Originally posted by Mak Manto
Actually, I wanted to ask you on that...

So, you say that for a person to be President, both of their parents have to be natural-born citizens of the United States?

This is why you're saying Obama is not our president?

No.

Both parents are not required to be NATURAL born citizens. Both parents are merely required to be US Citizens.

You can come here from another country and through immigration you can eventually become a US citizen. That certainly doesn't make you a natural born citizen, but it will make you a US citizen.

As long as both parents are US citizens at the time of their child's birth AND providing that the child is born on US soil, then, AND ONLY THEN, are you a natural-born citizen.

What makes this a natural born citizen is the fact, 1, you were born on US soil, 2. Both your parents were US citizens at the time of your birth. 3. The fact both your parents were US citizens at the time of your birth, this prevents YOU personally from being born without have any legal citizenship of another country and you can not possibly be born with having any type of allegiance owed to any foreign country. You are born with having allegiance and citizenship SOLELY to the United States.

You were never naturalized by becoming a US citizen. You were never born owing allegiance to any other country. There is no other country that claim you as a citizen of theirs.

This is the exact intent of the founding fathers when they put the natural born citizen clause in the constitution pertaining to the POTUS. This is the ONLY place anywhere that the natural born citizen clause exist.

If simply being born here by any foreign parent means the same as being a natural born citizen then there would have been no need of even using the word natural. All other US citizenship is covered under the 14th amendment. Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say "natural born citizen".

If Obama was in fact born in HI then at best he is merely a US citizen under the 14th amendment. He is not a "natural born citizen" because his father was not a US citizen. Because his father was not a US citizen and a British subject, Obama was born with dual citizenship owing allegiance to the British AND the United States both, (assuming he was born in the US). To this day Obama is still a dual citizen. If he was to go to Britian they can claim him as their citizen, keep him there, and there would be nothing the US could do about it. While we here may refuse to follow their laws, they to can refuse to follow our laws. So Obama's British citizenship still applies to this day.

Again, this is exactly what the framers wanted to prevent from ever happening when they wrote the constitution and specifically stated one of the requirements to become POTUS is you must be a natural born citizen.

A natural born citizen is born without any possible chance of any country being able to claim them as their citizen in any way shape or form. There is no possible chance for a natural born citizen to owe any allegiance of any kind to any other country.

People born from a non US citizen parent is born with dual citizenship and they do owe allegiance to both countries. Therefore there is no possible way they can be born a natural born citizen. Only a US citizen at best.

A natural born citizen and a US citizen are entirely two differentr things. They do not have the same meaning. If this is not what the founding fathers meant they would have never had any use to specify "natural born citizen" and would have merely stated you have to be a US citizen at birth.

People can try to spin this to anyway they like but it does not change the fact of what a natural born citizen is. There is plenty of documents written by the framers that support their meaning and intent of it.

But the Founding Fathers never stated that both parents have to be US citizens.

EVEN IF you state that that was what they meant, that would be an IMPORTANT part of the Constitution.

Vattel's work might be what they thought at the time, but it's not constitutional law in this country.

Besides, Vattel was foolish. To say that someone who is born inside this country, and that if their father is a foreigner means that the son owes his allegiance to his father's country is a dumb notion...

I think it's time that the Constitution is updated and states that if you are born inside of this country, you are a natural-born citizen.

What ground you are born on decides where you are born, not what country you're parents are from.

Originally posted by Mak Manto
But the Founding Fathers never stated that both parents have to be US citizens.

EVEN IF you state that that was what they meant, that would be an IMPORTANT part of the Constitution.

Vattel's work might be what they thought at the time, but it's not constitutional law in this country.

Besides, Vattel was foolish. To say that someone who is born inside this country, and that if their father is a foreigner means that the son owes his allegiance to his father's country is a dumb notion...

I think it's time that the Constitution is updated and states that if you are born inside of this country, you are a natural-born citizen.

What ground you are born on decides where you are born, not what country you're parents are from.

You can THINK anything you want. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, But that doesn't change the facts.

You may THINK Vattel's views to be foolish, but the founding fathers didn't think so. Our constitution the way it is written doesn't think so. The constitution specifically cites the "Law of Nations" in which it grants Congress to punish any crimes committed written in the Law of Nations. So like it or not the constitution does in fact reconize the Law of Nations as laws.

Also, regardless of the Law of Nations stating your birth follows your fathers nationalty, that still does not take away the laws of the British. British law also grants legal rights to the British to claim Obama as their citizen, whether US law honors that or not.

If the tables were reversed, where you were born in Britian, by one American parent, granting you dual citizenship, you would not want to see your US rights lost by Britian? Yes? No? BOTH countries have legal rights to claim you as their citizen regardless of what each countries laws are.


""What ground you are born on decides where you are born, not what country you're parents are from.""

Correct! It does determine WHERE you are born, but it does NOT determine sole citizenship. There is a big difference between where you are born and what your citizenship is. Nothing, regardless of where you are born can change that fact. WHERE you are born can determine sole citizenship (Natural born Citizen) OR it can determine DUAL citizenship (depending on what citizenship your parents have).

