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.

 

A Subversive Congress...Citizenship...Eligibility Laws...Nationality...and more Birther talk...

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   
(NOTE: This is Part 2 to follow up on my thread about U.S. Nationality here.)

In 1952, Congress created a situation where some people could be born U.S. Citizens but not born U.S. Nationals, when they passed the McCarran–Walter Act, which conferred citizenship and nationality, at birth, to certain people.

Yet, all of the laws regarding eligibility for certain government offices depend, in part, on U.S. citizenship and NONE expressly require U.S. nationality.

Why would Congress create a way to, in effect, bypass eligibility laws by making it so someone who owes no allegiance to the U.S. -- via U.S. Nationality -- could be born a U.S. Citizen and therefore be eligible for many elected offices in the federal government and even serve as President and Commander in Chief of our national military?

It's subversive and I’d like to discuss it in this thread.

***


To begin, after the recent news about Elizabeth Warren publishing results from a DNA test, I found myself digging into the Obama-citizenship stuff, again. (I know, I am a shameless, horrible birther and probably should kill myself). And, I stumbled on an something that I’ve never read discussed before regarding the issue of Obama's citizenship.

What is the status of Obama’s U.S. nationality?

I was perusing citizenship laws and tribal jurisdiction (Obama is a member of the Luo tribe, btw, in case you didn’t already know…which is why I thought Warren’s claims were worthy of contemplation) — and when you examine Obama’s birth circumstances you have to consult laws in four nations (five if you include the Luo) — but what brought me here, today, is the 1959 Statehood Act for Hawaii.

I noticed that it expressly states that nothing in the Statehood Act is to operate as conferring U.S. nationality:



It also says that nothing should be construed as changing or repealing the U.S. Code — still in effect, today — that says people born in Hawaii are U.S. citizens. From the Statehood Act:


Link

**And then it occurred to me how odd it is that the Hawaii citizenship code is still in effect…none of the other states have a unique law making people born in them U.S. citizens (except Alaska and I’ll come back to that).**

Plus, the Hawaii Statehood Act was passed in 1959. The Nationality Act was passed seven years prior, in 1952 -- so the law pertaining to Hawaii could have just been repealed/amended and then the same citizenship laws that apply in the other states would just operate the same way for Hawaii. Sounds like that's how it should have gone down, eh?

But it didn't.

Congress expressly left the statute regarding the citizenship of people born in Hawaii unchanged and in effect.

This is that code:


1952 Nationality Act (current)

8 U.S. Code § 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.


In fact, you can see the provision from the Statehood Act under the NOTES for that code:


Notes
Admission of Hawaii as State
Hawaii Statehood provisions as not repealing, amending, or modifying the provisions of this section
, see section 20 of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 13, set out as a note at the beginning of chapter 3 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
 

So…again...nothing in the Hawaii Statehood Act repeals, amends, or modifies this:



8 U.S. Code § 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.


In other words, NOTHING in the Hawaii Statehood Act makes a person born in Hawaii BOTH a citizen AND a national like this part of the Nationality Act does for some:


8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

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;

etc…

Link

U.S. Nationality can only be conferred at birth through laws enacted by Congress...it's not conferred to people "born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' via the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment. It makes no mention of nationality, at all.

***


Now consider some key definitions for the U.S. Nationality Codes:


8 U.S. Code § 1101 - Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—

(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

(21) The term “national” means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term “national of the United States” means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

(23) The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.

Link

***


Obviously, some might argue that even if Obama did not derive U.S. Nationality from being born on U.S. soil (jus soli), then he was born a U.S. National because his mother was a U.S. National (jus sanguinis).

Not so. Stanley Ann Dunham was five months too young, at age 18, to meet the U.S. residency requirements mandated by the ONE AND ONLY law that could possibly confer U.S. Nationality to him at birth.

This was the relevant code in effect, in August 1961:


SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of w'hom 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...

Link

(cont.)


edit on 11/1/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:22 PM
link   
(continued....)

And, again, it is expressly stated that nothing in the 1959 Hawaii Statehood Act shall operate to confer U.S. nationality to people born in Hawaii. They are nationals, in some cases, through their parent(s) U.S. nationality — if the residency requirements have been met under 8 U.S. Code § 1401. And if they are born U.S. nationals, in Hawaii, then they are of course born citizens, too.

