Taking the discussion in comments here back to his own web site, Leonard Daneman published the following reply. Since Daneman doesn’t permit open discussion on his site, I will respond here where the discussion is unrestricted. Daneman’s article, included in its entirety, is indented and in italics with my comments interspersed at full width.
My Response to Obama Conspiracy
“The whole thing is an arcane technicality that a wise nation would have done away with long ago. To make a holy fuss over it at this late date is nothing but transparent politicing. Now, Leonard, put that in your pipe and smoke it.”
That is the level of intellect found on the Obama Conspiracy forum . . . concluding that alienage in the highest executive office is an ‘arcane technicality,’ rather than a prudent assurance against foreign influence in that office.
As of this date, there are 59,274 comments at the Obama Conspiracy Theories blog, and to characterize them based on any one remark (and one taken out of context at that) is a fallacy of generalization. That comment, which is defended by the person who made it, has little to nothing to do with the actual topic under discussion and therefore serves no purpose but to poison the well.
The topic is the section of Article 2 of the US Constitution on presidential eligibility that says “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution“. The discussion which Mr. Daneman purports to answer actually asserts that all US Presidents have been natural born citizens of the United States, and therefore eligible to be President without the application of the clause preceding. This includes George Washington (whose father was a British subject who died before the American revolution), Chester A. Arthur (whose father was a British subject at the time President Arthur was born), and Barack H. Obama (whose father was a Citizen of the UK and Colonies when President Obama was born).
Or, how about Dr. Conspiracy’s ‘googled’ quotes on the ‘citizen of the United States at the time of adoption’ clause being proof of worthy foreigners allowed access to the presidency, e.g., Barack Hussein Obama. True, there were a few foreign-born leaders of great note during the Revolutionary War. However, they had established themselves as members of colonial society as well as supporters of the new Constitutional Republic, and therefore citizens at the time of adoption.
It was not I who presented those quotations, but the attorney Ballantine, who makes distinguished contributions here. Neither he nor I is asserting Daneman’s straw man argument that the “at the time of the Adoption” clause applies to Barack Obama. That’s obviously untrue. What we are arguing is that historically the clause was included to benefit such foreign-born Americans as Alexander Hamilton (born in the West Indies) who had distinguished themselves during the Revolution and were citizens of the United States when the Constitution was ratified. The clause was not intended to apply to native-born citizens such as George Washington, John Jay and Thomas Jefferson who were understood to be natural born citizens by all.
John Jay wrote to George Washington suggesting that none but a natural-born citizen should be commander in chief. Does Daneman seriously contend that Jay intended to exclude George Washington from the office? So far he has avoided answering this question.
Even today, naturalization law offers an alien in our military, fighting for our country, citizenship upon completion of his service.
A better example would be Lafayette. The French general and his son were persecuted in France, but though worthy of American citizenship remained loyal to France.
[Aside: Lafayette, however, was made an honorary citizen of the United States, just as Thomas Jefferson was an honorary citizen of France while he served as our president.]
It is clear from context and the needs of the times, the ‘at the time of adoption’ clause was to allow sons of British subjects, and/or members of colonial society proven loyal to the cause U.S. citizenship upon dissolution of ties with Great Britain.
This is not only not clear, it is false, as we shall see.
Following are legal proofs and examples including:
Comment on Gov. Morris and Justice Story vis a’ vis Article II
Including Two Important Cases on Point
Hamilton versus John Jay
Action of Common Law, versus Natural Rights in a Constitutional Republic
Derivative Citizenship of Wives, 19th Amendment, and the 1922 Cable Act
Obama as Dual Citizen, or Citizen of the World?
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” United States v Prudder, 424 F. 2d 1021(5thCir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831 (1970)
Your citations of Gov. Morris and Justice Story are on point, but do not tell the whole story. First, would you agree that upon adoption of the constitution, British subjects of the 13 colonies, states, or commonwealths, became U.S. citizens?
I would most certainly not agree that these persons became US Citizens upon adoption of the Constitution. They became citizens upon ratification of the Articles of Confederation a decade earlier. The Treaty of Paris (1783) identifies a class of residents of the United States denoted “Real British Subjects” (Article 5). Sorting out who was British and who was American was a matter of considerable controversy and discussion during this period, determining whether someone was a legitimate British loyalist or an American traitor. The Treaty of Paris envisions that this process would be sorted out within 12 months of the ratification of the treaty. There is not a word in the Constitution that makes anyone a citizen.
Therefore, after the ‘time of adoption,’ would a British subject become a citizen? No, only upon application of immigration and naturalization law.
Correct but irrelevant because the topic of discussion was about persons who were already citizens.
The question, therefore, is if a U.S. citizen mother confers not only U.S. citizenship by statute, but produces a ‘natural born’ citizen if the child has an alien father.
The answer is ‘No’ for two reasons; because 1) application of law is required to remove, or isolate that alienage, and 2) the law applicable to Article II, adopted in 1787, did not recognize U.S. citizenship of a mother married to an alien unless abandoned and specific residency requirements were met. The child still has foreign allegiance through the alien father until reaching the age of majority.
This is also irrelevant, since we are talking about persons born in the United States.
The intent of the framers in cobbling together the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ was to limit the presidency to a citizen without foreign alienage.
The best I can interpret what Daneman is trying to say is : “limit the presidency to a citizen without foreign citizenship.” That would, of course, exclude many US presidents and vice presidents who had foreign citizenships, not the least of which was Thomas Jefferson (citizen of France).
The phrase “natural born citizen” existed in US law before the Jay letter from 1787, for example in a Naturalization act of Massachusetts from 1786.
Here are two important cases on point
On December 2, 1793, Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania took the oath of office in the Senate. His eligibility was then challenged on the grounds that he did not meet the minimum nine years of citizenship as constitutionally required for Senators ( http://tinyurl.com/mkru86
It was asserted that Mr. Gallatin was born in Geneva, and not in the United States. His case is therefore not relevant.
The Case of Mr. Smith. “Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony” ( http://tinyurl.com/lhy32a ).
“If he were a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.“ [Cf. Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, § 220 “1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members.] http://tinyurl.com/kwjvqm
“Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government” http://tinyurl.com/kwjvqm
The reader should be careful to note that the original debate in Congress did not include any reference to de Vattel or The Law of Nations. As reproduced here, the entire preceding paragraph is in italics, but Daneman’s original has the text “[Cf. Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, § 220” in plain text.
Even de Vattel recognizes that English law does not follow his parentage notions of citizenship, and he admits in § 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country. “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.”
Let me take the liberty of reproducing Daneman’s quotation in its authentic character, without the editorial insertion:
The Case of Mr. Smith. “Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony” ( http://tinyurl.com/lhy32a ).
“Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government” http://tinyurl.com/kwjvqm
Daneman fundamentally misunderstands the reason that Mr. Smith was a “member of that particular society.” He was a member because he was born in South Carolina and the society of South Carolina became a part of the United States. (Smith’s father died a British subject before the revolution, so one is hard pressed to get American citizenship for Mr. Smith through that route!) We can see this clearly in the debate over the seating of Smith. James Madison championed the seating of Smith before the House and was the primary contributor to the debate saying: “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to examine any other.”
This quote from Madison is important for putting other citations in their proper context, and in understanding how cherry picking comments on parentage can misrepresent the actual case.
Now, how would you then approach a situation concerning a person of distinguished contribution to the Revolution who was foreign-born, as Justice Story described? By “adopted country,” I suggest that they were not ‘native-born’ but recent sojourners who not only established residency, but also were patriots to the cause of Independence.
What’s the point here? There has never been a foreign-born president of the United States, so I don’t see the relevance. Certainly George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not foreign-born and the United States was not their “adopted country.”