"But the Founding Fathers never stated that both parents have to be US citizens."

Yes, they most certainly did!

What their writings say is...a natural born citizen is one born by us citizen parents. Key word there is parents being plural, meaning TWO parents or BOTH parents having to be US citizens.

You can not just disregard the s making parents plural because you don't like it.

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
You can THINK anything you want. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, But that doesn't change the facts.

You mean like

Fact:Obama is a natural born citizen

Fact:nowhere in the constitution does it state that both parents must be U.S. citizens.

These are facts. These are also what I think. Why do you think your opinion is more valid and more factual than the actual truth?

Originally posted by FollowTheConstitution
"But the Founding Fathers never stated that both parents have to be US citizens."

Yes, they most certainly did!

What their writings say is...a natural born citizen is one born by us citizen parents. Key word there is parents being plural, meaning TWO parents or BOTH parents having to be US citizens.

You can not just disregard the s making parents plural because you don't like it.

Where did you get this from? It is not quoted or sourced. Are you just making things up again?

[edit on 9/9/09 by evil incarnate]

Originally posted by serial
***snip***
IF you are unwilling to pay 3% more income tax in order to insure everyone has healthcare and a place to live (yes even the "lazy" ones)...
***snip***

And the really scary bit is that most of those who oppose are part of the christian hypocritical bunch.
You know, - those who believe in stories about "The good samaritan", "love thy neighbor" and "leave the judging to God".

It seems that the american way of life is nothing more than the right to step on everyone in the quest towards the top of the hill.

"Standing on the shoulders of giants". In America that is a metaphor for the filthy few pissing on the less fortunate.

But I could be wrong

Originally posted by kozmo
I'm aware of this source as well - but as Flyersfan has already stated, it is up to the source to reveal themselves. And, in time, I believe they will. That does not, however, denote that I am 100% convinced of the legitimacy of the document - I remain skeptical as anything too good to be true generally is. THIS would be a bombshell, IMO, if legitimate!

To answer a previous claim... Impeachment does NOT take 2 years. There is no time limit on impeachment proceedings. They can last days, weeks or years - depending on what evidence is being heard and evaluated.

Next, because some resolution was passed claiming Obama as a citizen is both moot and irrelivent. He is to be a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN according to the articles of the Constitution.

Finally, it would be most interesting to see how the Legislature and the Judiciary would reverse all of the damage that this fraud has perpetrated upon the American people. It would also be interesting to see if he would then be arrested and charged with a crime.

Time will tell, but I am paying VERY careful attention to this one!

Ok this has been addresses in other posts as well i know i havent gotten reading into it very far but here we go. If you want to read the actually legal quoteing goto thread : DNC conspiracy to elect an ileligble Obama. start on pg15 out of 17

These are fact: There is no legal definition for the term "natural born citizen" only presidence set by ruling done by congress and Supreme Court. However the presidence does not clarify one or another for a president.

There was however a case brought before congress in regards to McCain who was born in a Panamanian hospital on Panamanian Soil. Congress determined " It is most likely that he is a natural born citizen" and determined him eligible to run for president.

There is legal definition of the term "US citizen at birth" as defined in the Immigration and Naturalization act. Which state (roughly) that a person who at the time of birth is born of one or more parents that are a US citizen while traveling/working abroad, is considered a US citizen at birth.

So the only real arguement anyone can have is what the definition of "natural born citizen" really is. And ter is no legal definition. So all someone in the government needs to do is have this word defined and then there would be no "conspiracy"

as a side note...... why wasnt this an issue for McCain and only for Obama. also not to mention.... how much undermining of the government do you all think that the person who started all of this is causing right now. the worst thing anyone can do is shake our belief in our gov. not only a little but to the core. a president without power is a scary thing. it takes the power and it goes somen wher else. Right now the world sees our eroding people and government, and they look down at us for it.

Hi!

I am actually very surprised that there is so much of this Birth Certificate talk STILL continuing.

It DOES NOT MATTER WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I do realize that many students (like myself) were taught incorrect information in school, but if people want to make these types of serious acusations (Obama is not legally elligible to be president), I would hope that they would do some basic research before they say things that are false.

For the benefit of so many of you that do not know:
To be President of the US, you need to be a Natural Born Citizen.
There are TWO WAYS to be a Natural Born Citizen:
The first, is to be born in the US. That is becoming a situation that a lot of people don't like, because if an illegal immigrant couple have a child in the US, the child is AUTOMATICALLY a US citizen, even though their parents are not.
SECONDLY, you are a Natural Born Citizen if EITHER of your parents, at the time of your birth were US Cititzens.

Obama's mother, when he was born, was a US Citizen, so that fact, in and of itself, AUTOMATICALLY makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen. So, Obama could have been born in Kenya, The Czech Republic, or on Mars, and it would make no difference to his legal status as a Natural Born US Citizen.

