Posts Tagged ‘natural born citizen’

Legislative History of INA § 301(g) Proves Mark Levin WRONG About Ted Cruz

February 6, 2016

This article was published by World Net Daily. It is an important legal memorandum and simplifies the constitutional questions of how statute affects terms of art in the original text:

Opinion: Leonard A. Daneman on Ted Cruz Eligibility

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/ted-cruzs-eligibility-tied-to-womens-rights-movement/

Legislative History of INA § 301(g)

The Citizenship of Ted Cruz Tied to Women’s Rights Movement

[Personal Note:   Why should I care? That is the $10 Trillion Question. If the Obama presidency had been blocked by the ‘birthers,’ perhaps our National Debt wouldn’t have doubled!

My response to Ms. Clemon’s comment summarizes the legal question: “So, the question is if the Harvard article or mine is in the public interest: Does the introduction of foreign nationality to a child who claims being a natural born citizen benefit the presidency viz Article II, or the singular citizenship of a child born of two U.S. citizens as it was from the beginning satisfy the intent of the framers?”

Here is another salient point: If the nationality of the father is inconsequential, then only the citizenship of the mother matters. After all, a child of a U.S. citizen father or alien father is eligible as long as the mother was a U.S. citizen!

How about Prof. Lawrence Tribe, who put so much weight on ‘native born’ that a child of two aliens, legal or illegal, is eligible to the presidency, just as long as they were born on U.S. soil.

Modern Americans have a ‘perception’ of Naturalization; not real knowledge. When you mention naturalization, they think of a courtroom with a U.S. flag and a line of new immigrants with their right hands raised giving the oath of allegiance.

Hopefully, after you read this article  (about 1700 words) on naturalization and repatriation of married women with children, you will understand that the framers would have never intended the child of an alien father eligible to the presidency; even if a so-called ‘citizen at birth.’ Alexander Hamilton proposed a version of Article II that specified a child ‘born a U.S. citizen,’ but John Jay insisted on a ‘natural born citizen,’ which cannot be created or changed by naturalization Law.

Ted Cruz’ citizenship through his mother was created by Naturalization Law. The 1952 statute separated him from Canadian citizenship upon moving to the U.S. at age four, and repatriated him through his mother. And so he is not eligible to run for the presidency.

Naturalization laws that gave Ted Cruz citizenship rights from birth were and still can be altered and changed, man-made. However, birth from two U.S. citizen parents is outside and independent of man-made law, and therefore a ‘natural’ born citizen.]

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

INA § 301 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.

Not all, but many legal professionals conclude that because Ted Cruz was a ‘citizen at birth,’ he is Article II eligible to the presidency.

However, at the time of the framers there were only four ways to become a citizen:

  1. You were a citizen of one of the states at the time of adoption of the  constitution
  2. You were born to a U.S. citizen father (more on the mother later)
  3. Your father naturalized while you were a minor child
  4. You naturalized after reaching the age of majority

Under both our First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 and the British Nationality Act of 1772, a child was the same foreign nationality as the father. Children were born with the father’s nationality through sanguinity, through blood, a legitimate and natural inheritance.

Now, consider this fact: That at the time of the framers and over 100-years of our history, Ted Cruz would have only become a citizen of the United States under #4 in the list above.

Based on both British and United States law, even if the mother was born a U.S. citizen, being married to a Canadian or British subject her child born in the United States would not be a U.S. citizen. And Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

So, I ask you the following:

  1. Would the framers and Article II as written and intended consider Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?
  2. Under 1930’s naturalization law, did repatriation to the United States of a mother with minor children, married to an alien father, revise Article II as written and intended? (See Intermediate Scrutiny Test)

The answer to both is ‘No.’

While naturalization law was once uncomplicated, the women’s rights movement unintentionally created a dichotomy in the legal doctrine of sanguinity, requiring an expansion of naturalization laws to deal with dual nationality at birth and repatriation.

What is Naturalization?

The Illinois Board of Elections decided that Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen. “The board distinguished between natural born and naturalized citizens, pointing out that Cruz did not have to take any steps to go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”

By ‘process’ the board makes a common mistake, only seeing naturalization as that of an adult renouncing one citizenship (Ted Cruz renounced Canadian citizenship in 2014) and being permitted to take the Oath of Allegiance for U.S. citizenship. However, there is more to naturalization, as can be seen in the extensive body of law.

A minor’s nationality is affected by actions of parents; and which parent’s citizenship applies to the child comes under naturalization law. What happens when the child is born in another country, or to one alien parent? What happens when the child lives as one nationality, but before reaching the age of majority wishes to assume the other? This is also naturalization and includes numerous conditions and requirements as part of the legal ‘process.’

Minor vs Happersett (1875) declared, in a case involving a woman’s right to vote, it was ‘never doubted’ that the child of two U.S. citizen parents was a natural born citizen. And to this day it is still only that particular birth circumstance (even if born outside the U.S.) that produces a citizen naturally, without having to remove dual nationality of the minor with naturalization law.

The Evolution of Naturalization Law and Dual Nationality

The 14th Amendment is best-known for its ‘born in the United States’ and ‘equal protection’ clauses. However, it was written specifically for children born of freed black slaves. Because the father had no national allegiance or citizenship to confer to his children (See Dred Scott, and the 1866 Civil Rights Act) the legislature had to rely on, for the first time in U.S. naturalization law, birth on U.S. soil (jus soli).

The 19th and 20th century saw changes in the institution of marriage, racial inclusion, and legitimization of nullius fillius (children of unwed mothers) that required broader applications of sanguinity (inheritance by blood) if not a complete departure from it (1898). The application of ‘equal protection’ to sanguinity, until then only through the husband, created the previously unheard of concept of Dual Nationality.

