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.
US Consitutiton, Art II, Sec. 1, Cl 5
Minor v Happersett, 1874
and Perkins v Elg, 1939
and the McCain resolution
1. A "natural born" citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that's two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) -- think Ronald Reagan -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage AND there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace.
2. A citizen "by statute" is any person born of US citizen parent(s) outside the United States -- think John McCain -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage BUT there is a foreign entanglement via birthplace (Colon, Panama).
3. A "native born" citizen, is any person born in the United States mainland -- think Barack Obama -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace (if he was born in Hawaii) BUT there is a foreign entanglement via his parentage (if Barak Obama is his father).
4. If you're not born here, or if your parents aren't Americans, then the only way you get citizenship is via marriage or naturalization -- a "naturalized" citizen is a citizen as the result of these processes -- think Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Wrong. The Hawaii Home Lands program always accepted the short form as proof of Hawaiian birth. But they did not accept it as proof of Hawaiian blood.
That article is not from last week by the way... it's from 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
Sometime in the last 30 days that policy changed – without fanfare – amid increasing scrutiny by WND of the “certification of live birth.” Hawaii upgrades ‘certification of live birth’
Wrong. They changed that policy three years ago. Look at the date on the article you linked to Einstein.
A complete falsehood from HD, but he does this all the time. Historian Dude is only here to confuse you. Look him up on the net, he has made himself a well known Obama brownshirt.
Godwin's law. You lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper
Being born in this country grants one citizenship, natural born citizenship is something special, reserved for those born on US soil to TWO citizen parents. This was reaffirmed when they passed the resolution, signed by Obama, for McCain, which clearly states TWO citizen parents.
Wrong. Here are the court cases that say you have your head firmly in rectal defilade:
A. Decisions recognizing that Obama is a “natural born citizen”
Every court and administrative body to consider the issue has held that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen who is eligible to serve as President. See, e.g.,
Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct., Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a “natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise);
Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 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”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010);
Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar v. Obama, No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012);
Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);
Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama's birth certificate "clearly establishes" his eligibility for office as a "Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. State Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);
Kelser v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”);
Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Powell v. Obama, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012);
Ripley v. Obama, No. 2012-163 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”);
Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Swensson v. Obama, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012);
Swihart v. Obama, No. 2012-176 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”);
Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir., filed Jan. 30, 2012);
Weyl v. Obama, No. 2012-161 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”);
Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Welden v. Obama, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton Cty. Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012);
see also Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 2008) (“Those born ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding and thus eligible for the presidency.”) (internal citations omitted).
B. Other decisions recognizing that “NBC” means born in USA
Indeed, federal and state courts around the country have consistently recognized that a person born in the United States is a “natural born citizen” regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents and regardless of whether the person holds dual citizenship. See, e.g.,
U.S. v. Marguet-Pillado, 648 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011) (“No one disputes that Marguet–Pillado's requested instruction was “an accurate statement of the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968 is a natural-born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2) born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met certain residency requirements”);
Galaviz v. Bridgestone Corp., CIV A 3:04-CV-0429-B, 2008 WL 4238696 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2008) (recognizing that children born in United States to Mexican parents, and living in Mexico are, nonetheless, “natural born U.S. citizens);
Mustata v. U.S. Department of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999) (characterizing children born in the United States to Romanian citizens were “natural born citizens of the United States”);
Plewa v. I.N.S., 77 F. Supp. 2d 905, 914 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (recognizing that “natural born citizenship” is based on location of birth: “Would that everyone who is a natural born citizen by the mere accident of birth be as upstanding as Plaintiff.”);
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1982) (characterizing children born in the United States to a Mexican citizen were “natural-born citizens of the United States”);
Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934, 935-936 (D.D.C. 1960) (characterizing plaintiff, born in the United States to Japanese national as “a natural born citizen of the United States”);
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122, 123 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (recognizing that daughter born in U.S. to parents who were natives of Biafra/Nigeria is a “natural born citizen” of the US), aff'd, 506 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1975);
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884 (U.S. 1939) (person born in United States to naturalized Swedish parents was "natural born citizen" even though she obtained Swedish citizenship under that country's laws);
Sumiye Umeki Yamauchi v. Rogers, 181 F. Supp. 934, 935-36 (D.D.C 1960) (recognizing that child born in United States to Japanese nationals was a “natural born citizen);
Dos Reis ex rel. Camara v. Nicolls, 68 F. Supp. 773, 773-74 (D. Mass. 1946) vacated on other grounds, 161 F.2d 860 (1st Cir. 1947) (recognizing that child born in US to Portugese and Brazilian parents was citizen; aff’d 161 F.2d 860, 862 (1st Cir. 1947) (recognizing that child born in US to foreign parents had birthright citizenship under Wong Kim Ark);
Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 457, 40 S.Ct. 566 (U.S. 1920) (reversing lower court ruling against person who claimed he was born in the US to Chinese parents, and holding that “It is better that many Chinese immigrants should be improperly admitted than that one natural born citizen of the United States should be permanently excluded from his country.");
United States v. Low Hong, 261 F. 73, 74 (5th Cir. 1919) (recognizing that person born to Chinese parents was a “natural born citizen” of the United States); Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546, 548 (Wash. 1918) (child born in United States was a “natural-born citizen of the United States, whether her parents were naturalized or not);
In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (Cal. Cir. 1884) (child born in United States to Chinese subjects was “natural born citizen”); U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb.U.S. 28, 27 F.Cas. 785, 789 (C.C.Ky. 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, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons”);
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 242, 244 (1 Sand. ch. 583) (N.Y. 1844) (child born to noncitizen parents who were visiting the United States was a “natural born citizen”);
Leake v. Gilchrist, 2 Dev. 73, 1829 WL 211, *2 (N.C. 1829) (“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations there out growing.”).
Dissenting? Hardly. I just gave you dozens of cases that agree.
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.