In answer, please examine Hamilton’s first draft of Article II’s Eligibility Clause, from Hamilton’s Article IX, Section 1:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
I think it worthy of note that foreign-born Hamilton’s draft made himself eligible.
Now consider the changes made using John Jay’s term of art, ‘natural born citizen.’
“No person except a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
When “natural born citizen” was added, so was an exception for persons like Hamilton.
John Jay did not state an exception for persons who were citizens of the United States at the time of adoption of the Constitution in his suggestion. Therefore, for Daneman’s understanding of natural born citizen to be correct, Jay must have intended to exclude the former commander of the Continental Army, George Washington. Is this what Daneman asserts? Inquiring minds await an answer. All the authorities say that natural born citizen derives from “natural born subject” in British common law and not from a phrase in de Vattel which did not even exist in 1787 (the phrase first appeared in a later translation). This becomes quite obvious when looking at various colonial laws and how they were rewritten in State law, converting “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” in nearly identical contexts.
British common law defines natural born citizen in terms of birth within the domain of the King, regardless of the status of the parents (excepting ambassadors, invading armies, etc.)
[This section regarding a purported text from the Continental Congress in 1777 has been withdrawn pending further authentication of the source. At the very least, it seems to be older than 1777.]
In Federalist No. 62, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison explained that senators “ought” to be free “from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education”, due to their “transactions with foreign nations”, so the nine-year citizenship requirement is a “prudent mediocrity” between totally excluding naturalized citizens and admitting them too quickly, “which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils”:
“. . . the nature of the senatorial trust, . . . participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.”
This argues for the importance of place of birth, and not parentage, and hereby goes against Mr. Daneman’s argument.
According to 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, § 301, Barack Hussein Obama, a citizen of Indonesia by derivative naturalization, reinstated his U.S. citizenship from birth under 8 U.S.C. 1401 or 1409, by meeting the required five-years of continuous residency from age 14.
Applying the nine-year requirement, Obama became eligible to be a senator at age 28. However, due to his being a British subject at birth, he will never be eligible to the presidency. His native-born status does not rise to natural born citizenship due to alienage, and the determination of citizenship at birth by statute, not the citizenship and allegiance of the father.
Of course Barack Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia. Indonesian law would not allow it. This has been discussed extensively on this blog already and I refer to the reader to my article Hollister v Indonesian Citizenship Law (et al.) and follow-up comments for details.
In Federalist No. 64, from March 7, 1788, John Jay wrote that the President and the Senate could possibly make a corrupt treaty that would be “null and void by the law of nations”, but “[e]very consideration that can influence the human mind”, including “family affections and attachments”, provides for “their fidelity”:
“It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; . . . But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations. . . . With respect to their responsibility, it is difficult to conceive how it could be increased. Every consideration that can influence the human mind, such as honor, oaths, reputations, conscience, the love of country, and family affections and attachments, afford security for their fidelity.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed64.asp
Such considerations may influence voters, but they are not relevant to the constitutional requirements for office. Of course Barack Obama barely knew his Kenyan father.
Action of Common Law, versus Natural Rights in a Constitutional Republic
Still evident in the 1948 British Nationality Act is the Possession of all land and issue from the dominion of the monarchy and its subjects. A good discussion of the history of common law on subjects is in Jill Pryor’s Yale Law Review Article, The Natural Born Citizen Clause: An Approach for Resolving Two-Hundred Years of Uncertainty, http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
Pryor wrote in that article: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not“.
Law professor Gabriel Chin wrote in another law review article, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship: “According to the Supreme Court, there are only two ways to become a citizen: 1) birth in the United States, thus becoming a citizen under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;or 2) satisfaction of every requirement of a statute enacted by Congress granting citizenship to a class of people. The second category includes naturalization of individual adults or children already born, collective naturalization of groups, such as residents of territory acquired by the United States, and naturalization at birth of certain classes of children born abroad to citizens. Those born in the United States are natural born citizens. There is also a strong argument that those obtaining citizenship at birth by statute are natural born citizens.” [Emphasis added]
However, what is the controlling power of conferring nationality in a constitutional republic? Is it Statute or Legislations? Some point to Art 1, Sec. 8. Is it the power and incontrovertible action of jus solis birth? One of you quoted Madison’s certainty of ‘place of birth.’
Yes, and I have quoted it again above. How does Daneman answer Madison? One would have expected to see that at this point in the reply, but it is not there.
In a Republic, a citizen is an equal member of the polity.
Derivative Citizenship of Wives, 19th Amendment, and the 1922 Cable Act
It is common knowledge that from the ‘time of adoption’ to 1922, a U.S. maiden who married an alien ‘threw in her lot’ with the husband and became his nationality. No clearer is this illustrated in Perkins vs. Elg (1939) in which the wife automatically was naturalized by act of the husband, thus Miss Elg (born in 1907) being a natural born citizen.
Perkins involved protecting the nationality rights of a native-born minor. However, the 1907 Act distinguished the inchoate ‘dual nationality’ of a minor expatriated by parents, but maintained that a U.S. citizen marrying an alien husband constituted voluntary expatriation.
The debates after the 19th Amendment discussed the high desertion rate of alien husbands (e.g., Obama, Sr. abandoning Dunham) and historic ‘derivative naturalization’ of wives called ‘marital expatriation’ of wives a ‘gender-based double standard.’ Thus, the 1922 Act gave American women a ‘Nationality of Their Own.’
Some scholars, wise in the law, cautioned that the Act would raise complications of domicile and issues of taxation and property. In addition, what would happen if the alien husband became an enemy of the state? The fuzzy, feel-good legislation created conflicts of law apparent then, as felt now.
In our discussion, we have a maiden of U.S. citizenship marrying a Muslim/Marxist alien. Our argument is that natural law indelibly marks the son with the natural ties of the father, thus making him ineligible to the presidency. The modern preservation of the wife’s maiden citizenship confers citizenship at birth but, for over one-hundred years past the ‘time of adoption’ and the laws known by the framers, that woman was expatriated and the son a natural born British subject, until established the woman was abandoned and had U.S. residency. (See the 1795 Naturalization Act http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/ )
Perkins v Elg states that US citizenship cannot be taken from someone without their own overt act. Parents cannot change the citizenship of their child by, for example, becoming naturalized in another country as did Elg’s parents. It may be correct that at some time marriage constituted voluntary expatriation for the wife, but not for the child. To say that a mother’s expatriation “marks” her child is some kind of bizarre Lamarkian theory, but no kind of legal theory.
I see nothing in the 1795 Naturalization Act that even hints at citizenship by marriage. This act certainly provides no support for the paragraph to which it is appended.
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.”
As far as I can tell, this purported quote from Thomas Jefferson is a fake.
Alexander Morse wrote “Any doctrine which recognizes a double citizenship or double nationality attempts to perpetuate a political hybrid, which is as abnormal and monstrous as its prototype in the natural world: and the expression even must disappear as soon as that wise and judicious system which Savigny almost created becomes universal. The basis of this system is £he principle which insists that there should be a harmony rather than a conflict of laws. The contrary principle, which seeks to perpetuate a conflict of laws, is a relic of barbarism, and is rapidly disappearing from view.”
This would argue against dual citizenship, and if Morse were to be controlling, then the United States would not recognize any British citizenship for Barack Obama. If the United States disallowed dual citizenship, what single country would Barack Obama be a citizen of? The answer is obviously the United States. Also (Morse on Citizenship, p. 241 § 203, citation from an opinion of the secretary of State to the president: “The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to the duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father. …”
Again in 2006, AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY, wrote about amending the Constitution for the very same reason.
The preceding seems incomplete.
[I have deleted the repeated section from Mr. Daneman’s article which appears at this point but was included above.]
Obama as Dual Citizen, or Citizen of the World?
“Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”
July 24, 2008 Barack Hussein Obama, Berlin
Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”
What is, exactly ‘Dual Citizenship?’ I recommend a reading and syllabus of over a dozen cases at ‘Court Rulings on Dual Citizenship,’ http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
While our State Department and liberal courts tolerate dual citizenship, is there really such a thing? The definition of Citizen always specifies ‘a state, political, or national community.’ It does not say a member of ‘one or more . . . ‘
In fact, under naturalization and nationality laws a new citizen must renounce his past affiliation. Similarly, one who overtly acted as a foreign citizen or naturalized as a foreign citizen was automatically expatriated.
Dual citizenship, a conflict of law introduced by the 1922 Cable Act, is in fact a paradox . . . or, more so, oxymoronic. It is therefore, preferable to interpret Barack Hussein Obama’s nationality at birth as a British subject, until it was established that the father lost legal parentage by abandonment. Then, USC 1401 and the 14th Amendment transferred jurisdiction to U.S. nationality through the U.S. citizen mother. This interpretation conforms with laws from 1787 to this day.
Mr. Daneman seems ready to cede US sovereignty over those born in the United States and to allow the laws of Great Britain (and any foreign country) to decide who is and who is not eligible to be President of the United States. I am not. The United States has the right to decide who its citizens are and who its president may be regardless of what any other country does.
It is clear that Barack Obama has lived his life as an American: born in the United States, educated in the United States (with a 4-year exception as a small child), and serving the public of the United States as a community leader, then Senator and now President of the United States. I reject the smear tactics that try to reinvent President Obama as a foreigner.
The law of the United States is quite clear: those born citizens of the United States in the United States are unquestionably natural born citizens.
In the case of our founders, they were also born in the United States, even though it wasn’t called the United States. They were born into a society and remained in that society, a society which as a whole changed from British colony to American state. They were natural born citizens of the United States and so considered themselves.
“Perhaps this would be a good time to introduce the earliest mention of natural born citizen in history. John Jay didn’t invent the term, Thomas Jefferson did, and not in 1787, but decade earlier in 1777”
Afraid not. That’s a later ‘know nothing’ corruption see my posts (and one of Greg’s) from Sept 09:
“Welsh Dragon 09. Sep, 2009 at 12:53 pm # I’m currently looking examining a rather odd book from 1856:
The great American battle; or, The contest between Christianity and political Romanism
It seems to be a ‘Know-Nothing’ tract and I’m not entirely convinced by the veracity of its contents. However, it contains this interesting claim:
“While the American Revolution was progressing our Continental Congress forbade any but the native sons to be employed in the foreign service of the country. The committee consisting of Jefferson, Gerry, Read, Sherman and Williams reported :
Resolved: That it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint any person not a natural born citizen thereof to the office of minister charge d affaires consul vice consul or to any other civil department in a foreign country and that a copy of this resolve be transmitted to Messrs Adams,Franklin and Jay ministers of the said States in Europe ”
No date is given but from its content it would be between 1779 and 1785 (I can probably narrow that down with further work – I’m relying on memory now).
The Vattelist definition would be nonsense at that date and 3 of of the alleged committee would be delegates to the 1787 convention so if true it’s useful indication of original meaning’ of the term.
Greg 09. Sep, 2009 at 1:26 pm # It’s cited in another Know Nothing tract “In Defence of the American Party” found here. And cited in Republican Landmarks.
Welsh Dragon 09. Sep, 2009 at 2:06 pm # They’re all wrong according the to the Secret Journals of the Continental Congress:
“MARCH 16, 1784.
On the report of a committee, consisting of Mr.Gerry, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Read and Mr.Williamson, …
Resolved, that it is inconsistent with the interest of the United States to appoint any person, not a citizen thereof, …”
Note that it’s Williamson not Williams, it’s also a different Read than I first thought (Jacob not George)
P.S. One of the sources Greg quoted said 1777 but there wouldn’t have been the right delgates and of course it’s too early for the ministers in Europe.
I’m not disappointed – I came to this publication in pusuit of some dubious looking quotes used by Leo’s little helpers at UCONN which happened to be in it. Now it’s shown to be untrustworthy I will resume my pursuit.
Welsh Dragon 09. Sep, 2009 at 2:09 pm # Left out my link:
Here here. Nice article doc.
Mr. Daneman strikes me as being a rightious buffon who has a penchant for being wrong. You answered him wisely.
A common thread I’ve been with many birthers is this idea that US citizenship is so fragile that another countries laws will override US law for purposes of determining US citizenship. Somehow they think that UK, Kenyan, or Indonesian law is somehow superior to US law and therefore the United States can’t make the determination as to who is and isn’t a US citizen.
Which is, of course, a complete pile of rubbish.
Absolute truth is owned by God, who only shares it with the insane
Since proven liar Leonard Daneman is quoting yours truly, let me respond. The quote he uses appears after the following statement:
“if you read the history of the time, the concern was about a junior son of a European royal family who, unable to inherit the throne in Europe would come to the US anbd convince people to elect him President. There was never a concern regarding someone born in the US to immigrant parents. No one would ever have considered such a person anything other than eligible, prior to 2008”
I went on to add that the natural born citizen clause is an anachronism that has no practical, moral or logical value in the modern world.
I stand by my position and point to the statement made by Orrin Hatch in hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 2004:
“As Boise State University Professor John Freemuth explained, the natural born citizenship requirement is something of an artifact from another time. It is time for us – the elected representatives of this nation of immigrants — to begin the process that can result in removing this artificial, outdated, unnecessary and unfair barrier. While there was scant debate on this provision during the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in our Constitution was driven largely by the concern over 200 years ago that a European monarch might be imported to rule the United States.
This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars other critical members of the government from holding office, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the United States Supreme Court, or the President’s most trusted cabinet officials.’
Whether or not the term “natural born citizen” was coined in 1777 or not, it certainly existed before 1787.
Here’s an example from Massachusetts from 1786:
AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.
Whereas Michael Walsh, resident in Salisbury, has dwelt within this Commonwealth several years, and demeaned himself well, and has applied to the Legislature to be naturalized:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the said Michael Walsh be permitted to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth [Massachusetts], before two Justices of the Peace, quorum unus, of the county where he dwells; and thereupon, and thereafter, he shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.
And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the Justices before whom said Michael Walsh may take and subscribe the oath aforesaid, shall make return thereof to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, who shall record the same in the book ordered to be kept for such purpose.
February 7, 1786.
By the way, note that the 1786 Massachusetts act naturalizing Michael Walsh implictly divided citizens into two categories: naturalized citizens – like Walsh – and “natural born” citizens.
This is direct evidence that, before John Jay committed quill to paper in 1787 concerning “natural born” citizenship, on a state level that term was already clearly understood as meaning citizens who were not naturalized.
Very true – the earliest I’ve seen is 1784 in Maryland:
” II. Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the marquis de
la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are
hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and
shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural
born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and
laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and
More hocus pokus from the Dr. of Deception.
It is well-understood that the first natural-born citizen President was Martin Van Buren.
As usual, Dr. Con is attempting to introduce something as fact (or somehow universally accepted) without providing any reference to support his absurd conclusion.
George Washington was born in 1731 or 1732 (depending on the source). He could not have been a “natural born citizen of the United States” for two reasons. (1) The United States did not exist when George Washington was born. (2) George Washington was born a British Subject. Since we know the preceding two reasons are true and based on historical records; in order to be qualified to hold the Office, George Washington must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. That is not, nor has it ever been in dispute.
Dr. Con goes on to insinuate that Jon Jay’s words could not have been restrictive, but completely ignores the exception that was put in place to overcome that restriction until a natural-born citizen had reached the age of 35.
The timing of Jay’s letter is also important. While Hamilton submitted his draft in June of 1787 that would have only required one to be “born a citizen” to hold that Office, the letter from Jay is dated a month later. If not more restrictive, why adopt Jay’s language? Why not accept the very simplistic “born a citizen” instead of adopting “natural-born citizen”?
