Birth Certificate Not Determinative of Natural Born Citizenship

UP-DATE 4-27-2011

Today, the White House released a long form Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama. However, since my first blog of Feb-2009, and many blogs since, including this one from ten days ago, I warned ‘birthers’ the Birth Certificate was not the issue; the nationality of Obama’s father was.

Our first presidents were Art II eligible under the ‘citizens at the time of adoption’ clause.

Under the ’35-years old’ requirement, the first candidates that had to be ‘natural born citizens’ (NBC) were Art II eligible starting around 1811, or 1822, depending on if  ‘at the time of adoption of this constitution,’ or 1776′s Declaration of Independence created the first U.S. citizens.

ANALYSIS OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS CLAIMING HE IS ART II ELIGIBLE

1) According to the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, and the 2008 SR511, having U.S. citizen parents was the key factor of NBC, not native-birth. (http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html)

2) If native-birth, or jus solis, was the determinative factor of NBC, then any son of a visiting British loyalist born on U.S. soil would be eligible to the presidency; in light of the history of our Revolutionary War, that is just an impossible scenario.

3) In the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, there is no description of ‘native-birth’ as a determination of citizenship, natural born or otherwise. Minor children of aliens became citizens upon naturalization of the father.

4) From the first of our naturalization laws to today, the citizenship of a child is determined first by the nationality of the father, i.e., which sovereignty has jurisdiction over the father and his children. Therefore, the 14th Amendment as misinterpreted by Wong Kim Ark does not create an NBC, let alone a citizen, if the parents are aliens. Ark is in conflict with existing law.

The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was totally consistent with the then-existing Congressional naturalization acts. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to domiciled alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born Citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions, born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity, it ruled that he was so.  So Wong cited and quoted Minor and its definition that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Wong then decided that a child born in the country to alien parents who were domiciled in the U.S. was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment. It is critical that the Court did not say that Wong was completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but only that he was subject to that jurisdiction. Note the Court did not rule that he was an Article II “natural born Citizen” which the Court told us was defined by Minor.  Rather, the Court told us that he was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo citing Wong Kim Ark

5) From 1787 to the 1920′s, or about 135-years, the maiden citizenship of the mother did not determine the citizenship of the child, only that of the father. Even in modern naturalization law, where the maiden citizenship of the mother is preserved even if married to an alien father, three things are necessary to activate U.S. citizenship at birth from the mother: One; Abandonment of the Alien Father, or Two; Birth out of Wedlock and Abandonment, and Three; Specific U.S. residency requirements by both mother and child are met.

Therefore, Obama supporters claim that Dunham’s U.S. citizenship made Obama an NBC is wrong as well.

6) Dual Nationality: Dual nationality, or two citizenships at birth, is considered UNLAWFUL per se, and a violation of Natural Law unless formally registered under existing laws. Liberals admit dual nationality is a ‘problem,’ but refuse to enforce laws prohibiting it.

Obama admits he was born with British citizenship per the 1948 British Nationality Act. U.S. law ‘dealienaged’ Obama according to the description of naturalization laws in paragraph 5. Therefore, Obama is not an NBC, but a citizen by naturalization law, i.e., naturalized.

7) In fact, if Obama had not met U.S. naturalization law residency requirements from ages 14 through 23, he would NOT be a U.S.citizen today. (See 1952 INA § 301)

8) If the Obamatons are correct, that judicially legislated case law (in violation of Art I, Sec 8) determines who is a ‘native-born’ citizen, i.e., to many, the simple requirement to be a natural born citizen, then any ‘anchor baby’ of illegal aliens is Art II eligible.

This is as ridiculous as Revolutionary War veterans allowing the son of a British subject Art II eligibility.

Emmerich de Vattel specified that a society “cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights,” . . . NOT children of aliens! §212, ‘Law of Nations’

CONCLUSION:  Birth Certificate or No Birth Certificate, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT Art. II eligible to be president.

See ‘A Timeline of Obama’s Nationality,’ at http://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

59 Responses to “Birth Certificate Not Determinative of Natural Born Citizenship”

  1. slcraig Says:

    I have had this conversation with several State Legislators but we have found that the ‘will’ to face the situation head on is very weak.

    The one upside to the State Bills is that provisions for ANY State citizen to have “Standing” to challenge a Candidates ‘eligibility’.

    So as soon as a determined individual grasps the fact that there is NO acknowledged legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen they can then ‘force’ the challenge all the way to SCOTUS.

    I do not predict what the SCOTUS “definition” will be.

    But if it is anything other than a “person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. of natural parents who were both U.S. Citizens at the time of birth” we will know that the judiciary has been lost to the One Worlders at the expense of U.S. Sovereignty.

    That is fair to say because yours, along with a myriad of other intellectually honest Patriots, have researched the historical records and closed all the loopholes created by the past decades of obfuscations and deceptions made on the subject.

    Nature abhors a vacuum and that is why SCOTUS MUST close the loophole made by the lack of a “legal” definition, being that the SCOTUS is the ONLY controlling legal authority that has the Constitutional mandate to do so.

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    That is why I have combined the NBC issue with the illegal alien ‘anchor baby’ issue.

    According to Cicero, a Sovereign Nation MUST defend itself . . . from both enemies abroad and the ‘enemies within.’

    The illegal alien issue is comprised of both, and failure to DEFEND, especially from a president, is a High Crime and violation of the Primary Constitutional responsibility of both the president, and congress.

    We have a judicially mandated citizenship of aliens diluting the sovereignty of our nation, plus a president of an alien father.

    The bankruptcy conditions forced on localities and municipalities by Plyer vs Doe is the clarion call for the Grass Roots to act, as Arizona is attempting.

  3. slcraig Says:

    Oh, how I agree.

    Any objective reading, and distilling, of Title 8 US Codes § 1401;

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

    finds that the only ‘persons’ (remaining) that benefit from the “jus soli” grant are the children of alien foreign nationals, admitted legally or otherwise.