Women’s Claims to Equal Citizenship Rights 1922-1940

Yale Law Journal Volume 123 Number 7, p. 2134-2573 ‘Illegitimate Borders: Jus Sanguinis Citizenship and the Legal Construction of Family, Race, and Nation,’ Kristin A. Collins

The reaction of some committee members to women’s claims to gender equality reveals a strong commitment to those traditional modes of regulating nationality. For example, in 1922, Richard Flournoy—then an assistant solicitor in the Department of State and later a member of the interdepartmental committee—found the idea that a married woman would maintain her American citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner “very objectionable” on the ground that it was “obviously a direct blow at the principle of family unity”—a reference to the principles of coverture[1] that resulted in women’s loss of independent civil identity upon marriage. In 1934 Congress passed a statute that gave American women the ability to transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children with no explicit racial limitations.

A Woman’s Loss of U.S. Citizenship: Laws of Coverture

Prior to modern women’s rights, when a woman married a man she assumed a subordinate legal status to that of the husband. Before today’s no-contest divorce, communal property, and intestate succession laws, inheritance laws didn’t give a woman equal rights to property; they favored the husband’s side of the family.

In the same light, if marrying an alien she lost her U.S. citizenship. So, from the time of the framers and into the 1930’s, it was understood that only a U.S. citizen husband produced U.S. citizen children, natural born through sanguinity, father and mother together.

American women who married an alien would not only lose U.S. citizenship but produce alien children (1922):

  • 369. (a) A woman who has lost her United States citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien eligible to citizenship or by reason of the loss of United State citizenship by her husband may, if eligible to citizenship and if she has not acquired any other nationality by affirmative action, be naturalized upon full and complete compliance with all requirements of the naturalization laws, with the following exceptions: . . . (Repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940)

The 19th Amendment finally extended the vote to women in 1920. The 1922 Cable Act permitted repatriation to the United States if an American woman lost citizenship by marrying a foreigner. Her children would then gain U.S. citizenship with her. Other challenges were based on the ‘equal rights clause’ of the 14th Amendment, successfully comparing Coverture to slavery.

Over time, the legal doctrine of Coverture was finally eliminated. However, the retention of pre-marital U.S. citizenship created a bifurcated marriage, a dichotomy of nationalities requiring new naturalization laws to determine the child’s nationality and citizenship throughout the course of the marriage/dissolution, until the child reached the age of majority. In fact, Obama had three nationalities from birth to reaching adulthood.

However, to this day a ‘natural born citizen’ must be interpreted how the framers chose it to mean, and why; children of U.S. citizens without alienage had no possible foreign allegiance or affiliation. As specifically expressed by John Jay to George Washington, this was to avoid ‘foreign intrigue’ from the highest office of the land. Only a U.S. citizen ‘naturally born’ was immune from changes in naturalization law, natural law versus naturalization.

1933 Statute for Child Born Outside the United States Not a ‘Citizen at Birth’

Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United Sates previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and reside therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child’s twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Labor. Am. June 10, 1933, Ex. Or. 6166, § 14; and May 24, 1934, c. 344, § 1. 48 Stat. 797. [emphasis added]

The term ‘citizenship at birth’ was not yet applied in the law.

Ted Cruz was Born December 22, 1970

Finally, the phrase ‘citizen at birth’ is used in the law.

The laws grew to accommodate women giving birth to children with dual nationality; specifically the 1940 statutes were repealed and replaced in 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) [INA § 301(a)(7)] as originally enacted by Act of June 27, 1952;

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

[A] person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents, one of whom is a non-citizen, 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 totally not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

That law was liberalized and codified in 1986 as INA § 301(g); 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g).

Through women’s rights and equality protection under the law, the concept of sanguinity was extended through the mother as it was, previously, only through the father; however dual nationality was a concept completely foreign to the framers and is, as you can see, the reason for the vast body of naturalization law necessary to remove any alienage created in a child at birth, or even temporary loss of citizenship due to unintentional expatriation of the mother. Only a natural born citizen, a child of two U.S. citizen parents, is immune from and undefined by naturalization law.

 

An Excellent Discussion of Natural Born Citizenship at Mario Apuzzo’s Blog

December 20, 2011

I’d like to refer you to attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog, specifically the one dated December 11, 2011. It includes a list of case law with brief analysis of each very useful to your understanding of the Judiciary’s opinions on citizenship.

See http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5867093233794772942

Here is my Comment on that Blog Post:

Notice how in the Elk case, the 14th Amendment ‘born or naturalized’ aids in conflating ‘natural born’ with ‘native born,’ as most consider a child born on U.S. soil of alien parents not naturalized per se.
Therefore, they are raising statutory Jus Soli to the level of natural law.
In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48 (1844), Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, wrote:
“Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.”
Of course, the conflict is the public law concept of jus soli undermining the ‘reasonable qualification’ that was, since 1790, an integral part of legislated Act requiring aliens to first naturalize before their minor children could become U.S. citizens.
Sec. 3. Uniform Naturalization Law by Congress “And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:”
The champions and defenders of the Jus Soli insist that Sec. 3 applied only to children born abroad . . . yet cannot prove this when challenged.
Justice Story’s Commentaries describes the reason for making Naturalization law Uniform through Federal legislation. See http://www.constitution.org/js/js_316.htm
Uniform Law relies heavily on the Plenary Powers Doctrine. The courts in each state were limited to administering oaths and keeping records. Later, that part of Naturalization Law was given over to the Executive Branch. As cases and controversies in suit against the Secretary of State ensued, the courts declared Article III power over naturalization law and the liberal courts began rewriting it.
I recommend Mark R. Levin’s article at http://www.cis.org/CitizenshipSupremeCourt
Congress has the power to ‘fix’ the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th Amendment, merely by adding a brief definition of ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ to 8 USC 1401, but our congressmen are, almost unanimously, misinformed and uneducated on the subject.
Indeed, a President Gingrich could address congress and teach them, and encourage them to challenge the SUPREME (or not so supreme) Court.

