It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: hellobruce
As Obama was born in the USA that makes him a natural born US citizen. All that other nonsense youj are trying to push is just crap!

That remains in doubt.


No it does not actually - only birthers claim he was born elsewhere.


You and Obama should learn the laws then because it is relevant.


No it is not. As we have all seen what the law has stated"

"based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."



Read the law. Why was his mother on Canadian voter lists if she were an American?


Simply a dual citizen....


Finally -
A natural born citizen is a person born within the US borders.


That is why Obama is a natural born US citizen, as the courts have stated!




posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Yup and where he was born remains in question. Even more so when his family contradicts his claims. If he was not born in the US your citations are irrelevant.

A natural born citizen has never been clarified by the courts, which is why its relevant for the Cruz issue (and Obama but that ship sailed since he is almost out of office).

No US court ruled he was a natural born citizen. You have a source that shows that claim?

Did you get the correction for the mistake you made with the SSN discussion?
edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hellobruce

Yup and where he was born remains in question.


No it does not, actually!


more so when his family contradicts his claims.


His family has NOT contradicted his claim, in fact they stated Obama was born in Hawaii!


A natural born citizen has never been clarified by the courts,


Yes it has, actually.


No US court ruled he was a natural born citizen. You have a source that shows that claim?


Try reading this thread... you will see it several times where the court has stated Obama is a natural born US citizen! Funny how you keep missing than!


Did you get the correction for the mistake you made with the SSN discussion?


You are the one making the mistake about that, just like you are making lots of mistakes in this thread!



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

You are wrong about the SSN and I linked you back to the SSA showing your mistake.

Denying a lawsuit does not mean a person is natural born. I have not seen any linked cases showing it so feel free to fill us all in. Or were you mistaken about the natural born citizen court ruling like you were wrong with the SSN?

SSN info and your mistake -

Yes lets see what the SSA says -
SSN breakdown by state

What you neglected to notice -


WARNING

On June 25, 2011, Social Security changed the SSN assignment process. The information below explains how we established and issued SSNs prior to the new SSN assignment process. We continue to provide it strictly for historical and informational purposes. Please see SSN Randomization for more information on Social Security's new assignment process and how it may affect you.


Unless Obama was born after June 25th 2011 his SSN is state assigned and not random.


The chart below shows the first 3 digits of the social security numbers assigned throughout the United States and its possessions. The same area, when shown more than once, means that certain numbers have been transferred from one State to another, or that an area has been divided for use among certain geographic locations.


Here is the cheat sheet or click the SSA link I provided above.-



Tell us was Obama born after June 2011? If not his SSN shows it was issued from CT and not HI.


II was nice enough to link you to your mistake now feel free to link me to mine regarding a court ruling he was a natural born citizen.
edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I have not seen any linked cases showing it so feel free to fill us all in.


Again, READ THE THREAD! It has been posted 3 times so far.

"There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See"

Why do you refuse to do that?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I told you I went through the thread and saw no links to court rulings stating he was a natural born citizen so again please point out my mistake on that and provide a link.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
stating he was a natural born citizen so again please point out my mistake on that and provide a link.


Now for the 4th time....


"based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."


Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

So there is no case specifically stating Obama is a natural born citizen as you claimed. Your link is only relevant if he was born in the US, which is in dispute. Questioning our leaders is not only permissible but required.

As I have stated before I am in favor of a law requiring people running for any public office to be required to provide all documents showing they meet those requirements.

Why is the Obama situation pointless? Not because he has shown he was born in the US but because the US Congress certified the election (both). They would be just as culpable as Obama should it ever be proven he wasn't able to hold office.

Reference Wong Kim Ark decision-

A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[4] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[5][6] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.


As for Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana -
That was a state ruling and not federal.
edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hellobruce

So there is no case specifically stating Obama is a natural born citizen as you claimed.


Apart from the one I stated, you mean!


our link is only relevant if he was born in the US, which is in dispute.


No, it is not in dispute at all.


Not because he has shown he was born in the US


But he did show that.... but some people with Obama Derangement Syndrome refuse to accept the facts!



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

So in the state of Indiana a state court gave their opinion on Obama.

State court, not federal with no effect outside of Indiana.

Ill give you credit even though you were misleading.
edit on 19-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
State court, not federal with no effect outside of Indiana.


You never mentioned federal court....

You also "missed" this bit...."and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark"

which was a federal case that also shows Obama is a natural born US citizen....

Here is a link to 200+ other court cases that you have also "missed", with birthers losing every single case. Remember, they also lost to a Mr M. T. Chair!
tesibria.typepad.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Home birth "certified" by a practitioner is one.

Not hard to do with the right "practitioner" is it....

especially in 1961 Hawaii.



Whether that is true or not (it isn't) is irrelevant.

Obama was born in a hospital and attended by a doctor.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Area number is the geographic location - If your ssn begins with 489 that means you were born in / issued a ssn from Missouri.


No it doesn't. Once upon a time, it meant that the return address on your application was in Missouri.

In fact all it ever really meant was that for internal processing, in order to ensure that numbers were not duplicated, certain prefixes were allocated to specific regional processing centers. Remember that in the 1930's the SSA did not have computers networked across the country using a central database that could be accessed from every regional center.

Nothing less, nothing more.

By the time Obama's application was processed, Baltimore was doing all the processing, not regional centers. The most likely scenario is that someone misread or miss-typed the first digit in Obama's zip code and substituted a 0 for the 9. Notice that the two numbers are next to each other on a keypunch keyboard. The typo 'moved' Obama from Hawaii to Connecticut.

In fact the 3 digit prefix is irrelevant and the SSA says that although in the past the prefixes were reserved for the different regions, there was never any guarantee that the number assigned was in fact related to your actual residence.

