• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Congress has defined what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Congress has defined what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is
Posted on February 15, 2010 by nobarack08

Congress defines NBC in 1839 – Congressional Bombshell

The following is a clear definition of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as one born to two parents (plural) in the House of Representitives

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:32:./temp/~ammem_lD1x::
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839
MONDAY, January 28, 1839.
Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.

In plain simple english ‘natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents‘ from the United States.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state; 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.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

So explain how “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?
 

Steve

Well-known member
I am sure that the "current progressive" congress will soon correct the misguided racist "1839" congress...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Statutory Vs Natural Born

A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).

Statutory citizenship means that a person's citizenship requires a law or laws to define it. A citizen via statute is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

A person who is natural born requires no laws to define their citizenship. Only a "natural born" citizen is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

"Natural born" citizens are in a class separate from all others. They are, in fact, in a classification or category unto themselves because they alone are eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief -- a fact that unsettles many.

Circumstances Of Birth Upon Citizenship

1. Birthplace important AND parentage important -- a "natural born" citizen is any person born in the US mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) AND born of US citizen parents (that's two) -- think Ronald Reagan.

2. Birthplace important AND parentage not important -- a "native born" citizen (also considered a 14th Amendment citizen) is any person born in the US mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) -- one or both of the parents may be foreign nationals -- think Barack Obama.

3. Birthplace not important AND parentage important -- a citizen "by statute" is any person born of a US citizen parent(s) outside the US mainland -- think John McCain.

4. Birthplace not important AND parentage not important -- a "naturalized" citizen is a citizen as the result of a process (i.e. by federal statute as bestowed to Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 4) -- think Arnold Schwarzenegger.


The Reagan Case

Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, USA. His father, John "Jack" Reagan, was born in Fulton, IL, as was his mother, Nelle Wilson Reagan.

By blood and by place of birth, Ronald Reagan was a "natural born" citizen. No law bestowed his citizenship upon him. His father was an American. His mother was an American. He was born in America. He was a "natural born" American citizen.

This case meets the test of jus soli -- born in the USA
This case meets the test of jus sanguinis -- parents are US citizens
This person is a "natural born" citizen and is eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

The Obama Case

It's 97% certain that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. There's a 46% chance he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center, a 46% chance he was born at the Queens Hospital, and a 5% chance he was born at home. No Honolulu hospital has a record of Obama or mother ever being there. There's also a 2% chance that Obama was born in Kenya, and a 1% chance he was born in Vancouver, BC. Wherever he was born, he had one American citizen parent and one Kenyan citizen parent. An Indonesian adoption could further complicate Obama's status -- detailed scenarios of Obama’s citizenship status here . . .

At birth, Barack Obama gets his citizenship via the 14th Amendment (assuming Hawaii):


"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."

Obama also has his citizenship defined via the Immigration and Nationality Act -- "by statute."


Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Persons born in Hawaii:



A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

At birth, Barack Obama was also a Kenyan citizen and a subject of Great Britain:


"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

The implications of a Soetoro adoption:


Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

The implications of Kenyan or British Columbian birth:


Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth:



(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;

This case meets the test of jus soli -- born in the USA (97%)
This case fails the test of jus sanguinis -- one or both parents are NOT US citizens
This person is NOT a "natural born" citizen and is NOT eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.


Summary

Many citizens of this country fail to meet the "natural born citizen" classification and yet have no divided loyalties. At no fault of their own, they are disqualified from pursuing the position of President of the United States of America. Loyalty lies within men's hearts and minds and not their birth circumstances. One's birth circumstances could have the possibility of, but not a guarantee of, promoting divided loyalties and that is the reason for the "natural born citizen" clause/language within our constitution.

There are many that will argue the logic, because to them it will seem unfair. Maybe it is unfair, but that is what the constitutional amendment process is for. Personally, I don't think it's unfair, because the "natural born citizen" language was wisely and intentionally installed in the U. S. Constitution as a national security measure or safeguard. It was put there to protect our country from a Commander in Chief with divided loyalties. This is the exact situation that we find ourselves in now as Barack Obama has, on more than one occasion, proclaimed that he is a "citizen of the world." That is how he sees himself.

Points To Ponder

• natural born citizens have NO other nation-ties at birth

• natural born citizens are the consummate "pure Americans"

• natural born citizens have no more rights AS CITIZENS than do statutory citizens, but being president is not a "right", it is a privilege entailing highly discriminatory criterion for eligibility including age, duration of residency, as well as parentage and place of birth (but not race or ethnicity or religion)

• natural born citizenship is that state AT BIRTH, and cannot be granted at any point beyond

• natural born citizenship is the highest national security eligibility criterion

http://theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssueFourCases.htm
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Mischaracterizing The Eligibility Issue

V. Harlow says the eligibility issue has constantly been mischaracterized as a "citizenship" issue, or a "birth certificate" issue, and major media outlets keep playing on this same theme over and over, ridiculing those who want the truth.