The Transition from Jus Soli — Obama NOT a Natural Born Citizen

October 18, 2011

Why Challenging Wong Kim Ark/14th Amendment Soil Citizenship is Essential, and Critical to the Question of Obama’s Article II Eligibility

Ask anyone, from average citizen to presidential candidate, and they will tell you birth on U.S. soil is all that is required to become a citizen at birth. They will also agree if you suggest that a citizen at birth is the same thing as a ‘natural born citizen.’

If pressed further, they will cite the 14th Amendment’s ‘born in the United States’ clause.

This blog article proves them WRONG.

The 14th Amendment’s “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause was adapted directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act as applying to children of black slaves emancipated by proclamation and the successful outcome of the Civil War. As property, slaves had no nationality and therefore their children were also stateless. The 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act guaranteed equal rights of U.S. citizenship by recognizing children of slaves and former slaves born on U.S. soil were “not subject to any foreign power,” and therefore solely ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.  

According to existing U.S. naturalization law, from 1790 through 1855, minor children of aliens were not U.S. citizens until their parents naturalized, i.e., renounced foreign jurisdiction over their nationality. (Citation omitted. See previous blogs for full text of law.)

However, in 1898 Wong Kim Ark misinterpreted that clause and inserted feudal English law as adjudicated in the 1608 Calvin’s Case, and practiced as a general principle by the American colonies until their First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 legislated in the first Congress of the United States.

The ‘soil birthright’ of citizenship declared by Wong Kim Ark (by ignoring the effect ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ has on nationality law) created our illegal immigration and chain migration, a problem to such an extent that illegal immigration has become the de facto method of immigration. Legal immigration statistics in 2010 show only 1.04 million Legal Permanent Residents[1] on the road to naturalization. In comparison, illegal immigration has been estimated to be 13 million in 2000, increasing 500,000 annually.

Conclusion:  The Wong Kim Ark decision destroyed U.S. naturalization law through violation of constitutional law, jurisprudence, and existing legislated act, thus creating the illegal immigration problem. Chain migration out of illegal immigration is the de facto method; legal immigration practically extinct. Wong Kim Ark[2] is followed law, but invalid and must be repealed.

It is also why most Americans and ‘experts’ automatically think Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ merely by his claim of Hawaiian birth. 

The Transition from Jus Soli

For over a century, the American colonies were limited to children born on their soil being natural born subjects under the British monarch. From ancient times, jus soli was the eternal allegiance from birth of a child to the protection, ‘within ligeance,’ of the King.

However, with the Magna Carta (1200s), permanent allegiance from birth was disavowed, and the right of children of subjects born outside British territory to be natural born British subjects children was provided by law as far back as 1350.

The 1772 British Nationality Act declared children born of British subjects outside the ‘ligeance’ of the crown be natural born subjects;[3] and that is the law that we must apply to Obama’s birth circumstances. (See quotes below on ‘originalist’ interpretation of the constitution.)

Natural Born Citizen in U.S. Law

The term of art, Natural Born Citizen, appears in the constitution once, as applied to elements of qualifications of eligibility of a presidential candidate. Similarly, the term of art appeared only once in a Supreme Court holding, defining it ‘without doubt’ as children born of two U.S. citizens.[4]

Unfortunately, the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ has become ‘idiomatic’ with a meaning diluted by both time and judicial error, as merely born in the United States. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned of such error:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

In a letter to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824, James Madison wrote:

. . . I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.

Madison continued, acknowledging the “changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject”, he stated:

What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

Born, or Naturalized?

Under U.S. law, a citizen at birth may be solely of U.S. citizenship (natural born citizen), or a 14th Amendment citizen at birth as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The first is a citizen born. The second is naturalized because the alien nationality of one or both parents must be removed by application of the Aliens and Nationality Act, as revised after 1855.

Nevertheless, Wong Kim Ark did not, nor could not, revise Article II’s natural born citizen clause, nor the common knowledge of the framers as to what constituted a ‘natural born citizen,’ or what laws created a British natural born subject if born on U.S. soil.

Therefore, there is no valid interpretation of law that makes Barack Hussein Obama, II a natural born citizen as intended by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. I, Clause 5.

The Civil Rights Act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

And this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992.

The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.


[2] Wong Kim Ark (1898) is followed law, but in conflict with precedent in Minor vs. Happersett  (1875) as well as legislated act, if not the 14th Amendment itself, specifically ignoring the ‘jurisdiction’ clause, and Sec. 5 reserving enforcement of provisions of the amendment by congress, not the judiciary.

[3]That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom . . .” British Nationality Act, 1772, 1772 (13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI

[4] “This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

My E-Mail to Rep. Thaddeus McCotter

June 30, 2011

Dear Rep. McCotter,

January of 2009, you replied to my fax/e-mail to 77 Republican congressmen, begging just two of them, as required by Title 3 § 15, to submit a single-page letter to the President of the Senate challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s Electoral Votes based on his Article II eligibility, vis-à-vis Sen. McCain in SR511, and Minor vs. Happersett (1874).

Don’t you wish now that two congressmen had listened?

J. Waite in Minor followed the constitution and existing legislated act when he determined the citizenship of Ms. Minor under the following parameters:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Yet, 24 years later, J. Gray in Wong Kim Ark set aside the Article I, Sec. 8 plenary power of congress and ignored the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, vis-a’-vis the 1866 Civil Rights Act, to re-establish the ancient feudal tradition of English jus soli as constitutional law itself, arrogating by Article III power over that rightfully of congress, and congressional intent in writing the Reconstruction Acts in the first place!

