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.
It is not important where Bam Bam was born. His father was a British subject. He is not a natural citizen and therefore is not eligible to be President.
Correct.
Obama's father was a non-permanently domiciled alien. As such, Obama's circumstances of birth do not fall within the parameters of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling which requires birth in the U.S. to permanently domiciled parents for acquisition of U.S. citizenship at birth. Question asked and answered. Gray very specifically reiterated the EXACT question asked and answered by SCOTUS in the ruling.
this theory has been shot down in court multiple times. from ankeny v daniels:
"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."
Gray specifically limits the ruling's applicability in U.S v. Wong Kim Ark. One's parents MUST be permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of one's birth to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
"The evident intention, and ***the necessary effect***, of the submission of this case to the *decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties* were to *present for determination ***the single question*** stated at the beginning of this opinion,...
*namely*,whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but *have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States*, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative" United States v. Wong Kim Ark
"have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States"
Obama's father was never permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was always only in the U.S. on a temporary student visa, with NO intention whatsoever of immigrating or becoming a U.S. citizen.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 08-10-2013 at 02:52 PM..
The above quotes are HostoryDude rebuttals to my claim Onaka's verification of Obama COLB is invalid. I stick by that claim.
Okay. Let's see what contortions are required to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nychuck
Onaka would not state the White House BC is a "true and accurate representation" only that is it "matched". He chose these words very carefully and used them in more than three verifications thus far. Just because it matches doesn't mean its a "true and accurate representation" which what Onaka was specifically asked. There's nothing under the statute to prevent him from doing this and yet Onaka refused to do this.
For starters... it's not a "true and accurate representation." It has many, many differences from the original. First and foremost, it is printed on security paper while the original is not. Second and most significantly, it is only the top portion of the original, not the entire document. All birth certificates, even "long forms" are actually short forms, since they do not include all the demographic and other information actually required by the government. Here is an example of what a complete long form would contain:
As you will no doubt note, typical long forms contain only up to about #13. Everything below "Information for Administrative Use" is withheld, even though it is on the original. Since that information is not included on the certified copy, it is not possible for Onaka to honestly call it "a true and accurate representation" of the original.
Having dismissed that pathetic red herring, Onaka uses the words he chooses to use, and they are not ambiguous. The information matches that on the original record. Where do you find any wiggle room there allowing for any challenge to the relevant details of Obama's birth regarding place and time? That's what you have to deal with, Chuck. The words he did use, not the words you wish he might have used.
And the words he used are a bulletproof legal verification of the information
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nychuck
Why wouldn't Onaka or Hawaii AG Jill Nagamine refuse to confirm the published PDF handed Obama attorney Judith Corley of Perkins, Coie?
Onaka did. Twice. Nagamine did not because the person asking was not eligible to receive a response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nychuck
Corley flew half way around the world to pick up a document that could have been sent registered mail?
To establish a bulletproof chain of custody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nychuck
Could it be to avoid possible mail fraud charges, using telephone lines to transmit forged documents interstate?
It is not important where Bam Bam was born. His father was a British subject. He is not a natural citizen and therefore is not eligible to be President.
Under more than 500 years of Anglo-American common law, the citizenship of parents is irrelevant to the natural born citizenship status of any child born on national soil.
That post has nothing to do with the lies you were caught making. Your integrity has been conclusively impeached, and you hypocrisy conclusively established... again.
HD is the one having a hard time taking heat. He STILL cannot rebut the FACT thatU.S. Secretaries of State have determined that those born in the U.S. to non-permanently domiciled alien fathers are NOT U.S. citizens from birth.
For perhaps the hundredth time, those Secretaries of State were determined to be wrong by the US Supreme Court in 1898. No Secretary State has repeated the mistake since.
Gray specifically limits the ruling's applicability in U.S v. Wong Kim Ark. One's parents MUST be permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of one's birth to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth.
This is of course a lie. Gray is explicit in his decisison that:
Quote:
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court, independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance
This further ignores the fact that Obama's father did fully meet the definition of permanent US domicile anyway.
That post has nothing to do with the lies you were caught making. Your integrity has been conclusively impeached, and you hypocrisy conclusively established... again.
A liberal lecturing on integrity, too funny.
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.