    Were it to be “Amended” would cause no one other than “illegals anchor and tourist babies” from acquiring U.S. Citizenship in preference to that of their parents.

    I have long felt the two go hand in hand. But I have come to see them positioned as if domino’s rather than tied together as a package.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      You don’t need to amend the constitution, or 8 USC 1401.

      All congress has to approve is a line under 8 USC 1401(a) defining ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ as coming directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ i.e., the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to children born of visiting/sojourning aliens, or those legally domiciled but not yet naturalized.

  4. arnash Says:

    It is utterly fallacious to assert that citizenship for children of Americans born not on US soil is not automatic and not naturally passed to them. One does not have to be native born in order to be an American citizen because citizenship is passed from the parents to the child, not from the dirt, the soil, to the child. One is not naturally born by being native born. That’s confusing the issue of geography with parentage. Regardless of where on the planet (or off the planet) one is when born, American citizenship is passed to the off-spring of American citizens by the mere act of being born to them. It is a natural inheritance not requiring any amendment, statute, code, or Supreme Court decision. It is citizenship by birth, not citizenship by geography. That would be insane, and no other nation on earth has such a skewed interpretation of what constitutes the basis of citizenship. In the Greisser case , the
    children of immigrants born in the US are not citizens until after their parents are naturalized. Being native born is not being natural born because they inherited the nationality of their parents (who were not subjects of the jurisdiction of the US Federal government because they were subjects of a foreign power and were under its jurisdiction. Those children were subject to being drafted into the military of the parents’ native country even during a situation of being at war with the US. They were not US citizens regardless of being born on US soil. The framers of the Constitution were concerned with who the parents of a presidential candidate might be, not the legal jurisdiction of the dirt one was born on.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Chief Justice Fuller cited the Greisser case. It is too bad the majority of the panel of justices did not follow the law, but instead, followed their hearts and Horace Gray. It is nice to ‘listen to your heart,’ but the ‘heart can be deceptive.’

  5. arnash Says:

    Has this page been hacked? Why are emoticons present in the text, the 2nd of which is overlaid on an important reference number?

  6. arnash Says:

    A baby cannot be “subject” to the jurisdiction of a government, since it is subject to nothing but its nature. A child of understanding age is subject to the jurisdiction of its parents. Hence a child (born to foreigners on US soil) cannot, without the consent of the parents, have US citizenship imposed on it merely by reason of the location of birth. That is not the policy of a free society but of a tyranny. Being subject to any government is either a matter of choice or it is oppression. Free will is involved. It’s either subjection by choice or acceptance, or it’s subjection by force and intimidation. One involves freedom of choice, the other involves total domination. If visiting foreign parents are loyal to their homeland and consider themselves its subjects, no government has the right to over-ride their choice of citizenship/ nationality for their newborn simple because the birth came within the borders of that visited nation. Only if the parents are willfully and circumstantially subject to the US government can US citizenship be imparted to their US-born off-spring. If it were not so by common reason and international law, then if a plane carrying US citizens was forced to land in North Korea, and an American woman gave birth during the time spent on the ground, then North Korea could claim the baby was subject to its jurisdiction because it was born within its borders and therefore it was not free to leave since its citizenship was determined not by the citizenship of its parents, but by the political geography of its place of birth. If the US can make such a claim over any baby born on its soil, then all nations can do likewise. Not as a gift of privilege but as a form of ownership, which all totalitarian regimes adhere to over “their” citizens. So, the location is irrelevant, unless it’s the permanent home of the foreign parents and they are subject to the jurisdiction of their new homeland. One could add “and they are here legally” but that gets into the issue that the authors of the 14th amendment didn’t have an illegal foreign invasion in mind when they limited their words to “All persons born…” .

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Yes. A minor child is ward of its parents, not the state. It is sheer hubris for a state to declare subjection and allegiance to the child of an alien . . . unless that alien is here illegally and trying to scam us for social services.

  7. arnash Says:

    Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark: “[I]t can hardly be doubted that the words of that [1866 Civil Rights] act, “not subject to any foreign power,” were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents . . .” This view fails to take into account the
    rules of national jurisdiction and accepted international law and respect for national sovereignty over citizens. “not subject to any foreign power,” actually was intended to distinguish between children born to immigrant US residents who had fled from poor, backward lands looking for a better life in a new homeland, and those who were middle-upper class citizens of more prosperous modern lands who were mere visitors and remained totally under the sovereignty of their own nation. They were not under US jurisdiction because that would include the authority to order them to not leave the country, even against their wishes. The US government assumed no such authority over foreign guests, nor could it draft them into military service. Nor could it assume jurisdiction over their children, including any born during their time in the US. So there is a distinction between foreigners, some who were under foreign jurisdiction and subject to a foreign power, and some who were permanent US residents. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that this distinction was not spelled out in the law even though it should have been, but that would be taking the long road and sometimes Congress just doesn’t mind keeping it short (while failing to consider and legislate for the situations that are the exception rather than the rule). Just keeping it simple, that’s Congress, except when it comes to the tax code.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Interesting part of Gray’s ‘discussion.’ He was trying to invoke the English concept of ‘habitancy,’ or ‘domicile,’ disregarding existing naturalization law, and the 14th Amendment itself. Former slaves were not subject to any foreign power . . . for a period of time, Indians were considered members of sovereign nations. But J. Gray is attempting to ‘liberalize’ the 14th Amendment to mean something else . . . something broader and kinder.

    • slcraig Says:

      The concept of ‘jus sanguinis’ is at the heart of the notion of the ‘birthright prerogative’ possessed by the parents as a right to have their child be born as a member of the society to which they belong and the 8 USC enshrines ‘jus sanguinis’ extending it to include even the most tenuous connections of ‘blood relation’ to a US Citizen being considered for the benefits of naturalization of foreign relatives.

      But there is a combination of requisite circumstances that make up the totality of being a ‘natural born Citizen’ as the ‘repealing’ of the 1790 naturalization Act by the 1795 Congress makes plain.

      Neither Jus Sanguinis alone nor Jus Soli alone make an NBC.