It certainly has nothing to do with your place of birth or any thing other than the return address you put on the application form.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Again there are discrepancies involving where he was born, claimed citizenship in Indonesia and how long she lived in the US prior to giving birth. If she lived outside the US for 5 or 10 years (depends on situation) the parent cannot transmit US citizenship to their child.


No. He was born in USA. He could not, by law be an Indonesian citizen. She lived in the USA her entire life before giving birth in the USA.

There are no discrepancies anywhere except in your mind.



So no the records arent clear in this area as much as some people wish they were. Secondly you have family members of Obama who claim he was born in Kenya.


No, you don't. That is bollocks from start to finish.



If he was and was brought to Hawaii the archives for international lights would list him as a minor accompanied by a family member. Since the archives for international flights to Hawaii for the week in question it makes one wonder why.


Assuming there was any possiblity that this scenario is true (it isn't), the flight would have gone through New York. Mythical 'missing international flight records for Hawai'i' are irrelevant.

US Immigration statistics show ZERO arrivals from Africa for the entire month in question.



So she either became a canadian citizen or she lied to canadian authorities to vote.


Yeah, so what? It is her American Citizenship that is relevant to the issue. Her status in Canada is irrelevant. This is not hard to understand: she cannot lose her American citizenship unless she personally attends a U.S. Consulate and goes through a formal renunciation process. Unless she did that BEFORE the birth, she was an American citizen at the time of birth. There is no evidence that she renounced her citizenship. In fact the family moved back to the USA before Rafael Edward started school (in Houston).




Last - A natural born citizen is a person born within the US borders.


You have this backwards. A person born within the US borders is a Natural Born Citizen.

Do you see the difference there?



The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue although I think it will make it this go around.


Yes, it has, in 1898. The case is United States v. Wong Kim Ark and the Supreme Court is not going to re-litigate this case. Ever.



Its also the reason Congress was required to pass federal laws dealing with US citizenship outside the US mainland.


Not really, but sort of close enough that I can't be bothered to discuss the nuance.



Its also the very reason the founding fathers had to build in a grand father clause so they could be eligible to hold the office of president because they were not born in the US.


This is, however, completely wrong and cannot be allowed a free pass.

The 'founding fathers' were mostly natural born citizens (at the time they would have been called subjects) of the Colonies that became the States after Independence. The States were the "successors in law" to the Colonies and as such made a seamless continuity of jurisdiction.

The 'grandfather clause' had nothing to do with those born in the American colonies that became member States of the new United States. It had to do wholly and completely with those 'naturalized' citizens who fought and bled for the formation of the new nation. People like Alexander Hamilton, born in Jamaica and naturalized in New York.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Again you would be wrong. Read the law. Why was his mother on Canadian voter lists if she were an American?


Because there is nothing at all unusual about dual citizenship.

It has been explained many times that she cannot lose her American citizenship with out a formal renunciation to an American Consul. Taking out Canadian citizenship is not "a formal renunciation to an American Consul".

It she becomes a Canadian citizen, she is entitled to vote, not matter how many other citizenships she holds.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



So there is no case specifically stating Obama is a natural born citizen as you claimed. Your link is only relevant if he was born in the US, which is in dispute.


You are extremely tiresome.

The case linked by hellobruce, Ankeny v Governor, specifically was about Obama, specifically found that Obama was born in the USA, and specifically said that persons born in the USA are natural born citizens with out reference to the status of their parents.

Please stop trying to tell us the sky is in fact chartreuse, it insults your intelligence.
edit on 20/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Unless Obama was born after June 25th 2011 his SSN is state assigned and not random.


The fact that prefixes 'belonged' to certain regions for administration purposes is irrelevant unless you know how the region was determined.

In the 1970's, but the time Obama applied for his SSN, ALL SSN were handled in Baltimore - there were no regional centers, only a national one. The region was determined by the applicant's home address as specified in the application.

If the return address was incorrect, or it got keyed into the system incorrectly, then a prefix would be assigned that did not reflect the 'actual' home address. But that didn't matter, as long as the SSN was unique in the system that is all that mattered. No harm, no foul.

The SSA didn't care and doesn't care if your SSN reflects your home address, your birth place, or anything else. All it cares about is that the SSN is not duplicated.

It turns out that if you change the '9' on Obama's home address in Hawai'i zip code to a '0' you get a legitimate zip code in Connecticut. A trivial keying error that means absolutely nothing to anyone about anything what-so-ever.
edit on 20/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Yeah the link I provided to the SSA gives you the breakdown. The state reports the birth to the SSA and as we saw on Obamas birth certificate it lists Hawaii. Unless your suggesting the SSA screwed up.

As for the rest we are all entitled to our opinions and mine is based of the information available. I dont trust Obama and dont think he has been honest about his past.

A state court ruling has no basis on anything but the state in question and even then it has nothing to with with defining what a natural born citizen is (since its a constitutional issue its either Congress or the federal courts).
edit on 20-1-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
even then it has nothing to with with defining what a natural born citizen is


However that state court used the definition from a United States Supreme Court case, which other state courts would also have used.

Hence Obama is a natural born US citizen, no matter how you try and avoid that fact!



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




The state reports the birth to the SSA and as we saw on Obamas birth certificate it lists Hawaii. Unless your suggesting the SSA screwed up.


No, I am suggesting that you don't know what the heck your are talking about.

In 1961 no state reported births to the SSA. Even today the 'Enumeration at Birth' (EAB) program is an optional service for the Parents and only about 95% choose to participate.

Obama himself applied for a Social Security number when he started his first job, in 1977.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join