time of his birth. If it awarded citizenship automatically at birth on the basis of one parent being a US citizen (so that only registering the fact of birth with US officials were required), that would make the point irrelevant. However, if it made one merely eligible to obtain citizenship on that basis using some sort of a "simplified naturalization" procedure (e.g., upon a parent declaration to a US consul) it could be relevant. The Constitution only clearly makes those born in the US citizens at birth (usually interpreted as satisfying the constitutional "natural born" provision). It does not preclude those not born in the US from being citizens at birth - but that's a matter of statute and statutory interpretation.

So, the right answer is: if he was born in the US he is a "natural born citizen" for sure, by Constitution. If he wasn't - it's a more complicated matter. Not that it makes him ineligible (in fact, most likely he'd be eligible anyway), but it would open legal avenues for questioning that.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 17, 2009, 07:28:25 PM
The fourteenth amendment has this to say on the issue of American citizenship:
Quote from: XIV Amendment, Section 1, 1st sentence
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.

A minimalist argument would be the natural-born citizens are those born of a parent with legal residence in the United States on territory that is under the jurisdiction of the United States, all others, even if the parent(s) be U.S. citizens are naturalized, and the law provided for naturalization at birth.  Under that theory, neither Weicker (assuming he wasn't born in the Paris embassy) nor a Kenyan-born child of an American mother would be a "natural-born citizen".  Obama, since he was born in Hawaii, and McCain, since he was born in the Canal Zone, both meet the strictest interpretation of what constitutes, natural-born.  Wicker's claim to being "natural-born" depends upon a broader definition, in which all those who acquire citizenship at birth are "natural-born"

Of course, we might all be misinterpreting what the Founders meant by the clause.  Perhaps in their zeal to prevent the President from becoming an Imperial Cćsar, they meant to render those born via a C-section from becoming President. ;)



Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 02, 2009, 09:35:51 PM
The Constitution, and ensuing Amendments, identify three distinct types of citizens:

1) "Natural born" (no hyphen) Article II, Section 1, US Constitution
2) Person born - 14th Amendment
3) Naturalized - 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment clearly establishes full equality between the "person born" and the "naturalized" citizen, forbidding the States from making or enforcing any law which will "abridge the privileges or immunities" of those citizens.

The Constitution further leaves the election of the President to the States, via the electoral college.

It stands then to reason then, that the States could not deny a naturalized citizen the privilege of serving as President.

That is patently false however, as we know that a naturalized citizen cannot serve in the capacity of President of The United States.

This means that to be a natural born citizen one must satisfy a higher standard than just being born in the US. The "person born" mentioned in the XIV Amendment attains citizenship via geographical location, and the "naturalized" citizen via act of Congress, but a "natural born" citizen's citizenship is a birthright, passed down from parents (plural) who are also citizens.

The Framers understood the definition, because they borrowed the term from Vattel, They did it, in my opinion, to avoid Presidents with any level of loyalty to the Crown.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: paul718 on September 02, 2009, 10:06:56 PM
The Constitution, and ensuing Amendments, identify three distinct types of citizens:

1) "Natural born" (no hyphen) Article II, Section 1, US Constitution
2) Person born - 14th Amendment
3) Naturalized - 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment clearly establishes full equality between the "person born" and the "naturalized" citizen, forbidding the States from making or enforcing any law which will "abridge the privileges or immunities" of those citizens.

The Constitution further leaves the election of the President to the States, via the electoral college.

It stands then to reason then, that the States could not deny a naturalized citizen the privilege of serving as President.

That is patently false however, as we know that a naturalized citizen cannot serve in the capacity of President of The United States.

This means that to be a natural born citizen one must satisfy a higher standard than just being born in the US. The "person born" mentioned in the XIV Amendment attains citizenship via geographical location, and the "naturalized" citizen via act of Congress, but a "natural born" citizen's citizenship is a birthright, passed down from parents (plural) who are also citizens.

The Framers understood the definition, because they borrowed the term from Vattel, They did it, in my opinion, to avoid Presidents with any level of loyalty to the Crown.

Excellent post.  And welcome to the forum.  :)

Another recent occurrence was in 1968, with the Mexican-born George Romney.

"While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: 'The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.' Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution. However, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed the Act of 1790 and removed the language explicitly stating that the children of US citizens are natural-born citizens. As such, it is inconclusive whether Romney was eligible for the office of President."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968#Eligibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968#Eligibility)


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 02, 2009, 10:14:06 PM
The answer is basically "Most legal scholars agree it would not matter, however this case has never been taken to court so there is no true precenent."


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Јas on September 03, 2009, 04:08:35 AM
...(assuming he wasn't born in the Paris embassy) ...

You can probably strike this - diplomatic missions do not tend to be afforded extraterritorial status.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 03, 2009, 06:23:39 AM
Luis Gonzalez, welcome to the forum.

It would probably best to clarify this in law. However, a generic "one US citizen parent makes you eligible for citizen" would arguably result in cases of illegal immigrants getting pregnant by US citizens to avoid deportation.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: cannonia on September 03, 2009, 07:15:39 AM
My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 03, 2009, 08:09:41 AM
My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

That makes sense. Which is why the "birthers" want to see Obama's US birth certificate.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 03, 2009, 10:11:35 AM
My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

That makes sense. Which is why the "birthers" want to see Obama's US birth certificate.

The birth certificate question is a red herring. It doesn't provide proof of Obama meeting the Constitutional requirement; it actually detracts from the real issue and directs the debate to a.