      Natural parents both being Citizens at the time of birth within the territorial jurisdiction of one of the various States are the circumstances requisite.

      Now, would there be cause to ‘enlarge’ those circumstances to include a person born beyond the seas, (abroad), under certain structured circumstances…?

      The 1st Congress thought so, but apparently the 3rd Congress felt there was either no authority for the Congress to ‘enlarge’ the circumstances sans an Amendment, or it was not needed, or it was not possible at the time to control or verify the circumstances from such a distance.

      Regardless of what may come it is 1st necessary to obtain an acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen given that there is controversy and conflict of its meaning within the Electorate.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        I don’t know just how ‘tenuous’ a connection is required in 8 USC 1410/1952 INA.

        At least one U.S. citizen parent is required, and conditions are stipulated to completely remove the nationality of the alien parent.

        There is no provision in the 14th Amendment, or 8 USC 1401, for a child born in the United States with NO U.S. CITIZEN parents. Justice Horace Gray was doubtful that ‘under the jurisdiction therof’ would deny a child of alien white parents citizenship . . . well, he was wrong, and now his inclusion of alien white parents has been extended to illegal alien ‘brown’ parents, and de facto polygamous ‘Muslim’ parents.

        LULAC has expressed approval of Obama’s closed Immigration Reform meeting. That is the danger of ‘replenishing your society’ with the children of aliens . . . if their numbers approach a politically significant voting block (some groups supported by foreign monies), then to ask a congressman to stand up for the jus sanguinis principle of our legislated naturalization acts is difficult.

        The revision of the 1790 Act, removing ‘as natural born citizens’ from describing the citizenship of children born overseas, is worth a look-see at the congressional debates for that convening of congress.

        In the end, the ‘idiom’ of ‘natural born citizen’ is clear enough within the context of Article II. The framers did not intend a ‘native-born’ son of a domiciled British loyalist access to the highest executive office and as Commander-in-Chief. Barack Hussein Obama is the son of an alien, non-immigrant British subject bigamist . . . and the U.S. citizenship of Dunham only allowed specific naturalization laws to provide Obama U.S. citizenship upon the abandonment of the father, making Dunham the only legal parent.

        Birth in the United States had no power to confer citizenship on Obama, or illegal aliens for that matter . . . that is a fantasy promulgated by liberal justices, taking the poetry of the Statue of Liberty as precedent . . . maybe they mispelled Lady Liberty as a ‘statute,’ rather than ‘statue.’

  8. arnash Says:

    It is intellectually unsupportable to boldly argue that whatever Congressmen say must be gospel truth. It doesn’t matter who erroneously equates native-born with natural-born. Even if everyone does it, that doesn’t make it correct, anymore than claiming that native Americans are born in India because everybody calls them Indians.
    Errors, like that of Columbus, can be perpetuated for generations and centuries. Congressmen can be as ignorant as everyone else, as well as judges. The only question before us is; “What was the priority and viewpoint of the founding fathers?”. No one else matters. And no law or decision is “settled” or “final” except what is written in the Constitution and its amendments. Everything else is subject to being overturned by clearer thinking judges. And just because a matter has been adjudicated and a decision rendered does not certify that the judgement was based strictly on the Constitution and not the erroneous understanding or bias of the judges. Their judgement is not
    “settled law” but is subject to overturn.

  9. Foreign Born Americans | h2ooflife Says:

    [...] Says: April 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Reply Yes. A minor child is ward of its parents, not the state. It is sheer hubris for a state to [...]

  10. arnash Says:

    I’ve cobbled together a new wordpress website covering all or most of the issues involving Obama and the Presidency. It’s pretty comprehensive for a day’s work. Please take a look at http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/ It’s re-direct URL is http://obama–nation.com (double hyphen)

    • arnash Says:

      I forgot to add that the 2nd line of links across the top of the page are to other websites, including this one (Natural Birth vs Native Birth)

  11. arnash Says:

    I found a new smoking gun that is even stronger evidence of manipulation of Obamas “birth certificate, evidence that is impossible to blame on any copying software.
    But first, in review:
    Assuming the released “Certificate” is a fake, then the template was likely a copy of the Nordyke . . .

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Why did I edit your comment?

      Imagine me, naked, painted blue and jumping up and down screaming at you.

      Now, with that mental image firmly established: THE ISSUE IS NOT ‘PLACE OF BIRTH,’ AND PROOF OF OR TO THE CONTRARY . . . BUT THAT A SON OF A BRITISH SUBJECT, ANY ALIEN FOR THAT MATTER, IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE II.

      This issue is intricately intwined with the judiciary violating Art. I, Sec 8 of the U.S. Constitution in misinterpreting, if not creating new naturalization law ‘out of whole cloth,’ so to speak, i.e., claiming Art. III jurisdiction over who is a U.S. citizen at birth.

      In such matters, the courts are constitutionally required, and as a matter of jurisprudence, to follow existing legislated acts.

      Therefore, the son of an alien has alienage that requires dealienage . . . the function of naturalization law.

      No child born with alienage is a ‘natural born citizen,’ but a de juris naturalized citizen of the United States, if meeting requirements of U.S. naturalization/nationality statutes.

      A ‘person born in the United States’ is a citizen under the 14th Amendment if one parent is a U.S. citizen and that parent has legal custody, OR . . . the child’s parents have no nationality or citizenship foreign to that of the United States, e.g., a slave.

  12. arnash Says:

    It’s a good thing that my post was edited because after posting I discovered that my big discovery was wrong since it was an anomaly also present on the Nordyke twins birth certificates.

    This quote: “Therefore, the son of an alien has alienage that requires dealienage . . . the function of naturalization law.” is an incomplete thought because it doesn’t describe what type of alien is being discussed. Is it a visiting alien? Or a permanent resident alien? Is the alien married to the mother? If the alien father still alive? If the off-spring of an alien father has no legal male parent, then the child is free from any alienage and should be considered to be a natural born citizen based solely on the mother’s citizenship. There’s nothing in law, history, or tradition that strictly rules this notion out. To object to it is to argue that the citizenship of a child’s mother is inadequate to transfer natural American citizenship to her child. Who would want to argue that and expect to still have a civil relationship with their wife, mother, sisters, daughters, female friends, cousins, etc.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Dialienage is required for naturalization . . . the function of naturalization law, so to speak, is dealienage.

