Main Menu

New Birther citizenship claims

One of these appeared a couple of days ago in comments on this blog. A singular INS document lists “native-, natural-born and naturalized” citizens. While the document lacks the context necessary to understand what distinctions it is trying to make, birthers nonetheless will assume that Barack Obama, if born in Hawaii as his birth certificate says, would be a native-born citizen, but not a natural-born citizen. What’s curious about this document is that it stands alone among known documents in making these distinctions between citizens. It is generally believed that the term “natural born citizen” does not appear in any US legislation since the repealed Nationality Act of 1790 and if true (and I think it is) cannot be the source of the language in the INS document which purports to summarize the laws in effect at various times prior to January 13, 1914.

The second claim is that Stanley Ann Obama was not a US citizen at the time of her son’s birth, having lost her citizenship upon marriage to Barack Obama, Sr., a Citizen of the UK and Colonies. That claim comes from Mr. Nash in an off-topic comment that I have moved to this article.

These claims are worth some research. A third claim, however, is utter nonsense, that being the headline of a blog entry that says: Obama & Mother; Expatriated by Marriage; British Subjects Only until Divorce. President Obama was born in the United States and thereby a citizen at birth of the United States under common law and certainly under the 14th Amendment, no matter what the nationality of his parents (see US v Wong Kim Ark). His mother married before he was born. The US Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg made it clear that change in the citizenship of parents does not erase natural born citizenship of their child born in the Unites States. In FOIA documents obtained by Kenneth Allen, a US Department of State internal memo said, referring to Barack Obama:

The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu.

Since he was born a citizen after his mother’s marriage to Barack Obama, Sr. there is no act that could even allegedly change her son’s citizenship, even if marriage made a difference (which it doesn’t).

This article may be updated after further research.

Looking at the INS document, whose subject is Interpretation 324.1 Loss of citizenship by marriage, we see what the law is at various times in history, as legislation changed and the Supreme Court ruled in various cases, most notably Afroyim v. Rusk. The last historical period addressed by the document is September 22, 1922, to January 12, 1941. I’m making a preliminary conclusion that this indicates that expatriation through marriage ended in 1941 and was never US law after that. That conclusion is evidenced by the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1940, which delineates all the ways one can lose nationality, and went into effect in January of 1941, does not provide for loss of nationality through marriage.

See also:


Notes:

  1. The Naturalization Act of 1940 (Title I, Chapter I) defines “naturalization” as “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.”
  2. The Naturalization Act of 1940 states that a person under the age of 18 cannot expatriate himself by “making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer.”
  3. The Act of 1940 makes no provision for the loss of nationality through marriage.
  4. The effective date of the Naturalization Act of 1940 was 90 days from October 14, 1940 (January 12, 1941).

, , ,

33 Responses to New Birther citizenship claims

  1. avatar
    A.R. Nash January 30, 2012 at 3:12 am #

    I have some new News! i discovered two reference in the INS Interpretations online and both are pretty huge. One is the listing of the three types of citizens that were being differentiated, namely, Naturalized, Native-Born, and Natural Born, demonstrating that there is a distinct difference in those terms. While nearly all natural born citizens are native born, some are not. They’re born abroad. And while nearly all native born citizens are natural born, some are not because they are born to immigrants without naturalization. So you have the foreign-born natural citizens, the domestic (native) born natural citizens, the domestic born naturalized-at-birth citizens, and the foreign-born naturalized citizens.

    Then there’s what appears to be the BIG news, which everyone is invited to debunk, though I’ll have egg on my face if you can because I’ve spread it here and there across the land. It is the fact that under U.S. Administrative policy at the time Obama was born, his mother was no longer a U.S. citizen but underwent “expatriation by marriage”, -having her citizenship replaced by her husband’s. So Obama Jr. was born solely as a British subject, and not an American!
    To get the full story, visit my blog http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/expatriated-by-marriage/
    and also read my first expose on the subject which is also on my blog but also posted at the Patriot Post The End of Eden & The Rise of Obama
    http://patriotpost.us/commentary/2012/01/27/the-end-of-eden-the-rise-of-obama/

    Good luck sleuthing this one, Sherlocks.

    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

    \ slb \ SERVICE LAW BOOKS MENU \ INTERPRETATIONS \ Interpretation 324.1 Loss of citizenship
    Interpretation 324.1 Loss of citizenship by marriage .