In addition, J. Gray violated Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment itself:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

J. Gray ignored the brief submitted by the United States solicitor (  http://www.scribd.com/doc/23965360/Wong-Kim-Ark-US-v-169-US-649-1898-Appellants-Brief-USA  ) that followed existing law, instead creating his own law in direct conflict with U.S. Uniform Naturalization Act, acts which consistently followed the jus sanguinis model since first inception in March, 1790.

While the colonial states, under England, were forced to follow jus soli (See The Case of Mr. Smith) https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/the-first-eligibility-case-1789/ ; ten months later, the 1790 Act superseded English common law and statutes and relied upon jus sanginis. (Cf. Shanks, vs. DuPont, 28 U.S. 242; 7 L. Ed. 666; 1830 U.S. LEXIS 537)

Conflicts of Law, by way of Wong Kim Ark, have created the illegal immigration problem bankrupting municipalities and hospital systems, and diluting the electorate with illegal voters to such a degree that New Mexico admits that the number of illegal alien voters has reached 10% of the vote, enough to undermine any election.

In addition, the confusion created by Ark has conflated the term ‘native born’ citizen with ‘natural born,’ resulting in the election of an avowed Marxist to the presidency, whose father was an alien from a British Colonial Protectorate, the Kenyan Colony . . . an extremist Marxist and Muslim himself . . . a person of values and purpose in direct conflict with our U.S. constitution.

Can you imagine what John Jay would say to that?

Exigency: by definition is a condition of imminent harm that is so serious that it allows constitutional rights to be suspended.

Look at our economy: Barack Obama is out-spending FDR, and pushing through unconstitutional bills and legal actions against states, corporations and private citizens. If not for the unemployment checks, there would be Depression Era soup lines. Obama has blocked domestic energy production, telling citizens complaining about gas prices to, and I quote, “Get used to it!” Yet, where are our four Schecter Brothers? Perhaps their names are Berg, Apuzzo, Donofrio, and Taitz?

The United States is facing imminent harm, citizens losing their homes and jobs and families right now.

The Stimulus Plan was not intended to create or save jobs, but to hide the damage being done to the economy and dollar until the Republicans take back the presidency, just in time for the entire system to collapse . . . on their watch , so to speak.

August 2, 2011 approaches with no pragmatic solutions to our National Debt, and a president who refuses to follow constitutional requirements of a formal budget and accounting.

Respectfully submitted,

See letters from Representatives Burges (R-TX) and McCotter (R-MI) at https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/who-is-a-citizen-at-birth-or-a-natural-born-citizen/

Other important blogs:

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-missing-link-confusing-english-law-with-natural-born-citizenship/

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/john-mccain-and-congressional-republicans-notified-obama-ineligible/

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/

Fax this Memo to your Congressman

February 24, 2011

The concept of birthright U.S. citizenship by native-birth alone is a carryover from English law as practiced by the American colonies, but superseded by the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act that relied on the ‘Law of Nation’s’ § 212 description of “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

The reason ‘native-born citizen’ is so terribly conflated in the American psyche as synonymous with ‘natural born citizen’ is because of over a century of the judiciary ignoring U.S. statute.

The Lynch case (1844) violated the 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802, and 1804 uniform naturalization acts through semantic gymnastics and false logic, implying law and intent that went beyond the clear language of the acts themselves.

Wong Kim Ark (1897) side-stepped the existing requirements of legislated Act by creating a special ‘constitutional’ citizenship-at-birth. Ark’s violation of jurisprudence (neglecting to address treaty and equity issues actually within the court’s jurisdiction) completely ignored the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s “not subject to any foreign power” as precursor to the 14th Amendment’s “under the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Ark continues in its effect to this day, causing the courts to ignore the conflicts of dual nationality at birth and, through Plyler vs. Doe (1982), forcing states to treat children of even illegal aliens as citizens.

The Judiciary versus Congress; Removing the Redundancy

The constitution, and case law cited in Wong Kim Ark, specifically enumerates congressional plenary power over uniform naturalization law. However, while Minor vs. Happersett (1874) commented in dicta [or Judicial Notice] that a ‘natural born citizen’ was without doubt a child born of U.S. citizens, the judge in Ark intentionally fabricated a ‘constitutional’ citizen out of reach of congressional Article I powers.

The judiciary’s reliance on English jus solis principles for citizenship at birth was belied by English law itself; that law relying on both ‘descent’ and ‘otherwise than by descent,’ i.e., of patrilineal inheritance, or just born within English dominion. The courts compounded their error by creating the ‘birthright’ native-born citizen, which has burdened the states by encouraging illegal immigration. [See also the Preamble to the 1772 British Nationality Act, defining children of British subjects born outside British territory, i.e., the United States from its first inception, natural born British subjects . . . therefore, under British law Obama was a natural born British subject.]

In addition, judicial error has created a constitutional crisis, for it has justified the son of a British subject, Barack Hussein Obama, to erroneously claim Article II eligibility to the presidency through native-birth alone. This is obviously something the framers never intended.

Congress has the power to correct over one-hundred years of judicial ‘legislation’ simply by clarifying Title 8, U.S.C. § 1401(a) with a definition that “under the jurisdiction thereof” is extended from the 1866 Civil Rights Act’s “not subject to any foreign power.” The legislative history supports this amendment to existing statute.

In addition, the current misinterpretation is a gross redundancy; a child ‘born in the United States’ is obviously within its territorial jurisdiction. Foreign political jurisdiction conferred through the law of nations is, as defined in the rest of the Aliens and Nationality Act, the effect of one alien or non-citizen parent who introduces alienage.

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/the-missing-link-confusing-english-law-with-natural-born-citizenship/

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/who-is-a-citizen-at-birth-or-a-natural-born-citizen/

https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-transition-from-jus-soli-obama-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

 

Barack Hussein Obama—A Natural Born Subject of Great Britain

February 27, 2009

CAN THIS HAPPEN IN AMERICA?