Lacking a precise definition within the Constitution itself, one must search to see what it was that the Framers themselves understood the term to mean. I still return to Vattel because Vattel was widely read by the Framer at the time of the Foundation of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledges that in a letter to Charles Williams Frederic Dumas, dated 12/9/1775:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. 

This is Vattel's definition:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

I am sure that all of this has been posted here before, so forgive me for repeating myself, as far as the notion that "most legal scholars agreeing that it would not matter", I have never seen data as to what "most legal scholars" agree to, but if they believe that satisfying one Constitutional requirement is immaterial, then why satisfy any?

Not satisfying one sets precedent for the idea that none should be.

In addition, and supporting the argument that Obama does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement, and that the whole birth certificate thing is a red herring, is the unquestionable FACT that Barrack Obama was a British subject at birth.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

So, Obama is not born of citizen parents (plural), and was in fact a British subject at birth.

Does it NOT stand to reason that the one situation that the Framers wished to avoid by making natural born citizenship a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, was a British subject gaining the Presidency?

Lacking case law, or further Constitutional definition, the Framer's understanding of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the current governing Constitutional standard, as Barrack Obama does not meet that standard.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on September 03, 2009, 10:23:58 AM
My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

That makes sense. Which is why the "birthers" want to see Obama's US birth certificate.

The birth certificate question is a red herring. It doesn't provide proof of Obama meeting the Constitutional requirement; it actually detracts from the real issue and directs the debate to a.

Lacking a precise definition within the Constitution itself, one must search to see what it was that the Framers themselves understood the term to mean. I still return to Vattel because Vattel was widely read by the Framer at the time of the Foundation of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledges that in a letter to Charles Williams Frederic Dumas, dated 12/9/1775:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. 

This is Vattel's definition:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

I am sure that all of this has been posted here before, so forgive me for repeating myself, as far as the notion that "most legal scholars agreeing that it would not matter", I have never seen data as to what "most legal scholars" agree to, but if they believe that satisfying one Constitutional requirement is immaterial, then why satisfy any?

Not satisfying one sets precedent for the idea that none should be.

In addition, and supporting the argument that Obama does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement, and that the whole birth certificate thing is a red herring, is the unquestionable FACT that Barrack Obama was a British subject at birth.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

So, Obama is not born of citizen parents (plural), and was in fact a British subject at birth.

Does it NOT stand to reason that the one situation that the Framers wished to avoid by making natural born citizenship a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, was a British subject gaining the Presidency?

Lacking case law, or further Constitutional definition, the Framer's understanding of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the current governing Constitutional standard, as Barrack Obama does not meet that standard.

But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States, even though both his parents were non-citizens and Chinese subjects. This has been upheld and cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens. The only exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats, untaxed Indians (now obsolete), and enemy forces in hostile occupation of U.S. territory.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 03, 2009, 10:34:20 AM
Luis Gonzalez, welcome to the forum.

It would probably best to clarify this in law. However, a generic "one US citizen parent makes you eligible for citizen" would arguably result in cases of illegal immigrants getting pregnant by US citizens to avoid deportation.

That already happens. Actually even if BOTH parents are illegal immigrants, any children they have are granted citizenship if born in the US.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 03, 2009, 10:56:02 AM
Britain permits dual citizenship though.

Since Obama was born in the USA, he is therefore a US citizen and always has been.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 03, 2009, 03:36:00 PM
My understanding of the law at the time:
A natural born citizen must be either:
- Born in the US, or
- Born with both parents as citizens, or
- Born to a US citizen who has been a citizen for at least 10 years, with at least 5 of those years being after the age of 14.

Since Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, she could not have been a citizen for 5 years after her 14th birthday and before Barack Obama's birth, and so he would not have been a natural born citizen if born outside the US.

...or something like that.

Your understanding is incorrect.  The relevant provision has been in place and unchanged since at least 1952, which was the last time the Nationality laws were overhauled in full with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Even if Barack were born in Kenya, all that was required of Ann Dunham for her child to be a citizen at birth was that she be a citizen, that she have resided in the United States for five years, and that two of those years occur after the age of 14.  No matter where Barry was born, he was a citizen at birth.  (The only provision that has changed since 1952 that could have affected him is a requirement that to retain his citizenship he spend at least five years in the United States between the ages of 14 and 28, a requirement that B.O. complied with, and which was reduced to a two year requirement in 1972, and repealed entirely in 1978 in the wake of court rulings that Congress could not provide for a person to lose their citizenship because of a failure to perform some action.



The birth certificate question is a red herring. It doesn't provide proof of Obama meeting the Constitutional requirement; it actually detracts from the real issue and directs the debate to a.

Lacking a precise definition within the Constitution itself, one must search to see what it was that the Framers themselves understood the term to mean. I still return to Vattel because Vattel was widely read by the Framer at the time of the Foundation of the nation.

Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledges that in a letter to Charles Williams Frederic Dumas, dated 12/9/1775:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel. 

This is Vattel's definition:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

I am sure that all of this has been posted here before, so forgive me for repeating myself, as far as the notion that "most legal scholars agreeing that it would not matter", I have never seen data as to what "most legal scholars" agree to, but if they believe that satisfying one Constitutional requirement is immaterial, then why satisfy any?

Not satisfying one sets precedent for the idea that none should be.

In addition, and supporting the argument that Obama does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement, and that the whole birth certificate thing is a red herring, is the unquestionable FACT that Barrack Obama was a British subject at birth.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

So, Obama is not born of citizen parents (plural), and was in fact a British subject at birth.

