Showing 16 comments for
Obama's Unnatural Half-American, Half-Foreign Citizenship

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.

PS: How can it be that no one saw this?

"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

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.

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.

"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!

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.

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.

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

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.

8 USC § 1401 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

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)