Now, on another thread, a poster told me that it is an issue that his dad was a Kenya citizen when he was born. WRONG!
I will address this situation further:
In virtually all countres, you are automatically a Natural Born Citizen of the country(ies) that your parents are citizens of when you are born. In some countries (like the US) you are also a Natural Born Citizen if you are born on that country's soil.
So, lets look at this hypothetical situation:
Obama's mother is a dual-citizen of the US and Norway. His father is a dual-citizen of Tanzania and China. He was born in Kenya.
If that were true, then Obama would be a Natural Born Citizen of the US AND Norway (compliments of his mother's citizenship), he would be a Natural Born Citizen of Tanzania AND China (compliments of his father's citizenship), and he would be a Natural Born Citizen of Kenya, because he was born there. So, Obama would have been a Natural Born Citizen of 5 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES! Yes, this is possible, and completely legal.

So, since Obama's mother was a US Citizen, it DOES NOT MATTER where he was born.

If you think I am just making this up, then do some research, and you will find that I am correct.

Now, if you want to press the issue, feel free to start a thread about how Obama was born in Kenya AND his mother was NOT a US citizen, and we will talk further.

cliff
Nairobi

Originally posted by atpcliff

So, lets look at this hypothetical situation:
Obama's mother is a dual-citizen of the US and Norway. His father is a dual-citizen of Tanzania and China. He was born in Kenya.
If that were true, then Obama would be a Natural Born Citizen of the US AND Norway (compliments of his mother's citizenship), he would be a Natural Born Citizen of Tanzania AND China (compliments of his father's citizenship), and he would be a Natural Born Citizen of Kenya, because he was born there. So, Obama would have been a Natural Born Citizen of 5 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES! Yes, this is possible, and completely legal.

So, since Obama's mother was a US Citizen, it DOES NOT MATTER where he was born.

If you think I am just making this up, then do some research, and you will find that I am correct.

Not that I disagree with you, but could you provide proof of your claims?

I am convinced Obama is a Natural Born Citizen and therefore eligible to be president. I have always felt that way and until proven differently, I will feel this way, but if you make a claim, you really should provide the source that backs it up. Not tell everyone to "do some research".

So, do you have access to some proof that a child born in the US, regardless of citizenship, is a NBC? Thanks.

Originally posted by atpcliff
Hi!

I am actually very surprised that there is so much of this Birth Certificate talk STILL continuing.

It DOES NOT MATTER WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I do realize that many students (like myself) were taught incorrect information in school, but if people want to make these types of serious acusations (Obama is not legally elligible to be president), I would hope that they would do some basic research before they say things that are false.

For the benefit of so many of you that do not know:
To be President of the US, you need to be a Natural Born Citizen.
There are TWO WAYS to be a Natural Born Citizen:
The first, is to be born in the US. That is becoming a situation that a lot of people don't like, because if an illegal immigrant couple have a child in the US, the child is AUTOMATICALLY a US citizen, even though their parents are not.
SECONDLY, you are a Natural Born Citizen if EITHER of your parents, at the time of your birth were US Cititzens.

Obama's mother, when he was born, was a US Citizen, so that fact, in and of itself, AUTOMATICALLY makes Obama a Natural Born Citizen. So, Obama could have been born in Kenya, The Czech Republic, or on Mars, and it would make no difference to his legal status as a Natural Born US Citizen.

Now, on another thread, a poster told me that it is an issue that his dad was a Kenya citizen when he was born. WRONG!
I will address this situation further:
In virtually all countres, you are automatically a Natural Born Citizen of the country(ies) that your parents are citizens of when you are born. In some countries (like the US) you are also a Natural Born Citizen if you are born on that country's soil.
So, lets look at this hypothetical situation:
Obama's mother is a dual-citizen of the US and Norway. His father is a dual-citizen of Tanzania and China. He was born in Kenya.
If that were true, then Obama would be a Natural Born Citizen of the US AND Norway (compliments of his mother's citizenship), he would be a Natural Born Citizen of Tanzania AND China (compliments of his father's citizenship), and he would be a Natural Born Citizen of Kenya, because he was born there. So, Obama would have been a Natural Born Citizen of 5 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES! Yes, this is possible, and completely legal.

So, since Obama's mother was a US Citizen, it DOES NOT MATTER where he was born.

If you think I am just making this up, then do some research, and you will find that I am correct.

Now, if you want to press the issue, feel free to start a thread about how Obama was born in Kenya AND his mother was NOT a US citizen, and we will talk further.

cliff
Nairobi

just wanted to inform you that what you are referring to is "citizen at birth" not "natural born citizen" two different phrases one with a definition (a legal one) and the other with things that point to a meaning but no law, and/or anything federally binding. look oh about 7 or so posts above yours on the same page by me i roughly go through what i sourced in a different thread in regards to all this. BUT this is to say you are more right then you are wrong.

btw here is the info again i went and dug it up

Here we go i found the laws specificly defining the situation prviosly described.


IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT: - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH



Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] 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;


(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;


(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;


(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;


(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;



(g) 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 five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and


(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899


And sorry i have to toot my own horn a little:

WIN


signature