Does it NOT stand to reason that the one situation that the Framers wished to avoid by making natural born citizenship a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency, was a British subject gaining the Presidency?

Lacking case law, or further Constitutional definition, the Framer's understanding of what constitutes a natural born citizen is the current governing Constitutional standard, as Barrack Obama does not meet that standard.

But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States, even though both his parents were non-citizens and Chinese subjects. This has been upheld and cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens. The only exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats, untaxed Indians (now obsolete), and enemy forces in hostile occupation of U.S. territory.

The XIVth Amendment does not use the natural-born citizen phraseology because Dred Scott v. Sanford established as precedent that blacks could not be citizens since they could not be "natural-born citizens" because their parents were not citizens.  At most, the XIVth defines who are the citizens whose children are eligible to become "natural-born citizens".

As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 03, 2009, 04:20:25 PM
Quote
But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States,

The Constitutional requirement isn't "citizen", it is "natural born" citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim supports my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

Being a citizen by virtue of geographical location does not satisfy the "natural born" citizen standard, as I explained in my first post.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 03, 2009, 04:24:54 PM
Quote
No matter where Barry was born, he was a citizen at birth.

~~

Immigration and Nationality Act

Being a citizen isn't the Constitutional standard. The Constitutional standard is "natural born" citizen, as understood by the people who wrote the Constitution.

In addition, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and no act, law, or statute can supersede it

Again, if being born a citizen is the equivalent to being a natural born citizen, then under the XIV Amendment, it is unconstitutional for the States to deny the Presidency to a naturalized citizen.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 03, 2009, 05:52:20 PM
The Constitutional standard is "natural born" citizen, as understood by the people who wrote the Constitution.

Demonstrably false. The Constitutional standard is "natural born" citizen. What those who wrote it felt is irrelevant.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 03, 2009, 05:58:12 PM
Quote
What those who wrote it felt is irrelevant.


I did not use the word "felt", this discussion isn't about how anyone "feels" about anything.

The discussion centers around the legal definition of the term "natural born citizen".

Lacking case law defining the term, and a Constitutional Amendment removing the requirement, the definition of the term, as understood by the Framers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, remains the Supreme Law of the land.

There is nothing demonstrably false about that.


BTW...since demonstrably means easily proven, then you should be able to do just that, not just say it.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 03, 2009, 09:46:41 PM
As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.

Luis, I note that you chose to rebut only the parts of my post that did not address your claims.  Since we no longer hold that females are legal adjuncts of their husbands, as was the case in 18th century pre-revolutionary France, why should natural-born citizenship exist only if the father be a citizen?


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 03, 2009, 11:33:38 PM
As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.

Luis, I note that you chose to rebut only the parts of my post that did not address your claims.  Since we no longer hold that females are legal adjuncts of their husbands, as was the case in 18th century pre-revolutionary France, why should natural-born citizenship exist only if the father be a citizen?

The definition of natural born citizen, came from Vattel, and was applied to the US. Should you chose to ignore the plural form of the word parent used in the text, that is your prerogative, the "s" however, continues to exist.

If Obama's Presidential qualification comes down to ignoring the existence of that "s", I'd say that the fight is over, and he is not Constitutionally qualified to hold the office he was elected to.

It is obvious that the phrase meant something to the men who set it in place as a standard, and by all indications, the standard definition of the time, was found in Vattel's book.

As it stands right now, Vattel has a clear definition of the term in his book, we know the Founders referenced to "Law of Nations" as they framed the Constitution, and it would be ludicrous to argue that they created a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency without they themselves understanding exactly what that qualification was.

If you know of another definition anywhere, please provide me with a reference so that I may read further on the subject.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 03, 2009, 11:40:55 PM
Quote
Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on September 04, 2009, 02:00:13 AM
Quote
Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.

Well, let's see what it says:

Quote
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.

Was Obama born in the United States? Yes. Were his parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof? His mother undoubtedly was. His father was too, as had he committed a crime, he would have been tried under U.S. law. He did not have extraterritoriality in other words, and therefore any citizenship conferred upon young Barack by virtue of his father's Kenyan or British nationality is irrelevent. British nationality law has no bearing in the United States, except for foreign diplomats granted extraterritoriality.

A natural born citizen is somebody who acquires citizenship by birth. Attempting to claim otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenous at worst. Vattel's writings are NOT the law of the land, birther mental gymnastics notwithstanding.

Quote
But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States,

The Constitutional requirement isn't "citizen", it is "natural born" citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim supports my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

Being a citizen by virtue of geographical location does not satisfy the "natural born" citizen standard, as I explained in my first post.

I'm guessing you're repeating a lie you heard elsewhere, but regardless of what the framers of the constitution felt (and they weren't a homogenous group by the way: they were 50 or so men with vastly different political beliefs), there is no distinction in U.S. law between "natural born citizen" and a "citizen by virtue of geographical location", Vattel notwithstanding.



Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 04, 2009, 08:42:57 AM
Quote
Furthermore, Obama, having been born in Hawaii, is legally a citizen in accordance with the 14th amendment, which states that the children of legal immigrants and visitors are automatically citizens.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.

Well, let's see what it says:

Quote
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.

Was Obama born in the United States? Yes. Were his parents subject to the jurisdiction thereof? His mother undoubtedly was. His father was too, as had he committed a crime, he would have been tried under U.S. law. He did not have extraterritoriality in other words, and therefore any citizenship conferred upon young Barack by virtue of his father's Kenyan or British nationality is irrelevant. British nationality law has no bearing in the United States, except for foreign diplomats granted extraterritoriality.