Imagine a foreign exchange student, a Marxist and Muslim, and married, intent on transforming his home country into a Marxist-Muslim paradise, coming to America and committing statutory rape on a co-ed, marrying her as a bigamist only to escape prosecution and loss of his foreign student visa . . . and then abandoning her and his baby.

The father leaves America, and in a few years so does the mother . . . physically renouncing her U.S. citizenship through marriage, and living the remainder of her life in a hotbed of Muslim terrorism, Lahore, Pakistan.

She abandons the baby at age ten, who by the slightest of statutory provisions has U.S. nationality at birth, and regains his U.S. citizen status at age 19.

That child attracts Muslim and Marxist support and by the greatest of flukes based on his activism, Ivy League credentials, and melodious speaking voice, becomes President of the United States.

He then proceeds to deconstruct the American Republic with a focus of intent that can only be interpreted as a subconscious justification and confirmation of his dead, alcoholic father’s miserable failed attempts at Marxism.

Update: April 28, 2011 

The birth certificate was certified on April 25 and released to the public, thanks to the adverse publicity of Donald Trump and the meteoric rise in pre-sales of Jerome Corsi’s ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate?’ on Amazon. This memo was written February, 2009. Factcheck.org published this August of 2009 — “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC . . .
Corrected (Sep. 3, 2009): Our original article incorrectly stated that then-Sen. Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship on Aug. 4, 1982. The correct date is Aug. 4, 1984. The Kenyan Constitution required Obama to choose whether to keep either his U.S. or Kenyan citizenship upon his 21st birthday, which was in 1982. But we initially missed that the Constitution provided him a two-year window for making that choice. So Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship until his 23rd birthday in 1984. We have updated the item to reflect this.

So . . . I was ahead of Factcheck’s admission of Obama’s British citizenship at birth, but I go into more detail and offer more law.

Update: November 18, 2009

I wrote to Orly after she asked for help on the Barnett motion to reconsider. I pointed out that Carter/Velamoor mis-applied Ashwander to prove lack of jurisdiction when it actually proved jurisdiction was mandatory. (Sometimes an opponent’s cognitive disorder tosses a gift in your lap.) Ashwander held that when a case could be decided on statute or general law, the constitutional issue was secondary. However, there is no statute defining ‘natural born citizen,’ and case law only mentions ‘natural born citizen’ non-specifically in regards to naturalization law, not Article II of the constitution. Article II of the Constitution is the only U.S. law that relies on natural born citizenship. Therefore, for congress to define ‘natural born citizen,’ or a court to rely on case law to adduce its meaning, without direct regard to Article II is potentially an unconstitutional revision of Article II. I finished with including Mario Apuzzo’s brilliant cite from U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, “With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821)

Update: October 26, 2009    A good question to ask a ‘birther’ detractor is, ‘Who was the first Natural Born Citizen President?’ After all, Article II specifies two types of eligibile citizens, (a) natural born citizen, and (b) citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption . . . The answer is John Tyler, our 10th president. He was born in 1790, approximately six months after the 1789 adoption of our Constitution. Note: I have been corrected, and agree with the cited law, that U.S. citizenship began in 1776 upon the Declaration of Independence. I think the ‘at the time of adoption’ clause suggests 1789, but twelve years is maybe splitting hairs on this issue.  

All previous presidents, except Hamilton, were native born Americans, to British subject fathers. Obama is not only a son of a British subject, but may not even be native born. He is in willful violation of Article II’s eligibility requirements, and must be impeached.

Update: October 15, 2009     My goal has been to distill the Natural Born Citizen issue to the simplest of terms. The following 5000+ words belie that intent, but it was the best I could do.

Native Born is by statute. A nation defines who gains citizenship if born in its boundaries or territories (Note: I used the term boundaries and not jurisdiction). Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is a statutory citizen due to 8 U.S.C. 1409 if born in Kenya, and a statutory ‘native’ citizen through 8 U.S.C. 1401 if born in Hawaii.

Because of the elimination of derivitave citizenship of wives in the 1920’s, conferring of nationality through the mother is statutory. I realize this will truly raise the hackles of any devout feminist, but that is the legislative history.

Update: October 9, 2009      This simple question is followed by the text of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Call it an open book exam . . . please comment with your answers.

Is the son of a British subject born on U.S. soil eligible under the Article II natural born eligibility clause to be President of the United States?

“No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl 5

Update: July 30, 2009      Recent publishing of the Certificate of Live Birth of twins born the day after Barack Obama show Obama’s COLB number indicating a later birth, a higher number. This only supports, circumstantially, my conclusion that Obama’s COLB was from a 338-5 compulsory registration. Obama’s birthdate was earlier, but not produced by a licensed birthing facility. The mother, Stanley Ann Dunham visited the local agent for the health department at a later date to register the birth without a birth certificate. Update to the Update: April 28, 2011  The April 24 2011 certified copy of Obama’s ‘long form’ birth certificate does not impinge on the content of this blog. I always stipulated the COLB was genuine, until proven otherwise. Instead, I always considered a ‘A’ or ‘B’ scenario. Dr. Corsi is questioning the Aug 4 certificate being four numbers higher than the Nordyke twins on born on Aug 5, but Obama is listed born after 7 PM. His certificate may have been stamped out of order the next business day . . . not a big deal for purposes of this legal memo.