      As for a child without a father, that is nullius fillius and your assumption the child is a maternal natural born citizen is false. The child is born out of wedlock which is a stateless condition only when the father officially abandons the family. Then, provisions in naturalization law kick in identifying the mother’s nationality as that of the ‘legal parent,’ and thus the child.

      Feminists, or anyone of modern mental conditioning, will find the secondary role of the female abhorent, but that is natural law and the law of the time Article II was written. It is that law we must harken back to in interpreting Article II.

      There was a father who either had U.S. or alien nationality. In cases of multiple rape of multiple nationalities, or getting pregnant in a hot tub or swimming pool . . . there still was a father, unknown . . . and the out of wedlock provision provides U.S. citizenship at birth. Born in the U.S. to a U.S. mother and an unknown father, the child has no alienage, i.e., is under U.S. jurisdiction, and is born a citizen, but without a U.S. citizen father he is not a natural born citizen.

      Obama is an example of everything wrong with our culture: born a bastard to a bigamist communist Muslim . . . under false pretense from every angle . . . and a U.S. citizen only by graces of twists and turns of naturalization law provisions.

      Black, Muslim, Indonesian, an absent mother living in Indonesia and Pakistan . . . hardly a U.S. citizen by nature, and adoption only through his Grandparents, Basketball, and Drug use . . . We have a really horrible character in the White House . . . a liar, a fool, and anti-American from his very upbringing.

  13. A.R. Nash Says:

    paraleaglenm said:
    “The child is born out of wedlock which is a stateless condition only when the father officially abandons the family. ” I believe there’s a logic error in that statement. One can’t abandon a relationship if one never even existed, (other than during insemination) and I have no idea how one who had a relationship could “officially” abandon it. Any thing “official” is kind of oxymoronic to the character of abandonment.

    “…the law of the time Article II was written. It is that law we must harken back to in interpreting Article II.” That makes perfect sense, but the fly in the ointment is that the commonly accepted description of “natural born citizen” was never written in stone. If one disputes the possibility of very real legitimate exceptions to the general rule, then how does one argue against this one:
    A decoration US soldier by the name of George Washington, namesake of his ancestor (the man most responsible for the existence of the United States) meets and marries a female veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, who’s ancestors arrived on the Mayflower. She becomes pregnant, but the day before her baby is born, he husband is killed sacrificing himself to save his fellow soldiers.

    paraleaglenm said:
    “If born in the U.S. to a U.S. mother, the child has no alienage, i.e., is under U.S. jurisdiction, and is born a citizen, but without a U.S. citizen father he is not a natural born citizen. ”

    The baby has no American male parent at birth. Thus it doesn’t fit the general description of a n-b-c. 36 years later the child wants to run for President but is told that’s prohibited because of the lack of a male US parent at birth. Who in their right mind is going to make such an argument against him? What judge would rule that he is correct because of the GENERAL description of a natural born citizen being born to citizen parents (plural) in their own land. Common sense would argue that it is not an absolute rule that a n-b-c MUST be born on native soil, rather it is merely a description of fact that 99.999% are. Similarly, it is not an absolute rule that a n-b-c MUST have a LIVING American legal male parent (meaning being married to the mother and not simply being the biological father). No Supreme Court judge doesn’t want to avoid ever having to rule against the legitimacy of the exceptions to the general description and thus would have to choose between what the general description implied (about there being a living American male parent ) and what that implied meaning didn’t take into account regarding possible variations to the general description, such as a case like I’ve described.
    In the end it comes down to a case of whether or not Obama’s parents were married or not. If they were married, the their son is not by any description of a natural born citizen eligible to be President. But if they were unmarried -in every sense, and never cohabited, then nothing about the father (who would have never been a parent) has any impact on the woman that bore a child by him, nor her off-spring. Thus there would be no alienage to deal with. The nationality of an irrelevant father is irrelevant, whether he be foreign or domestic. That is the reality of today and would weigh very heavily in deciding whether or not the off-spring of a single American woman is legally natural born.

  14. paraleaglenm Says:

    You are arguing with yourself all over the place, and I’m not going to rope you in.

    As for the woman inseminated in a hot tub, the allegiance comes from the father, as does all inheritance. Without a father, the child is nullius fillius, without an allegiance or inheritance.

    That goes against modern thinking; a woman today has full rights of property. But, in the days of the constitution, being born out of wedlock was a serious problem.

    The concept of jus solis not only made the power of ownership of the lord pre-eminent, but took care of bastard children in an era when marriage and family was extraneous when there was no property, or men died so young by illness or in battle.

    In an era of free men and right to property, jus sanguinis is the natural right.

  15. slcraig Says:

    If you read the 1790 naturalization Act of the 1st Congress and recognize that the provision dealing with the birth of a child abroad to U.S.Citizen parents was an “enlargement’ of the Constitutional definition, meaning and intent and then read the 1795 Act that repealed that provision you must come to the conclusion that only a person born to Citizen parents within the Territorial jurisdiction of one of the various States and or Federal Zone is the only definition, meaning and intent remaining.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Yet, born outside U.S. territory to two U.S. citizens does not confer alienage to the child . . . therefore, no naturalization law is required.

      A birth without alienage is my definition of Natural Born Citizen.

  16. slcraig Says:

    You’ll have to take that up with the Congress of 1795 which repealed the provision, (notwithstanding the fact that the Obama sponsored SR 511 used the ‘repealed’ provision to deem McCain as being as if an NBC).

    But as long as I’m here I will attempt to explain.

