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
"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
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.
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
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
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?