A natural born citizen is somebody who acquires citizenship by birth. Attempting to claim otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. Vattel's writings are NOT the law of the land, birther mental gymnastics notwithstanding.

Quote
But there is case law. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 in 1898 established that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the fact he was born in the United States,

The Constitutional requirement isn't "citizen", it is "natural born" citizen.

United States v. Wong Kim supports my argument, it doesn't detract from it.

Being a citizen by virtue of geographical location does not satisfy the "natural born" citizen standard, as I explained in my first post.

I'm guessing you're repeating a lie you heard elsewhere, but regardless of what the framers of the constitution felt (and they weren't a homogeneous group by the way: they were 50 or so men with vastly different political beliefs), there is no distinction in U.S. law between "natural born citizen" and a "citizen by virtue of geographical location", Vattel notwithstanding.



You said that the XIV Amendment said something about the children of legal immigrants etc. It doesn't...thanks for proving my point for me,

Let me repeat myself...the Constitutional standard for the Presidency is "natural born citizen", not citizen.

You wish to define "natural born citizen" as being someone who acquires citizenship at birth, but you fail to provide any law, historical text, or substantiation of any form to back up your understanding of the term. In addition, you ignore the FACT that the XIV Amendment makes a person born (citizenship at birth) and a naturalized citizen equal in all aspects. So, for your argument to work, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to be qualified to run for President.

He is not, your theory just fell apart.

As I said, US vs. Kim helps define what a citizen is, not what a "natural born citizen" is. In addition, the contention that there is no distinction in US law between a citizen and a natural born citizen is demonstrably false; the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and by the mere mention of "natural born" citizen immediately following the word "citizen" it makes a distinction.

Quote
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.

There's the distinction right there. Everyone alive in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became a citizen, and qualified to be President. Likewise, their children would be born citizens of the United States. Why draw the line?

The line was drawn to avoid the children of even a single foreign national parent from becoming President.

I don't repeat lies, I read, research, and post historical data as I understand it. I didn't come here to engage in vitriol. I came here to engage in intelligent debate, and expand my knowledge, so if this is your mode of debate, I'd simply rather end our discussion at this point.

Calling me ignorant, disingenuous, and a liar by association is no debate.

It also fails to support your point. In fact, those kinds of tactics are used by people who have nothing to add to the debate.

Have a nice day.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Stranger in a strange land on September 04, 2009, 09:15:42 AM
You said that the XIV Amendment said something about the children of legal immigrants etc. It doesn't...thanks for proving my point for me,

Let me repeat myself...the Constitutional standard for the Presidency is "natural born citizen", not citizen.

You wish to define "natural born citizen" as being someone who acquires citizenship at birth, but you fail to provide any law, historical text, or substantiation of any form to back up your understanding of the term. In addition, you ignore the FACT that the XIV Amendment makes a person born (citizenship at birth) and a naturalized citizen equal in all aspects. So, for your argument to work, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to be qualified to run for President.

I claimed no such thing. A naturalized citizen is a citizen who acquires nationality through naturalization. Naturalization does not make one natural born. Schwarzenegger is not a nautral-born citizen under any reading of the law. The 14th Amendment does not confer upon a naturalized citizen the right to serve as president because it says that no STATE shall deprive born and naturalized citizens of equal treatment. The Constitution, and not the state governments, dictates who is eligible to serve as President.

There's the distinction right there. Everyone alive in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became a citizen, and qualified to be President. Likewise, their children would be born citizens of the United States. Why draw the line?

The line was drawn to avoid the children of even a single foreign national parent from becoming President.


Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen who wasn't naturalized until 14 years after Arthur's birth. He was elected as Vice President in 1880 and sworn in after James Garfield's death. There actually was some controversy at the time - including suprious claims that Arthur had been born in Canada - but he was allowed to serve nonetheless.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 04, 2009, 09:38:09 AM
You said that the XIV Amendment said something about the children of legal immigrants etc. It doesn't...thanks for proving my point for me,

Let me repeat myself...the Constitutional standard for the Presidency is "natural born citizen", not citizen.

You wish to define "natural born citizen" as being someone who acquires citizenship at birth, but you fail to provide any law, historical text, or substantiation of any form to back up your understanding of the term. In addition, you ignore the FACT that the XIV Amendment makes a person born (citizenship at birth) and a naturalized citizen equal in all aspects. So, for your argument to work, Arnold Schwarzenegger would have to be qualified to run for President.

I claimed no such thing. A naturalized citizen is a citizen who acquires nationality through naturalization. Naturalization does not make one natural born. Schwarzenegger is not a nautral-born citizen under any reading of the law. The 14th Amendment does not confer upon a naturalized citizen the right to serve as president because it says that no STATE shall deprive born and naturalized citizens of equal treatment. The Constitution, and not the state governments, dictates who is eligible to serve as President.

There's the distinction right there. Everyone alive in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution became a citizen, and qualified to be President. Likewise, their children would be born citizens of the United States. Why draw the line?

The line was drawn to avoid the children of even a single foreign national parent from becoming President.


Chester A. Arthur's father was a British citizen who wasn't naturalized until 14 years after Arthur's birth. He was elected as Vice President in 1880 and sworn in after James Garfield's death. There actually was some controversy at the time - including suprious claims that Arthur had been born in Canada - but he was allowed to serve nonetheless.