  2. avatar
    El Diablo Negro January 30, 2012 at 8:32 am #

    So, is this another moving of the goalposts? or are they just replacing the kicker.

    I’ll give them one thing…they will turn over every obscure case and ruling and try to find some technicality to disqualify the POTUS. When you hate someone that much, it borders on obsession, but I don’t have to tell you folks that.

    I am going to use the internet term “spamming”. That is exactly what they are doing to the Judicial system, hoping to find a judge that will click “accept” on the birther button. It looks like Georgia hit the button curiously and then had that “oh, crap” moment.

  3. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2012 at 8:38 am #

    A.R. Nash: Good luck sleuthing this one, Sherlocks.
    http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48438.html

    The document states the following: “The Act of September 22, 1922, not only repealed 21a/ the aforementioned 1907 statutory provisions, under which citizenship was lost through marriage, but also specifically prohibited expatriation by marriage contracted thereafter, 21b/ unless the citizen wife renounced her nationality before a naturalization court, 22/ or unless the husband was an alien racially ineligible to naturalization.”

    Africans were not racially ineligible to naturalization in 1961 and there is no evidence Ms Dunham ever renounced her nationality, so she remained a US citizen unless you wish to argue that the President was born prior to 1922. We know that she received a US passport in 1965, so the State Department considered her a citizen at that point.

    If you keep grasping at straws, you will fall off the cliff.

  4. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    Just to add, well before the 1960s (from the 1920s) women were treated as individuals as far as citizenship and immigration went. Foreign women no longer automatically gained US citizenship by marrying a US citizen, nor did US citizen women lose citizenship by marrying alens. It was all that early “women’s lib’ stuff, like the suffragettes and women smoking and all.

  5. avatar
    Majority Will January 30, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    “Then there’s what appears to be the BIG news, which everyone is invited to debunk, though I’ll have egg on my face if you can because I’ve spread it here and there across the land.”

    Why would a birther bigot be interested in determining the truth BEFORE spam posting a birther theory all over the internet?

    Does a facial omelette magically retract birther lies spread here and there across the land?

    A birther bigot’s motive for spreading fear and doubt has nothing to do with understanding the truth.

  6. avatar
    Thinker January 30, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    This alleged INS mention of naturalized, native-born, and natural born citizenship shows birfer logic at its most flawed. Someone finds a single mention of something that supports their Vattel nonsense, in a single web page, with no reference to any authority, and they draw the conclusion that this definitively demonstrates that the birfer definition of natural-born citizen is correct, ignoring the mountain of evidence that it is not.

  7. avatar
    Bob January 30, 2012 at 8:52 am #

    Hey Birthers, ask yourself how many times have you heard:

    “Isn’t America great! That kid could grow up to be president one day.”

    vs.

    “Isn’t America great! That kid could grow up to be president one day except for that two-citizen parent-stipulation-thing somehow inserted into our culture by a french-speaking Swiss philosopher after the Constitution was written.”

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    I don’t think Georgia really had a choice. They (the Secretary of State and the Republican Party) may not be happy about what’s happened, but I doubt that they are surprised.

    El Diablo Negro: It looks like Georgia hit the button curiously and then had that “oh, crap” moment.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2012 at 9:28 am #

    I seem to recall that Mr. Nash was designated a troll and is in the moderation list. Nevertheless, something new is worth looking at, and a single post isn’t going to be disruptive.

    Majority Will: Why would a birther bigot be interested in determining the truth BEFORE spam posting a birther theory all over the internet?

  10. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 30, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    I think it likely that the author of the INS document was thinking of REAL natives… i.e. American Indians. They have always been in a gray area vis-a-vis allegiance and sovereignty issues, and it is an excellent question whether an American Indian would be eligible to be President because of the “…under the jurisdiction thereof” language.

    But as far as I know, Mr. Obama is not an Indian.

  11. avatar
    Arthur January 30, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    I was thinking the same thing. From my limited grasp of the history of citizenship rights of American Indians, I recall that Constitution and the Supreme Court considered Native Americans as members of a dependent nation within the United States who did not possess the same rights as non-Indian citizens.

    Thomas Brown: I think it likely that the author of the INS document was thinking of REAL natives… i.e. American Indians.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 30, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    I don’t think this the case. I have never seen “native-born” used in reference to Indians.

    Thomas Brown: I think it likely that the author of the INS document was thinking of REAL natives… i.e. American Indians.

