Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by redhatty
Since it's not defined in the Constitution and most of those rulings are fairly ancient by today's standards, wouldn't you say they'd be more than open to judicial review?
Originally posted by redhatty
Oh, so precedent law, and other case citing, as well as legal definitions, etc found in the filings are nothing to you? If you won't even look at what has already been offered, repeatedly throughout 4-5 threads in this forum, why would having it presented to you one more time make any difference to you?
Nope, sure can't - previous law is not easily found on the internet - it is found in law libraries though.
Berg researched the pertinent law in his filing - while many other parts of Berg filing are ridiculous and Berg did not follow proper procedure, this one piece of information has not been disputed by anyone who has looked over his case
EXCELLENT!!!! Did you read the answer to the question on the link YOU provided?
Thank you for your question. I am happy to assist you.
You may claim US Citizenship on two separate and unrelated grounds:
1. Hawaii became a state in 1959. A child born on American soil automatically gets U.S. citizenship, unless the child is born to a foreign government official who is in the United States as a recognized diplomat.
2. Persons born between 12/24/52 and 11/13/86 - If one parent was a US citizen and resided in the US for at least ten years, at least five of which were after age 16, you are a citizen.
1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).
"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom 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.
Where have you been, I argue that it doesn't matter if he was born in Hawaii.
In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
“The Law of Nations,”
in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood.
BTW, this Book has been used before by Supreme Court Justice Scalia's on how to interpret the US Constitution
not exactly, all those born in AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.
You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?
Originally posted by redhatty
1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.
Obama's father was NOT a citizen, his mother was unable to convey citizenship according to the law at the time. By having dual citizenship, Obama was not "subject to the jurisdiction of" the United States.
Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.
1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.
Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi
SHE CAN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW.
"Hmm, I'm not allowed to show the Birth Certificate, but I can read it word for word...." No, I don't think so.
Why don't you try reading?
[edit on 12/16/2008 by Irish M1ck]
Originally posted by redhatty
. . . . .
In fact the Fourteenth Amendment states pretty clearly that all people born in the US are citizens:
not exactly, all those born in AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.
You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
I refer back to Rep Bingham and Sec 1992 of the US revised statutes
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?
Justia> Law> US Law> US Code>
TITLE 8 — ALIENS AND NATIONALITY>
CHAPTER 12 — IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY>
SUBCHAPTER III — NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION>
PART I — NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION>
§ 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;
“The Law of Nations,”
in Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, it says: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Here is the definition the Founding Fathers did not deem necessary to supply since it was already understood.
www.fed-soc.org...
BTW, this Book has been used before by Supreme Court Justice Scalia's on how to interpret the US Constitution
In fact the Fourteenth Amendment states pretty clearly that all people born in the US are citizens:
not exactly, all those born in AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF that is the defining portion.
You explain exactly how a person born with dual-nationality is born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
I refer back to Rep Bingham and Sec 1992 of the US revised statutes
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
That clearly rules out dual-citizenship, don't ya think?
Originally posted by redhatty
1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.
(a) R.S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who "now are, or have been," citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective.
When petitioner was born in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens.
On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child's birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of "resided" continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.
Originally posted by Kailassa
The court did not make this ruling on the basis of laws in effect at the time of the case.
The ruling was made on the basis of the laws in effect at the time of the petitioner's birth, in 1906.
Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Kailassa
Originally posted by Kailassa
The court did not make this ruling on the basis of laws in effect at the time of the case.
The ruling was made on the basis of the laws in effect at the time of the petitioner's birth, in 1906.
That is kinda the point many posters have made, though it's been pretty much ignored by everyone. If any of the cases about Obama are actually heard and decided upon by SCOTUS, they have to base their decision on the laws that were in effect at the time of his birth not what the laws say today. (Perhaps "have to" is too strong of a phrase, but they are supposed to.) It doesn't matter what the law said after he was born, it's what it said at the time he was born that matters.
