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
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. Chester Arthur was born a British subject.
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 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, 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; the validity of its information open to inspection by a proper Hawaiian court venue.
If the C.O.L.B. referenced document was not a hospital birth certificate, what was it? Under Hawaiian statute, specifically §338-5, 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, 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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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.’
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?
“§ 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. [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.
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.
“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.
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)
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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.
Fellow and Tutor of Dowling College and Lecturer in the University of Cambridge
BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW
AND THE HISTORY
MILANO — GIUFFRÈ — 1954