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the like were born British subjects. The process by which an alien becomes a citizen of another country is naturalization. This isn’t the first time this question has been raised. When those born in one of the many states of this country had their state of birth become a member of the union, those citizens were naturalized en masse. Dr. Con would do well to look at the naturalization of the residents of the land acquired by the Louisiana Purchase.
And Daneman is clearly insane.
This language here is different than that used in the Massachusetts act from 1786. This Maryland act appears to confer actual “natural born” status (i.e. “deemed,” “adjudged” and “taken to be”) on persons who were not born on U.S. soil or subjects of Britain from birth. Furthermore, it confers “natural born” status on all of Lafayette’s heirs, regardless of their place of birth or citizenship status.
One could argue that the legislature wasn’t actually making Lafayette a “natural born” citizen, but merely giving him all rights as if he were one. In other words, this may be a simple example of naturalization without using the term itself. Back in 1786, that would have made sense. Before the question of presidential eligibility arose under the Constitution, “natural born” and naturalized citizens had exactly the same rights, privileges and immunities under the law. The only distinction between the two categories was how they became citizens.
The United States may not have existed in 1731/2, but the Commonwealth of Virginia did exist.
Remember that, in those days, people saw themselves as citizens of the state in which they were born and resided. The concept of a singular U.S. citizenship, separate and distinct from citizenship of an individual state, was still decades away.
There is no reason why George Washington, who was clearly a natural born citizen of Virginia, would not fall within the meaning of “natural born Citizen… of the United States” as that term was understood at the time.
Given that historical understanding, the “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” clause would make sense as referring solely to people not born in any state who were nonetheless naturalized citizens of the United States as of the adoption of the Constitution.
As usual, JohnC is a master of elucidating legal language. Bravo!
I posted this on Leonard’s blog, but i’m sure he won’t have the guts to let it be read.
The natural born citizen clause provides no protection. Zero. Zip. Nada. It has NO logical basis. Let me demonstrate. Suppose we have 3 Presidential candidates. Just to please Leonard, let’s make them all white Christian males born within the US:
A’s parents were both US citizens, but they took him overseas shortly after birth and he lived his entire life abroad until the age of 50, though never naturalizing in any other country and always keeping his US citizenship and passport. At the age of 50, he returns to the US and when he turns 65, he runs for the White House.
B’s mother was a US citizen, but his father was a foreign citizen. He lives his entire life in the US, and receives his education and practices his career here. At 50, he runs for the White House.
C’s parents were both US citizens. In fact, their ancestors arrived on the Mayflower. He lives his whole life in the US. However, his family has significant business interests in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and deep ties to the Saudi crown (you may see a resemblance to some recent Presidents). The family has always taken the interests of the Saudi royals into their hearts.
Under Leonard’s “theory”, A and C are perfectly OK to run, while the true American, B, is not.
Wow, that sure makes sense.
Folks, I trust the American people and agree with Sen Hatch. I don’t trust Leonard and his band of mullahs.
I was aware that the pamphlet was biased, but I thought the quotation was reasonable. I have removed the section from my article until such time as it can be authenticated further. The version containing only “citizen” hardly makes sense, though. Who would ever have thought that a non-citizen should be appointed ambassador? Wouldn’t that be obvious and not requiring a resolution?
On November 11th, 1777, a committee brought in a report about possible new articles to be added to the Articles of Confederation to be considered by the Continental Congress.
“The Committee appointed to take into Consideration new articles proper to be added or included in the Confederation, beg leave to Report, the following ones as proper for that Purpose,1 viz:”
“5. And for the more certain preservation of friendship and mutual intercourse between the people of the different States in this Union, the Citizens of every State, going to reside in another State, Shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the natural born free Citizens of the State to which they go to reside;”
“And [the better to secure and perpetuate mutual]1 friendship and intercourse between the people of the different States in this Union, the Inhabitants of every State [Paupers Vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted]2 going to reside in another State shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the natural born free Citizens of the State to which they go to reside:”
On a footnote, in 1789, Nathaniel Skinner and others, were naturalized in Massachusetts by an act that said:
“shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.” June 22, 1789.
I guess they didn’t get the memo about the change from “subjects” to “citizens”.
To our eyes it does seem strange but it was not too unusual at the time for non-citizens to be appointed consuls. Indeed I know of one such in the 1790s – Michael Morphy, Irish Born but a Spanish Subject was appointed US Consul in Malaga 1793. He had no connection to the US although his son later became a US citizen after a spell as Spanish Consul in Georgia and the Carolinas.
In any case the 1777 date wouldn’t hold water since it refers to Franklin Adams and Jay as Ministers in Europe, that would put it at 1779 at the earliest.Factor in the dates Jefferson et al were members of the Continental Congress at the same time and 1784 resolution is really the only possible source.
Fascinating – the final form used ‘inhabitants’ rather than ‘natural born free citizens’ but it pushes the idea back to 1777 at least.
John, thanks. That saved me some search time.
I have updated the article with a link to your comment.
Some of these people are critical of Supreme Court Justices who cite international law in their rulings, yet somehow, in this case, when it’s convenient for them, they claim some other countrys’ laws somehow supercede ours?
Doc-I have to object to your characterization of my critique of the natural born citizen requirement as “muddying the waters”. The birthers take the clause not just as one of many in the Constitution, they make it the centerpiece of the Constituition and the only thing keeping the Republic going. Leonard says so in so many words. In fact, they see the NBC clause as so all-consumingly important that they would gladly violate everything else in the Constitution to defend it, even against imaginary foes. Have any of the birthers protested the daily violations of the constitution by recent Presidents, including Obama (continuation of Bush’s warantless wiretapping)? None that I am aware of. So they are no friends of the Constitution, but merely enemies of Obama.
Let me be crystal clear where I stand:
1. The clause should be amended out of existence.
2. Until that happens we are stuck with it, despite the fact that it is as Sen Hatch said, “an anachronism that is decidedly un-American”.
3. Obama is 100% eligible.
4. if some future (fictional) President were found to be ineligible it would be a matter for Congress to deal with under the Constitution. They would have to weigh the Constitutional provisions against the specific facts of the case and the possible harm to the country caused by that President in office vs. the trauma of over-riding a free and fair election.
That wasn’t what I meant to imply. You hold the view which you restate above and you’re certainly entitled to it, and argue reasonably for it. My complaint is that Daneman picked your quote and used it as the masthead of his argument on a different topic. That is, you argue for what should be, while my argument with Daneman is about what was.
Doc- Thanks for clearing that up.
Perhaps you could some up with something scholarly, rather than an anonymous site that advertises “Dancing with the Stars”.
I did not include these words, because John Jay did not write them. Jay was not at the Constitutional convention, and had no knowledge of what future exceptions might be drafted. You like all your tribe before you refuse to answer the question of whether Jay meant to exclude George Washington as a natural born citizen.
see DOJ reply in support of it’s MSJ in USDC-DC 08-2234 (Strunk v DOS) — e.g. it is reasonable to not keep a record of vital government record destruction
who cares about any of this — the President was born in the State of Hawaii, in the second half of the 20th century. He is ipso facto an American. Precedents from the eighteenth century, when there were no “native-born” Americans because America didn’t yet exist, seem to me at least to be irrelevant. Or maybe I don’t understand these arcane arguments?
let me add a further comment; why do we pay so much attention to these crazy people? Why give them the benefit of seeming to take their paranoid fantasies seriously? The President doesn’t. (Or at least never comments or responds, except as a joke.)
I agree, but I think we should fight smears. Lani Guinier was a red diaper baby, and she was smeared when Clinton nominated her. When she was born, her mother was smeared with ‘only a Jew would have relations with a negro.’ And yes, her parents met at the CP-USA.