I am going to speculate here that this ‘nationality’ provision was included in the Hawaii Statehood Act, in part, because Hawaii was illegally annexed in violation of international treaties between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Hawaii. The U.S. legally recognized the Kingdom’s sovereignty, by way of treaty, and the fact that all people born in Hawaii are subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The U.S. has no authority to declare subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom are U.S. nationals (and owing allegiance to the U.S.). Technically, they are *hostile* inhabitants occupying land that the U.S. stole from the Kingdom.

It is also interesting that the same provision is in the Alaska Statehood Act, too, but there were provisions elsewhere regarding the inhabitants of Alaska having a number of years to decide what citizenship/nationality they wanted. There were no options, per se, for subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom because the U.S. government illegally overthrew the Kingdom and annexed Hawaii as a territory by way of a Congressional resolution that has no legal weight.

In reading the Congressional debates about Hawaii and Alaska statehood, it’s very clear that there was a perceived communist threat in both places and it was acknowledged that “communists” were really pushing for statehood. There were concerns voiced that communists would work their way into Congress via the Statehood Acts. Seems more than sloppy that nationality was not conferred based solely on birth within the new states.

All this said, I’m not sure you can be a U.S. citizen without being a U.S. national. The federal government doesn’t seem to recognize such a thing but they also don’t expressly prohibit it by law…not that I can find, anyway. If anyone else can, please share your source.

It can’t go without mention that you can’t be issued a U.S. passport if you aren’t a U.S. National...Obama has a passport. It shows his Nationality as U.S.A. However, we’ve only seen his passport after his glorious adoption into the Crow Nation, in 2008. Years before then, it was once reported that Obama and Richard Luger had to surrender their passports while detained in a Russian airport for some reason. articles.latimes.com...

Regardless, the point is that Obama was not born a U.S. National, even if he was arguably born a U.S. Citizen. And, he is a citizen by virtue of ‘8 U.S. Code § 1405 - Persons born in Hawaii’, but possibly under the 14th Amendment, too.

However, no evidence has been produced to show that he was born a U.S. National and I’ve never seen any evidence that he was naturalized and took the requisite oath of allegiance. It’s no secret that I believe all four of the Oaths he took to the Office of President were unconstitutional: Obama's four botched oaths

AND for added intrigue, in light of the above, I’d like to revisit what FightTheSmears published, in 2008, about Obama’s citizenship:


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.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.


So, he was born a British national through his father.

Obama’s campaign was behind FightTheSmears, so they admitted that it was The British Nationality Act of 1948 that governed his citizenship status. They make no mention of U.S. nationality laws or the Constitution governing his citizenship status.

***

Obviously, I am not suggesting that Obama used his office to subvert the U.S. and restore the Kingdom of Hawaii…but Congress opened a Pandora’s Box, in 1952.


edit on 11/1/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Jesus, after all this time you're still onboard the Birther Movement? It's time to move on.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Excellent Topic !!!

This might be an "eye" opener 😎

Lots of new questions created !



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
The College Records may tell a Shakespearean Tale !!

😎🚬💨



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hey there, glad to see this follow up thread. I'm mobile at present but I read part 1 of this topic and by the time I had posted my reply you had managed to get this thread up.

Yeah this is where I thought you might be headed with this. I am intrigued and as can be seen already, ineffective detractors have already started their blather.

So if former president Obama was not a U.S. national, he might possibly not be able to be held responsible for any loyalty to the U.S.

Could it be that any oaths he swore would then be unenforceable?

What else might be other potential bits of fallout from such an eventuality?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hawaii was used as a pipleline for cheap labor into the US through China in the 1900's because of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

I don't have time tonight for the entire story, but I will leave you a crumb if you are interested...


Sun Yat-sen was born in Cuiheng village, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province on November 12, 1866. Some sources claim that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii instead, but this is probably false. He obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 so that he could travel to the US despite the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, but he was likely already four years old when he first entered the US.


Sun Yat-Sen is China's Father of the Nation.

He also has a Hawaii birth certificate.

Birth Certificate

We have been in the business of illegal immigration for a long time for cheap labor.

Hawaii has also been a place for a long time for foreign nationals to become "naturalized"

S&F for the OP and excellent research on the topic.

I hope you keep going.


edit on 1-11-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Jesus, after all this time you're still onboard the Birther Movement? It's time to move on.