  13. avatar
    J. Potter January 30, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    A.R. Nash: I have some new News!

    … and the birthers continue to unnecessarily complicate that which does not need complication.

    Unless you have some of “those people” you need to get rid of.

    At the end of this, perhaps we will have done a great service for future generations, by having listed all possible permutations of citizenship status of mothers, fathers, legal guardians, and related children at all possible ages, in all possible jurisdictions (don’t forget international waters) at all points in time, under administrations of both parties and taking into account all phases of the moon and astrological alignments, we will finally have an exhaustive, byzantine Decision Tree O’Citizenship Status. One with innumerable entry points and near infinite nodes … and it will still ultimately lead to only three (3) possible conclusions:

    Natural-Born Citizen Alien Naturalized Citizen Predator

    … and the next time Congress or the Courts breathes a word re: immigration or citizenship, we get to scrap it all and start all over.

    Or, we can simply stick with the simpler pre-birther version (which, ironically, birthers still apply in their offline lives):

    1. “Whale, were ye a’borned hyar, or weren’cha borned hyar?”
    — if “ayup”: Go to #2
    — if “nope”: Go to #3

    2. “Is yer mammy or pappy some kinda high-falutin’ fancy foreigner?”
    — if “ayup”: Danged Fancy Foreigner (Shoot on sight)
    — if “nope”: Natural Born Citizen (Draft into military as officer)

    3. “Nah think careful: has ye e’er been natcher’lized? Either aksiden’nal or on purpose-like?”
    — if “ayup”: Naturalized Citizen (Draft into military as enlisted man)
    — if “nope”: Danged Dirty Foreigner (Shoot on sight)

  14. avatar
    UnionJack January 30, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    It is difficult to know exactly what the INS person was thinking. However, the terms “native born” and “natural born” are not identical. Although all “native born” citizens are also “natural born” citizens, there are recognized “natural born” citizens, such as John McCain, who are born abroad to a U.S. citizen (or citizens), and are thus not “native born” but are citizens by birth and thus “natural born.” Perhaps this is what the INS publication was referring to.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Bob January 30, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    Thomas Brown:
    I
    it is an excellent question whether an American Indian would be eligible to be President because of the “…under the jurisdiction thereof” language.

    But as far as I know, Mr. Obama is not an Indian.

    Oh, crap! Just you wait until til the birthers get ahold of that notion. Then I guess we’ll see how (oh my!) he actually IS! And therefore is ineligible . . . blah, blah.

  16. avatar
    Majority Will January 30, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I seem to recall that Mr. Nash was designated a troll and is in the moderation list. Nevertheless, something new is worth looking at, and a single post isn’t going to be disruptive.

    Doc:

    I was referring to Nash’s admission that: “[Nash has] spread it here and there across the land” before determining the veracity of his claim.

  17. avatar
    Sef January 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    So how did Stanley Ann get a passport if she weren’t a citizen?

  18. avatar
    jayHG January 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t think this the case. I have never seen “native-born” used in reference to Indians.

    That’s interesting……I’ve ALWAYS heard Indians referred to as either Native Americans. As I said, interesting that you say you’ve never heard that.

  19. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    jayHG: That’s interesting……I’ve ALWAYS heard Indians referred to as either Native Americans. As I said, interesting that you say you’ve never heard that.

    In Canada, they are referred to as “First Nations:, which avoids confusion and also emphasizes that they regard themselves as separate nations.

  20. avatar
    J. Potter January 30, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Here in Oklahoma, they generally refer to themselves by the name of their tribe. Collectively, they are referred to as indian or native __________ [whatever the situation calls for]. Native American is very common (they are patriotic and prefer the tie-in; native americans have racked up amazing service histories), native peoples is used as well.

  21. avatar
    Atticus Finch January 30, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Justice Story observed that an woman who was an United States citizen did not give up her U.S. citizenship when she married an Englishman.

    “Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect; because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not affect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is, that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance, and become aliens. If it were otherwise, then a femme alien would by her marriage become, ipso facto, a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her husband; which are clearly contrary to law[(a)].