Secondly, the jurisprudence of challenging ‘prima facie’ evidence is the key reason for demanding Obama’s original 1961 birth registration information. The Hawaii department of vital records either has a birth certificate from a licensed birthing facility, or merely a compulsory record of data from undocumented and unconfirmed sources. (See H.R.S. § 338-5)

In this memo, more weight, has been given to the definition of the term of art ‘Natural Born Citizen.’ If, indeed, Obama does have a Hawaii birth certificate on record (why he has kept it sealed, I can’t imagine), the Natural Born Citizen issue is still a moot point . . . a child of a foreign alien, foreign born or native born, can not be a Natural Born Citizen.

Even the most liberal interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1401 or the 14th Amendment does not define a child of an alien, non-resident father to a U.S. citizen mother to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ One jurisdiction by nature, not naturalization law (de-alienage of foreign nationality), is the defining distinction of a ‘natural’ born citizen. Again, see Footnote #19.

 

The Barack Obama Natural-Born Question

History Repeats Itself

History

In 1880, a vice presidential candidate was challenged to prove he was a citizen. He promptly produced his Vermont birth certificate and the real issue was avoided. If the challenger had asked the right question, which was “When was your father naturalized?” the appointee would not have become president. You see, his father was a British subject and Chester Arthur was born 14 years prior to his father’s naturalization[1]. Chester Arthur was born a British subject.[2]

Today

Barack Obama was asked if he was eligible to become president under the Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility clause. Obama masked the truth by posting a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (C.O.L.B.). His supporters declared him a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment[3] and the issue was pushed back into the realm of conspiracy theories.

 

Upon further investigation, the mask of the C.O.L.B. started to be more and more revealing of the original 1961 certificate, made much of by Hawaii’s Governor Lingle and the state’s Department of Health official, Dr. Fukino[4], as more probably a Dept. of Health document and not a hospital long form.

 

If Obama was trying to promote his Hawaiian native born status, he would have willingly posted a hospital certificate as solid, best evidence. A C.O.L.B. is labeled as only prima facie evidence;[5] the validity of its information open to inspection by a proper Hawaiian court venue.[6]

 

If the C.O.L.B. referenced document was not a hospital birth certificate, what was it? Under Hawaiian statute, specifically §338-5,[7] it is compulsory for the Dept. of Health to register a newborn child of a Hawaiian resident, even if no documentation of place and time of birth is presented. Only the word of one parent is required by law.

 

If the hidden 1961 certificate is a §338-5 form, face down like a card in a poker game, the $800,000 Barack Obama ponied up to prevent its public release means Obama is not just bluffing, but covering up perjury and other violations of election law.

In the end, a §338-5 compulsory registration will be more probative of the direct testimony evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth,[8] than of his claimed Hawaiian birth.

  

What Can Be Done Now?

An issue that can be addressed now is a congressional investigation of Barack Obama’s Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility. Brought up in congress, it just might stop the Democrat spending juggernaut. If blocked by Democrats, the Republicans can go forward independently as an ad hoc caucus.

 

If this question is addressed in caucus or conference, an injunction may be obtained in court, or through the court of public opinion. If not stopped completely, at least this headlong rush to insolvency and socialism can be hobbled.

 

With a couple cases still being petitioned before the U.S. Supreme court, I have suggested that the justices may ignore the merits of the eligibility case, but request amicus briefs on the ‘natural born citizen’ term of art as used in the Constitution’s Article II eligibility clause. An authoritative opinion, once published, would give Congress, the media, and the electorate the tools needed to force Barack Hussen Obama to comply with the law.

Common Law and Natural Born

Historical references and definitions of ‘natural born’ from Vattel, Blackstone, John Jay, Senator Bingham, and the Common Law support the singular, natural allegiance of a natural born citizen.

 

Nationality has historically devolved from the father. Children of an alien father born in English lands were considered only a ‘denizen’ of that land, not a natural born British subject. Allegiance of the father was to his sovereign or sovereign entity, and it devolved to both the child and the wife. Conversely, British law determined that a child born abroad of a natural-born English father and an alien mother was a natural born subject, but of the father’s home country.[10]

Emerich de Vattel was a consummate writer on the law. Following are two sections from the Law of Nations, Ch. XIX., OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.

 

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the 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.

 

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? . . . By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.[11]

 

Under the old law, whose roots go back to Gothic times, Obama was a natural born British subject. Under modern law, Obama was born primarily under the jurisdiction of his father’s Colonial Kenya, with a dual nationality from his mother’s U.S. citizenship.[12]

 

Precedent of Using Natural Born instead of Native Born

A common error is to look at ‘Citizens at Birth’ and see ‘Natural Born.’ A child at birth may have U.S. nationality, but not be a natural born U.S. citizen.

 

A natural born citizen is one who is a citizen at birth, but requiring no naturalization law to make them a citizen and/or remove foreign or dual nationalities.[13] Over 90% of Americans fall into this category. The rest rely on naturalization law due to dual nationality. This is also the legal mechanism making John McCain a natural born citizen. As a child of active duty U.S. military personnel, Panama denied jus solis nationality. Thus no naturalization law was required to dealienage foreign nationality.

 

Congressmen, legal advice websites and even expert analysts fail to discriminate between ‘native’ born U.S. citizens and ‘natural’ born.[14]  Some cite 8 U.S.C. 1401’s Nationals and Citizens at Birth as defining who is ‘natural’ born, but that law only refers to ‘citizens’ or ‘nationals.’[15]

 

Citizen in the Constitution

The Constitution itself makes a distinction between the ‘citizen’ requirement of a congressman and the ‘natural born citizen’ eligibility of president. (U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1)

 

It begs the question, who is not a natural born citizen? Only those immigrants who come to this country and are naturalized? Would, then, a 14th Amendment ‘border baby’ be considered ‘natural’ born?[18]

“§ 1473. [T]he president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.* It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land . . . A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. . . .”

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)

Supreme Court of the United States.

McCREERY’S v. SOMERVILLE. 22 U.S. 354 (1824)

“Ralph M‘Creery, a native of Ireland, . . . who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, . . . who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.”