I agree. The endless discussions of “the framers” is foolish. Would John Jay nor Thomas Jefferson have wanted Barack Obama to be President? I don’t know and I don’t care. They got to choose leaders for their time and we get to choose for our time. They have no more right to tell people alive today what to do then we have to tell people who will be alive in 2250 what to do. Bury the dead; life is for the living.
I am a Communist:
The “crazies” get entertained because Dr.C loves a good mind-twist analysis.
For example, Barack didn’t renounce his citizenship because he couldn’t have become an Indonesian National at age 7. Or a parent, the milkman and the grocery store clerk cannot renounce the citizenship of a child, so a child cannot renounce their own citizenship.
US Citizen children are like indentured servants to the US Constitution. A foreign national visiting the US is screwed if she goes into labor while in the US. She and her baby can return to the country of origin but the CA officer will “nev-vah” allow said child to renounce. Foreign laws don’t trump US Law. That kid is ours. bi-lateral treatys are just pieces of paper with lots of words on them.
And more to the point, British Colonists of the Americas were natural born citizens of the United States and decided to formally issue a Declaration of Independence to the King even they didn’t have to. They should have skipped the Declaration of Independence and went right to the Articles of Confederation.
Mine met at CCNY (nowadays CUNY) in the 1930s — my father was an organizer for the youth group. But after Hungary and the 20th Party Congress (these are the 1950s I’m talking about) my mother in particular grew cool. It took my father longer. Very few people nowadays recognize the allusion — I’m glad you did! A lot of people seem to think it refers to Red (GOP) states — q
Misha — mine met at CCNY (nowadays CUNY) in the 1930s — my father was an organizer for the youth group. But after Hungary in 1953 and the 20th Party Congress (1955? — I was a kid then, so I’m not sure I remember right) my mother in particular grew cool. It took my father longer. Very few people nowadays recognize the allusion — I’m glad you did! A lot of people seem to think it refers to Red (GOP) states — quite the opposite of the true meaning. On ThinkProgress I keep getting voted down even though I’m expressing lefty ideas, and apparently it’s because of my handle.
sorry, I posted the first one accidentally before I was finished editing. Or it seems to have posted itself, without my doing anything. The ghost in the machine strikes again!
Sven your whining is irrelevant. You obviously don’t understand how the law works. You have shown no proof Obama was ever adopted, he ever became a citizen of indonesia, he ever renounced his citizenship, etc.
True story: when my grandfather came here, he of course settled in the lower east side. He read Der Tag, a Yiddish communist paper, until it stopped publication. The he switched to The Forward, which he subscribed to until he died.
Keeping the family tradition of socialism, I was a kibbutznik.
When my wife first met me, she was shocked by some of the things I said, but now she understands. Plus, I bought a condo in Chinatown, so she would feel at home.
A Russian shtetl שטעטל
beggar: Alms for the poor, alms for the poor.
passerby: Here’s one kopek.
beggar: That’s all?!
passerby: I had a bad week.
beggar: So, if you had a bad week, why should I suffer?
It is an unavoidable position to make sure that the discussion is on the known facts, and not on misrepresentation. Also, it is important to ensure that those who want to understand more have access to all the information available. The “crazy people” will not change their minds because they feel more comfortable with their “paranoid fantasies” than the truth. However, the concern is about those who want to learn more and those who might be a little confused.
Sven: A few facts on renouncing US citizenship
1.The numbers have typically run to only a few hundred/year, out of several million expats. So the odds for any given expat are approximately 1 in 10,000.
2. At least 90% of those renouncing or attempting to renounce are wealthy people seeking to avoid paying US taxes (the US, virtually alone of all countries, taxes citizens who don’t set foot in the US and earn no money there). Since neither Obama nor his mother fit that bill in 1970, that drops the odds to 1 in 100,000.
3. At least 90% of those renouncing have acquired citizenship in wealthy, stable countries like the UK or Canada or in Caribbean tax havens. Indonesia was neither of those in 1970. Now the odds are 1 in 1,000,000.
Now you may say, 1 in 1,000,000 is still possible. So what? We license drugs based on a 95% chance that they are safe and effective, so there is a 5% they don’t work or are dangerous. I think we can live with a President with a 0.0000001% chance that he renounced his citizenship.
By the way, the names of all those who renounce citizenship are published in the Federal Register. Seen Barack Obama, there?
Obama had his agents scrub it. Believe me, Obama’s thugs are everywhere, just like the International Jewish Conspiracy™.
Did you know the Mossad has the telephone number of everyone Jewish, in the entire world? It’s true.
Then how come they couldn’t find Zohan?
Obama’s Chicago thugs.
Red Diaper – no I didn’t get the handle, but knew from your comment that you weren’t on the right! So I googled it. Learn something new everyday!
Just to clarify, for purposes known best to the government, the location is actually via the Treasury…..probably to ensure they get every last iota of tax out before losing them forever……
Enter and search
“Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate”
More triangulation … most people who leave the US to live in another country “indefenitly” don’t renounce, so Barack didn’t renounce … cause hez a Gangsta.
Passport renewal applicants are instructed to strike through the names of individuals on a previous family passport who have renounced. SAD Soetoro struck through Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah) and its meaningless … cause hez a Gangsta.
The Indonesian School record written 40 years ago and shown before it was understood it was disqualifying evidence for the Office of the POTUS is to be ignored … cause hez a Gangsta.
Pretty, shiny sock, Sven. And you’ve still got nothing paranoia and baseless speculation.
From Pravda online, it looks like they want to join WND and the Post and Fail as the birther home for crazy…The most recent article from Sam “Steady Drip” Sewell….
“There isn’t one single, credible source that has any concrete facts whatsoever, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Here’s a surprise! Hawaii’s Department of Education has been unable to find AKA Obama’s Kindergarten records. By this time maybe you are no longer surprised.
Obama’s Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of chronological “coincidences” that obscure AKA Obama’s history.
Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School (next item) — and that document was discovered by independent investigators.
This is an important feature because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:
1. Obama’s REAL Birth Certificate.
2. An application with the following:
His Legal name.
Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)
It also is important for two additional reasons:
A. The Department of Education does not “lose” the records of one particular student. (So, who paid whom what sum to make this record disappear?)
B. There would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide that could possibly “excuse” the quashing of public school Kindergarten entry records. For the rest of his life he attended very expensive private schools and has had his records legally sealed to deny the public his true life story.
This is different. Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. State and federal tax dollars paid for his initial year of education. Why is there no documentation?
This is the beginning of an intentionally erased life of a fraud and conman and it reeks of complicity by officials within the State of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health and Dept. of Education.” Hat tip to Don Fredrick at http://www.colony14.net.”
At least the comments are not moderated so there are people that are actually refuting Sewell’s garbarge…
And in the comments….
Beckwith 2 hours ago
This material has been ripped off, word for word, from The Obama File at http://www.theobamafile.com
I just posted my article there, on the physically impossible Kenya birth scenario. Thanks for the heads up.
I suggest you enroll in a statistics course. Statistically speaking, renunciations are so rare as to be not worth considering (<0.01%/year). Renunciations not due to escaping taxes are rarer still (<0.0001%). Statistically that means don't worry about it.
Why would a 9-year old renounce citizenship? Did he owe a bundle in Federal taxes from selling lemonade on the streets of Jakarta? Why would a professional diplomat at the Embassy accept a renunciation from a 9 year old? Where is the published name on the list of those who renounced?
The quality of scientific and mathematical education in the US is obviously very poor.
Could someone look at these the latest birther frenzy at Butterzillion and some other places- about the Hawaii DNC not certifiying the election properly. I can’t get access to scribd or see any original documents to even see if there is an issue.
Misha, no problem. There is another site that badfiction linked to that seems to be an anti-Obama birther haven….The posts by “Bob Anthony” are racist screeds that seem to be from Stormfront….Truly vile stuff….
Sep 18, 2010 – 9:32AM QuoteReply Re: Is this forum true to Fred Schaffner’s vision of what he wanted it to be?
I’m not through with you yet, rikker (and all your sock puppets)
You nappy headed lawn jockey..coon.
Let me explain why you and your kind are so despised.
Often people will ask, “Why does the ****** do this?” or “Why did the ****** do that?” It is pretty much akin to asking why dogs bark, why cats climb trees, or why birds fly. They just do — their primitive brains are hard-wired in a manner that is incompatible with Human logic.
God only knows what really goes on inside the chimp’s brain-pan, but we can identify certain behaviors that seem to be consistent among the species:
1) “LOOK-A-ME!” This is the basic 24-hour a day / 7 days a week behavior that the ****** employs to get attention. This is basically why ******s wear the most idiotic outfits, have 10 pounds of fake “bling” around their necks, blare their stereos, talk at the top of their voice at all times, etc., etc. It is all a ploy to get noticed and stand out from the other members of the Chimp Pack in an attempt to get food, money, or sex.
Thats absolutely disgusting
Oh look Sally Hill is back after saying several times she wouldnt be
Troll baiting and many months of lurking. I’m SHOCKED.
Why do birthers whine ( as if anyone cares) that he or she will never return, storm off like an angry toddler, but only to return after obviously lurking here for months?
Insecure much? Paranoid a lot? Both?
Its obvious like sven sally has identity issues
[The following comment comes from our banned troll Hulu. However, I let it through on a one-time pass.]
How is that you claim to know what John Jay did or did not know? Since John Jay was (at the time of the Constitutional Convention) Secretary of Foreign Affairs (which came to be Secretary of State soon thereafter) it would be reasonable to consider John Jay to be very familiar with the happenings taking place at the Constitutional Convention, especially those involving the person who would have treaty making power.
The suggestion presented by John Jay would seem to exclude George Washington. It would have also excluded Jay himself from the office. Was it intentional or an oversight? Could there have been undocumented discussion about how to impliment the proposed restriction, while permitting that position to be filled by someone who had already provided sufficiently demonstrated of loyalty? It would seem that the Constitution was ratified with such restriction and exception. -No matter how you choose to interpret Article II, there is a restriction (acknowledged by all -the debate is to the extent), and I’m sure we can find someone who we think should have been an acception.
The insertion of honorary citizenship into the discussion is without a doubt intended to muddy the waters. We all know that honorary citizenship carries with it no allegiance. When searching for the truth, all effort should be made to stay clear of those little facts which are known to be meaningless. Repetition of such meaningless factoids can only be seen as an intentional effort to muddy the waters.
The kid is free to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship when old enough to do so voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences.
But of course you already knew that. You just like to blow hot air.
Except that it is a novel claim, never before made. Every history of the eligibility clause ever written, up until 2008, has claimed that the “citizen at the adoption” part of the clause applied to people like Hamilton, those born abroad. No history has ever claimed that Washington was made eligible by the “citizen at the adoption” test. That silence is not in dispute.
If, as you say, it has never been in dispute that Washington was covered by this part of the eligibility clause, you will have no problem finding a source that says so, written before 2008, and not by a birther.
So are you saying that 5 or 6 year children should be allowed to make life altering descisions. Really. Wow, should they be able to drive, vote, drink alcohol? Where do you draw the line?
Agreed….But par for the course for some of the tea partiers and birthers…
WND and Jerome Corsi are still at it….
Corsi: “That [Obama’s] not a Muslim and that he was born in the United States are both lies”
Corsi: “Barack Obama has stolen the identity of a natural born citizen” is “using someone else’s social security number”
When the child is in the United States, he is a US citizen. When he is in the country of his parents, he cannot approach the consulate for help, as his dual citizenship means that he answers first to that country’s laws.
Sven, you’ve got the entire internet at your fingertips and you cannot find a single example of a 6-9 year-old child renouncing his/her citizenship. Could it be because such an example does not exist?
A transcript of Newt’s commentary last week….
VAN SUSTEREN: Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is taking heat for something he said about President Obama. We asked him about it.
VAN SUSTEREN: “Kenyan anti-colonial worldview” — now, what in the world does that mean?
VAN SUSTEREN: And that’s where you said that the president — what did you mean? And is there any sort of — you know (INAUDIBLE) you know, there’s a lot of that sort of Kenyan stuff, people are critical, saying that he wasn’t born in the United States, and we’ve got that whole sort of movement — he was born in Hawaii, incidentally. Why did you — why did you say that and what do you mean?
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, he was born in Hawaii.
VAN SUSTEREN: … born in Hawaii.
GINGRICH: This had nothing to do about anything except his mind.
VAN SUSTEREN: But what is that, a “Kenyan anti-colonial”…
GINGRICH: Everybody who is interested in this and everybody who’s read some whacked-out left-wing attack on me about this should read either Dinesh D’Souza’s fine article in “Forbes” magazine or in 10 days should buy Dinesh D’Souza’s new book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” It’s about a 230- page…
VAN SUSTEREN: Rage? R? Rage?
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
GINGRICH: And — and — and D’Souza, who is from India, grew up in India, came to the United States, has a very similar understanding of third world attitudes and anti-colonialism, goes through — it’s a very fine book. And he basically makes the — and raises the question, Why is no one — you know, why are none of our elites willing to look at who Barack Obama is?
VAN SUSTEREN: What does that mean, though, “who he is”? I mean, like…
GINGRICH: He writes a book “Dreams From My Father.”
VAN SUSTEREN: Right.
GINGRICH: OK. So why can’t we ask the question, what were his dreams from his father? Who was his father? His father was from Kenya. I cited Kenya for a practical reason. It’s a fact. His father was from Kenya.
VAN SUSTEREN: I can — you know — you know, it’s hard for me to get too deep into that. I mean, it’s, like, it sounds a little bit like — I don’t know, sophomorish to get into his mind. I’m more concerned as to why he can’t get jobs for people, why he can’t get the unemployment down…
GINGRICH: But I would argue he can’t get jobs for people because the model he has in his mind is fundamentally flawed, doesn’t work.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, that may be something else, but is that a “Kenyan anti-colonial”…
VAN SUSTEREN: What is that? First of all, what is that? Explain that to me.
GINGRICH: Dinesh D’Souza’s argument, and this is — the original quote was me talking to somebody from “National Review,” saying, You ought to read Dinesh D’Souza’s article.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
GINGRICH: I found it very insightful. Now, I think you can say three things about who — about Barack Obama’s worldview. Part of him is a Saul Alinsky community radical organizer, and you can read, you know, Alinsky’s books and know what that means. Part of him is sort of the classic European socialist transmuted by Columbia and Harvard, and that explains a lot of the big government, big control, big bureaucracy stuff.
VAN SUSTEREN: … everybody he hires in his administration are Harvard and Yale and University of Chicago…
VAN SUSTEREN: And they all have the same worldview, which is essentially European socialism. And then part of him, I think, has picked up on this — whether you want to say it’s Indonesian and Kenyan or Franz Fanon from Algeria — I mean, there is a broad anti-colonial model intellectually…
VAN SUSTEREN: But what is that? What — explain — maybe I’m not…
VAN SUSTEREN: What is “anti-colonial model”?
VAN SUSTEREN: What does that mean?
GINGRICH: The anti-colonial model — the anti-colonial model grew up in the 20th century as an intellectual model that basically said the European system is basically bad and the Americans are the inheritor of this basically bad system. And…
VAN SUSTEREN: But I thought he was European? I thought you were saying that (INAUDIBLE)
GINGRICH: No, he’s a mix. He’s a mix of three.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
GINGRICH: And I think somewhere in that three (INAUDIBLE) The only reason I raise it is, of all the presidents that I’ve watched and worked with in my lifetime, I find him the most complicated to try to understand, the most complicated to try to figure out, Why would you do that? Why would you pick fights that puts you on the opposite side from 70 percent of the American people? Why would you have a series of policies that you know are very unpopular?
VAN SUSTEREN: See, you know how I look at it? I must be very basic because I think (INAUDIBLE) OK, this is what you did, has it worked? You look at the graph. Do we have jobs or we don’t have jobs?
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, like…
GINGRICH: Well, I…
VAN SUSTEREN: I guess I don’t go that deep. And if we don’t have jobs, you picked — you picked the wrong idea, so we got to regroup.
GINGRICH: But part of the reason you have the tea party movement and part of the reason you’re getting this surge of candidates is that there are two things together. There’s a performance failure, the point you’re making, 9.6 percent unemployment is unacceptable. And there’s this deep sense many Americans have, as my younger daughter, who writes a column, Jackie Cushman (ph), wrote one time, We were told we were voting for change you could believe in and we found we were voting for somebody who wanted to change what we believe.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I actually think that the tea party movement sprung up because right at the get-go, he said, OK, this is what we’re doing with the stimulus bill. Take it — or you’re going to get it, whether you like it or not.
VAN SUSTEREN: And he didn’t consider everybody in America. I mean, and I think a lot of people thought that that was arrogant and you’re not listening to me. So then they go to all the town hall meetings and they find out you’re still not listening to me. And the Republicans still don’t get it. The first time Republicans have a wake-up call is when Scott Brown in January of 2010 is elected. And I think that’s — I think that many were offended that they weren’t listened to.
GINGRICH: And they weren’t listened to after Scott Brown was elected because then they rammed through the health bill despite Scott Brown’s victory.
VAN SUSTEREN: And now the Republicans aren’t listening, too, because now the Republicans are catching hell in the primaries!
GINGRICH: So you can add a fourth piece to the description, a Chicago machine. He is a perfect machine politician who says, I don’t care what you think. I’m going to run over you anyway.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, never dull, and I do hope you come back. And I’ll have to look at this book. It sounds like it’s a little bit over my head, but thank you very much. Nice to see you, Mr. Speaker.
GINGRICH: Thank you.
Wait I’ve seen this movie. It just came out recently. It had Angelina Jolie and Liev Schreiber.
More humor from the Post and Fail….
“I would like to make a statement regarding this topic of illegal aliens. You see, by my candidacy in the gubernatorial race, the donations are indicative of the care of the people. On the topic of illegal aliens and Obama ineligibility, my data shows America does not really care that much. Sure, these issues are an annoyance, but not enough to spend a dime to stop them.
Let me tell you once again where I stand and if you really care, prove it and drop $25 in my donation bucket (www.ginoforgov.com). Here is where this one gubernatorial candidate stands and will be the spark that lights the fire (Do you really care enough to support your America?):
I know this constitutional truth, and as a result, I will act with the full authority of the Commander in Chief of the State forces and I will deport illegal aliens. Yes, there is more to say on the subject. If there is any interest, please use my campaign email:
Further, on a separate note, in accordance with the Supreme Court definition of “natural born citizen,” I will require constitutional eligibility from Mr. Obama, which he cannot provide and marks him guilty of Treason.
“I will relieve him of command of the State National Guard and order them home from these illegal foreign wars. They have their new mission, to deport illegals.”
I don’t know how to cite laws … only break them, CauseHezaGangsta.
My internet came up with …
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 30 days
after the close of each calendar quarter, the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register the name of each individual losing
United States citizenship (within the meaning of section 877(a))
with respect to whom the Secretary receives information under the
preceding sentence during such quarter.
(f) Reporting by long-term lawful permanent residents who cease to
be taxed as residents
In lieu of applying the last sentence of subsection (a), any
individual who is required to provide a statement under this
section by reason of section 877(e)(1) shall provide such statement
with the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable year
during which the event described in such section occurs.
The Secretary may by regulations exempt any class of individuals
from the requirements of this section if he determines that
applying this section to such individuals is not necessary to carry
out the purposes of this section.
Now, I ain’t no gene-yuss, but it sez the Sec don’t have to publish for some people who don’t or won’t have US tax problems.
I iz gonna throw’d down and say, the Sec didn’t publish BHO’s (Soebarkah) name after a CLN was issued cause hez a kid.
I am always amazed that anyone takes Newt seriously. He is such a political opportunist that he will say anything if it gets him air time.
Is Newt Gingrich senile?
No, just a radical right bomb thrower, like Coulter. Also, the jerk just painted himself into a corner: the Catholic church does not allow divorce. What will he do when he gets bored with wife #3?
You have to wonder if Newt is senile…..He is just someone who will say whatever in order to get elected….a publicity whore…..
Speaking of the GOP and FOX, the following was Al D’amato reponding to the usual racial innuendo on a FOX show….I guess there are limits for some…
Where is a copy of the Certificate of Loss of Nationality, Sven?
You just keep making crap up without a shred of proof and we’ll keep laughing at you.
What’s it like being insane? Is it scary?
So find me a single kid, in all of American history, who knowingly renounced his/her citizenship.
A single kid. It doesn’t have to be Obama. It doesn’t have to be the CFR. It could be a case. I’ll even take a look at anecdotal evidence. I’ve never seen even a hint that a six year-old could knowingly and purposefully renounce his/her own citizenship!
We’ve got examples of kids whose parents moved back to the homeland when they were young minors, then they sued to get a US passport later in life – has this never happened with a six year-old who went before a consular official to prove they had the capacity to renounce citizenship? Not a single one has ever regretted the decision later in life, except, of course, Obama?
By the way, let me point you to a couple of words from the law you cite: “The Secretary may by regulations…” Regulations are things that the government publishes. Which regulation exempts Obama? Or is this another secret, unpublished thing, like all the other evidence you want us to swallow?
Maybe all this evidence is in Area 51 with the aliens. And the magic bullet. And Sasquatch.
Nah, he has a daily injection of thorazine. When it starts to wear off, he comments on this blog.
Let me show you how it’s done.
Here’s a 17 year old who attempted to renounce his citizenship, then later sued to invalidate that renunciation.
The court cites:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320.
Ex parte Chin King, 35 F. 354, 356
United States ex rel. Baglivo v. Day, D.C., 28 F.2d 44
to conclude that those under 21 cannot renounce their citizenship.
Not voidable, but void, as in it never took legal effect.
Surely you can find a case with a six year-old who renounced his citizenship then sued after his 18th birthday and whose suit was rejected. Right?
Greg, impressive find. Although you know Sven will ignore that and cite another irrelevant regulation and move on to making up stuff about some imaginary adoption or something like that. In all of the time Sven has posted here, he has never provided any proof to support his wild claims. Why make this time any different? Deep down Sven even knows that Obama was born in HI and never renounced, was adopted, or became a citizen of Indonesia. He just likes to play the “what if” and “maybe” game.
While anyone trying to honestly discern your intent by reading this would understand you, you leave yourself wide open for the creation of a birther strawman misrepresenting you as saying that President Washington wasn’t a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. I believe that you meant that President Washington’s eligibility derived from natural born citizenship rather than from the grandfather clause.
This was a devastating response. If Mr. Daneman was smart he would either admit he was wrong or quietly slink away from this fight…
One note about citizenship being tied to the location of birth in the time of the founders – at that time travel was very arduous – that combined the unequal treatment of women would have meant that very few babies would have been born away from home. Thus it seems reasonable that the founders would have no reason to be uncomfortable with the idea of jus soli natural born citizenship – any woman who traveled to America and gave birth would almost certainly have come here with the intent of staying…
Let’s have some more fun with math. I noted that renunciations of US citizenship have averaged a few hundred/year. I also noted that the vast majority occur in wealthy, stable countries (Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia) and in tax havens. So we can be sure that in the entire 50 years from 1960 to the present, the embassy in Jakarta saw fewer than 100 renunciations. In fact, I would bet it was fewer than 20. So, the folks there would certainly remember the few instances that occurred, especially if one was a child under 10.