    The idiom of natural born Citizen, used in specific context within the Executive qualification Clause of the Constitution is situated in such a manner of Constitutional Statutory Construction is that it is immune from Congressional tampering and can ONLY be ‘enlarged, abridged and or otherwise modified’ by the process of a Constitutional Amendment.

    To allow Congressional authority over the Clause would allow any given Congress to promulgate a Law that only Senators and or Congressmen could be considered NBC’s, (insert any absurdity you wish).

    It is likewise that the Executive Branch has no authority over its composition for obvious self interest reasons.

  17. paraleaglenm Says:

    First, ‘natural – born – citizen’ is not an idiom. Compare it to a Statutorily Born Citizen, e.g., a child born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent, and an alien.

    Just as the legislators worked within months to convert the 1866 Civil Rights Act to the 14th Amendment, to prevent a simple legislative revision or repeal to reverse it . . . it may very well be that the 2nd Congress, or 3rd Congress, removed the ‘as a natural born citizen’ section from the 1790 Act.

    However, it is indicative that the natural born citizen described therein had a U.S. citizen father with U.S. residency . . . that was primary, not born on U.S. soil.

  18. slcraig Says:

    By virtue of its specific usage within a specific clause of a specific document for a specific purpose makes it a wholly American idiom when used in the CONTEXT of it usage.

    If you chose not to acknowledge that is fine with me, but there are differences in ‘term of words’, ‘juxtaposition of words’, ‘term of art’ and idioms, all of which share some attributes but only idiom holds all of the attributes in its juxtaposition of words.

    The RESULT of the 1795 Act, regardless of motive was to deem a child born abroad to Citizen parents as being a ‘citizen’ and NOT a natural born Citizen, ergo, without legislation to make a child born abroad a NBC leaves jus soli as an integral circumstance to being born a NBC.

    It is the totality of circumstances that make an NBC, not the pick and choose buffet so many try to make it out to be.

    • arnash Says:

      I think a common sense view of the 1795 Act is appropriate. Sections 1 & 2 are the actual naturalization statutes, while section 3 is not about naturalization but about official recognizing what was previously taken for granted but not legally stated. Congress was not providing a means of naturalization for children born to citizens abroad, it was merely stating officially the recognized reality that they are citizens and therefore “shall be considered as citizens”, which sounds a whole lot like “shall be recognized as citizens” (my words), in acknowledgement of what was already recognized . So to officially state for the record that they are citizens in no way is a statement that they are not more than that -that they are NOT natural born citizens. Positively declaring as law that which was already accepted, is not a declaration negating a presumption that they are not just citizens but are natural born citizens having been born to American parents who live in the United States.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Wow. I have a headache from that post!

        Let’s just say that the simple elegance of the 1790 Act made a lot of assumptions, or . . . in the five years previous to the 1795 Act, questions or situations came up that required clarification.

        This process, as congress had to handle contingencies, kept the naturalization act growing. In fact, with the 14th Amendment, 8 USC 1401 was written . . . other additions to the naturalization acts had to include parts of the 1922 Cable Act, special considerations for Panama and other territories . . .

        . . . now we’ve come full circle back to the 1790 Act, perhaps having to re-instate conditions for Natural Born Citizen.

        However, in May 2009 I suggested NBC was outside judicial or legislated definition, if it was purely a condition created out of natural law. In that case, natural law itself must be defined to the public, i.e., a legal condition that exists on its own, independent of man-made statutory definitions.

  19. paraleaglenm Says:

    If you continue to split such fine hairs, you will lose everyone.

    You don’t know if the revision in the 1790 Act repealed, or revised . . . I think that your theory of taking the term of art off the Legislature’s table is the best explanation.

    Other than that, We better figure out a way to all get on the same damn page, AND FAST, or we can forget about removing what we know to be an ineligible and dangerous president.

  20. slcraig Says:

    Well, it says in the 1795 Act its self that the previous Act was REPEALED.

    And it seems there is a disconnect somewhere in understandings of Constitutional Law based on natural law and assumptions of natural laws where Constitutional Law is silent.

    Splitting hairs…?

    That is the essence of resolving ‘conflicts of law’…!
    Example;

    “…no person except….shall/will/may/must/could/might/ought to/ be eligible…..”

    The 1790 Act used the language that the child would be “considered as”….which in precise language of statutory construct implies that they were not so ‘naturally’ but ‘made so’ statutorily.

    The Supremacy Clause does not allow for ‘assumptions’ to rise to the level of Statutory Law in the absence of a specific promulgated Law nor does it allow for the disregarding of Statutory Law for the lack of an acknowledged interpretation.

    A2S1C5 is written in Statutory Construction and IS the Supreme Law of the Land and the refusal to acknowledge a definition does not nullify the Law, but rather makes the subject office illegally occupied in violation of the prerequisite imperative requirement when the hairs are split to the precise language of the Laws construction.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      The only idiomatic analysis would be a comparison of English law usage of the word ‘natural’ to that of A2S1C5.

      Yet, a study of English perception of the King as head of the church, etc,. is not necessary.

      The American usage is plain as 1, 2, 3 . . . ‘natural’ refers to natural law, ‘born’ refers to a family, and ‘citizen’ is a free family of a constitutional republic.

  21. slcraig Says:

    Idiomatic…?….like tomato and tomato….or is that linguistic expression…?

    Point is there is NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen and the ONLY Branch of our Guv’mnt that has the Constitutiona Authority and Jurisdictional ability to “interpret the “definition, meaning and intent” of the idiom is the SCOTUS.

    My proposition is that it can be shown under the Statutory Construction of the Constitution and the Amendments and Laws promulgated since its adoption exactly what the definition, meaning and intent is without looking to any other source and, if necessary, prove it can not be that of the Statutory English Common Laws on Nationality and that it can only be of the nature of the descriptions found in VARIOUS ‘natural law’ writters.

    But, much to my dismay, my lone voice has of yet found the right tone to build the critical mass of understanding among the “public of the Republic” that there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      As Sen Bingham said, ‘in the words of our constitution itself’ . . . I think the term of art is plain language.

      So is the distinction between natural born and natural-ized.