    Our conclusion therefore is, that neither of these acts warrant the court in saying that Ann Shanks had ceased to be a citizen of South Carolina, at the death of her father.
    SHANKS ET AL. v. DUPONT ET AL., 28 US 242, 246 (1830)

    Since Shanks v. Dupont, courts have reaffired Justice Story’s observation. See
    Montana v. Kennedy, 366 US 308, 313 (1961); In re Wright, 19 F. Supp. 224, 225 (E.D. PA 1937)

  22. avatar
    y_p_w January 30, 2012 at 7:20 pm #

    J. Potter: Here in Oklahoma, they generally refer to themselves by the name of their tribe. Collectively, they are referred to as indian or native __________ [whatever the situation calls for]. Native American is very common (they are patriotic and prefer the tie-in; native americans have racked up amazing service histories), native peoples is used as well.

    Really? I know a lot of Oklahomans. There were a couple where I worked. One was of part Cherokee heritage, although you’d never know it from looking at her. She sort of explained that in her part of Oklahoma it wasn’t unusual for almost everyone to have 1/8th, 1/16, or greater Cherokee ancestry. The writer Sarah Vowell said something about being part Cherokee in her region of Oklahoma was about as rare and unusual as someone being a Michael Jordan fan in Chicago.

    The coworker who was part Cherokee actually drove around in a car with Cherokee Nation plates. I asked why she hadn’t changed them for so long, and she said that with those plates she was also entitled to heavily discounted car insurance.

  23. avatar
    JPotter January 30, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

    y_p_w: Really? I know a lot of Oklahomans.

    Yes, YPW, my point was not that Native American heritage here is unusual, but the exact opposite, and the main point being that use of tribal names is common, when specifically about themselves or their own family group, but also that any number of commonly used generic terms are employed when speaking about Native Americans/indians in general. Yet as Doc noted, speaking specifically about indians as native-born citizens is unheard of, particularly in anyway distinctive to any other ethnicity in the US.

    And yes, the plates! Muskogee, Creek, Cherokee, Wyandotte, Caddo …. many states issue tribal plates, but with 600 tribes in state, Oklahoma takes the cake.

    http://www.worldlicenceplates.com/usa/AI2.html

  24. avatar
    A.R. Nash January 30, 2012 at 11:40 pm #

    Kevin, you haven’t been keeping up! First, The person who discovered the INS document that lists the three types of citizenship was not attributed, which I wouldn’t mind except for the fact that it was me. I referred it to Leo Donofrio who then made it the subject of his next blog report, which was spread aroung quite quickly.

    Secondly, your grasp of U.S. citizenship law is woefully lacking. You gave this quote to defend the falsehood that Obama was born a citizen due to birth in the U.S.
    “The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu.”

    This is a patently false statement because it lacks the full requirement for citizenship to be granted to children born to foreign fathers. The father must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
    While citizens are, and immigrants are, foreign diplomats, tourists, visitors, workers, professionals, and students are NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction and cannot be forced to register for the draft, nor be drafted, nor be ordered to never trade with Iran, or visit Cuba. They are only subject to local jurisdiction and not federal political jurisdiction, and therefore no child born to such a foreigner is a U.S. citizens via the 14th Amendment. The full jurisdiction that they are under remains that of their own government and International Treay.

    ( Admittedly, the government does not follow the law. so one could say that Obama was a citizen by government policy but not by U.S. Law.)

    That only leaves the citizenship of his mother as being the source of his citizenship. That’s what I was researching, trying to find out exactly what law or statute made Obama a citizen through his mother. Then i came across language which was completely contradictory. It mentions that American women are no longer expatriated by marriage to a foreigner, (by law?) but the Attorney General then proclaims in the Interpretation that it is not the policy of the government to implement the implication of Afroyim v Rush even if that ruling means what he’s sure that it means. He was saying that unless the scotus made a direct ruling that American women cannot be expatriated by marriage to a foreigner, then they will continue to be expatriated by the State Department.

    So while there was a conflict between perhaps all three branches of government, it didn’t affect Obama’s birth because all the conflict came about 6 years after he was born. When he was born it was the policy of the State Department and Immigration Service to expatriate American women who married foreign men, -at least that is the interpretation that one can’t escape drawing from what is written there.
    That leaves one wondering what the heck the law was at that time. Had Congress rescinded the right of American women to not be expatriated by marriage? If so, when, and with what legislation? And if it existed, how could the Executive Branch have a policy in complete opposition? It’s a murky matter at this point until more documents can be found. It’s very weird that there is no mention of any other policy with perhaps the exception of whatever may be contained in some legislation of 1978. It needs further researching.