Interesting...the XIV Amendment creates absolute equality between a person born in the US, and a naturalized citizen:

Quote
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The States elect The President, via the Electoral College, so Constitutionally speaking, the States are strictly forbidden by the Constitution from denying a naturalized citizen the privilege of serving as POTUS. When the Amendment states "all persons born...are citizens", it includes the children of citizens AND non-citizens, or the children of a citizen married to a non-citizen, drawing a line of equality between all those instances, and naturalized citizens.

In 1866, during the debate surrounding the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the bill’s primary author, Sen. John Bingham of Ohio, offers proof that nearly one hundred years after the ratification of the Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” still meant exactly what it meant at the time of the document’s composition, and most importantly, that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to alter its meaning:

   
Quote
“…find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) Id. at 1291)

Parents...that annoying "s" again.

In 1866, our government still understood what the Framers meant when they established natural born citizenship as a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency. A child of a subject of a foreign nation is NOT a natural born citizen even if the child is born in the United States.

In addition, Barack Obama was born a British subject, by virtue of his father's British citizenship.

Finally...Chester Arthur lied to cover his ineligibility...all the back up is provided here (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/), with all substantiation provided.

The fact that Chester Arthur "got away" with becoming President in spite of his not meeting the Constitutional standard does NOT set precedent nor does it change the Constitution, any more than OJ Simpson getting away with murder changed murder laws in California.

Chester Arthur wasn't "allowed to serve", he got away with a lie.

Is that what you expect to happen now?


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 04, 2009, 11:05:52 AM
Quote
The 14th Amendment does not confer upon a naturalized citizen the right to serve as president because it says that no STATE shall deprive born and naturalized citizens of equal treatment. The Constitution, and not the state governments, dictates who is eligible to serve as President.

A couple of obvious points...

The XIV Amendment is part of the Constitution.

The Constitution never "confers" rights, it merely acknowledges them, and enjoins government from violating them.

You are right...it is the Constitution, not the Courts, and not laws or statutes that dictates who is eligible.

The Constitution calls for a natural born citizen, not a citizen, and not a naturalized citizen.

Obama is a citizen, no question, but he is not a natural born citizen.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 04, 2009, 12:05:44 PM
There is a difference in UK law between being a "subject" and a "citizen".

All we have in this issue are opinions. This has never been legally tested.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on September 04, 2009, 02:58:28 PM
Only people who can undoubtly prove that at least 66% of their total ancestry (starting from 1776) were Americans should be granted U.S. citizenship. Everyone else: Immediate deportation. :P


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 04, 2009, 03:52:08 PM
As for Vattel's formulation of "natural-born citizen", one must keep in mind that at the time legally wives were in general little more than the chattel property of their husbands.  I would say in the context of the 20th century a male-centric view of the requirements of "natural-born citizen" is inappropriate.  Females do retain a distinct legal personhood while married.

Luis, I note that you chose to rebut only the parts of my post that did not address your claims.  Since we no longer hold that females are legal adjuncts of their husbands, as was the case in 18th century pre-revolutionary France, why should natural-born citizenship exist only if the father be a citizen?

The definition of natural born citizen, came from Vattel, and was applied to the US. Should you chose to ignore the plural form of the word parent used in the text, that is your prerogative, the "s" however, continues to exist.

You're neglecting the reason why Vattel refers so often to the citizenship of the father and never on that of the mother.  In the 18th century since a wife was a legal adjunct of her husband, when she married, her citizenship changed to match that of her husband.  Were we still operating under those principles, then when Ann married Barack Sr., she would have lost her U.S. citizenship and acquired British citizenship.  That legal doctrine no longer applies and clearly is not something that Vattel would have considered in his formulation. So even if one takes Vattel's formulation is taken as definitive, it provides no bar to Obama becoming president.  Legal doctrine today acknowledges that husband and wife may be citizens of different countries and in general provides that they inherit the citizenship of their parents.  Hence, because of the differences in how citizenship and marriage interact between now and Vattel's time, a natural-born citizen under Vattel's formulation need only have one parent be a citizen.

Consider the Naturalization Act of 1790, since it provides a more definitive understanding of what the fathers intended concerning "natural born citizens" than that of French jurist that some may well never had read.

Quote from: 1 Stat. 103
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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to those whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Italics as in the original.

As you can see, they held to a patrocentric view of citizenship that has long since been abandoned.

While the Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795, no other Act of Congress has ever touched upon attempting to define "natural born citizen" so I would say that it offers the clearest insight into the intent of the founders.

Now unless you want to argue that a person can have more than one father, there is no way that the usage of the plural here implies that the act requires that both parents be citizens.  (Of course, they never considered the possibility that husband and wife would hold different citizenships, since that could not occur in 1790.)

Your argument essentially seems to be that changing from a father-only interpretation of the ius sanguinis based determination of "natural born" to an either-parent interpretation as has already occurred with citizenship in general requires a constitutional amendment.  If you are going to be that literal, then do you hold that the air force is unconstitutional as well since the literal text of the constitution only provides for an army and a navy?


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 05, 2009, 02:53:49 AM

Than let's consider the full Vattel, and read beyond the dreaded "s"...

Quote
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;  for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

In that view, Obama's citizenship fails to rise to the level of natural born, even more so when one considers that under British law at the time of his birth, he was born a British subject.

If you wish to discuss laws pertaining to citizenship, then why discuss a repealed law, and not the prevailing law at the time of Obama's birth?

Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961. Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942.

Stanley Ann Dunham was nearly four months shy of her nineteenth birthday the day Barack was born.

Quote
The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).
 

"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
 

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
 

"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

Stanley Ann Dunham failed to meet that requirement by at least three months.

Barack Obama was not even a citizen of the United States at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.

