Grassroots Commentary
Obama's Unnatural Half-American, Half-Foreign Citizenship
(a tale of three brothers with three different citizenships)
A foreigner who loves America applies for entry permission. While awaiting it, his wife gives birth to a son. Then they receive permission and immigrate to the U.S. There the wife conceives and delivers another son. Then later they successfully complete the naturalization process and become American citizens. Then they have another son born in America. He can grow-up to be the President of the United States. His brothers can't. They don't have the correct type of citizenship. Does it matter? Absolutely not, anymore than that a girl "can grow up to become Miss America" but won't. It ain't gonna happen. The odds are one in 350 million.
The first son, a natural citizen of his native land, came to the U.S. as a foreigner and remained as such until the parents were naturalized. Then he was automatically naturalized also and obtained derivative citizenship through them via his blood connection to them. But if they never did naturalized then he would remain a foreigner even if he came to the U.S. as a baby and grew up here as an American.
The second son was born as a native American citizen per the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898, but not as a natural born citizen since when he was born his parents were foreigners and not Americans. Their naturalization was not necessary to make him a U.S. citizen, -unlike his older brother. His citizenship is above the authority of Congress to regulate because it is not bestowed by Congress but by the Constitution (in the form of an amendment). He possesses constitutional citizenship. He needed to be naturalized by U.S. law because he was not born of American citizen parents. His naturalization took effect immediately upon birth. He is a "native born citizen" in the language of the Citizenship & Immigration Service. He had to be born within the United States in order to qualify for constitutional citizenship, and his father had to be a legal immigrant subject to the full authority of Washington.
His younger brother is not a citizen via the 14th Amendment but via natural law. His citizenship is not granted by any law ever passed, nor by any judicial decision, constitutional amendment, or the body of the Constitution itself. His citizenship is natural citizenship because he was born to citizens. Whatever nationality they were when he was born, he was the same. It was his birthright by the law of natural inheritance. Group members produce children who are members, citizens produce children who are citizens. Same Principle. Same as in nature or tribe or nation.
It doesn't require the permission of any sovereign, nor bureaucrat, nor legislation, nor judicial decree. It's the automatic unavoidable result of one's inheritance of their parents' political status, just as one inherits their nature and social status. That's been the pattern of life for all social creatures since time immemorial. One is the same as one's parents. Whatever group they belong to, so does their off-spring because he/she is what they are, deriving all from them. As a minor, a child is under the parents' jurisdiction and belongs to them, not the government. Whatever jurisdiction the father is under, the entire family is under also since he is the titular head of the family. It's been that way from time immemorial also.
The citizenship of Barry Obama is different from the three types of citizenship of the three brothers because he is not assumed by the government to be foreign born, nor the child of a naturalized citizen father, -nor even a non-naturalized immigrant father. He was born of a non-immigrant father and as such the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not apply to him because he, through his father and like his father, was born subject to the United Kingdom & Commonwealth (UKC) and was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as required by the amendment. He was exempt by the Law of Nations. Only a legal immigrant can father a child with constitutional citizenship, but Obama's father was a mere foreign student allowed in the United State on a Student Visa on a temporary basis. After which he would have to leave. He was not subject to the draft as were citizens and immigrants.
Consequently, Obama Jr. had no basis for U.S. citizenship other than the naturalization statutes that, within the lifetime of many Americans, were passed to allow U.S. citizenship to be deemed to be inherited from one's mother when she was married to a foreigner. Without that still unidentified statute, Barack Obama would not be a United States citizen at all.
I wonder if he even knows what that statute is? No one else seems to. Though hopefully some bureaucrats within the Citizenship & Immigration Service know what it is. Someone must know, but so far, no one has stepped forward to identify it. But the issue is not what his citizenship is based on, but what it is not based on.
And it's not based on natural inheritance of citizenship from citizen parents. That means he is not a natural citizen of the United States, even if he was born in the United States. He, like the native-born off-spring of Martians, is not a native of the country nor the nation because of his lack of a native father and his foreign alienage, -his roots (directly through his father) are in a foreign land, nation, culture, history, government and people, -none of which are American.
If half of one's political inheritance, (one's roots) is foreign, then one is not a natural citizen of either parents' nation but is a man-made citizen, -a person made a citizen by practical positive law, -not nature, not inheritance, not blood connection. Just as the off-spring of a mixed-race couple is not a natural member of either race, so no man-made half-American citizen is a natural American and eligible to be the President & Commander-in-Chief because the Constitution requires that he be something that he is not, namely "a natural born citizen". No other type is constitutionally qualified nor natural. "No person, except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of the President,". Article II, Section I, Clause V.
Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally unqualified to be the President of the United States. But that fact is an unspeakable heresy within the Federal District of Columbia and the entire American news media. Among those who have a clue, no one will speak of it and none want to even think about it within the marbled corridors of power, because he is the most powerful man on the planet and has lots of money and lots of friends supporting him, -some of whom operate outside of the law. He seems to be bullet-proof. But no one is truth-proof and the truth has a nasty habit of just hanging around forever. But a day of reckoning is coming. And it can't come too soon.