I suspect they are partially driven by fear. Fear they won't get interviews, fear they won't get invitations, fear they won't get to cover important issues if this issue is included in what they cover. Even Fox News continues to ridicule and mischaracterize this very important Constitutional issue.

Can we attack this administration on other valid issues? Yes, of course. I don't advocate doing anything less. It's not right to push the very valid and important Constitutional issue of the eligibility of the current resident of White House to hold the job, aside as though it is of no matter. There have been people scoffing for over a year now, yet lawsuits continue. The issue is law. The highest office in the land, the one responsible for upholding our laws and protecting our freedoms is the issue.

Most reasonable people don't question the "citizenship" of Obama. The Constitution has special requirements for holders of the office of President of the Unite States. Those requirements are "natural born citizen." That is a higher standard than "citizen." It is a higher standard than "native citizen."

Some people signed off on Obama's qualification rather cavalierly either knowingly or carelessly. They need to be held to account.

It's easy to ridicule and destroy the reputations and careers of people fighting this battle, but it's wrong. Orly Taitz, no matter how one questions her professionalism, does not deserve the treatment she has received from anonymous callers, from malicious supporters of Obama, or from major media outlets. She comes willing and determined to defend our Constitution, while so many charged with that responsibility have forsaken it completely.

Donofrio, Pidgeon, Berg, Kreep, and others fighting the battle do not deserve the ridicule. The American People overwhelmingly want to know the truth.

An honest hearing is required.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Liveoak said:
Sandhusker said:
Liveoak? Jingo?

If he is a dual citizen it is still arguable by experts whether the Consitution clearly excluded him or not, from presidential eligibility.


IF he is? He has admitted being a Dual Citizen.

When are they going to have this "argument"? The "experts" were offered the opportunity before the election, and they dismissed the issue. In other words they dismissed the Constitutional Eligibility Clause.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Liveoak said:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

If he was born in Hawaii then everything else is a moot point.

Snopes are the legal experts you were talking about?

Can you tell us why the Constitution has a "grandfathering in" clause that makes "citizens" (British Dual Citizens, is what they were) at the time of the writing, eligible to be President?

The Constitution makes a distinction between a "citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen", but you are saying that the argument has not been had, over dual citizens being eligible.







The Naturalization Act of 1790

And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 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 persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted as a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.[ii]

Now I realize that the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not stand today in it's original form, but to say that the Constitution did not define Natural Born Citizen as not including a dual citizen, when 3 years later it was defined as such in the Naturalization Act, would be ignoring history.

Liveoak said:
Sandhusker said:
Liveoak? Jingo?

If he is a dual citizen it is still arguable by experts whether the Consitution clearly excluded him or not, from presidential eligibility.


Congress has Legislated who qualifies for Natural Born Citizen in the past. One of their responsibilities is Naturalization

Can you point me to any law/legal decision that says a Dual Citizen can be a Natural Born Citizen?

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839
MONDAY, January 28, 1839.
Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.

In plain simple english ‘natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents‘ from the United States.
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
"Six months into his presidency and fully a year after the Certification of Live Birth was first posted online, a small but increasingly vocal minority was still demanding to know why President Obama "refused" to show his birth certificate."

" According to both the Hawaii.gov website and a June 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth is the only kind of birth record currently issued by the state (original records are stored electronically), so the distinction between "long-form" and "short-form" is moot. When a Hawaii citizen requests a certified copy of his or her birth certificate from the state, a Certification of Live Birth — what people are calling a "short-form" — is what they get. It contains "all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate," affirms Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo. "

"The Certification of Live Birth explicitly states that he was born in Honolulu; if he had been born elsewhere, the document would say so."

"Moreover, the Hawaii Department of Health has verified and publicly confirmed that the original birth records on file do, in fact, specify that Obama was born in Hawaii:

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," wrote the head of the Health Department in a statement released July 27, 2009.

"Unless one is willing to accuse Dr. Fukino and other state officials of lying, that puts the matter to rest. "

Oh, and one more thing. Given all of the above, birth announcements printed in both the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin in August 1961 eliminate all reasonable doubt as to where Barack Obama was really born (hint: neither of those papers is published in Kenya)."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You are using the Birth Certificate issue to attempt to divert from the Natural Born Citizen issue?

You have already admitted that there is a legitimate concern with a Dual Citizen being a Natural Born Citizen, and that it should be "argued"

and that's fair, but until that happens, don't you think it would have been responsible for everyone to follow past legislation and court decisions?
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
And then, there's your wonder woman Palin, who is the epitomy of righteousness:

"We're still scratching our head as to what exactly Sarah Palin meant by her four-sentence blog post Thursday night on Facebook.