    American Indians are not the ones referred to as “Native-Born”. All who are born withint the borders are native born. But not all who are native born are also natural burn, although 99% are. Also, by an act of Congress, all native Americans were included as American citizens quite a number of years ago. btw, only native fathers can produce native children. Only citizen fathers can produce natural citizens. It’s like a law of nature and can’t be amended. No foreign father can ever produce a natural citizen that is foreign to his nationality. It’s a conflict of logic and natural law.

    Atticus Finch
    Justice Story observed that an woman who was an United States citizen did not give up her U.S. citizenship when she married an Englishman.

    “Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect; because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. ~~The general doctrine is,**** that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance, and become aliens.”****

    WOW! WOW! WOW! Did he ever get it totally wrong. His last sentence is in diametric opposition to the policy of a free people and its government, which went to WAR to assert in the stongest terms possible the right of every human being to expatriate himself and join himself to another people and nation. (it was called the War of 1812) I read recently an absolutley emphatic order by the Sec. Of State (don’t remember who or where, can’t find the quote yet) that any statement or suggestion or hint that individuals do not have the right of expatriaton is contrary to the position of the U.S. government. It was the most emphatic statement I’ve ever read.
    Take a note of what you learn from that. Even the “experts” sometimes say things that are totally wrong.
    A.R. Nash http://obama–nation.com

  25. avatar
    y_p_w January 31, 2012 at 1:09 am #

    JPotter:
    And yes, the plates! Muskogee, Creek, Cherokee, Wyandotte, Caddo …. many states issue tribal plates, but with 600 tribes in state, Oklahoma takes the cake.

    http://www.worldlicenceplates.com/usa/AI2.html

    Perhaps I was a bit unclear on my intent. I was using “Really?” sort of the way that Spock says “fascinating”.

    I understand that a lot of people have various native ancestry in the area and identify by it. I certainly knew this woman was part Cherokee, but I suppose in her case she was in California and probably didn’t look to make that big a deal of it since few people would understand the finer points.

    I do remember following my alma mater’s football team and seeing all these Nigerian names. They were names like Igber, Asomughua, Iwuoma, and Ahanotu. They had a shared understanding on the team even though most were born in the US. Even on the team, they identified somewhat with their Nigerian tribes. I remember reading an article on the bonds that these players shared.

  26. avatar
    JPotter January 31, 2012 at 1:20 am #

    y_p_w: Perhaps I was a bit unclear on my intent. I was using “Really?” sort of the way that Spock says “fascinating”.

    Ah, got it! πŸ˜‰

    One thing that is very odd about Okieland, particularly Tulsa, is that, in spite of amazing diversity of peoples, that racism is still so rampant. I would hope that familiarity would belie such attitudes, but its not the case. Familiarity breeds contempt πŸ™ All daily interactions are twisted in peoples’ minds to reinforce pre-existing bias.

  27. avatar
    A.R. Nash January 31, 2012 at 2:46 am #

    I’d like to state that I’ve imaginatively over-simplified the history of expatriation by marriage. It was in fact, I’ve learned, a total mess. Laws would say one thing. The Executive branch would have a policy of its own, individual judges were the ones granting or denying citizenship and they could ignore the rules and that was that unless their ruling was overturned when the Feds appealed their decision to a higher court. So, bottom line is that there was no bottom line, it was all over the map. Confusion, people! A government of men and not one of laws. That’s the result of something as unnatural as expatriation. There are no rules in nature that apply so natural law can’t be followed. So its up to the choices of men.
    They chose this way and that way. but it appears that mostly the Executive branch held with expatriation by marriage regardless of the Law or the Courts, though that seems hard to believe, but it may have been possible if there was never any section of Nationality law that dealt clearly with the issue.
    Then it would have been purely up to the State Department and the Immigration & Naturalization Service. I suspect at this point that that was the situation in 1961 when Obama was born. If that is correct, then his mother would have been viewed as having relinquished her citizenship by marrying his father in a “shot-gun wedding” meant to make him “legitimate” but which in effect made him even more illegitimate in regard to presidential eligibility.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2012 at 7:29 am #

    I can only marvel at your arrogance saying that the US State Department knows less about citizenship than you and Donofrio, or the Appeals Court in Indiana, or every legal authority who as commented on it is wrong and you’re right.

