Hawaii Verifies Obama a Dual Citizen: Not Qualified For Presidency

reply to post by doryinaz


The standing decision regarding natural born citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born on US soil to two Chinese parents. The Supreme Court decided that he was a natural born citizen and established the precedence that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship are the same thing.

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

no, grasshopper.... a Natural Born Citizen is one whose parents were BOTH American citizens, and he/she is born in the USA....not too tough to understand..2 important parts of this equation.....now, tell me...does that definition apply to Barack Hussein Obama?.....no.....there ya go...pretty simple to grasp....

The wording of the 14th Amendment was changed with no real debate about its impact on US-born children of foreign citizens. During ratification in the US Senate, there is no record of any objection to this change in wording, and no mention of caring about its impact on US-born children. The issue appears to have either been completely overlooked, or ignored.

This left the final wording a bit vague, with no real legislative record as to the meaning intended by Congress. The Supreme Court, in an 1898 decision known as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, settled this vagueness with an interpretation that children of foreign citizens born in the US soil are US citizens.

link

Are you sure about that?

CJ

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by doryinaz

 

The standing decision regarding natural born citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born on US soil to two Chinese parents. The Supreme Court decided that he was a natural born citizen and established the precedence that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship are the same thing.

Beat me to it.

CJ

reply to post by Texcin


I agree with you on the Obama part...
but Romney is qualified....even thought his father was born in Mexico...both of his parents (Romneys grandparents were US citizens at the time of his birth) It's like it your parents go on vacation and give birth while gone...you are still a US citizen....

reply to post by Texcin
OMG Texcin, I think you may be onto something here...when I read your post, all of a sudden it just clicked! There's no way in hell that another Bush could get into the White House through the front door, so this just makes perfect sense...the dots are starting to connect more and more, and the picture I'm getting for the future is this country is absolutely frightening. Dear God, please by some miracle let Ron Paul be elected! Heaven help us all if he isn't...

Originally posted by Thunderheart
reply to post by jimmyx

 

Hawaii needed to answer it in WRITING so that someone is responsible when/if the time ever comes for them to cough up the actual BC book and it turns out baby Obama is not actually in it.

really? and you think this is the first time they have done this?...none of you believe it anyway, so why do you keep asking questions, when you don't believe any of the answers. it doesn't matter what proof obama shows...none of you will believe it. you people have become jokes, side shows, village idiots, going to right-wing blogs to circle-jerk each other off.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

 

I thought it was against T&C to proclaim a blog's rantings as "news".
Did you check out that blog? I love the links to previous blogs at the bottom.

CJ

??? I never proclaimed this blog article to be news.

I may be wrong about the T&C regardless. I suppose I just thought that the "article" as you put it, was written by someone other than a crazy lady in her mom's basement.

CJ

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Texcin

 

I agree with you on the Obama part...
but Romney is qualified....even thought his father was born in Mexico...both of his parents (Romneys grandparents were US citizens at the time of his birth) It's like it your parents go on vacation and give birth while gone...you are still a US citizen....

if my mind remembers, it seems like Romneys grandaddy was mad about poligamy and MOVED to mexico....not a vaca. I dont know, but Romneys BC states his daddy birth orgin was Mexico.

Originally posted by doryinaz
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

no, grasshopper.... a Natural Born Citizen is one whose parents were BOTH American citizens, and he/she is born in the USA....not too tough to understand..2 important parts of this equation.....now, tell me...does that definition apply to Barack Hussein Obama?.....no.....there ya go...pretty simple to grasp....

It only has to be one parent not both also the constitution does not define what a natural born citizen is.

And whoever wrote this overlooked that America has had two dual national presidents. James Buchanan and Chester Alan Arthur.

Arthur is an interesting case because when claims to his dual nationality as a smear did not work out, a new smear that he was born in Canada as opposed to Vermont was contrived. This makes Obama the second U.S. president to have unfounded smears of birth in a foreign nation presented as a reason for his ineligibility to be president.

It didn't work back then and it won't work now.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by doryinaz

 

The standing decision regarding natural born citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born on US soil to two Chinese parents. The Supreme Court decided that he was a natural born citizen and established the precedence that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship are the same thing.

Beat me to it.

CJ

The United States v. Wong Kim Ark (link) actually defines "native born" citizen. The phrase "natural born" is nowhere to be found in that decision.

This chart attempts to define the differences between natural born, citizen by statute, and native born and links to statue and case law to support it.

My point is that I just don't think this constitutional issue has been definitively settled. I really needs to be decided once and for all.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


Well, I suppose then that if the issue hasn't been settled it is going to be. And due to precedent, as stated before, it is not in favor of what your signature would hope for.