The blip, titled "Stupid Conspiracies," starts out with a clear complaint about "conspiracy-minded reporters" during the election bothering her doctor and lawyer about whether her baby, Trig, was truly her son. She's of course talking about Andrew Sullivan's blog post, which sparked the nontroversy.

Then Palin triumphantly points out that she never "asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States."

OK ...

Because The Ticket spent many months in 2008 attempting to decode various statements and allusions by Palin, we've got the experience to give this one a crack. We've narrowed it down to two possibilities.

Possibility A: She wanted to take a moment to highlight that she had reached the moral high ground.

See? She didn't question President Obama's legitimacy as an American citizen, unlike various conservative skeptics, pundits and conspiracy theorists. Or she had already seen the birth certificate when The Ticket posted a picture of it in June last year.

We're not really sure what point she'd be trying to make there. It's a nonsensical analogy. It's not like Barack Obama hosted a radio show and called her a baby faker.

Anyway, that's option A.

Possibility B: She fought tooth and nail to restrain herself from asking the crucial question of whether Obama could produce a legitimate birth certificate during the campaign. (Again, he could.) But no more Mrs. Nice Gal. It's time to ask questions. We demand to see the birth certificate! (It's right there.)

So, we're pretty stumped. Tell us in the comments: Is it option A or B? Or you can make up a completely incoherent statement and call it option C. It doesn't matter.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I take it from your last 2 posts that you can not debate the Natural Born Citizen issue and have decided to divert with other issues.

Does the Constitution mean so little to you?

Congress has defined NBC, SCOTUS has defined NBC, and the Constitution makes a distinction between a NBC and a citizen, so as to allow Dual Citizens at the time to be eligible for President.

..and in 2008, obama and other Senators confirmed that the Congressional definition of Natural Born Citizen was still legit.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

"You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind--I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?"


Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

“That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html



But still there are some that deny it, and can only pull out the "he's a citizen" argument.

img1A5.jpg


Obama...

...is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, "at birth." The Obama Campaign describes Barack Obama Sr. as, "a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children," on it's website.

...is a "native-born," 14th Amendment citizen because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii. The Obama Campaign described Barack Obama as a "native-born citizen" on it's website.

...is a "citizen" because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Liveoak said:
Pardon me but, the Consitution does NOT define a "NBC".

where did I write that?

Hypo wrote:
and the Constitution makes a distinction between a NBC and a citizen

can you answer why they would need a Grandfather Clause to include those British Dual Citizens, at the time of writing, to be eligible for President, if their intention was to allow Dual Citizens to be eligible in the future?
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
Hypo, what I think personally really doesn't matter insofar as to what the founding fathers had in mind when they said "natural born". What will matter is what argument a particular judge will buy from lawyers that will argue and support their stance on the subject. I've even heard the argument that the founding fathers didn't have in mind a non-white or a woman being eligible for President.

In any case, it is clear that if a President is born on U.S. soil and meets the other eligibility requirements then he/she can run for pres. So, your really back to your false-birth-document theory.

If you want to make any claims that it's just been the dems that have not honored the letter of the Constitution, it would be a failed argument as some republican presidents have certainly stood accused of the same.

As to constantly bashing Obama; what's the point? He's doing that himself plus, our Republican politicians are doing a great job of making sure he can't do anything worthwhile for the voters. 2 1/2 more years. It'll be agonizing but it will come soon enough.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
In any case, it is clear that if a President is born on U.S. soil and meets the other eligibility requirements then he/she can run for pres. So, your really back to your false-birth-document theory.

But I don't believe he meets the other requirements, and SCOTUS has it's doubts too.

Statutory citizenship means that a person's citizenship requires a law or laws to define it. A citizen via statute is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

A person who is natural born requires no laws to define their citizenship. Only a "natural born" citizen is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

"Natural born" citizens are in a class separate from all others. They are, in fact, in a classification or category unto themselves because they alone are eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief -- a fact that unsettles many.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Liveoak, " ... crucial question of whether Obama could produce a legitimate birth certificate during the campaign. (Again, he could.)"

If he can, why then has he and his minions lied about providing the birth certificate and why has he spend millions on attorney fees to keep from providing a birth certificate? I've yet to see a reasoning from an "Anti-birther" that made any sense on that question. You could make the (believable) arguement that the man doesn't understand the value of money, but his actions are clearly the actions of a man hiding something.

I think that there is something about his long-form certificate that he does not want public, as that would then generate the debate that should of been held long ago on his status as a citizen - and he knows that he does not qualify.
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
You are using the Birth Certificate issue to attempt to divert from the Natural Born Citizen issue?

I am? How so? The birth certificate authenticates, according to the powers that be, that the President is "natural born". How is that a diversion?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
 
Top