Barack Obama Is Qualified To Be President... Isn't He? (by Jim Marrs), page 27

reply to post by redhatty

---

So, Obama (like all other US citizens) was either BORN in the US or NATURALIZED in the US.

For your argument to hold water, he would have to NOT have been born in the US. For a person cannot be both born in the US and Naturalized in the US. Are you suggesting he wasn't born in the US?

Please see the rest of my response here.

I kind of see that point being that the power structure is so established they have little or no regard for what the public might think or come to think. This is kind of parallel with the "Hemp as a cure all" issue. www.phoenixtears.ca... Where clearly hemp alone would put and millions of deaths and sufferings.

In a way, I think this is all good as it is bringing the pot (no pun intended) to a boil. People are fast realizing that subjugation is the reality of our current global situation and that the image of "Freedom" is just a ruse. The more big brother acts up the more all of this is coming to a head. (no pun intended) ie the more people realize they are living in a giant lie they better off we will be.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

No, I am not suggesting anything. I am stating that BECAUSE Obama's father was not a US citizen, that Obama, even though he was born on US soil, is not a Natural-Born Citizen.

I am completely aware that that is not a popular nor prevalent view in todays world, especially with the issue of anchor-babies, but it is still an acknowledged fact of Supreme Court rulings.

In the Slaughter-house Cases (1873), the Supreme court writes:

To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and
comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what
should constitute citizenship of the United States and also
citizenship of a State, the first clause [XIV Amendment] of the first section was
framed.

"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."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts
at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject
of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens
of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a
particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making
all persons born within the United States and subject to its
jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was
to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The
phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from
its operation children of ministers, consuls, and *citizens or
subjects of foreign States born within the United States.* [emphasis
added]

source

So, the court *explicitly* acknowledges that the phrase "subject to the
jurisdiction" is intended to *exclude* the children of aliens born in
the United States - the children of *all* aliens, not merely the
children of ministers or consuls.

Later, in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Court *again* stated what is mean
by "subject to the jurisdiction", showing that it does *not* mean merely
subject to the laws of the country:

The persons declared [112 U.S. 94,
102] to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident
meaning of these last words is, 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.* [emphasis added] And the words relate to the
time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of
naturalization in the other.
Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at
the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being
naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the
naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by
which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the
territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing
immediate allegiance to, one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though
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,' within the meaning of the first section of the
fourteenth amendment, *than the children of subjects of any foreign
government born within the domain of that government,* [emphasis added]
or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or
other public ministers of foreign nations.

source

There is no ambiguity here: in two separate cases following
ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court acknowledged that:

a) "subject to the jurisdiction" does *not* mean merely subject to the
laws, but rather means owing complete and exclusive allegiance to the
United States

b) U.S.-born children of *any* foreigners, not just the children of ambassadors and other ministers, are *not* born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, despite being born within the territorial limits of the United States.

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;"

reiterates this concept of "subject to the jurisdiction of"

I know you enjoy using Wong Kim Ark as an opposing view, but...

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who Holding A child born in the United States to foreign parents who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. ...

* is born in the United States
* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

In this case there are FOUR specific qualifiers. Obama Sr did not have the 3rd qualifier: whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States.

Obama Sr. was on a student visa, therefor, did not have a permanent domicile.

Yes, Obama's mother was a citizen, but even so, she was not old enough to convey citizenship to her offspring - born abroad or on US soil, as Obama's father was not a US citizen.

Except for those few men who became President following the ratification of our Constitution and were alive at such time, there has NEVER, as far as we know, been a US President who had or has dual-citizenship. Whether at birth or not, it has never before occurred.

Why do you think that is? Maybe our education system was better in the previous years and taught the basic concepts that a natural born citizen is one born to 2 US parents on US soil?

Originally posted by redhatty
So, the court *explicitly* acknowledges that the phrase "subject to the
jurisdiction" is intended to *exclude* the children of aliens born in
the United States - the children of *all* aliens, not merely the
children of ministers or consuls.

So, you're taking the interpretation of the Supreme Court of 1872 and 1884 over the Citizenship laws in place when Obama was born, that being that the US does not recognize dual citizenship?

Dual Citizenship

The United States does not formally recognize dual citizenship. However, it also does not taken any stand against it, either legally or politically.

"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

There are different interpretations of the phrase.

Yes, Obama's mother was a citizen, but even so, she was not old enough to convey citizenship to her offspring - born abroad or on US soil, as Obama's father was not a US citizen.

I don't think this is true. If he was not born in the US, yes, but if he was born in the US, her age doesn't matter.

Except for those few men who became President following the ratification of our Constitution and were alive at such time, there has NEVER, as far as we know, been a US President who had or has dual-citizenship. Whether at birth or not, it has never before occurred.

Chester A Arthur went through almost exactly the SAME crap Obama is dealing with, because he was born a dual citizen.