Thanks for helping me find that.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 05, 2009, 06:12:43 AM
"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

Wasn't Obama born in the United States? Hawaii became a state in 1959.

1 and 7 appear to be separate criteria- you just need one.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 05, 2009, 08:43:29 AM
"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

Wasn't Obama born in the United States? Hawaii became a state in 1959.

1 and 7 appear to be separate criteria- you just need one.

Lesson number 1.

Never post when you're half asleep.

You are right.

Section 7 applies to people born outside of US soil, so if in fact Obama was born in Hawaii, he falls under section one.




Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 05, 2009, 09:32:43 AM
As Obama was born in the US, wasn't he subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Section 301:

Quote

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

The way that's structured implies that any of those criteria are sufficient. Obama meets three of them.



Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 05, 2009, 09:45:02 AM
Quote
As you can see, they held to a patrocentric view of citizenship that has long since been abandoned.

While the Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795, no other Act of Congress has ever touched upon attempting to define "natural born citizen" so I would say that it offers the clearest insight into the intent of the founders.

The framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth were also British Citizens, and that's why the Framers declared that while they were Citizens of the United States they themselves were not "natural born". To solve this problem, they included a" grandfather clause "which states that "No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President. ". Because Barack Obama obviously was not alive prior to the Constitution, it is argued that he is not eligible because of his British Subject status at the time of his birth.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 05, 2009, 09:46:11 AM
Section C of that also basially answers the question as to someone born outside the US to US citizens.

For the record it wouldn't even matter if Hawaii had attained statehood yet when Obama was born. It was still US territory. McCain was eligible despite not being born in a state, as was Barry Goldwater.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 05, 2009, 09:47:26 AM
As Obama was born in the US, wasn't he subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Section 301:

Quote

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;


(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

The way that's structured implies that any of those criteria are sufficient. Obama meets three of them.



You guys continue to provide subtantiation for Obama's citizenship, which I am not questioning.

I am questioning whether he meets the higher Constitutional standard of being a natural born citizen.

Your argument keeps going back to the same point...he is a citizen, therefore he is a natural born citizen.

A citizen, born on US soil is NOT the same as a natural born citizen.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Franzl on September 05, 2009, 09:49:08 AM
A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Always seemed pretty simple to me, and I think that's likely what courts would interpret it to mean.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 05, 2009, 09:54:49 AM
Quote
A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Always seemed pretty simple to me, and I think that's likely what courts would interpret it to mean.

Equally simple to me, is that a man born a British subject, cannot also be a natural born American citizen.

 


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 05, 2009, 10:02:19 AM
Quote
For the record it wouldn't even matter if Hawaii had attained statehood yet when Obama was born. It was still US territory. McCain was eligible despite not being born in a state, as was Barry Goldwater.

The basic difference of course, being that both McCain and Goldwater had parents (plural) who were citizens, and were not born subjects/citizens of a foreign government.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Franzl on September 05, 2009, 10:17:50 AM
For legal purposes in the U.S., an American is entitled to all the rights of being American (or of being a natural born citizen).

It's completely irrelevant whether one parent is foreign, or even if someone holds dual citizenship


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 05, 2009, 11:58:39 AM
For legal purposes in the U.S., an American is entitled to all the rights of being American (or of being a natural born citizen).

It's completely irrelevant whether one parent is foreign, or even if someone holds dual citizenship

And to complete the logical sequence, the XIV Amendment then, since it forbids the States from making or enforcing "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", and with the clear understanding that the Constitution delegates the process of electing the President to the States, secures in place a naturalized citizen's privilege to serve in the capacity of POTUS.

In mathematical terms...if a "person born" is citizen "A", a naturalized person is citizen "B", and a "natural born citizen" (Presidential qualification) is citizen "C", then A=B (XIV Amendment), and A=C (Barack Obama) then B=C in the question of Constitutional standing insofar as the Presidency.

But we KNOW that B does NOT equal C. So it is obvious that a natural born citizen is born with a quality that elevates him or her above that of a person who gains their citizenship by being born on US soil, and naturalized citizens.

Something does not add up here. It is easier to just say "yes he is qualified" and leave it at that, but that is not the right answer.

Insofar as the idea that holding dual citizenship is irrelevant to this issue, here's a snippet from the US State Department website:

Quote
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.

The idea that a President of The United States could travel to a country outside the US where he is also a citizen of, and being arrested for some crime he is accused of under their laws is unfathomable.

You cannot be both a natural born citizen, and a British subject at birth.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 05, 2009, 12:33:50 PM

You cannot be both a natural born citizen, and a British subject at birth.

Of course you can. British subjects are not British citizens. The terms are not the same.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 05, 2009, 01:14:33 PM

Than let's consider the full Vattel, and read beyond the dreaded "s"...

Quote
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;  for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

In that view, Obama's citizenship fails to rise to the level of natural born, even more so when one considers that under British law at the time of his birth, he was born a British subject.

You still are dodging the point I brought up that in Vattel's view and time, a wife's citizenship was linked to that of her husband.  That is why Vattel uses a now anachronistic patriarchal view of citizenship as being descended from the father only. Women have a full and independent citizenship status these days in the United States and did so at the time Obama was born.

I also find you references to British law absurd.  Didn't we fight a war on our right to be independent?  British laws concerning who they consider to be citizens have since 1776 had no bearing on who is an American citizen, whether they be natural born or not.

If you wish to discuss laws pertaining to citizenship, then why discuss a repealed law, and not the prevailing law at the time of Obama's birth?