      Congress, i.e., our representatives, wrote Article II . . . we need to get up to speed and recognize the term’s obvious and plain language meaning.

  22. slcraig Says:

    I absolutely agree…..now, after a few long prayers in that regard…..what do we do…wait for the hand of Providence ….. or blaze a trail though the legal Forest that has not, in 222 yrs, been tread upon….?

    Insofar as I have been able to determine I am the ONLY person who has approached the Courts with the Question and the ONLY person that has attempted to get a Federal Department to recognize, acknowledge and Certify” me as being in conformity with the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned.

    That of course is notwithstanding the non-binding and without legal effect Senate Resolution 511 ‘deeming’ McCain” as if a NBC based on a repealed naturalization Law.

  23. A.R. Nash Says:

    If no one in the government would look at the issue before the election, they are sure as hell even far less inclined to examine it now that the individual in question has all the authority of the Presidency behind him. Congress isn’t exactly known for being populated by people who are unafraid to rock the boat. If when facing a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit they agree to cut what turns out to be just around $300 million, what hope is there that anyone in Congress will dare to go against the grain now that the “official” birth certificate has been released? If the courts won’t touch it then he may allowed to run again and get away with it again. But if his parents were never married then the issue of dual allegiance doesn’t come into play and the possibility that he could be declared a natural born citizen by the Supreme Court is very real -if it ever reaches them.

  24. paraleaglenm Says:

    Being married, or not, does not affect the legal condition of dual nationality except for easing of U.S. residency requirements of the woman/mother if the child is born overseas and the father is an alien.

    Yes, it is frustrating, but more frustrating still when I have written a full description of the laws governing Obama’s various nationalities since Feb-2009, and sympathetic readers like you STILL get it wrong.

  25. A.R. Nash Says:

    you wrote: “THREE things are necessary to activate U.S. citizenship at birth from the mother: One; Abandonment of the Alien Father, or Two; Birth out of Wedlock and Abandonment, and Three; Specific U.S. residency requirements by both mother and child are met.”
    These three are not the totality of circumstances possible since they don’t include the pre-birth death of the married or unmarried father, nor rape, nor the case of having no relationship whatsoever with the biological father except for a brief moment 9 months prior to birth . You can’t tell me that in those circumstances any issue of dual citizenship exists. When you say that not being married to the mother does not affect the “legal condition” of dual nationality I have to inquire “What legal condition?” Common sense would say that you are right because one does not even exist, therefore it can’t affect what doesn’t exist, just as a legal parent-father-guardian doesn’t exist. If you say that the government DOES recognize an invisible or irrelevant father for purposes of ascribing citizenship to a child, then I would ask you to point out where that would be found in the law. Without that I’d has to assume that such a counter-intuitive law or ruling doesn’t exist. To say that the law says such-and-such while many possibilities aren’t covered by the law, then it should be acknowledged that legal definitions have not yet been rendered by the Supreme Court to address the circumstances that the laws fail to address.
    To use the word “abandonment” with the understanding of it having a legal meaning that is different from the common meaning invites the speculation that 5 of the 9 SCOTUS judges could overturn that accepted legal definition and restore the meaning to what it was originally. An alien father cannot “abandon” a relationship that never existed, regardless of how “the law” interprets the meaning of the word.

    • slcraig Says:

      And you make the very point as to why the term of words, made idiom by their usage, was made a prerequisite imperative requirement in the 1st place.

      What ‘nature’s’ of ‘citizens’ would made by the anticipated Rules and Laws from Congress were, and could only be, speculative given the myriad of individual circumstances that affect the relationships of men to women and children.

      The ONLY immutable relationship to man, to women, to child is that when two parents are the citizens of the country where the child is born.

      I know of no countries even today that do not acknowledge the citizenship of a child of that country when both of the parents are its citizens, but there are often doubts when other circumstances are introduced.

      No, the only arena in which any one can argue that the ’0s’ birth circumstances rises to the level of an Article II natural born Citizens is in the context and in the space created by the legal loop-hole of there being no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen.

      Only in the gray area of intellectual abandonment where words are bastardized and history is perverted to create un natural outcomes to the natural circumstances in the affairs of men and nations can obfuscations find room to grow and be deemed to be as if what the law intended.

      You seem to be of the understanding that the current ‘accepted legal definition’ would need to be ‘overturned’ in order to ‘restore’ the meaning to what is was “originally”.

      Please point me to the words, or the words that would require the change to the ‘legal meaning of the original’, in ANY Amendment to the Constitution.

      I’ve looked and searched and researched and as yet not found ANY such words.

      In fact, the only references known to me is that of the 1st Congress of 1790 which the Congress of 1795 repealed and the non-binding Senate Resolution 511, both of which required two citizen parents and both of which were attempts to ENLARGE the ‘original” definition, meaning and intent.

      The irony seems to be in your own words, that you accept the ‘illegality’ of the sitting POTUS to be the consequence of the Courts refusal to acknowledge the “original’ definition, meaning and intent, a circumstance that is known in some legal circles as a usurpation.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Those are the conditions required by 8 USC 1409, 1952 INA 309.

      Death, rape . . . all are abandonment. When the father is not supporting the family, the mother takes over as well as her nationality. That is why the law was revised/enlarged in the first place; alien husbands were abandoning the U.S. women overseas.

      Liberal law interpretation allows for dual nationalty, but for the U.S. citizenship to be officially recognized for a foreign born child, certain conditions must be met.

      If born in the U.S., 8 USC 1401 applies. The child’s ‘official’ or operative nationality is that of the alien father until such time as he abandons the family (dies, is unknown due to rape, etc.).

      All this is gone over in my first blog, as well as a Timeline of Obama’s Nationalities.

  26. paraleaglenm Says:

    I just look at the law.

    The language is plain enough.

    I tried to warn the Birth Certificaters to stipulate the COLB was genuine and move on . . . I am suggesting the same to you concerning idiomatic etiology.

