Born abroad

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The XIV Amendment states no such thing.

Well, let's see what it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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:

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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, 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?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"(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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

As Obama was born in the US, wasn't he subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Section 301:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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".

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

James Madson's notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 support St. George Tucker's contention that the Founders intended to avoid foreign influence from gaining a foothold in the Presidency:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Luis Gonzalez]

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" 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?

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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.