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.
I have repeatedly explained to you in other threads why this argument is silly and has no basis in the U.S. Constitution.
It's no use. All she can do is quote blogs; she is completely unable to understand what any of it means. If some blog says what she wants to believe, then it must be true, and you can quote and explain case law until your keyboard wears out - her blog is the highest authority in the land on the subject of constitutional law, and every court in America (including the Supreme Court) is wrong. There's no point in even trying to have a discussion with someone who doesn't even understand their own posts, much less your replies.
Okay. Explain his travel to Pakistan in 1981 when U.S. citizens were banned from going there.
From the article:
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ? So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A : Yes, by his own admission. Q: What passport did he travel under? A: There are only three possibilities. 1) He traveled with a U.S. … Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. . State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
Okay. Explain his travel to Pakistan in 1981 when U.S. citizens were banned from going there.
From the article:
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ? So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20? A : Yes, by his own admission. Q: What passport did he travel under? A: There are only three possibilities. 1) He traveled with a U.S. … Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport. Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981? A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. . State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.
That's false.
Quote:
"According to our Pakistan experts," said Ivna Giauque, a public affairs officer at the State Department, "there was no travel ban to Pakistan in 1981."
The Associated Press (AP) was able to obtain a copy of Obama's elementary school registration from the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia in 2007.
And Stephen Coffman, a retired Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, obtained a copy of Obama's Selective Service registration form via a FOIA request just days prior to the 2008 election.
From the 2012 Breitbart discovery we learned that Mr. Obama presented himself in 1991 as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." From the AP discovery we learned that Barack Obama was registered for school in Jakarta as a citizen of Indonesia named Barry Soetoro. And from the Selective Service registration form we learned that the same form had been forged.
Time again to post the long legal history on this for the abysmally under-educated ...
The children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. were never intended to have birthright citizenship. This is how we know...
1) The 14th Amendment and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted after the 14th Amendment, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
WKA decision:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the courtupon 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."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
For political reasons, the 14th Amendment has been bastardized since then, but such bastardization was never an actual Constitutional Amendment.
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
I realize that's a lot of historical information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14th Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "policy" (not the Constitution or the law) very recently changed.
There has never been any law passed, similar to the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, that gives birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. but subject to a foreign power.
14th Amendment clear from its own language. All people born in US are US citizens.
Revised Statutes: 1) can't change the Constitution, and 2) use the term "and not subject to any foreign power" to refer to the traditional exemption: diplomats, and high officers of invading armies.
Int'l Law Digest: Take a look at section 183 of your own link (p. 394, which you omitted from your quotations): "In reply to the inquiry which is made by you in the same letter whether 'the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father's country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,' I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship."
There are myriad quotes in this link supporting the obvious interpretation of the 14th Amendment (not that State Department can lawfully abrogate the Constitution). The Hausding and Greisser cases you identify were about children removed from the US by foreign parents shortly after birth and raised in the parents' homeland, thereby effectively expatriating. The United States typically has not recognized dual citizenship, so unless the child elects its US citizenship shortly after attaining majority (age 18), then it officially renounced its US citizenship in favor of the foreign citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark: this child born in San Francisco to Chinese citizens was found to be a US citizen due to birth. The Court correctly found that the expression "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "subject to the laws of the United States." This is the principle of jus soli. The Court pointed out in that case that the Citizenship Clause encompasses virtually all native-born children, unless they are born to foreign rulers or diplomats, born to enemy forces occupying US territory, or born on foreign public ships.
The Indian Exception: If you don't understand why Indians are different, the reason is this: many Indian tribes, until recently (i.e., the 20th century), were considered sovereign nations.
The Associated Press (AP) was able to obtain a copy of Obama's elementary from the Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia ....
yes, obama was registered as an "indonesian citizen" on a school admissions form, most likely by his step-father lolo soetoro ( obama was 6 at the time).
this is contradicted by the fact that obama has yet to be eligible for indonesian citizenship under indonesian law ( and no third party can renounce a child's US citizenship ).
..........
Obtaining Indonesian citizenship
A foreign citizen can apply to become an Indonesian citizen with the following requirements:
- being the age of 18 years or older, or being married ( he wasn't )
- when applying, having resided in Indonesian for a minimum of 5 consecutive years or 10 non consecutive years ( he hadn't )
- physically and mentally healthy
- can speak the Indonesian language and acknowledge Pancasila and Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 ( unlikely at the age of 6 )
- never convicted of a crime for which the punishment is imprisonment for one year or more
- if having Indonesian citizenship will not give the person dual citizenship ( it would have and he would have been unable to renounce his US citizenship )
- employed or have fixed income ( he didn't )
_ pay the citizenship fee
Last edited by wrecking ball; 07-22-2016 at 06:02 PM..
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.
...