Because no other law passed since then has use the phraseology "natural born citizen".  Ever since then they have used the phraseology "citizen at birth".  As you have admitted, Obama clearly is a "citizen at birth".  At best a shaky case can be made for the two phrases not being equivalent, in which case only those laws, whether repealed or not, that use the phrase "natural born citizen" can give insight into what was meant by "natural born citizen" by the founders.  (Even if the 1952 act did use the phrase, it would give no insight into original intent.)


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 06, 2009, 11:55:00 AM
It's not uncommon for a Constitution to set a requirement, yet legislation which defines that requirement is still needed. The Volstead Act and Prohibition is another example. As the Constitution does not define what a "natural born citizen" is, one needs to look toward legislation and current US citizenship law is quite clear that Obama qualifies.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 06, 2009, 01:41:12 PM
It's not uncommon for a Constitution to set a requirement, yet legislation which defines that requirement is still needed. The Volstead Act and Prohibition is another example. As the Constitution does not define what a "natural born citizen" is, one needs to look toward legislation and current US citizenship law is quite clear that Obama qualifies.

Please show me what current US Legislation defines "natural born citizen".


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 06, 2009, 02:00:44 PM

Than let's consider the full Vattel, and read beyond the dreaded "s"...

Quote
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;  for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

In that view, Obama's citizenship fails to rise to the level of natural born, even more so when one considers that under British law at the time of his birth, he was born a British subject.

You still are dodging the point I brought up that in Vattel's view and time, a wife's citizenship was linked to that of her husband.  That is why Vattel uses a now anachronistic patriarchal view of citizenship as being descended from the father only. Women have a full and independent citizenship status these days in the United States and did so at the time Obama was born.

I also find you references to British law absurd.  Didn't we fight a war on our right to be independent?  British laws concerning who they consider to be citizens have since 1776 had no bearing on who is an American citizen, whether they be natural born or not.

If you wish to discuss laws pertaining to citizenship, then why discuss a repealed law, and not the prevailing law at the time of Obama's birth?

Because no other law passed since then has use the phraseology "natural born citizen".  Ever since then they have used the phraseology "citizen at birth".  As you have admitted, Obama clearly is a "citizen at birth".  At best a shaky case can be made for the two phrases not being equivalent, in which case only those laws, whether repealed or not, that use the phrase "natural born citizen" can give insight into what was meant by "natural born citizen" by the founders.  (Even if the 1952 act did use the phrase, it would give no insight into original intent.)

Insight into the original intent is clear...the Founders wished to avoid foreign influence in the office of The President.

St. George Tucker wrote:

Quote
"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague." - “Treatise on the Constitution” (1803)

James Madson's notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0725.htm) support St. George Tucker's contention that the Founders intended to avoid foreign influence from gaining a foothold in the Presidency:

Quote
The Ministers of foreign powers would have and 7 make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election. Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt. a man attached to their respective politics & interests. No pains, nor perhaps expense, will be spared, to gain from the Legislature an appointmt. favorable to their wishes. 

The Framer's intent is easily deducted from existing data.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 06, 2009, 03:15:05 PM
Avoiding foreign influence, OK. Considering Obama hardly knew his father, he didn't exactly have much "foreign influence".


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 06, 2009, 04:10:51 PM
Avoiding foreign influence, OK. Considering Obama hardly knew his father, he didn't exactly have much "foreign influence".

So then, what do we know.

He was born a British subject, and then attended a Catholic School in Indonesia for several years, where he was registered as an Indonesian citizen named "Barry Soetoro" (http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D) and his religion listed as "Muslim" (according to the school's records) by his mother's husband Lolo Soetoro, who may have adopted Barack Obama. The he transferred to a Madrassa, where he was a student until he age of ten.

There is speculation about "Barry's" possible Indonesian citizenship, since adoption by Lolo Soetoro prior to "Barry's" fifth birthday would have automatically made him an Indonesian citizen. That citizenship would explain his being allowed to enroll in an Indonesian public school.

Barack Obama's admission to having traveled to Pakistan while the nation was under military rule adds fuel to the citizenship question, since it was quite difficult to travel there with a US passport at that time, but far easier for someone holding Indonesian citizenship, and an Indonesian passport.

These questions could be easily settled, if not for the fact that his adoption records, along with his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, and Illinois State Bar Association records, are all sealed.

Doesn't that set off an alarm in your head?


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Sewer on September 06, 2009, 04:14:58 PM
Doesn't that set off an alarm in your head?


The alarm that tells me your a lier?


Yes!


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 06, 2009, 04:18:46 PM
Avoiding foreign influence, OK. Considering Obama hardly knew his father, he didn't exactly have much "foreign influence".

So then, what do we know.

He was born a British subject, and then attended a Catholic School in Indonesia for several years, where he was registered as an Indonesian citizen named "Barry Soetoro" (http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D) and his religion listed as "Muslim" (according to the school's records) by his mother's husband Lolo Soetoro, who may have adopted Barack Obama. The he transferred to a Madrassa, where he was a student until he age of ten.

There is speculation about "Barry's" possible Indonesian citizenship, since adoption by Lolo Soetoro prior to "Barry's" fifth birthday would have automatically made him an Indonesian citizen. That citizenship would explain his being allowed to enroll in an Indonesian public school.

Barack Obama's admission to having traveled to Pakistan while the nation was under military rule adds fuel to the citizenship question, since it was quite difficult to travel there with a US passport at that time, but far easier for someone holding Indonesian citizenship, and an Indonesian passport.

