Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which led up to the 14th amendment an the Civil Rights act which says
all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,
The 14th Amendement doesn't say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Obama was indeed a subject of the nation his father lived. He shared dual citizenship until his 18th birthday.
There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision making dual citizens ineligible for the presidency. Presidents Tyler, Taft, Truman, Eisenhower, FDR and JFK were all dual citizens. JFK was actually a triple.
Here's how the brilliant and scholarly Congressional Research Service report explained it:
Quote:
Dual Citizenship. Merely because a child born within the United States could have, under the operation of foreign law, been a citizen also of that foreign nation because of a parent’s nationality, citizenship, or place of birth (i.e., “dual citizenshipâ€), would not affect the status of that child as a U.S. citizen “at birth†under the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal nationality laws, nor under Article II of the Constitution. The citizenship laws, rights, or recognitions of other nations could not influence and impact the United States’ own determination of who its citizens “at birth†would be, that is, who would be a “natural born†citizen, as the question of citizenship and categories of citizenship are a function of “municipal lawâ€â€”the internal law of every country, as opposed to matters of international law or foreign law.
If allowing the recognition of citizenship under the law of foreign nations were determinative of natural born citizenship in the United States—as now argued by some advocates—then the operation of foreign law would, in effect, impact and be determinative of who is eligible to be President of the United States, a result wholly at odds with U.S. national sovereignty, that is, the “inherent right of every independent nation†to determine what classes of persons are to be its citizens. As explained by the Supreme Court in 1939:
On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. ... In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case— that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States—the Court adverted to the “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.†United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. [footnotes omitted] And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she lost her own citizenship acquired under our law.
The fact that a foreign country might recognize or allow a claim of dual citizenship or nationality of a child born in the United States because of the nationality or heritage of the child’s mother or father, has never been determinative of “natural born†or other citizenship status in any case in American jurisprudence. The Court in Perkins v. Elg explained that dual nationality of a child does not affect the native-born status of a child born in the United States, and cited with approval an opinion of the Attorney General finding that a “native-born American citizen,†even one with “dual citizenship,†who returns to the United States would qualify to be President:
One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848 ... and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later Steinkauler returned to Germany taking this child and became domiciled in Weisbaden where they continuously resided.... On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the naturalization treaty of 1868 with North Germany, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States ... [even though] the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries....â€
Fail. US v Wong Kim Ark was ruled on 30 years AFTER the passage of the 14th Amendment.
Civil Rights act wasnt passed until the 1960's which is what I quoted.. Try again
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
subject to jurisdiction = simply being on US Soil unless you are a Prisoner of War, or an Ambassador. Its explained in Wong Kim Ark.
No it doesnt. A court in California cant hear a case from Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
that is why we can deport ILLEGAL aliens.
Wrong again.. deportation falls under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and we cant deport all illegal aliens.. Some exclusion are those who have been here 7 years + can apply for suspension of deportation even if they are illegal
There is not and never has been any US law, statute, rule, regulation, court decision or Constitutional provision making dual citizens ineligible for the presidency. Presidents Tyler, Taft, Truman, Eisenhower, FDR and JFK were all dual citizens. JFK was actually a triple.
Here's how the brilliant and scholarly Congressional Research Service report explained it:
All of those people had BOTH parents born here.. Why are you having so much difficulty with this?
Dumb enough to believe that the REAL definition of Natural Born is offspring coming from 2 CITIZEN parents? The real question is, who is dumb enough to think that's NOT what it means?
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Doh! Ignorance OF the law...is NO EXCUSE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