Edit to add: Both Hawaiian and Federal laws at the time of his birth are what counts. Figured I'd clarify that I meant both.
[edit on 16-12-2008 by Jenna]
Originally posted by Kailassa
Are you , despite frequent tutorials you have been given in these threads, still completely oblivious as to current American law?
Are you trying to tell us that having a parent with foreign citizenship prevents a person residing in America being subject to American law?
Proof please? I'd like to see an article citing Scalia referring to this actual book, rather than to The Law of Nations in general.
So sorry, but the wording of an old, outdated book is not law.
In Wong Kim Ark, the courts found that this son of non-naturalised Chinese residents was subject to the jurisdiction thereof, (of America,) and thus an American citizen.
the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional
purposes.
Originally posted by redhatty
WKA granted citizenship, not natural-born citizenship.
And exactly what do YOU think "subject to the jurisdiction of" means?
I also guess you missed this
1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruling upheld that at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father.
Obama had to 1) be born in Hawaii and 2) be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth to be a natural born citizen. By having dual citizenship he does not meet #2.
Not debunked
WKA does not "renders Section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Statutes effectively moot"
In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
NOWHERE in the opinion does it state "natural-born" referring to Ark's citizenship situation.
The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject 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 allegiance.”
WKA essentially created 3 types of citizenship
1) Natural-Born
2) at-birth
3) naturalized
Of course, you are free to view it differently, that is your right
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
If you're a citizen at birth, doesn't that logically make you a "natural-born citizen"?
Jurisdiction
I don't see anything at all about deciding citizenship based on the father's nationality in there.
Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons.
Fact: Obama's father was a student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. In order for him to attend a university in the U.S. he would have needed a student visa. As such he would, logically, have been under the legal jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii and the United States.
As I've already said, and you apparently glossed over, Montana v. Kennedy specifically refers to children born outside the United States, NOT to those born within the geographical limits of the U.S. and its territories.
Obama only needs to have been born in Hawaii. There is no legal precedent thus found, relevant to laws on the books in 1961, stating that both his father and mother had to be U.S. citizens at the time of his birth, with the exception of the Bayard ruling (and that was from a case where the father did not actually reside in the U.S.--Obama's father did reside in the U.S. from 1959-1965 and was married to a U.S. citizen, arguably making him a permanent resident).
I'd like to know more about Bayard but there seems to be no credible source material I can find covering the complete details of the case; only the same snippets from the case that you've posted here
He was born in the U.S. and his citizenship was granted (after being taken away) based on the circumstance of his birth on U.S. soil. How is that not "natural-born"?
And WKA was decided in 1898. It supersedes the Elk v. Wilkins ruling as well.
According to what recognized legal standard? You keep saying "think like a lawyer" but lawyers don't pull new definitions of legal terms out of their rear ends whenever they find it convenient to do so.
I view it logically, and to the best of my abilities (not being a lawyer myself) I do so based on legal principles and precedent. Where is it noted, in any law dictionary or in any legally-binding interpretation of Constitutional principles, that there are 3 types of citizenship?ibid :-)
Fact is, since WKA the 14th Amendment, both in principle and in practice, has been interpreted to mean any person born on U.S. soil is indeed a citizen at birth, which is in practice the definition of a "natural-born citizen". You can try to deny this all you want, but so far all my research points to this being the case.
To use the strict definition you seem to prefer, frankly somewhere around one-third (if not more) of what is generally considered the natural-born U.S. population would not actually be "natural-born", and in fact would not be citizens at all because not having been natural-born nor having taken steps toward naturalization (because obviously they didn't know they needed to) they would essentially be aliens. I'd like to see you try to explain that one to the American people.
And you know what? IF your definition is correct (the best evidence points to the contrary) and Obama is ineligible based on this obscure 19th Century meaning of "jurisdiction" you want to cling to, it's entirely possible he wouldn't even be aware of it--just like the countless other Americans who would be affected by said definition.