    You’re a crank. Donofrio is a crank too. Deal with it

    A.R. Nash: Secondly, your grasp of U.S. citizenship law is woefully lacking. You gave this quote to defend the falsehood that Obama was born a citizen due to birth in the U.S.
    “The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu.”

    This is a patently false statement because it lacks the full requirement for citizenship to be granted to children born to foreign fathers. The father must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

  29. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    A.R. Nash: Secondly, your grasp of U.S. citizenship law is woefully lacking.

    Takes one to know one.

    First anyone within the borders of the US, other than a diplomat with immunity, is fully within US jurisdiction. Even someone who crosses from Canada or Mexico to shop for an hour. If they kill someone they are charged with murder. If they park in a no parking zone, they get a ticket. If they earn income it is taxed. As for the draft, it is only by choice of the US that they are not subject to the draft. If the US chose to, it could draft anyone within its borders when a war broke out. As for trade with Iran or Cuba, if they conduct it from US territory it is illegal.

    And you ought to read the 14th amendment. It says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” It does NOT say parents subject to the jurisdiction. The only thing relevant is whether that child born in the US is subject to its jurisdiction. And it is. Even if some tourist pops over from Canada and knocks up some American woman and returns home an hour later, if he wants to sue for custody of the child, he has to do so in the US, because the child is subject to US jurisdiction. So Barack Obama was born in the US,subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of who his father was (he is listed in a divorce decfree granted by a US court).

  30. avatar
    Majority Will January 31, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Scientist: Takes one to know one.

    First anyone within the borders of the US, other than a diplomat with immunity, is fully within US jurisdiction. Even someone who crosses from Canada or Mexico to shop for an hour.If they kill someone they are charged with murder.If they park in a no parking zone, they get a ticket.If they earn income it is taxed.As for the draft, it is only by choice of the US that they are not subject to the draft.If the US chose to, it could draft anyone within its borders when a war broke out.As for trade with Iran or Cuba, if they conduct it from US territory it is illegal.

    And you ought to read the 14th amendment.It says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”It does NOT say parents subject to the jurisdiction.The only thing relevant is whether that child bornin the US is subject to its jurisdiction.And it is.Even if some tourist pops over from Canada and knocks up some American woman and returns home an hour later, if he wants to sue for custody of the child, he has to do so in the US, because the child is subject to US jurisdiction. So Barack Obama was born in the US,subject to its jurisdiction, regardless of who his father was (he is listed in a divorcedecfree granted by a US court).

    Sure, but your reasonable and historically accurate explanation doesn’t jibe with what the birther bigots want to be true so no dice.

  31. avatar
    Whatever4 January 31, 2012 at 9:42 am #

    A.R. Nash:
    Secondly, your grasp of U.S. citizenship law is woefully lacking.You gave this quote to defend the falsehood that Obama was born a citizen due to birth in the U.S.
    “The person in question is a united states citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu.”

    This is a patently false statement because it lacks the full requirement for citizenship to be granted to children born to foreign fathers.The father must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.While citizens are, and immigrants are, foreign diplomats, tourists, visitors, workers, professionals, and students are NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction and cannot be forced to register for the draft, nor be drafted, nor be ordered to never trade with Iran, or visit Cuba.They are only subject to local jurisdiction and not federal political jurisdiction, and therefore no child born to such a foreigner is a U.S. citizens via the 14th Amendment.The full jurisdiction that they are under remains that of their own government and International Treay.

    ( Admittedly, the government does not follow the law. so one could say that Obama was a citizen by government policy but not by U.S. Law.)

    So I would expect to see plenty of lawsuits where tourists, visitors, workers, professionals, and students have been arrested for federal crimes but have sued because they aren’t under the full jurisdiction of the US. Please provide links. Also is Bobby Jindal a citizen? Both of his parents were students and Indian citizens. How did he get his citizenship if not from being born in the US? What about “anchor babies”? They wouldn’t exist if you are correct.

    That only leaves the citizenship of his mother as being the source of his citizenship.That’s what I was researching, trying to find out exactly what law or statute made Obama a citizen through his mother.Then i came across language which was completely contradictory.It mentions that American women are no longer expatriated by marriage to a foreigner, (by law?) but the Attorney General then proclaims in the Interpretation that it is not the policy of the government to implement the implication of Afroyim v Rush even if that ruling means what he’s sure that it means.He was saying that unless the scotus made a direct ruling that American women cannot be expatriated by marriage to a foreigner, then they will continue to be expatriated by the State Department.

    Please provide your sources. Dates are important. Read this to see how laws changed over time: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/104346.pdf

    Obama was made a citizen because he was born in the US, and wasn’t born to an ambassador or an invading army. Period. Tens of thousands of similar US citizens are born each year.

    So while there was a conflict between perhaps all three branches of government, it didn’t affect Obama’s birth because all the conflict came about 6 years after he was born. When he was born it was the policy of the State Department and Immigration Service to expatriate American women who married foreign men, –at least that is the interpretation that one can’t escape drawing from what is written there.That leaves one wondering what the heck the law was at that time.Had Congress rescinded the right of American women to not be expatriated by marriage?If so, when, and with what legislation?And if it existed, how could the Executive Branch have a policy in complete opposition?It’s a murky matter at this point until more documents can be found.It’s very weird that there is no mention of any other policy with perhaps the exception of whatever may be contained in some legislation of 1978.It needs further researching.

    Again, what’s the link?

    btw, only native fathers can produce native children.Only citizen fathers can produce natural citizens.It’s like a law of nature and can’t be amended.No foreign father can ever produce a natural citizen that is foreign to his nationality.It’s a conflict of logic and natural law.

    Perhaps somewhere in the world this is true, but NOT in the USA.

    Atticus Finch
    Justice Story observed that an woman who was an United States citizen did not give up her U.S. citizenship when she married an Englishman.

    “Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect; because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. ~~The general doctrine is,**** that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance, and become aliens.”****

    WOW! WOW! WOW!Did he ever get it totally wrong.His last sentence is in diametric opposition to the policy of a free people and its government, which went to WAR to assert in the stongest terms possible the right of every human being to expatriate himself and join himself to another people and nation.(it was called the War of 1812)I read recently an absolutley emphatic order by the Sec. Of State (don’t remember who or where, can’t find the quote yet) that any statement or suggestion or hint that individuals do not have the right of expatriaton is contrary to the position of the U.S. government.It was the most emphatic statement I’ve ever read.Take a note of what you learn from that.Even the “experts” sometimes say things that are totally wrong.A.R. Nashhttp://obama–nation.com

    You have to read the entire case. This parties in this case were subject to treaties ending the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. It’s not your average SCOTUS case. There’s also big differences between 1784, 1830, 1878, and 1967. The law evolves through time as Congresses write laws and courts interpret them.

    People would be happy to discuss this with you, but you have to provide links to what you are referring to.

  32. avatar
    Ballantine January 31, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    While citizens are, and immigrants are, foreign diplomats, tourists, visitors, workers, professionals, and students are NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction and cannot be forced to register for the draft, nor be drafted, nor be ordered to never trade with Iran, or visit Cuba. They are only subject to local jurisdiction and not federal political jurisdiction, and therefore no child born to such a foreigner is a U.S. citizens via the 14th Amendment. The full jurisdiction that they are under remains that of their own government and International Treay.( Admittedly, the government does not follow the law. so one could say that Obama was a citizen by government policy but not by U.S. Law.)

    Nice try, but wrong on all accounts. You are citing the full jurisdication theory rejected by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark. Such was the argument of the government and the dissent that lost. Gray said jurisdiction had to be understand as used by Justice Marshall in The Exchange which included all aliens except those understood to have immunity from our laws and hence was meant to exclude only children of ambassadors,invading enemies and indians deemed to be born in a quasi-foreign nation. Such is the law. Really sad that not a single birther, including the ones that supposedly have some kind of law degree, cannot understand what the Supreme Court has said and continue to misrepresent the law. We really should conduct a class in remedial case law reading for the birthers and their lawyers.

  33. avatar
    Ballantine January 31, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    A.R. Nash: I have some new News! i discovered two reference in the INS Interpretations online and both are pretty huge. One is the listing of the three types of citizens that were being differentiated, namely, Naturalized, Native-Born, and Natural Born, demonstrating that there is a distinct difference in those terms.

    Again, all birthers can do is try to read something into a document that really says nothing to actually support them. Our law is determined by the Supreme Court, not the INS. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark said native born citizen and natural born citizen are both defined by the English definition of natural born subject. I know, Wong Kim Ark is too difficult for the legally illiterates. Since WKA, the Supreme Court has stated about 5 times that the President must be native born citizen, a native citizen or a citizen at birth. The Court has ever said native and natural born mean something different.