Rawles, ‘A View of the Constitution of the United States’ 84–101 1829 (2d ed.): “Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens . . . at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

Rawles ‘relative quality’ conflating native and natural born applied only to those ‘at the time of adoption of the constitution.’ In this last paragraph, he elucidates further and makes final the distinction.

* Obama was dealienaged by naturalization law; thus naturalized by statute.

 

What is the role of naturalization law? Why doesn’t naturalization law define ‘natural born?’ What about all of the dual nationality conditions that come under naturalization statutes?

 

Simply put, to say natural born requires a statutory definition is a contradiction, a paradox, and oxymoronic. Being free of statutory rules is what makes it ‘natural’ in the first place.

 

In fact, over 90% of Americans are ‘natural’ born under U.S. jurisdiction with two U.S. citizen parents. Are children born with dual nationality ‘natural’ born as well? No. Statute is required to dealienage the foreign nationality. Is it fair, or lawful, that a child with two possible citizenships has the same right to the presidency as a child born with only one possible citizenship/allegiance?

The answer is, ‘No.’ While not unlawful, dual nationality has benefits of rights of domicile and ownership in the other nation . . . but the State Department acknowledges that jurisdictional problems under the law may also arise, e.g., taxes, military service, and extradition.

 

In fact, the House Judiciary committee has discussed whether a 14th Amendment ‘border baby’ is under sufficient U.S. jurisdiction to be conferred citizenship at all.[19]  [THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ . . . IT SUGGESTS ALLEGIANCE ISSUES IN CASES OF DUAL NATIONALITY, AND HOW DUAL NATIONALITY CONFLICTS WITH A FORMAL OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, IN WHICH THE NEW CITIZEN RENOUNCES HIS FORMER NATIONALITY]

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the
United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.[20]

 

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except … children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” (1866)

 

Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

 

John Jay was concerned of foreign principalities undermining the sovereignty of the United States with intrigues of those with dual allegiances.[21]

 

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”

Letter to G. Washington, The Papers of John Jay, Library of Congress, 1787

 

‘Natural born’ being a child of citizens born overseas is attributed to the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowing for long sea transit and the natural devolvement of nationality from the father to the child. It also is conferred to offspring of ambassadors and active military in Foreign Service. This is more the effect of denial of foreign nationality to those on official. The allegiance of the father is the sole source of nationality. No statutory dealienage is required. Cf. Naturalization Act of 1795 which repeals the conference of ‘natural born’ status.

 

Historically and legally, soil nationality (jus solis) only supercedes that of the father’s lineage (jus sanguinis) when the father is not a U.S. resident, or the family resides in the foreign country for an extended period of time. Obama’s dual nationality is first from the father, and his U.S. mother provides U.S. birthright nationality after being permanently abandoned by the father, and then marrying another foreigner.[22]

Naturalization law, per se, naturalizes a child born of dual nationalities or adults of foreign nationality. If born with U.S. nationality in any way other than of two U.S. citizens, naturalization statute must be followed to dealienage the foreign nationality. In addition, the birthright U.S. nationality and citizenship can be lost.

For example, if Obama had stayed in Indonesia or Kenya and not returned to the United States, he would have lost his birthright U.S. nationality upon reaching the age of 23. Rogers vs. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)[23]

Conclusion:

The drastic measures Barack Obama has taken to keep hidden the 1961 Hawaiian Dept. of Health birth registration suggests that Obama was born in Kenya, where the original hospital certificate resides to this day. The newspaper notice of birth is inconclusive, as it may have been an automatically generated notice by the Department of Health.[24]

 

She said someone posted the address on the Internet. That July posting contained a photocopy of what is most likely the first mention of Barack Obama ever published — a tiny, one-line birth notice in the Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961, edition of The Honolulu Advertiser:

“Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”

The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor Dave Shapiro was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency — which no longer exists.

“Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health,” he said. “They would send the same thing to both papers.”

 

 August 8, 2009 — Two WND articles examine the published address. One claims Dunham lived in Washington State less than two weeks after the Obama, Jr. birthdate, substantiated by her class registration. Another questions either Dunham or Obama living together, Obama, Sr. maintaining an apartment within walking distance of campus. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106258 

The above block text explanation is more on point and probative. The Dept. of Health has legal reasons to distribute birth notices for publication, and it is probably the address that was used perjurously on the 338-5 by Dunham.

 

If born in Hawaii, British jurisdiction through the father lasted only one year because Obama, Sr. failed to register his foreign born child with the British secretary of state.[25] Registration recorded the intent of the father to support the child. As we know, Obama, Sr. abandoned mother and child to accept a Harvard scholarship. [Inserted 1/15/2011: The British Act in footnote 25 describes a ‘citizen by descent.’ However, reading English law, Obama, Sr. was a ‘citizen otherwise than by descent,’ and therefore registration of the child as specified was not a factor. Obama was, indeed, a British citizen at birth, automatically. See tiny.cc/j3oye.] 

The 14th Amendment only conferred native born status. Obama was born with dual nationality. This voids sole allegiance at birth required for natural born status.

 

If born with dual nationalities, naturalization law must be applied to ‘de-alienage’ one citizenship in order to establish which legal jurisdiction takes precedent.

 

As discussed above, until the original 1961 birth registration proves to be a witnessed Hawaii hospital birth certificate, the affidavit direct testimony of his Kenyan birth is more probative.

 

Born in Kenya, Obama was a British subject up to age six, when naturalized by the mother as Indonesian.[26] Obama was returned to Hawaii at age 10 to live with his grandparents. At age 14, Obama began fulfilling the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen, a birthright he obtained because his mother married a bigamist and Obama was born out of wedlock. See 8 U.S.C. 1409(c) and http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_3.html

 

 

Obama was born with inchoate U.S. nationality through his mother, but only because the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ab initio per bigamy.[27] He only became a full-fledged U.S. citizen at age 19. At best, if the hidden Hawaiian certificate is probative of U.S. birth, Obama is only native born.