His father had initially migrated to Dunham, Quebec, Canada, where he and his wife at one point owned a farm about 15 miles (24 km) north of the U.S. border.[1] There has long been speculation that the future president was actually born in Canada and that the family moved to Fairfield later. If Arthur had been born in Canada, he would not have been a natural-born citizen and would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as vice president or president[4].

During the 1880 U.S presidential election a New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, was hired to explore rumors of Arthur's foreign birth. Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old. When that story failed to take root Hinman came forth with a new story that Arthur was born in Canada. This claim also fell on deaf ears.[5]

Let's look at something a little more recent.

Yaser Hamdi

Courts have long recognized that children born to ambassadors and foreign diplomats do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States. This raises important questions about whether the authors of the 14th amendment intended for individuals born in the U.S. to be granted citizenship even when the parents have little or no connection to the United States.

This question is critically important in light of the Yaser Hamdi case. Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, was born in Louisiana to Saudi parents who were in the U.S. on temporary visas. He returned to Saudi Arabia as a small child and maintained little connection to the United States.

Yet, because he was born on U.S. soil and considered a U.S. citizen, he is granted rights and benefits that a noncitizen combatant would not have been granted.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

The Wong Kim Ark case set a dangerous precedent. Because of the very liberal interpretation of the ruling, situations like Hamdi exist.

From your source on Dual Citizenship - you neglected to include the last sentence in that paragraph quoted:

In most cases, it is unimportant to the United States whether another country also claims you as a citizen.

Most cases, not all!! I can easily see where holding the office of President would be one of the cases that would be an exception to the rule.

As to Chester Arthur, he, like Obama, either suppressed or destroyed all documentation available to prove his dual-citizenship. Arthur concealed the fact that he was born a dual-citizen. Why would he conceal that if it had no effect on his ability to hold the office of Vice-President, much less President?

Chester Arthur, because of his Dual-Citizenship at birth, wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it. Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.

Both Arthur and Obama had foreigners for fathers. Arthur's father, unlike Obama's did become Naturalized, YEARS AFTER Arthur was born.

Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.

Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.

Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track.

Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.

And it’s no precedent to follow. I do thank you for bringing the example up though, there are many parallels to be found from it

Originally posted by redhatty
Most cases, not all!! I can easily see where holding the office of President would be one of the cases that would be an exception to the rule.

I can too, if he was currently a dual citizen. But I doubt that the baby being a dual citizen would matter.

As to Chester Arthur, he, like Obama, either suppressed or destroyed all documentation available to prove his dual-citizenship.

Obama openly shared the fact of his dual citizenship. It was on his Fight the Smears website that I first read about it. But it doesn't matter, because the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship.

So, he's not like Chester Arthur, after all.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I can too, if he was currently a dual citizen. But I doubt that the baby being a dual citizen would matter.

Why? Arthur was also a Dual-Citizen baby - it was a condition he acquired at birth. Where is the difference?

Oh wait, I remember, your position is that because he was also an American at birth, that the de-facto dissolution of his dual-citizenry at the appropriate age makes him only an American citizen. But that de-facto dissolution does not also equate a de-facto naturalization.

Yeah, we've been there & done that discussion. I still do not agree with your view of the matter

Obama openly shared the fact of his dual citizenship. It was on his Fight the Smears website that I first read about it. But it doesn't matter, because the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship.

So, he's not like Chester Arthur, after all.

Yes, I misspoke there. Obama has only hidden all other records (do I need to list them?) and there is still the question of whether or not he was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and what country's passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981.

So yes, in many ways he is exactly like Chester Arthur

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

No, I am not suggesting anything. I am stating that BECAUSE Obama's father was not a US citizen, that Obama, even though he was born on US soil, is not a Natural-Born Citizen.

Wrong. Maybe this is the fact to you personally (and maybe politically motivated) but not to the laws of the land, or the rights of those born on american soil. If you ask any individual whether an individual born in these United states, whos mother is a natural born american, who has spent the all but 4 years of his 47years on US soil, folks would consider him a natural born american. Its common sense on matter and to change this fact with little technicalities only shows a need to discredit somebody you dont like.

Now in your quote above you are obviously refering to the "british nationality act of 1948" for at the time Obama senior was a native of Kenya under British rule, thus his citizenship was under the British nationality act, and within this act opponents such as yourself reference the fact Obama gained dual citizenship from the moment he was born:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth."

However you missed out an important part to this law in relation to the american law regard natural citizens:

kenya.rcbowen.com...

According to the United States constitution an individual looses his eligibility for the presidency if he is a dual citizen at the time of his nomination however the Kenyan constitution prohibited dual citizenship for adults and the moment Obama turned 21, he lost any dual citizenship. That means that since august 4th 1982 Obama has only being a natural born citizen of these united states for over a quarter of a century. This makes him eligible.

To further clarify, fact check did an analysis on this matter as well:
www.factcheck.org...

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.

Obamas dual citizenship to Kenya automatically expired, so the years prior can legally be discounted under the laws of the US constitution regarding the eligibility of the presidency.