16 Comments
Abu Nudnik in Canada
Saturday, June 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Fascinating. I didn't know that. That rules Bobby Jindal out then? His mom was three months pregnant when she arrived in America. That's unfortunate.
cornell in Canada
Monday, June 11, 2012 at 7:46 AM
It also rules out Marco Rubio.
Abu Nudnik in Canada
Saturday, June 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM
PS: How can it be that no one saw this?
David Farrar in United States
Saturday, June 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM
"Judge James Duane in his ruling, in the Rutgers v. Waddington case, described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution."
THE REAL CONSTITUTIONAL DILEMMA FOR "BIRTHERS"
By natural law, an Article ll 'natural born' Citizen is a person born a US citizen under the cloak of allegiance of the father. This is what de Vattel calls: the Natural Political Right Of Inheritance.
Allowing the courts to decide who is or who isn't a 'natural born' Citizen allows the government to create the 'ruling class' rather than the "consent of the governed."
One thing is known for certain: if we allow Congress to create the ruling class, they will do so to their own advantage and we will soon lose yet another one of our most cherished, self-evident, unalienable truths: that all men are created equal.
ex animo
davidfarrar
dcocheran in Chickasha, Ok
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 6:31 PM
Calling poeple birthers is a bit derogatory in itself. When all they ask for is for Obam to prove who he is purported ot be. All anyone in Obama's position would do is reveal the facts. An old Chinese proverb states pure gold does not fear the furnace. What has Obama to fear by releasing his records. If in fact he is above the board then he has nothing to lose by doing so
David Farrar in Cedartown
Saturday, June 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM
I, too, have seen many references to a 1934 statute allowing the mother to transmit citizenship to the child being born within the jurisdiction of an alien father, under her allegiance, but could not find the actual statute. The closest I was able to find is below dealing with children being born aboard.
Secondly, the statute would be unnecessary due to the 14th Amendment bestowing naturalized citizenship at birth.
ex animo davidfarrar
1934 THE “CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1934”: On 24 May, Congress makes a major change to the “citizenship law” to now enable U.S. citizen mothers to also transmit U.S. citizenship at birth abroad. But for the first time the law now also creates a new burden by imposing a mandatory “subsequent five year residence requirement” in the United States, prior to reaching age eighteen, and an “oath of allegiance requirement” within six months of the child’s twenty-first birthday, for any child born abroad to parents, one of whom is an alien. The new law states: • "Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of 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 States 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 resides 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.
Jsmith in Fredericksburg
Sunday, June 10, 2012 at 6:31 AM
Interesting. I'd heard a lot about how Obama wasn't a citizen regardless of where he was born, but have not seen it explained so coherently. I thought the 14th Amendment was the end of the story. Thank you for explaining it so clearly.
Adrien Nash in Crescent City, CA
Sunday, June 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM
"the statute (granting citizenship through his mother) would be unnecessary due to the 14th Amendment bestowing naturalized citizenship at birth." ex animo david farrar
It seems you didn't grasp the fact that the 14th Amendment is constitutionally inapplicable to one who was not born subject to the authority of Washington, which includes all children born of foreign "non-immigrant" fathers. Such fathers, and their sons and daughters through them, are not subject to the most fundamental responsibility of citizens and immigrants, which is national defense in time of threat. Hence there was no intent by the authors of the 14th Amendment that such off-spring should be deemed to be U.S. citizens because they remained subject to the authority and protection of their own nation and the Law of Nations, and not the political authority of the U.S. government.
But your assumption that the 14th Amendment was applicable to Obama merely by virtue of a U.S. birth may shed light on the issue in a surprising manner. It would seem that such a view is not only held by those in the public but also by those in the government, and indeed I have a quote from a State Dept. official in 1901 that one born in the U.S. is a citizen by the decree of the Supreme Court (Wong Kim Ark) without any acknowledgement of the accompanying requirement of subjection to the full authority of Washington.
So....if that was the view all the way back in 1901, why would Congress every fashion a naturalization statute to include the situation of a child domestically born to a foreign visitor/guest? It Congress since then has erroneously assumed that the second requirement of the 14th Amendment didn't mean anything real, then there very likely is NO statute by which Obama is a citizen of the United States. Can I say Wow! What a possibility!