 

Berg vs. Obama et al 08-cv-04083 claimed Stanley Ann Dunham failed to meet the statutory five-year residency U.S. requirements post 14 years of age.[28] Therefore, if born in Kenya, Obama not only was a British subject but had no U.S. nationality at birth. Thus, Berg claims, Obama is an illegal alien.

I challenged Mr. Berg with the out-of-wedlock provision of 8 U.S.C. 1409(c) (1952 INA 309(c)) that reduces the five-year requirement to only one-year. Berg responded, insisting he was correct because the Obama-Kezia Kenyan marriage was a “village marriage” and not recognized by the United States.[29] This is in conflict with Hague Conventions concerning recognition of foreign marriages. Any foreign marriage, solemnized and recognized by the foreign country is recognized by the United States who signed on to that convention.

Challenge of the Hawaiian C.O.L.B. follows rules of prima facie evidence. Not only is Obama’s refusal to produce the witnessed 1961 birth certificate circumstantial evidence it doesn’t exist, but Phil Berg includes as exhibits a tape recording and two affidavits from Africa describing the event of Obama’s Mobassa birth. http://www.obamacrimes.info/justthefacts.html 

Because of a foreign national father, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

 

 

 

All rights reserved.

© 2009 Leonard A. Daneman 

 

[1]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_30-2009_09_05.shtml#1251923886

 

[2] An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, 7 Anne, ch. 5, § 3 (1709)

[3]http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.459/pub_detail.asp The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)

[4] http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

[5] http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0012.htm

[6] http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0005.htm

[7]Hawaiian Rev. Stat. §338-5  Compulsory registration of births.  Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantiallycompleted and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

[8] http://www.obamacrimes.info/justthefacts.html

[9]http://www.institutional-economics.com/index.php/section/comments/bubble_man_alan_greenspan_

   the_missing_7_trillion_dollars_by_peter_hartcher/

[10] See ‘The Natural-Born Citizenship Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty’ Jill A. Pryor, 97 Yale L.J. 881(1988)     http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf  See also, Clive Parry’s ‘British Nationality Law and the History  Naturalisation,’

CLIVE PARRY

M.A., LL.B.

Fellow and Tutor of Dowling College and Lecturer in the University of Cambridge

BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW

AND THE HISTORY

OF NATURALISATION

MILANO — GIUFFRÈ — 1954

 

[11] http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

[12] British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.)

[13] The duality also creates problems for the governments involved. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN recognized this when, concurring in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 187 (1963), a case concerning native-born citizens, he observed: “We have recognized the entanglements which may stem from dual allegiance . . . .” In a famous case MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS wrote of the problem of dual citizenship. Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723 -736 (1952). He noted that “[o]ne who has a dual nationality will be subject to claims from both nations, claims which at times may be competing or conflicting,” id., at 733; that one with dual nationality cannot turn that status “into a fair-weather citizenship,” id., at 736; and that “[c]ircumstances may compel one who has a dual nationality to do acts which otherwise would not be compatible with the obligations of American citizenship,” ibid. Rogers vs. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

[14] Thomas Goldstein, CNN Supreme Court Legal Analyst: “The law was always been understood to be that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen and that is particularly the case when you have a U.S. citizen parent like Barack Obama’s mother.”

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/cnn-declares-obama-natural-born/

[15] 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).   “Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:   “(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; . . .

[16] 1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952, (Section 301 of the Act).
“Section 301.  Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years. See also, 
[31 FR 13537, Oct. 20, 1966, as amended at 61 FR 29652, 29653, June 12, 1996]
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=aebd2e3f19840c93513354d4351cee3b&rgn=div6&view=text&node=22:1.0.1.6.32.2&idno=22

[17] Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), held that the U.S. born son of legally residing Chinese nationals was a U.S. citizen at birth.

[18] The attribution of ‘natural born’ to Elg in Perkins vs. Elg noted the father was naturalized prior to the birth. At that time, the mother was automatically naturalized to the nationality of the husband.

[19] http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju23690.000/hju23690_0.HTM

[20] http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.459/pub_detail.asp

[21]Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”

[22] “Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, § 1,48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf

[23] “Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished. Pp. 820-836.” Rogers vs. Bellei

[24] http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081109/NEWS01/811090361/-1/SPECIALOBAMA08

[25] British Nationality Act, 1948, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56. Part II, Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Citizen by Birth or Descent, .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth: 

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—

 (a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

 (b) that person’s birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later . . .”

[26] Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006, concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, “State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage.” Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945 (Berg v. Obama, 08-CV- 04083, First Amended Complaint, pg. 33)

[27] Philip Berg, in Berg vs. Obama, claims Stanley Ann Dunham failed to meet the statutory five-year residency requirements posts 14 years of age. Therefore, if born in Kenya, Obama not only was a British subject, but had no U.S. nationality at birth. This is his reasoning for Obama today being an illegal alien. I challenged Mr. Berg with the out-of-wedlock provision of 8 U.S.C. 1409(c), but Berg insisted he was correct because the Obama-Kezia Kenyan marriage was a “village marriage” and not recognized by the United States. This is in conflict with Hague Conventions concerning recognition of foreign marriages. See http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/treaties/hague/1978-march-14th-convention-2/

[28] 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(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:“ Cf. 1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.

[28] E-Mail from: Phil Berg, to: Leonard Daneman, sent: 11-11-08 1:45 AM

 

[29] E-Mail from: Phil Berg, to: Leonard Daneman, sent: 11-11-08 1:45

See also: http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/treaties/hague/1978-march-14th-convention-2/