The one time we agree



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
Could it be that any oaths he swore would then be unenforceable?


Remember this thread?

Obama's four botched oaths



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, so that 1952 Nationality Act which says everyone born in Hawaii since 1898 is a U.S. citizen doesn't really help any case against that.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, so that 1952 Nationality Act which says everyone born in Hawaii since 1898 is a U.S. citizen doesn't really help any case against that.


Correct. But he was not born a U.S. National via the 1952 Nationality Act when read with the 1959 Statehood Act.

That's what this thread is about.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Excellent Topic !!!

This might be an "eye" opener 😎

Lots of new questions created !



One big question being, "Why did Congress separate nationality from citizenship AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified?"




posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hawaii was used as a pipleline for cheap labor into the US through China in the 1900's because of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

I don't have time tonight for the entire story, but I will leave you a crumb if you are interested...


Sun Yat-sen was born in Cuiheng village, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province on November 12, 1866. Some sources claim that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii instead, but this is probably false. He obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1904 so that he could travel to the US despite the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, but he was likely already four years old when he first entered the US.


Sun Yat-Sen is China's Father of the Nation.

He also has a Hawaii birth certificate.

Birth Certificate

We have been in the business of illegal immigration for a long time for cheap labor.

Hawaii has also been a place for a long time for foreign nationals to become "naturalized"

S&F for the OP and excellent research on the topic.

I hope you keep going.



Thanks, Lumenari!

I recall Sun-Yet Sen and his birth certificate! I am glad you brought him back to my mind!



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I do remember that thread.

So we have citizen (who is NOT a U.S. national) Obama, having taken an oath containing errors having served as president for 8 years, authored numerous executive orders and signed quite a few laws into existence.

Yeah, that's a house of cards they can't let fall down, eh?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I do remember that thread.

So we have citizen (who is NOT a U.S. national) Obama, having taken an oath containing errors having served as president for 8 years, authored numerous executive orders and signed quite a few laws into existence.

Yeah, that's a house of cards they can't let fall down, eh?


Citizenship and eligibility have taken center stage for that last decade. Not just with Obama, but with McCain, Cruz, Rubio...maybe even Warren. Makes me wonder if it's not just a coincidence.

Why did Congress separate nationality from citizenship AFTER the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified? If people want to complain about EO's amending the Constitution, I think it's fair to criticize Congress for subverting the Fourteenth Amendment and all the various eligibility clauses when they decided to separate nationality from citizenship.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




But he was not born a U.S. National via the 1952 Nationality Act when read with the 1959 Statehood Act.


Wouldn't that apply to anyone born in Hawaii, or Alaska? Are you suggesting that all Hawaiian and Alaskan citizens are unqualified to run for President?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, so that 1952 Nationality Act which says everyone born in Hawaii since 1898 is a U.S. citizen doesn't really help any case against that.


Correct. But he was not born a U.S. National via the 1952 Nationality Act when read with the 1959 Statehood Act.

That's what this thread is about.

Your premise is wrong, however.

A U.S. citizen must be a U.S. national per U.S. law.

You can't be a U.S. citizen and not a U.S. national.
You can be a U.S. national and not a U.S. citizen.

e:
Immigration and Nationality Act Section 101(a) 21 and 22:

(21) The term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state.

(22) The term "national of the United States" means:

(A) a citizen of the United States, or

(B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

edit on 22Thu, 01 Nov 2018 22:42:37 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greven
Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii, so that 1952 Nationality Act which says everyone born in Hawaii since 1898 is a U.S. citizen doesn't really help any case against that.


Correct. But he was not born a U.S. National via the 1952 Nationality Act when read with the 1959 Statehood Act.

That's what this thread is about.

Your premise is wrong, however.

A U.S. citizen must be a U.S. national per U.S. law.

You can't be a U.S. citizen and not a U.S. national.


Show me the law that says this. I invited you to do so in the OP.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:27 PM
link   
DP
edit on 11/1/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MotherMayEye




But he was not born a U.S. National via the 1952 Nationality Act when read with the 1959 Statehood Act.


Wouldn't that apply to anyone born in Hawaii, or Alaska? Are you suggesting that all Hawaiian and Alaskan citizens are unqualified to run for President?


No, I'm not saying that. Nationality can be derived through a person's parents, too. But, Obama's mother did not meet the residency requirements to confer nationality to him at birth.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join