CJ

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Texcin

 

I agree with you on the Obama part...
but Romney is qualified....even thought his father was born in Mexico...both of his parents (Romneys grandparents were US citizens at the time of his birth) It's like it your parents go on vacation and give birth while gone...you are still a US citizen....

Prove they were American citizens. If they voted in any of Mexico's elections then their citizenship is null and void. I would think that seeing how they lived there from the late 1800's to the mid 1900's there is a good chance they voted. So that would make Romney a illegal alien that has no place in American politics.

reply to post by ColoradoJens

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that 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, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts. The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall, becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue.

www.law.cornell.edu...

whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed.

Wrong.....the supreme court never decided he was Natural born....just that he was a citizen.....

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


However, if you look at the leading precedent for Wong Kim Ark you find the case Lynch v. Clarke. In that decision is this statement:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

This case is also cited as persuasive and and the authoritative precedent in a number of other cases.

reply to post by buster2010


But see it was Romney's grandparents living in Mexico, not his parents....and if Obama is legal by the left's standards then so is Romney..because he was born on US soil...and the left says his parents don'outt have to be citizens right?? So as long as Mitt himself was plopped out (birthed) on US soil, he is legal per the Obama precedent and I don't need no stinkin proof....

The only direct Supreme Court discussion on point as to the meaning of “natural-born citizen” in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution remains Chief Justice Waite’s discussion in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. As WND has reported, according to the standard that both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana would not qualify. Both have been discussed as future presidential candidates. Is Mitt Romney a natural-born citizen? Judging by the Happersett decision and most interpretations of the eligibility clause, a president’s parents would only have to be citizens of the U.S. at the time of his or her birth, not natural-born citizens. Therefore, even if George W. Romney’s birth in Mexico disqualified him from being a natural-born citizen, Mitt Romney could be a natural-born citizen, because his father was a citizen when his son was born. Opponents of George W. Romney’s presidential candidacy in 1968 argued that his grandparents had renounced their U.S. citizenship when they went to Mexico, but there is no evidence for that. Nor was it considered necessary for George W. Romney to become naturalized to be a U.S. citizen after he was brought to the United States for the first time when he was 5 years old. Moreover, decades after George W. Romney was brought to the U.S. by his parents, the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137, specifically provided that a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen, provided the father or mother, or both, at the time of the birth of the child is a U.S. citizen

www.wnd.com...


Romney still passes the strictest test of natural born citizen...he doesn't even need the obama precedent to cheat his way in.....but it is nice to be able to throw it back.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) This act was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which did not mention the phrase "natural born citizen"


en.wikipedia.org...

If you are born on US soil, you are a natural-born Citizen.

If you are born to one or more US Citizens, you are a natural-born Citizen.

If you do not like the way that works, write your Congressional delegation. But you cannot wish things to be true that simply are not true.

Also, the US government does not recognize "dual citizenship." As a legal status, it does not even exist in the eyes of American law. By American legal standards, you are either a US Citizen or you are not. If some other country also happens to recognize you as one of their citizens, that's their business. American law doesn't care.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

It doesn't matter where his father was born

correct, but his father's citizenship at the time of BHOs birth DOES matter.

only matters where he was born and he was born in Hawaii.

wrong. birth location (Hawaii) ONLY instills American citizenship upon BHO, not "natural born status", which is a requirement for POTUS.

There is NO requirement that your parents be natural born citizens, only that YOU be a natural born citizens

actually, the only way to achieve "natural born status" is by being born of 2 citizen parentS at the time of your birth. (preferrably on US soil but not always necessary, ie McCain)

BTW, Romney's dad was born in Mexico, so if there logic DID hold, which it doesn't, neither candidate would be eligilbe, now would they?

this is just a silly question indeed ... MItt qualifies, Obama never has.
in Romney's case, his father was an American citizen when Mitt was born.
regardless of dad Romney's birth location, the US citizenship of both parents conferred to Mitt upon his birth.
Obama, has never officially or formally renounced ANY of his foreign affiliations/citizenships.
citizenship isn't something you simply "outgrow", as some have implied.

also, many should consider, since Obama never officially renounced his Indonesian citizenship, technically, he is in violation of their laws and could be subject to their laws and penalities should they choose to enforce them.

reply to post by vexati0n

If you are born on US soil, you are a natural-born Citizen.

If you are born to one or more US Citizens, you are a natural-born Citizen.

If you do not like the way that works, write your Congressional delegation. But you cannot wish things to be true that simply are not true.

Also, the US government does not recognize "dual citizenship." As a legal status, it does not even exist in the eyes of American law. By American legal standards, you are either a US Citizen or you are not. If some other country also happens to recognize you as one of their citizens, that's their business. American law doesn't care.

A succinct, logical, and 100% accurate post. Thank you. Unfortunately many birther arguments have to resort to deconstructing our citizenship laws and supplanting them with circular arguments to maintain their birther fallacies.