GregInOregon in Salem, Oregon
Monday, June 11, 2012 at 2:30 AM
I like what you are saying here. It isn't as if this information hasn't been in circulation for a couple of years now, at least. But the more it is discussed, the more clarity and new information surfaces. ... I can't understand why Alexander of the Patriot Post doesn't get this, and I'm still surprised he allows this kind of discussion to continue, so good for him. ... Clearly, a lot of people dropped the ball all along the line over our history as to what constitutes a natural-born citizen. I wasn't disappointed when I didn't become president, but it turned out I was ineligible. My mother was born a Mexican citizen, and didn't naturalize here till after I was born. ... I think the same goes for Marco Rubio, both of whose parents didn't naturalize till after he was born. And I would love for him to be VP, but he too is ineligible. ... Ironic, isn't it, that Obama broke the law when he became a Senator, then President. Good chance he isn't even a citizen at all. ... And I do not like him at all: Arrogance = Ego + Ignorance. ... Somebody's got to make this case go widespread.
billy396 in ohio
Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM
I've studied this matter for a very long time. There can be NO question regarding Obama's citizenship vis-a-vis the presidency. The founders made it crystal clear that, in order to be eligible for the Presidency, you had to be a "natural born citizen". That phrase has a very particular and very carefully worded definition. It is not enough that one parent was a US citizen, or even that the baby was born on US soil, which is still unproven. In order to be considered a "natural born citizen", BOTH of your parents MUST BE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of your birth. It really is that simple. That's the law under our Constitution. There were and are many people on both sides of the aisle who knew that Barry Soetero could NEVER legally qualify for the position, so they simply made the decision to obfuscate the issue and make it a matter of race-baiting and propaganda by our leftist "Mainstream" news media. Obama isn't a natural born citizen and there's no way that he could ever become one. He's a fraud, a charlatan, and even worse, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing, very clearly making it his mission to destroy freedom and liberty within this country. When he was giving his sworn oath to our Constitution he was lying, and he knew that he was lying, as he had absolutely NO intention of being bound by ANY document that would interfere with his goal of turning America into another Socialist state. It's beyond sad that, even if he's not reelected, this nation will take generations to recover from the damage that's been done by Obama in his 1st term. IF he is reelected, America will cease to exist as a Constitutional Republic, little by little. His little and not so little side deals with Putin and Sarah Brady will destroy great parts of our natural rights as American citizens under our Constitution. Our Constitution was never intended to be a "living document" as Obama sees it. It has the amendment process bult in because the founders knew that, somewhere along the way, something would have to be added or changed in this document. Obama, on the other hand, has NO interest in lawfully changing our Constitution. He needs to destroy it from within, by passing executive orders amd appointing judges who will do his bidding whenever the subject arises. It's his Chicago thug roots that prevent him from even contemplating changing things in the legal and correct way. Al Capone would have made a better President. At least the MOB makes a profit.
desktopcad in upstate ny
Sunday, June 17, 2012 at 10:33 PM
I agree with you! It is that simple but the public is being blinded! Somebody made sure of that. Ignorance is not bliss.
Texas Voter in Texas
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Obama, Founding Birther ~
For 17 years, Barack Obama claimed he was born in Kenya ~ until a few weeks after he announced his candidacy for President in 2007.
see here: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/05/barack-obamas-biographical-brief-was.html
The biography Obama provided to his literary agent specified his birthplace as "Kenya." Over the course of 17 years, despite multiple revisions by Obama, the Kenyan birthplace remained a fundamental part of the bio on the agent's website.
Later, Army Flight Surgeon and Bronze Star recipient, Terry Lakin, served time in Leavenworth and was dishonorably discharged for daring to question Obama's background.
see here: http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/terry/timeline.html
Sorry to post the "still unidentified statute" in Portland, OR
Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Lakin was dishonorably discharged for refusing to obey orders of the Commander in Chief. He violated the oath of service he took when he joined the Army. He could have questioned Obama's background all he wanted. However, he decided to violate his oath and was discharged for insubordination.
Sorry to post the "still unidentified statute" in Portland, OR
Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM
A rather uncomplicated Google search will yield the following: 8 USC § 1401 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH The full text of the law providing the only complete definition of birthright citizenship can be read at the link below. Pay particular attention to paragraph (g) which specifically addresses the conditions of anyone born outside the United States to parents of mixed U.S. and foreign citizenship. Additionally, pay VERY close attention to the sentence: "This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date..." So while the previous version of the law (which is the one that will sometimes be cited by "birthers" was in effect on Aug. 4, 1961), the new version superseded and negated it. Of course, paragraph (g) would only be relevant if Obama was born outside the United States. Since he was born in Hawaii (which, despite some "birther" claims, was actually part of the United States in 1961) then section (a) applies.
Sorry to post the "still unidentified statute" in Portland, OR
Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 11:54 AM
8 USC § 1401 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
Sorry to post the "still unidentified statute" in Portland, OR
Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM
If you're going to try to use the law to support your allegations, then you must use the CURRENT law. Using citations to laws that are no longer in force to support a position on something in the present day is a specious argument. Using this same type of legal citation I could say that Obama was not legitimately elected because women cannot vote (I'm citing the Constitution prior to 1920) and also the case of Minor v Happersett in which the Supreme Court ruled that citizenship does not confer voting rights, American Indians are not U.S. citizens (I'm citing the law prior to 1924) and had no right to vote, and African Americans cannot legally vote in many states (U.S. Constitution prior to 1868)