  27. arnash Says:

    I’ve now been enlightened as to the use of the term “abandonment” but I have a suspicion that there is still room for ambiguity regarding the the consequences of the timing of “abandonment”. In other words, whether it occurs before or occurs after birth. I can’t image that it would make no difference concerning what citizenship is ascribed to a child of a foreigner. I reason that if there was never a legal relationship between the father and mother then the father’s nationality is irrelevant to the citizenship of the child being as it would not be a factor. That lack of a foreign father involvement in the life of the mother and child would only be relevant if Obama came out with the claim that his parents were never married and therefore his citizenship is derived SOLELY from his mother. I can’t see him doing that being as he has stated in his book that they were a married couple. That means he is basing his presidential legitimacy entirely on his native birth, which is a false equivalency to natural born citizenship. But the public and the press are totally ignorant of that fact, as was I just a couple of months ago.

  28. paraleaglenm Says:

    Marriage is a seperate issue.

    It is, of course, after birth . . . British law is specific that one year is allowed for the father to register a child born a citizen by descent, i.e., outside British dominion. However, there is no bar for the father to resume his role and register the child a British citizen.

    In either case, the child has the right to claim either British or U.S. citizenship when reaching the age of decision, or register as a dual citizen allowed by agreement between the U.S. and Britain.

    Read the ‘Timeline’ blog, and the first ‘Obama – A Natural Born British Subject’ blog, and you won’t have these pesky questions any more.

  29. A.R. Nash Says:

    It seems that you are missing three important things. 1. Proof that Obama Sr. registered his son (within a year) making him a British subject in the eyes of the British government. 2. A connection between such registration and US recognition of it, and 3. Evidence that there was a legally recognized relationship between the parents which would make the father’s nationality relevant. Without proof that his parents were married, there is no legal basis on which to determine any citizenship inheritance other than from his mother. An unrecognized father conveys no citizenship to his off-spring so how can one escape the question of whether or not his father is his legally recognized parent? It seems you are coming from a working perspective that the marriage of his parents is a given. Perhaps it is true, but on what basis can one make such an assumption? Perhaps there is evidence that is unquestionable, but I am unaware of who or what confirms the story that they were an actual married couple. So until that unknown is clarified, I’m left without a certain basis for determining that he was born with any citizenship other than from his mother since an non-officially recognized father is not relevant to the question of whether or not in this day and age a mother’s citizenship alone is sufficient to meet the undefined (though not undescribed) meaning of “natural born citizen”.

    • slcraig Says:

      So, somehow you manage to arrive at an “assumed legal proposition” of “presumption of benefit of doubt” in spite of acknowledging in the 3 bullet points the existence of sufficient “doubt” to require a “legal finding of fact”.

      Aside from the instructive primer on Pretzel making you redeem yourself by acknowledging that there is NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen which raises the alternative to your “presumption of benefit of doubt”, i.e., lacking a “legal” definition can any person be said to be “legally” occupying the office of POTUS?

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        The meaning of natural born citizen is clearly evident in the history and context of Article II.

        You are making ‘funnel cake’ logic . . . confusing the hell out of everyone, including yourself.

      • slcraig Says:

        Even though we seem to be traveling in the same direction the Forest you are in hampers you’re ability to see the lay of the land clearly.

        You begin this most recent ‘study’ based on a FALSE premise.

        You say; ” A child born of citizens in the US is automatically recognized as a NBC, but…”

        I wish that were so but it is NOT. Insofar as our Federal Guv’mnt is concerned there are NO ‘natural born Citizen” , but rather only “native born U.S.Citizens”.

        Until you come to grips with the FACT that there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen which describes the requisite circumstances at birth for the purpose of De Jure application and acknowledgment you will continue chasing speculative conjectures and hypothetical justifications that amount to no more than De Facto opinions which has resulted in the current status quo, a usurper in the White House.

        Until the “Patriot citizens come to understand the status of Article II has devolved into a ‘legal loop-hole’ for want of a Constitutional interpretation then the De Fact application will continue to include ANY “native born” person, 8 usc 1401, or ANY person born to citizen parents abroad, SR 511.

        The left are shoving FAKE BC’s and inconsistent Bio’s in our face because they know there is NO De Jure Law that can be applied, insofar as natural born Citizen is concerned.

        There is only one path out of the legal morass and that is to FORCE a ‘legal determination’ of the definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen by the ONLY Branch of the Constitutional Guv’mnt that has the authority and mandate to provide such an interpretation, the SCOTUS.

  30. paraleaglenm Says:

    1) If you had read my blogs, you would know that Obama, Sr. DID NOT register the child, nor did he ever support him or his mother. Sr. returned to Kenya, Kezia, and the booze bottle, and also married in bigamy a Jewish woman at Harvard . . . nice family legacy, our presidente.

    2) Of course the U.S. would recognize Obama, Sr’s legal parent status, and Obama’s Kenyan citizenship. If British, Obama would be eligible for dual citizenship . . . but that is still far away from natural born citizenship.

    3) The legal relationship is the C.O.L.B. and now the Birth Certificate . . . once Dunham registered Obama, Jr. in Hawaii, Sr. was the putative/legal father unless he challenged it in a timely fashion.

    You really need to read my blogs . . . repeating myself to a lazy person is really a waste of my time.

  31. slcraig Says:

    What, are you being intentionally obtuse…? … are you saying that Justice Waite was incorrect in Minor v Happersette…? Can you direct me to the “Legal” citation that you are relying on that I can use to be “certified” as being an American “natural born Citizen” after 2 1/2 years of trying…?

    There is NO acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen under the Constitutional Rule of Law. <Period

    It has NEVER been fully litigated and insofar as I, or anyone else, have been able to determine, I am the ONLY American natural born Citizen" that has ever sought to be certified as such by the Federal Guv'mnt or the Federal Courts.

    Were there an acknowledged "legal" definition there would be a Federal source by which to verify a persons conformity to the circumstances described in the definition.

    THERE IS NONE, under the Constitutional Rule of LAW.< Period

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      Easy.

