BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130225 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th stopped all of that crap, Elg's parents were citizens, so she was a natural born citizen, the remainder is just unsubstantiated dicta, since Ark could not change the meaning of the 14th without an amendment.
Sorry, the USSC is not bound by the Play Law "meaning of the 14th".
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Dual citizenship of children born in the United States to alien parents was recognized by courts since the founding of this nation.
In 1795 the United States Supreme Court in Talbot v. Jenson, 3 U.S. 133, 165 (1795) used the term "double citizenship."
In fact, the courts have acknowledged that children with dual citizenship have the right to election to which nationality they will choose at their majority. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S.99, 122(1830)("This right of election must necessarily exist, in all revolutions like ours, and is so well established by adjudged cases, that it is entirely unnecessary to enter into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is, to determine the time when the election should have been made); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 ("Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.")
The court in Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 412 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff'd, 307 U. S. 325,(1939), articulated the rationale of this right of election when it observed: "no principle is better settled than that birth in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, confers American citizenship. The right of election of nationality, which it is generally conceded a person born under such circumstances has, cannot be exercised until he attains his majority. The father cannot by any act of his alter the status conferred upon the son by his birth in this country."

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130226 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Quite the contrary, the constitution only recognizes persons who are eligible to become "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", remember the "and" part. Aliens born here are not, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which would make him an alien. Now remember the US Government can't strip a citizenship away, unless by the request of the individual, by naturalization.
Oh, Obama was a baby! That is right and under the jurisdiction of his father and the father's country of origin.
Now remember that fantasy law doesn't count.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution does recognize that everyone born in the US (not the child of persons with diplomatic immunity or foreign hostile occupying troops) is a natural born US citizen.(A natural born American citizen, hee hee.)
US law determines who is a US citizen, not a British citizen. Duh!
That's why it's called US law, Dumbo.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130227 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th stopped all of that crap, Elg's parents were citizens, so she was a natural born citizen, the remainder is just unsubstantiated dicta, since Ark could not change the meaning of the 14th without an amendment.
Wrong.

Ark decision did not change the meaning of the 14th Amendment but rather acknowledged that the 14th Amendment codified the commmon law principle of Jus Soli.

Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli,— that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute,.." Id at 660

Justice Taft further noted:

The majority in that case [Wong Kim Ark], as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the Government and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless under the language of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the Amendment. Id at 670 (emphasis added)

"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

“Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant”. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S 163, 170 (1964)

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

Need more?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130228 Nov 27, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The status of Obama's dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.
What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States.
Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. "“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)
Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)
In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)("Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.")
Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.
In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:
"It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens.(internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents.(internal citations omitted)
In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O'Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: "The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?"
In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared:“The words of the fourteenth amendment are, "born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.” Id
As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural born citizenship status.
Wrong.

Obama was born under the allegiance of his father's nation, which made him a citizen of that nation, he must be naturalized to be come a citizen of the US.
Of course the Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship status. If it does please reference.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130229 Nov 27, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Ark decision did not change the meaning of the 14th Amendment but rather acknowledged that the 14th Amendment codified the commmon law principle of Jus Soli.
Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:
"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli,— that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute,.." Id at 660
Justice Taft further noted:
The majority in that case [Wong Kim Ark], as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the Government and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless under the language of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the Amendment. Id at 670 (emphasis added)
"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)
“Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant”. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S 163, 170 (1964)
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)
Need more?
Wrong.

The jurisdiction over the US Government is the Constitution, we are a Constitutional Republic.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130230 Nov 27, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>

And, guess what, Obama is not a dual citizen. He WAS a dual citizen, but that lapsed long ago. Kenya law does not allow dual citizens, so since Obama was a citizen of the USA he automatically lost Kenyan citizenship when he became 21. In contrast, Jefferson and Madison were dual citizens WHEN THEY WERE PRESIDENT.
ALSO, you are not allowed to make up theories in strict construction interpretation. If the US Constitution does not say "dual citizens are barred" and if the meaning of Natural Born does not exclude dual citizens, and the US Constitution does not bar dual citizens and Natural Born status includes them, so dual citizens are not barred. And, as noted, Obama is not a dual citizen; he is a FORMER dual citizen.
Excellent point!

At birth, Obama had "dual citizenship". He was a citizen of the United States through his mother, a United States citizen and he was a British subject and later a Kenyan citizen through his father A Kenyan national.

When Obama reached his 23rd birthday, he was no longer a citizen of Kenya since Kenya's constitution prohibits dual citizenship in adulthood. Obama had therefore automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23, in 1984. Kenya Constitution, Chapter VI, Section 97.

As such, at the age of 23, Obama's only citizenship was that as a United States citizen.

Statutory and case law have NEVER placed a condition that a person who was born in the United State that his or her natural born citizenship is dependent on the status of the person's father.

Over one hundred fifty years ago, a court in New York, remarked that a child born "of alien parents [British Subject], during their temporary sojourn. That they came here as an experiment, without any settled intention of abandoning their native country, or of making the United States their permanent abode" was a citizen of the United States.

In fact, the court stated:

“The term citizen, was used in the Constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President.” 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,” The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. SUPPOSE A PERSON SHOULD BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WHO WAS NATIVE BORN, BUT OF ALIEN PARENTS, COULD THERE BE ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I THINK NOT. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.(emphasis added)
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583,(1844)(Court of Chancery, State of New York)

Finally, there have been numerous cases that call native-born children of aliens a "natural born citizen" or simply use the term "natural born citizen" solely in reference to place of birth without explanation. See, e.g., Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992), Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999), Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934 (D.C. Cir. Dist. 1960), Martinez-Madera v. Holder, 559 F.3d 937 (9th Cir., 2009).

As such, if courts recognized children born in the United States as natural born citizens to fathers who were illegal aliens (Diaz-Salazar v. INS) or British subjects (Lynch v. Clarke) and the 14th Amendment doesn't contained a restrictive clause stating a person born in the United States must have both parents be native born in the United States to be consider a citizen, then why shouldn't natural born citizenship of Obama be denied even though his father was a British subject at the time of Obama's birth?
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#130231 Nov 27, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Also note, there may be 11 African billionaires but there are 394 American billionaires and when you consider that Africa's population is more than three times that of America, that is really a statement.
But while you seem proud of African billionaires, you seem to hate American billionaires.
<quoted text>
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Obviously you do not understand demographics. Sad, very sad.
<quoted text>
Sorry, I thought you graduated high school. If Africa has about a billion people and there are 11 billionaires, there are about one billionaires per 91,000,000 people. But here in the American we have over 400 billionaires for 310 million people which means there is one billionaire per 777,000 people.
In other words you are much more likely to be a billionaire if you live in ...... America!
Now, we are talking about ninth grade math here!!! Yes, it is a VERY simple problem with a very simple answer. And you have an electrical engineer degree?!?
Do you know how to use an E6B?
http://www.pilotmall.com/product/E6B-Metal-Fl...
Let's try some grade school logic....not Lifer Logic.

Your conclusion that the number of billionaires is directly related to the total population is incorrect. We do not get so many billionaires for every x number of total population. There is no direct relationship.

Billionaires either inherited their wealth or were very successful in business. The industrial capacity of Africa is no where near that of the USA for example. There just isn't the opportunity to become rich in Africa that there is in other parts of the world.

While your statement that you are much more likely to become a billionair in the USA than Africa is correct, you reason is flawed. Lifer Logic is always flawed.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130232 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
Obama was born under the allegiance of his father's nation, which made him a citizen of that nation, he must be naturalized to be come a citizen of the US.
Of course the Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship status. If it does please reference.
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, but foreign law has no effect or force in the United States. The Unites States is a sovereign nation; last time I checked. Under US law he was born under the allegiance of the United States. Under the Constitution, the US determines who its citizens are per US law.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The status of Obama's dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.
What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States.
Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. "“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)
Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized.....

In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)("Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.")
Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.
In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:
"It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens.(internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents.(internal citations omitted)
In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O'Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: "The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?"
In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared:“The words of the fourteenth amendment are, "born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.” Id
As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural born citizenship status.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#130233 Nov 27, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Middle school? Again you overestimate him. Why?
I always try to build up the less fortunate.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130234 Nov 27, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Your interpretation of the the 14th Amendment is wrong. The 14th Amendment defines who is an United States citizen. It has nothing to do with the status of an alien. In fact, courts have recognized that aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
"The Amendment [14th], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of ALL OTHER PERSONS, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. EVERY CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, OF THE UNITED STATES. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898))(emphasis added)
"The Supreme Court has extended significant constitutional protections to aliens within the United States, without distinguishing between those who are here legally or illegally, or between residents and visitors. See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886)("The Fourteenth Amendment ... is not confined to the protection of citizens....[Its] provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction [of the United States]."); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464, 11 S.Ct. 897, 900, 35 L.Ed. 581 (1891)(holding that although fifth and sixth amendments do not apply to trials conducted in consular courts, their guarantees apply to "citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial"). US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 856 F. 2d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 1988), reversed on other grounds, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990)
Like hell, an alien does not become a citizen until he is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this being the US Constitution.
If you will look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, you will notice that an alien is under the jurisdiction, but not subject to it until becoming a citizen. Big diference between "under" and "subject to".

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130235 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
The jurisdiction over the US Government is the Constitution, we are a Constitutional Republic.
"Jurisdiction over the US Government is the Constitution" What does your statement have to do with whether or not aliens residing in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130236 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
The jurisdiction over the US Government is the Constitution, we are a Constitutional Republic.
That's right BirfoonBoy, and foreign law has no force or effect within our borders. Foreign law does not trump US law withing the boundaries of the United States.

The US is a sovereign nation. Got a clue what that means?

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130237 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong.
Obama was born under the allegiance of his father's nation, which made him a citizen of that nation, he must be naturalized to be come a citizen of the US.
Of course the Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship status. If it does please reference.
Wrong.

“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.).
United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also
Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928)(child born in the United States to German nationals)

A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1. In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States.“ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
(internal citation omitted)

Moreover, The Naturalization Acts did not apply to children born in the United States of aliens parents for the simple reason that they only applied to foreign born persons.

"this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government.", Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 417 (1857).

Applying the rationale in the Dred Scott case, children born in the United States to alien parents were not born in a foreign country under a foreign government.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130238 Nov 27, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
"Jurisdiction over the US Government is the Constitution" What does your statement have to do with whether or not aliens residing in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
If you were as psychotic as Dale you would understand.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130239 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Like hell, an alien does not become a citizen until he is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this being the US Constitution.
If you will look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, you will notice that an alien is under the jurisdiction, but not subject to it until becoming a citizen. Big diference between "under" and "subject to".
Courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are citizens.

"CITIZEN CHILDREN have, of course, an absolute right to remain in the United States. The Cerrillos' citizen children were born to Mexican nationals here illegally.
Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, 809 F. 2d 1419, 1423 (9th Cir. 1987)(emphasis added)

"Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951 both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July 1951 the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November 1951 their child was born; the child is, of course, an AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH." United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S.72, 73(1957)(emphasis added)

"Doris C. Oforji appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without opinion, the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Oforji argues on appeal that the BIA erred by failing to appropriately weigh and consider the evidence presented; in failing to extend derivative asylum and relief to Oforji on behalf of her UNITED STATES CITIZEN CHILDREN; and in issuing an affirmance without opinion. We affirm."
Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F. 3d 609, 611 (7th Cir. 2007)(emphasis added)

"It is also established under California law that ineligible aliens may arrange gifts of agricultural land to their citizen children." Oyama v. California, 332 US 633, 640 (1948)

"We believe it clear that some CITIZEN CHILDREN who are eligible to attend Texas schools live with their illegal alien parents." Doe v. Plyler, 628 F. 2d 448, 460 (5th Cir. 1980), affirmed, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)(emphasis added)

Please explain again why a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a citizen

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130240 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Quite the contrary, the constitution only recognizes persons who are eligible to become "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", remember the "and" part. Aliens born here are not, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which would make him an alien. Now remember the US Government can't strip a citizenship away, unless by the request of the individual, by naturalization.
Oh, Obama was a baby! That is right and under the jurisdiction of his father and the father's country of origin.
At no time was Obama under "British jurisdiction". Dual citizenship at birth does not equate dual allegiance. All children of alien parents born in the United States have dual citizenship: United States citizenship and citizenship of his or her parents.

Courts have long recognized that foreign nations have no jurisdiction over its citizens or subjects in the United States. "[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize." Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956). See also Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)("Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.”)

Moreover, United States' jurisdiction over Obama while he was residing in the United States is complete and does not share its jurisdiction with "British jurisdiction" since "British jurisdiction" does not extend beyond British territorial limits. "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)

As such, United States jurisdiction over Obama was exclusive and absolute at the time of his birth. "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute." Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 , 136 (1812)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130241 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Like hell, an alien does not become a citizen until he is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this being the US Constitution.
If you will look at the 1790 Naturalization Act, you will notice that an alien is under the jurisdiction, but not subject to it until becoming a citizen. Big diference between "under" and "subject to".
"Big difference" if you live in a rubber room.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Your interpretation of the the 14th Amendment is wrong. The 14th Amendment defines who is an United States citizen. It has nothing to do with the status of an alien. In fact, courts have recognized that aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
"The Amendment [14th], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of ALL OTHER PERSONS, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. EVERY CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, OF THE UNITED STATES. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898))(emphasis added)
"The Supreme Court has extended significant constitutional protections to aliens within the United States, without distinguishing between those who are here legally or illegally, or between residents and visitors. See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886)("The Fourteenth Amendment ... is not confined to the protection of citizens....[Its] provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction [of the United States]."); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464, 11 S.Ct. 897, 900, 35 L.Ed. 581 (1891)(holding that although fifth and sixth amendments do not apply to trials conducted in consular courts, their guarantees apply to "citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial"). US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 856 F. 2d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 1988), reversed on other grounds, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990)
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130242 Nov 27, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is right. There is no such thing as dual citizenship. The fact that a foreign country considers that someone is also a citizen of that country does not affect US law IN THE SLIGHTEST. Our law is not affected by their law. Dual citizenship does not affect US citizenship, and it does not affect Natural Born Citizen status either.
And, guess what, Obama is not a dual citizen. He WAS a dual citizen, but that lapsed long ago. Kenya law does not allow dual citizens, so since Obama was a citizen of the USA he automatically lost Kenyan citizenship when he became 21. In contrast, Jefferson and Madison were dual citizens WHEN THEY WERE PRESIDENT.
ALSO, you are not allowed to make up theories in strict construction interpretation. If the US Constitution does not say "dual citizens are barred" and if the meaning of Natural Born does not exclude dual citizens, and the US Constitution does not bar dual citizens and Natural Born status includes them, so dual citizens are not barred. And, as noted, Obama is not a dual citizen; he is a FORMER dual citizen.
and your point is! In 1963 Obama got his citizenship for life as defined by the Kenya Constitution, prior to that he was a subject of the crown.
Sorry, to be a citizen of another foreign power, prevents you from being born a citizen of the US.
Guess what, your citizenship is at the moment of birth.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#130243 Nov 27, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
According to Forbes, there are 1,153 billionaires on this Earth and 400 of them live in the U.S.
We are about 5% of the Earths populations but we have about 25% of all the wealth of the world right here in America.
Out of the 11 billionaires in Africa, only three looked to be "black", one looked Asian, three looked European and the rest looked to be Arabs.
If it were not for the Europeans, Africa would be next to knothing in wealth.
Ah, yes, those wonderful Europeans.

The story is more like for some 500 years those wonderful Europeans used their military might to make colonies all around the world to extract the wealth from those colonies and bring it back to the mother country. GET REAL!!!!
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#130244 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>and your point is! In 1963 Obama got his citizenship for life as defined by the Kenya Constitution, prior to that he was a subject of the crown.
Sorry, to be a citizen of another foreign power, prevents you from being born a citizen of the US.
Guess what, your citizenship is at the moment of birth.
In 1963 Obama was 2 years old.....and unable to resign his USA citizenship.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min RealDave 1,154,482
Obama pardons 2 Illinoisans, including former M... 4 min barefoot2626 25
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 min Yumpin Yimminy 68,895
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 14 min Cali Girl 2014 51,266
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 43 min mdbuilder 49,253
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 51 min Rick Moss 71,135
The Road to Perdition is strewn with the corpses 3 hr Star Thugs Lose 16
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr Deputy Dog 98,857
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:13 pm PST

Bleacher Report 1:13PM
NFL Suspends Lions' Raiola 1 Game for Stomping on Bears NT
NBC Sports 1:21 PM
Brandon Marshall on Dominic Raiola: Dirty player, worse person
NBC Sports 1:23 PM
Lions' Raiola suspended 1 game for stomping on opponent - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 1:31 PM
Allen (Knee) to Get MRI; Considered Day-to-Day
ESPN 2:14 PM
Bears' Marshall blasts Raiola: A dirty player