Why it doesn't matter if Obama was born in Kenya

You and I can quote the law, USC, State Department, etc... all we want, but (*)(*)(*)(*)it if they cite ehow all of our evidence is discarded.

 

It's certainly better than any of your failed sources.

And didn't you quote wikipedia earlier? lol, can't even keep your sources straight can you?

 

You have failed to prove I am absolutely wrong.

Notice that it does not say they MUST be born to both American parents. It just says that if both your parents are American, then you are American. It does not say that if one of your parents is American, that you are not American.

In context, it is discussing children born on foreign soil in general...it is not discussing the number of American parents required for American citizenship at all.

 

United States Code=failed source

ehow=legitimate source...

 

I can't find my long list of legal scholars and Senators, besides the court decisions, all of which say clearly that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.

I can't comment on your original proposition- because I would say that what you suggest is not necessarily settled law, as being born in the U.S. would be. In my opinion though, if someone is born a U.S. citizen, then they are a natural born citizen, regardless of any other circumstances.

The point is moot to both sides though. We know President Obama was born in Hawaii.

The Birthers don't care where he was born or about any other legalities- they only are looking for any legal loophole to perform a judicial coupe against our legally elected President.

 

These clowns think children of an American diplomat or servicemember as a parent, and a foreigner as another parent means their children are naturalized citizens. What more could we possibly say to them about this topic?

 

Except the United States Code did not support your position. None of your sources even supported your position.

 

It also doesn't say someone born of no American presidents on foreign soil isn't a citizens either, what's your point? It very clearly lays down what is required to be a birthright citizen.

 

None of the men that wrote the US Constitution agree with the deniers either.

 

That it is a matter of interpretation. Thats my point.

...in your opinion.

But you don't get the final say. Sorry.

I do not accept you as the official interpreter of the men that wrote the US Constitution.

 

Would you believe their interpretation in their own words? Probably not.

 

Right...

§ 1409. Children born out of wedlock:

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’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. "

 

Title and section of USC please

 

Is that a rhetorical question?

 

How about you post the code in its entirety?

The portion you quote is only applicable if the person's father is a US citizen. Yet another fail.

source

 

No, it is not. Would you concede you have been defending a bogus position re: natural-born citizen if you could read the Founder's own words to the contrary? Or would even that not matter to you since they are old dead white guys.

 

§ 1409. Children born out of wedlock

(a) The provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 1401 of this title, and of paragraph (2) of section 1408 of this title, shall apply as of the date of birth to a person born out of wedlock if—

(1) a blood relationship between the person and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence,

(2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the person’s birth,

(3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the person reaches the age of 18 years, and

(4) while the person is under the age of 18 years—

(A) the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,

(B) the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

(C) the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 405 of this Act, the provisions of section 1401 (g) of this title shall apply to a child born out of wedlock on or after January 13, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, as of the date of birth, if the paternity of such child is established at any time while such child is under the age of twenty-one years by legitimation.

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’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.

not·with·stand·ing/ˌnätwiTHˈstandiNG/
Conjunction: Although; in spite of the fact that.
Preposition: In spite of

Yup, school you all day...

 

The quotes of the Founders are not the only source to consider, you can't simple disregard legal precedent, United States Code, and Congressional Legal Reviews since their death.

 

His quotes by "founding fathers" are just like his interpretations of nonexistent phrases in the Constitution.

 

I am guessing that "the founders own words" are subject to interpretation as well.

That being said, the founders' opinions do not define American Law. The judicial branch does. So ultimately it would not matter what the founders thought anyway. It only matter what the law says. The opinions of the founders do not supersede the law. They are not Gods or Kings.

 

What is interesting though is that the citizenship issue really isn't completely clear.

Why do I find this interesting?

According to the Birthers Kenyan birth fiction, the pregnant Mrs. Obama travels from Hawaii to Kenya- enduring days of travel, spending thousands of dollars that there is no record that the couple had, using a passport that there is no record she had-

To go to a Third World country, which was the year before in the middle of a bloody civil war that horrified the West, to go to the home of her husband, even though her husband's family was against their marriage, and chose to give birth away from her family and friends in a Third World hospital.....and faced the uncertainty of whether her child would be born a U.S. citizen.

After enduring so much- she then decides that it is not enough that her son be a U.S. citizen, she decides he must be considered a Natural Born citizen, because we all know that any red blooded American mother who names her half black child "Barack Obama" in 1962 expects her son to be President one day.

So somehow- she manages to smuggle her son- without any paperwork, or perhaps by obtaining forged paperwork- back to the United States and either frauduantly declared her son to be born in Hawaii, or persuaded her mother to commit fraud on her behalf.

My point- is if Obama's mother knew her son wouldn''t be eligible for U.S. citizenship if born in Kenya, why the heck did she go to Kenya and then commit crimes to obtain the citizenship she apparently was not concerned about?

Or bother at all, since as an infant son of an American citizen, it would have been fairly easy to obtain citizenship anyway.

 

In the United States of America one can be a citizen, by birth or naturalization.

Add the adjective born to citizen, and that eliminates naturalized citizens.

Add the adjective natural to born citizen, and we now have a third classification obviously different than a born citizen.

The definition is found in The Law Of Nations or PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGN.

Many of our Founders were fluent in French and were intimately familiar with Emmerich de Vattel's work. They used quotes and ideas throughout the Declaration of Independence and the united States Constitution.

The term natural born citizen was known and understood as one who is born with jus soli AND jus sanguinis. In fact a draft of the USC was changed to natural born citizen from native citizen to insure the office of Commander-in-Chief would never be held by anyone with foreign allegiances.

Natural born citizen is one who is born in the United States of America to two parents who are themselves citizens of the United States thus maintaining the Commander of all military forces have total allegiance to no other nation than the U.S.A. for obvious reasons.

The exception clause; "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," was necessary since a President would not be able to hold office until the Original Citizens (those that twice swore an oath of allegiance to the USA) had children that reached the age of thirty-five years old.

This requirement was not necessary for the Congress. Original Citizens could hold office in the Congress if they swore an oath when the Revolutionary War began (the Senate) or before it ended (the House).

This is an accurate historical analysis of the origins of natural born citizen used in our Constitution as one of three requirements to hold the office of President of the united States and Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. military forces taken from the writings of the Framers of our Constitution and the Founders of our nation.

You may accept these facts as true or not. That is your choice.

 

Until you cite the legal statute you're just telling me a story...and where are your references for Obama being born in Hawaii?

 

As usual NB's 'facts' are not what a normal person would consider facts-

consider this 'fact" "The term natural born citizen was known and understood as one who is born with jus soli AND jus sanguinis"

Now lets hear what Justice Scalia- you know that flaming liberal- has to say:

In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).

Here is the relevant section from the transcript:

Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

But then again- what does Scalia know compared to the towering intellects of Mario, Orly and NB?

 

Birthright citizenship is only granted when both parents are US citizens?

Says who?

By the way, you keep saying the "vast majority" of lawyers agree with you? I'm a lawyer, and I've never met one or talked to one or even been remotely aware of one who agrees with your unique brand of cluelessness regarding the Constitutional and statutory rules of U.S. citizenship.