These questions could be easily settled, if not for the fact that his adoption records, along with his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, and Illinois State Bar Association records, are all sealed.

Doesn't that set off an alarm in your head?

What does his Columbia thesis have to do with anything? Or his school records?

Yep, this is starting to set off an alarm in my head.

"Shut the gates! Troll coming!".


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 06, 2009, 04:27:26 PM
I don't quite understand why you're so obsessed with this.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 06, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
I don't quite understand why you're so obsessed with this.

Because some people can't accept when they've lost.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 06, 2009, 04:37:53 PM
I don't quite understand why you're so obsessed with this.

Because some people can't accept when they've lost.

Not a concept I understand. I'm a Sunderland fan.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 06, 2009, 09:52:30 PM
Doesn't that set off an alarm in your head?


The alarm that tells me your a lier?


Yes!

I didn't come here to exchange vitriol with spelling-challenged posters.

Have a nice day.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 06, 2009, 10:10:01 PM
I don't quite understand why you're so obsessed with this.

You're not required to understand why I do anything, nor do I require your understanding in anything that I find interesting.

I find this a fascinating subject, or rather, I find this one of many fascinating subjects that I like to research. This controversy has legs, what it lacks is a right-wing Michael Moore to give it screen time.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 06, 2009, 10:14:20 PM

You cannot be both a natural born citizen, and a British subject at birth.

Of course you can. British subjects are not British citizens. The terms are not the same.

You're British, or do you just live there?

Quote
British Nationality Act, 1948

1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.

Part II

Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Citizenship by birth or descent.

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 06, 2009, 10:15:53 PM
I don't quite understand why you're so obsessed with this.

Because some people can't accept when they've lost.

Then again, the argument can be made that if indeed a person who does not meet the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency won, we all lost.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 07, 2009, 01:57:55 AM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

Because as I have previously pointed out, unlike the 18th century, the concept of dual citizenship is both well established and accepted today. The concept arose because unlike the 18th century, females today retain their original citizenship when they marry, instead of becoming a mere legal appendage of their husband.  The wording of both the XIVth and XIXth Amendments can be viewed as an implicit incorporation of the doctrine that females hold citizenship independent of any attachment to a male they may have into constitutional practice.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 07, 2009, 04:05:45 AM

You cannot be both a natural born citizen, and a British subject at birth.

Of course you can. British subjects are not British citizens. The terms are not the same.

You're British, or do you just live there?


The former. I don't think the 1948 Act is the one you should be referring to. There have been several later acts.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 07, 2009, 03:10:43 PM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Franzl on September 07, 2009, 03:15:01 PM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi German citizen at birth.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 07, 2009, 03:59:33 PM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 07, 2009, 04:46:46 PM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 07, 2009, 06:13:05 PM
My last post on the subject...

People wish to equate being born a citizen, or even gaining citizenship via being born on US soil (both instances of citizenship at birth) with the term "natural born citizen" found in the Constitution.

If "natural born" is defined as citizenship at birth, then the XIV Amendment recognizes the rights of naturalized citizens to become President of the United States, since it guarantees them every privilege and immunity held by persons who are born citizens.

The only counter to that argument, is to introduce the notion of citizenship by birthright, and defining "natural born citizen" as a son/daughter of citizen parents. 

Do that, and we run smack into the prevailing definition at the time that the Constitution was written...Vattel. Then the argument boils down to whether that annoying "s" is there or not.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 07, 2009, 06:14:10 PM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.

So, according to you, an illegal alien's anchor baby can be President.

Nice.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Sensei on September 07, 2009, 06:27:02 PM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.

So, according to you, an illegal alien's anchor baby can be President.

Nice.
Yes. Duh.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 07, 2009, 07:25:25 PM
If "natural born" is defined as citizenship at birth, then the XIV Amendment recognizes the rights of naturalized citizens to become President of the United States, since it guarantees them every privilege and immunity held by persons who are born citizens.

Point me to where it says this.

So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.

So, according to you, an illegal alien's anchor baby can be President.

Nice.

Whether it's "nice" or not is irrelevant. It's what the Constitution says.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Lief 🗽 on September 20, 2009, 05:17:40 PM
So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.

So, according to you, an illegal alien's anchor baby can be President.

Nice.

Yes, it is nice. One of the few areas where the United States isn't hopelessly backwards.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on September 20, 2009, 06:09:12 PM
If "natural born" is defined as citizenship at birth, then the XIV Amendment recognizes the rights of naturalized citizens to become President of the United States, since it guarantees them every privilege and immunity held by persons who are born citizens.

Point me to where it says this.

So the question now becomes, how can Obama be both a natural born citizen, and a British citizen at birth?

In the same way that I am a natural-born citizen and a Bangladeshi citizen at birth.

You may think that you are, but that's not necessarily the case.

Natural-born citizen means citizen at birth. As I was born in the United States, I was a citizen at birth, and hence natural-born.

So, according to you, an illegal alien's anchor baby can be President.

Nice.

Whether it's "nice" or not is irrelevant. It's what the Constitution says.

Where?


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: Joe Republic on September 21, 2009, 01:27:14 PM
Are you trying to argue that to become POTUS, not only must a person be born in the US (given), but their parents must have as well?  Even if such an argument were to hold up in court (and you'd think that such a case might have been attempted by now), that's a needlessly high bar to have to jump.


Title: Re: Born abroad
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on September 21, 2009, 01:31:11 PM
What would be wrong with an illegal immigrant's anchor baby being President anyway? Is it impossible for someone born under such circumstances to grow up to be a very productive member of society?