Yes, Obama's mother was a citizen, but even so, she was not old enough to convey citizenship to her offspring - born abroad or on US soil, as Obama's father was not a US citizen.

Obama was born on american soil to an american mother, I think its clear to the vast majority of folks not venom dripping following the elections that Obama is an american by birth. To deny something like that is to deny millions of natural born americans in past, it is also to deny the rights of all citizens born on american soil.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Rollinster

---

This is a great point. The President-Elect has traveled extensively throughout his career. A passport is a must. A birth certificate is one of the few requirements for this credential. I had to provide a BC upon getting my original passport in the late 1960's. And, then again when in the early 1990's, lost my passport and had to apply for a replacement. At the very least it would seem to me that the passport department of the U.S. State Department has a copy of Mr. Obamas BC. FYI: My grandfather, of non-American parents ,was born in Honolulu in 1901. I have a copy of his birth certificate.

Sounds Great, but wrong. I received my passport this year along with my wife. I was born in South Dakota and she in Kansas. All we had to do was call any county in the state, answer some questions about what was on their to prove it was "really" us. They sent them the same day. They send you a verify and embossed paper that the passport people where glad to take. We could have had copies of the original on file, but that took a week longer and we needed it right away. This is not the same as the one my mother has. They got the fancy one with the footprints and all.

My original is with my mother in SD. It was better to just get the new printed document instead of losing the original.


By the way. All he has to do, is provide whatever original they have in HA
to the people that filed the law suits and all is well. I don't want to upset the office of the President, but this is a land of law. If we cannot uphold the constitution and the law, then lets just give everything we have to the govt. and work in slave camps.

I just really don't think anyone was asking for much here. You can get as technical on the laws and politics as you want. But this is just real simple.
Have the hospital or state show what is being locked away.





[edit on 13-1-2009 by j2000]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

Let's indulge your ridiculous fantasy that Obama was born in Kenya. Forget that his father was not in Kenya in 1961. He was there in 1960, but not again until 1965. Kenya was in the final stages of the Mau Mau rebellion and you expect us to believe that Obama's mother went to Kenya alone without her mate and had her baby there. You can't really believe that!

OK. Let's say she did. Her marriage to Obama Sr. in 2/61 was not a legal marriage. He was already married with two children so that leaves her as an unmarried woman abroad with a child. So, he was born out of wedlock, and the natural born laws require only ONE (1) year of physical US presence by an unwed mother prior to birth overseas.

This is from the State Dept. website: Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: “A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309© INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.”

Loss of U.S. Nationality by Marriage

In some countries, marriage to a national of that country will automatically make the spouse either a citizen of that country or eligible to become naturalized in that country expeditiously. The automatic acquisition of a second nationality will NOT affect U.S. citizenship.

As to his Hawaiian COLB, I called the state of Hawaii and was told the following: Obama applied for and receive a copy of his COLB. For decades, the state of Hawaii ONLY provides SHORT-FORM copies, they DO NOT provide a vault or long-form certificate to ANYONE. This has been their policy for many years. Even if Obama requeste a VAULT certificate, he could not get one. Nobody can. This is right from the mouth of the lady in the Records department and has been confirmed by others.

Relax folks and try something unique, like showing how patriotic you are and supporting our President.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

the odds of finding a doctor who knew the baby was biracial were probably 50 50.....

well according to obama, hillary bill 2678 made him eligible.

Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a "natural born citizen" in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

One has to wonder -- what possible urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a "natural born citizen"? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?

grou.ps...

he knew he was ineligible but we just don't pay attention to all the laws our good leaders (bush included) write............too numerous it boggles the mind.

reply to post by musselwhite

---

You folks had every opportunity to disprove Obamas eligibility and at every accusation it is debunked constitutionally. All we're left with are those in denial of his eligibilty with nothing really to show for it.

Why dont you actually counter the posts in favour of his eligibility (like the one I posted above) instead of having nothing to show for it. This is the land of the free. Innocent until proven guilty.

reply to post by southern_Guardian

---

ok, no problem; however, one question, didn't i just post a link that shows a non-binding resoution or unanimous opinion of eligibility? did you read the entire link southern_Guardian? from the link:

While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they've written as it's not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It's a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven't happened yet; the push to change our Constitution.

grou.ps...

why are you so jumpy? if i had such a document do you not think i would link it into this thread. there simply is nothing out there that i can find. i would appreciate your linking an iron-clad document to his birth. it frankly doesn't matter to me one way or the other because i see the north american union just around the corner. there is a much bigger picture than this issue. this is just another way to keep the american people from seeing what is fixing to happen. get out of the box. it doesn't matter who is president at this stage of the game. the american people are so wrapped up in this particular election they fail to see what really is happening. i believe in the very near future you will see as well and you will remember. remember, remember the 5th of november!

thanks for your input. sorry i could not oblige you. i wish things were different in my eyes and in my heart but i simply am past believeing it matters who we vote for because it simply does not.

good luck to you and to your family in this year, 2009.

Questions about the Aurora Incident, Crash of 1897
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: