Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 10 years ago

Why do fraudsters keep repeating that a statutory US citizen only born in country (jus soli only) is a natural?

born citizen, when indeed that is a statutory US citizen and the Constitutions says no statutory US citizen can be a natural born citizen (as does the holding in Minor v. Happersett)???

They keep regurgitating this lie, that if you're born jus soli despite parentage, you're a natural born citizen...when in fact you are only a statutory US citizen (because you have ties to other nation(s)).

Obama as a dual citizen was ever only a statutory US citizen, and was born British (still is).

Update:

See this guy??????????

Steadfast and Loyal,

LTC(R) Allen B West

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

Youtube thumbnail

HE IS A REAL NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN

BOTH PARENTS US CITIZENS

BORN IN ATLANTA GEORGIA

SHOWS HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHEN ASKED!!

Update 2:

"natural born citizenship":

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citiz

Update 3:

a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. 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. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of t

Update 4:

the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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 parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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

Update 5:

, 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 parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

I'd like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the U. S. is.

In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

Finally it should be note

Update 6:

Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof."

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Best Answer

    Yes, it's right there in the Constitution, but the bots are rather dumb and cannot process logic.

    There are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of "natural born citizenship":

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

    "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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    "The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

    Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. 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. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    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 parents.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    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.

    I'd like to add to these, Perkins v. Elg, the importance of which is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the U. S. is.

    In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a "natural born citizen" is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.

    Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof."

    Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully.

  • .

    This topic recurs like a bad penny. I love it!

    They're IDIOTS if they repeat that

    "gotta be born ON American soil"

    "to 2 N-B American parents"

    "who are married"

    mantra.

    They consistently ignore the fact that Obama's mother had as much right to pass HER n-b citizenship status to her son, IF --IF-- he were born abroad, just as much as Obama Sr. did. However, Obama Sr. evidently NEVER DID ANYTHING that would establish Britain's claim to Barack's loyalty: no British passport (could he have gotten one for Barack in Hawaii? I'm sure there's a consular office there.), no overt allegiance to England on Barack's part ANYWHERE in Barack's history.

    And the U.S. State Department has NO prohibition on U.S. citizens being dual citizens. They do ask that when traveling, you only use ONE passport, but having p-p's from 2 countries, is legal.

    They ignore the fact, in these for me hypothetical instances, when they claim:

    *Obama's mama renounced his U.S. citizenship

    FACT (State Department's website): a parent CANNOT renounce their minor child's U.S. citizenship; only a person 18 or older can renounce, and they have to do it in person and hand in their passport: none of that has happened in The Obama Saga.

    *Obama's citizenship was given up automatically when his mother married Barry Soetero in Indonesia"

    FACT: Tthe above proviso applies.

    *Obama lost his citizenship when he traveled to Pakistan in 1984 because "it was closed to U.S. citizens".

    FACT: There was NO prohibition about Americans going to Pakistan in 1984 -- I have friends in International Trade and broker businesses who were IN Pakistan in the 80s, including 1984. There WAS a 'Travel warning' but NO restriction. In those instances, the Embassy likes Americans to 'check in' with them and give them an itinerary so that they can (hopefully) have some way to track you.

    *They claim that Ann Dunham wasn't 'in' the U.S. for the right length of time, at the right age in life, to qualify as the mother of a U.S. citizen.

    FACT: whoever wrote that canard originally must have been dyslexic, because even a moderately casual reading of that part of the "U.S. Code, Title 8, 1401" (Google it!) would show to someone with... oh, say a 5th grade edjamucation, that the numbers were transposed, perhaps UNintentioanlly by that original rumor-monger.

    ==>> She was in the U.S. (presumably Hawaii? Or Kansas, where she was born?) for more than 2 years AFTER she was 14: THAT'S The Law.

    Period.

    That's also the same Code where it states that the parents do NOT have to be married.

    *They claim that military bases abroad are American soil, but they are NOT.

    What IS American soil, other than its 50 states are its several territories, possessions and trusts; American-flagged ships and airplanes; and embassies and consulates.

    Military bases are NOT American soil: that was the case in Panama with McCain: he is an n-b citizen "per jus sanguinis" by virtue of having (at least) one n-b American parent in 'good citizenship standing,' NOT because he was born in The Panama Canal Zone, either: that was still Panama, NEVER 'American soil.'

    There is so much more... may the nitpicking NEVER END!

    Also, I think that some folks might not 'get' the specific thrust(target) of your question, but I think that ==>> I <<== did.

    .

    Source(s): . politics: the dirtiest, funnest, stupidest game in town .
  • 10 years ago

    Because you are wrong. Every year, dozens of cases at the federal level are decided with the definition of jus soli -- that birth on US soil, regardless of parental status, means natural born citizen. Questions left open in Minor v. Happersett were answered in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases. Please cite any cases to the contrary. Also please cite any renowned lawyers holding your theory, other than Berg (9-11 truther), Donofrio (poker-player), Apuzzo (DWI specialist) and Taitz (Dentist and graduate of an unaccredited correspondence law school). Where's Robet Bork? Or Theodore Olson? Or any of the Federalist Society? Or even Dick Cheney? There'[s a reason Birthers are laughed at.

    Schneider v. Rusk (1964) "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art." Native born and natural born are the same.

    Baumgartner v United States (1944) "The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion…" Only two kinds of citizens.

    Luria v. United States (1913) Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. 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." Native = natural.

    Lynch v. Clarke New York (1844) Lower court case quoted in WKA. 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."

    U.S. v. Rhodes (1866) 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…since as before the Revolution

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats"

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) "What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen"

    Rawle’s View of the Constitution of the United States (1825) "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…."

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice (1999) "Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States."

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS (1983) "Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States."

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger (1974) "The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States."

    State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington (Wash. 1920) "According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen."

    Ankeny v Gov of Indiana (2009): "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British domin

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    A lot of what B.E. Asnark: Aksarben, Nebraska says is true, however HE IS NOT CORRECT WHEN HE SAYS " They consistently ignore the fact that Obama's mother had as much right to pass HER n-b citizenship status to her son, IF --IF-- he were born abroad" and "*They claim that Ann Dunham wasn't 'in' the U.S. for the right length of time, at the right age in life, to qualify as the mother of a U.S. citizen.

    FACT: whoever wrote that canard originally must have been dyslexic, because even a moderately casual reading of that part of the "U.S. Code, Title 8, 1401" (Google it!) would show to someone with... oh, say a 5th grade edjamucation, that the numbers were transposed, perhaps UNintentioanlly by that original rumor-monger.

    ==>> She was in the U.S. (presumably Hawaii? Or Kansas, where she was born?) for more than 2 years AFTER she was 14: THAT'S The Law.

    Period."

    He has make the classic beginner-researcher mistake of looking at current law to determine the legal ramifications of a past event.

    To research the law, you have to see what the law said at the time of the event (1961).

    Obama’s (swt) mother (Ann Dunham Soetoro) was born in November 29, 1942.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

    Obama (swt) was born August 4, 1961.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

    According to Title III - Nationality and Naturalization; Chapter I - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization; Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth (Public Law 414; 66 Stat. 163, the “Immigration and Nationality Act” of 1952)…

    See http://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/82-414/00002F05a....

    In part:

    Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen; Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

    End part.

    No changes to this law were made retroactive.

    Therefore, if Obama (swt) was born in what is now part of Kenya in order to be a U.S. citizen by birth, his mother would have had to been prior to Barack’s birth “…physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen…”.

    Since Obama’s (swt) mother was born November 29, 1942, she would have been 14 on November 29, 1956, and adding the remaining 5 years to that (“…at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen…”), this time period would have ended on November 29, 1961.

    HOWEVER, Obama (swt) was born (apparently) on August 4, 1961, which was almost 4 months before the above deadline passed.

    Under the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1), it states that “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…”.

    Based on the above, Obama (swt) is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States if he was born in what is now part of Kenya.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    YOU LOST LOSER GROW UP

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.