      If you want legal certainty, go before a judge. The judge reviews your birth certificate and sees no alienage requiring removal by positive law and, BAM, you’re a natural born citizen.

      If you have an alien parent, you require removal of that nationality by postive law . . . and therefore you are a citizen by naturalization law.

      As for idioms, maybe all terms of art are idiomatic. Res Ipsa Loquitur, Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel . . . but those are all clearly defined.

      Natual Born Citizen is a Citizen not by virtue of Naturalization Law . . . all the infusions of English common law . . . just confused things.

      What makes the jus solis/English common law explanation even more in error is the fact that England relied on both citizenship by descent and citizenship otherwise than by descent, the latter being jus solis. Both were natural born subjects or citizens.

      • slcraig Says:

        I don’t know where you think you are going with your line of thought but for some reason you refuse to see the elephant in the room then blindly tell me to go before a judge if I want CERTAINTY……….

        …..so I am forced to ask again, are you intentionally being obtuse or are you having so much fun with the minutia that you don’t want to face the reality of the circumstances………….

        …I have been trying to get a Judge or any Dept of the Fed to acknowledge the existence of a Constitutional natural born Citizen and all the offer is the same kind of run around on the subject that you are engaged in………..

        …..The Constitution is “STATUTORY” in Construction, that is why it is called the Supreme Law of the Land……certain Powers are delegated and enumerated others stand as written with one of those being the Executive Qualification Clause.

        There exists NOW a dispute as to the Constitutional definition meaning and intent of the idiom of natural born Citizen because of the DOUBTS of the requisite circumstances that make a person in conformity to the needs of the idiom.

        Until it is defined by the SCOTUS there is NO means by which to test any given persons conformity to the Constitutional idioms needs.

        The CERTAINTY of that FACT and the IMPLICATIONS emanating from it may annoy you but nevertheless is the ‘legal loop-hole’ that keeps the Usurpation on life support and will continue to do so until the plug is pulled by closing the hole.

  32. paraleaglenm Says:

    Try telling the judge this . . . Ignoratis Terminis Artis, Ignoratur et Ars

    It means, Those Ignorant of Terms of Art, are Ignorant of the Art, i.e., the Law

    There is a real distinction between a child born without alienage, . . . and a child born with alienage due to conflicts between a father and mother’s nationality (out of wedlock or Cable Act statutes), and also between Jus Solis and Jus Sanguinis principles.

    A child born of two U.S. parents is the only ‘natural’ and unconflicted birth nationality . . . and the intent of the framers was clearly stated . . . to prevent foriegn influence reaching the office of president as best as possible . . . from the candidate’s very birth condition.

    • slcraig Says:

      There in lies the rub……….it is 1st necessary to find a ‘legal statutory basis’ in which to challenge the FACT that there is no acknowledged legal definition of the Constitutional prerequisite imperative requirement.

      I have been forced to assert the Statutory Construction of the Constitution to which the Lower Courts do not have Jurisdiction over in that there are no promulgated Statutes emanating from it insofar ans natural born Citizen is concerned.

      Standing for the Original Jurisdiction of SCOTUS is a high bar which is most accessible by a State Action Certifying the Question.

      Point is, your arguments are indeed well suited for a ‘Brief in Support’, but it is 1st necessary to breach the walls of Standing and Jurisdiction before the Brief is considered on the Merits.

      • paraleaglenm Says:

        Argument of Roger S. Baldwin Before the Supreme Court in the Case of U.S. Appellants vs. Cinque, and Other, Africans of the Amistad: 1841
        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/amistad_001.asp

        In the construction of all general terms used in the laws of United States, or in treaties to which they may be parties, the fundamental principles of the government and people of the United States, in their collective capacity as a nation, as set forth in their Declaration of Independence to the world, are to be applied, unless the law of nations requires a different interpretation. See Vattel, B II. CXVII. § 271. 280. 300. 302. 307-8-11. In the case of Arredondo, 6 Peters 710, the Supreme Court say: “by the stipulations of a treaty are to be understood its language and apparent intention manifested in the instrument with a reference to the contracting parties, the subject matter, and persons on whom it is to operate.”

      • slcraig Says:

        Yes, but there the court acknowledged Standing and accepted Jurisdiction so that such a Brief in support would be considered on the Merits of the arguments.

        There are sufficient such ‘citations’ within the Court Records to support the natural law definition of natural born Citizen, replete with the meaning and intent of term of words made idiom when imbuing John Jay’s National Security interests into the words used,

        But it must be acknowledged and understood that the Specific Question as to the definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom has never been asked and therefore the various Dictum found throughout the records can not be considered as if Res judicata on the definitions, meanings and intents within a Clause of the Constitution that was not the subject of the cases at hand.

        They most certainly be found to be relevant, but not a priori, i.e., not before the question is asked and taken up for consideration.

        Can you not separate what you know and acknowledge what the Courts require under the Rule of Law in order to Declare what is Legal or is not Legal…?

  33. A.R. Nash Says:

    ‘. . . and then, by law, it wasn’t Hawaiian birth, but the nationality of the mother that provided a national identity for the child. The soil makes no claim . . . only the inheritance from the legal parent.”

    The preceding list of facts regarding Obama’s citizenship background silently points to a few conclusions that are easy to overlook, i.e., that natural born citizenship in inalienable and can’t be lost due to insufficient residency. That begs the question of why he was under residency requirements in order to retain citizenship. If natural born citizenship was the consequence of native birth, and he was born in Hawaii, then how could such a natural born citizen be in danger of losing his citizenship? He couldn’t…IF that were true. So one must conclude that there was something lacking in the “quality” of his citizenship and that something was the legal blood connection to a non-resident alien father. Such a father is/was not “subject” to the political authority/jurisdiction of the US government since he was only a visitor and not a permanent legal resident.
    Re: the mother, since in the 1920′s American mothers were granted the transference of their citizenship to their off-spring, it should be clear that his US citizenship was not “transferred” from the soil but from his mother. Hence that would seem to leave the belief in jus soli citizenship without any foundation in the law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: