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

Obama is the seventh president with a foreign-born parent

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
and how many Parent pairs were not citizens when that President was born?

Just one.

He lied about his age, to qualify himself. His lie was to qualify himself as a Natural Born Citizen

try again. You just continue to make the case for:

1stuscongressnaturalborncitizens.jpg
 

don

Well-known member
hypo if that's what you're going to hang your hat on then get on down to scotus and make your case. you're saying that he requires two american parents then go for it and get the job done. think of all the bandwidth that could be saved when you get this resolved.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
maybe you did, maybe you didn't, hard to refute facts, so you try to discredit the messenger.

Don, here's a challenge for you. try to prove to yourself how a person born of 1 non-citizen parent, can be a Natural Born Citizen.

get back to us with your analysis
 

don

Well-known member
no you've made your case now finish the job and get obama disqualified. if you can't every birther is going to look like a bigger fool the longer this goes on. you've got your argument but saying it here means the square root of zero. take your case to where it matters.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I would argue that every American is going to look bad.

The Constitution that they have held up as the highest law in the land, and the world arguably, has been trashed.

Other countries are starting to wonder when they will pull a Honduras, and stand up for the Constitution

making the case in a court of law is not up to me, it's up to the American people. Courts will continue to dismiss on procedural grounds as long as the people allow.

If they are happy sitting back and ignoring the Rule of Law and Constitution, then that's good enough for me. But at least be honest with your intentions.

But I fear not enough are educated on the matter to make an informed decision.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
He is the seventh president with at least one foreign-born parent. It has been 76 years since the last: Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother. Woodrow Wilson's mother was English. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers. Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson's parents were both born in Ireland.

anybody able to explain this?

start with Chester Arthur. Why would he be willing to lie about his birthdate?

He said it was a date after his father was naturalized. Why would he do that?

was it because he was educated in the definition of Natural Born Citizen, and knew he needed to have 2 citizen parents, to be classified as a "Natural Born Citizen"

Thanks for helping to prove my point Reader.

Lawrence B. Solum
University of Illinois College of Law

September 5, 2008

Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 08-17

What was the original public meaning of the enigmatic phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of settled meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States of American is a "natural born citizen." Anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of "naturalization" is not a "natural born citizen."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
and how many Parent pairs were not citizens when that President was born?

Just one.

He lied about his age, to qualify himself. His lie was to qualify himself as a Natural Born Citizen

try again. You just continue to make the case for:

1stuscongressnaturalborncitizens.jpg

It appears as your 1790 ruling got trumped by a more modern ruling- and I'd bet about anything that if the birthers BS ever made it to the SCOTUS (which I doubt it will since this court takes fewer cases than previous courts in decades- and then usually only ones with a high probability of overturning)- you will get an opinion which is an updated version of the more modern 1898 ruling- and more in following to all the immigration law rulings of the past century----- and the rightwingernuts will not like it...



He is the seventh president with at least one foreign-born parent. It has been 76 years since the last: Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother. Woodrow Wilson's mother was English. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers. Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson's parents were both born in Ireland.

Along with McCain, presidential contender Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, and Bill Richardson's parents were both foreign-born, his father from Nicaragua and his mother from Mexico.

And why are all of these people eligible for the presidency of the United States? Because the Supreme Court, after citing many, many precedents, ultimately decided in US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898) that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their ethnic heritage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
and how many Parent pairs were not citizens when that President was born?

Just one.

He lied about his age, to qualify himself. His lie was to qualify himself as a Natural Born Citizen

try again. You just continue to make the case for:

1stuscongressnaturalborncitizens.jpg

It appears as your 1790 ruling got trumped by a more modern ruling- and I'd bet about anything that if the birthers BS ever made it to the SCOTUS (which I doubt it will since this court takes fewer cases than previous courts in decades- and then usually only ones with a high probability of overturning)- you will get an opinion which is an updated version of the more modern 1898 ruling- and more in following to all the immigration law rulings of the past century----- and the rightwingernuts will not like it...



He is the seventh president with at least one foreign-born parent. It has been 76 years since the last: Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother. Woodrow Wilson's mother was English. Chester Arthur and James Buchanan both had Irish fathers. Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in England, and Andrew Jackson's parents were both born in Ireland.

Along with McCain, presidential contender Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico, and Bill Richardson's parents were both foreign-born, his father from Nicaragua and his mother from Mexico.

And why are all of these people eligible for the presidency of the United States? Because the Supreme Court, after citing many, many precedents, ultimately decided in US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898) that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their ethnic heritage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'

so you can quote the more modern ruling, where it defines Natural Born Citizen.

US v. WONG KIM ARK (1898) that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of their ethnic heritage:

Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.
Posted in Uncategorized on July 30, 2009 by naturalborncitizen

[Update in red below 10:25AM]

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.

However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent. Here’s the infamous passage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

- he compares two children

- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

But that’s not what they said.

- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.


Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

Here’s the final holding of the case:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.

If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said.

But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.

My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.

This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
That last post might be hard to follow, I pulled this part out.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

- he compares two children

- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
 
Top