The junior staff in the embassy in 1970 would have been in their late 20s/early 30s, so today they would be in their late 60s/early 70s and many would still be alive. Not one has come forward to say he remembers young Barack Obama renouncing citizenship. Why? Because it never happened.
That kid was locked up in an internment camp when he allegedly volunteered to renounce.
“They claim to be citizens and nationals of the United States by birth and assert that their renunciations were not of their free and voluntary act but were the result of undue influence, mistake, duress and coercion.”
BHO (Soebarkah) was not under duress or undue influence when he renounced. As a matter of fact, a LES (Locally Employed Staff) member was assigned to him to assist him and ensure he was not under duress or undue influence when he renounced. It’s detailed in the brief the LES signed, dated and filed with CA officer. The file on BHO (Soebarkah) is extensive (unless its been destroyed through some obscure GSA directive).
Great find, Greg! I mean, a 17 year-old isn’t considered mature enough to to be held to a CAR purchase if he wants to void the sale. Citizenship is a bit more serious than a 2001 Camry. And a 6-year old? Do they even know what citizenship means?
First, I don’t need to know what Jay knew; I know what he wrote: that no one but a natural born citizen should be commander in chief. He made an assertion which is complete in itself. Jay either meant what he wrote or he meant something else and I think it would be unreasonable to conclude that he really didn’t mean what he wrote. In a letter, you only get to say what you write — you can’t call up GW’s cell and chat about it. Of course, Jay didn’t mean to exclude himself or Washington because both of them were natural born citizens. If you bothered to read the material, you would know this.
But I actually know quite a bit about how involved John Jay was in the deliberations. John Jay was in New York, and the convention was in Philadelphia. The delegates to the constitutional convention took an oath of secrecy not to disclose any of their deliberations until they were finished. The secrecy oath was the suggestion of John Rutledge of South Carolina (see http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/ss/rutledge.htm). John Jay didn’t even know that the office of the president and that of the commander in chief would be one in the same person. So I have a very good idea what John Jay knew about the deliberations: exactly nothing.
Given that you spent more words complaining about my aside about honorary citizenship than I did mentioning it, I think you should bear the shame of muddying the waters.
Now go read the material instead of the inside of your eyelids. Until then, the ban is reinstated.
Where’s your proof? What was the staff member’s name? Was it Dick, Dan, Bob or Esther?
Unless what’s been destroyed? The memory of your psychotic episode during shock treatments?
Illegible scribbling with a crayon on the back of your children’s menu doesn’t count as evidence.
Is your psychiatric file also extensive? Is lithium expensive? See how easy it is to make up crap anonymously without a shred of credible evidence?
All you’ve got is a tepid imagination and scary shadows. That must really suck, Sven.
This is where it helps to at least have the slightest idea on how to read case law. You see you look at what the court actually relied on in coming to its decision, not the summary of facts at the begining of the case. Let me give you a hint:
“In the case of United States ex rel. Baglivo v. Day, D.C., 28 F.2d 44, it appears that Baglivo born in the United States was excluded as an alien not in possession of an immigration visa who went to Italy and endeavored to return and while in Italy he was in the Italian Military Service. The court held that: “A native-born citizen, who has not attained the age of 21 years, cannot renounce allegiance to the United States.”
Therefore, at the time the plaintiff Albert Yuichi Inouye signed his application and its approval by the government, he, being under the legal age the same is void.”
Well, he tried to take the discussion over to his own web site where he could control the discussion through selective editing and moderation. I wasn’t going to fall for that trick twice. However, Mr. Daneman has such a confident view of his own superior capabilities that he may well not notice being bested. A scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind.
I can’t believe that this has been staring me in the face all this time and I didn’t see it. Soebarkah is just a phonetic spelling of Sasquatch in Indonesian.
A Certificate of Loss of Nationality for a minor is valid and revocable until the renunciant reaches the age of 18 years and 6 months. After age 18 years and 6 months, the CLN can only be voided by a court order from a US Federal Court.
The cases cited are from minors who were considered to have renounced through some act (joining a foreign army) or while in confinement and not of their own free will without duress and undue influence. By 1968, the year BHO (Soebarkah) renounced, the law had been changed and the SoS could not issue a CLN to a child soldier in a foreign army.
Regardless, we know BHO (Soebarah) was issued a CLN and he has not revoked or filed suit to void it. And we know this because his mother “struck” him from her passport application to indicate he renounced his citizenship. She did not “exclude” him. She had him “struck.”
And we know BHO II (post-adoption annulment legal name change) continue to be an Indonesian National from his SSA Form SS-5, Social Security Application, where he filed as a Legal Resident and not a US Citizen.
1. The renunciation was rejected for two reasons, one of which was because it was made by a minor. If he had been a minor not in an internment camp, they still would have rejected the renunciation.
2. I’m still waiting for you to come up with a single example of a six to nine year old child successfully renouncing citizenship. 200+ years of history and you’ve got, what, nothing.
What was the name of the LES? What was the date of this alleged brief? Where is it? If you’ve seen it, you should be able to come up with some of these details.
As far as I can tell, you’re making this up as well.
Ding ding ding ding
SS-5….J’Accuse Sven the muppet…..
Back it up….cite a single case. Otherwise, based on the cited case wrong, you are wrong.
No….again you lie. The court’s decision was based on the fact that he was a minor. Learn to read a case.
Do we now? Based on some bad drugs you did in the 90s? Again to quote Joe Wilson, “YOU LIE”
Sven…you so really need to get a life. Your schtick may have been amusing for a short while, but it’s really time to let go. It’s just sad and pathetic at this point. How long can you beat this old tired joke?
When you can show us the CLN, then we’ll “know” that one was issued. Until then, we’ve got a crossed out name. Unless you can show a law that says that all crossed out names = CLNs (and not, say, a typo being X’ed out) then you’ve got a crossed out name which, with $3.00 will get you an iced coffee.
When you can post it, I’ll believe it. Until then, you’re speaking out of your rear.
You should have no trouble, then, finding a single example of a six to nine year old successfully renouncing their citizenship. Show me a single example of a person suing to overturn their renunciation and losing because they knowingly renounced at age six, seven, eight or nine.
Actually, if the law had changed to allow very young minors to renounce their citizenship, it was not widely known to, well, anyone. 22 Villanova law Review 531, 540 (1977) , Citizenship of Draft Evaders after the Pardon, The; Dellapenna, Joseph:
So, in 1977 (which, last time I checked, was after 1968) it was still believed that those under 18 could not effectively revoke their citizenship.
1978 is also after 1968. 2 Immigr. & Nat’lity L. Rev. 544 (1978-1979)
Voluntary Abandonment of United States Citizenship, Wasserman, Jack:
So, this law letting six year olds renounce their citizenship was unknown to those who actually practiced law in the 60s and 70s.
Do you have a time machine, Sven?
So far, here’s the youngest renunciation I have found. In re: L.C. 19 Bd. App. Rev. 1, 2 (Dept. of State, July 5, 1989). She was 15 when she renounced her citizenship. 15 years later, she appealed that renunciation. The State Department noted that the appeal was untimely, but that the renunciation should be set aside regardless:
In short, the appellate board didn’t have the authority to reject the renunciation, but the State Department rejected it on its own.
Sorry, Gangsta, but you need to read more carefully. That’s the error in blindly following Sven’s idiotic analysis that he posted on FReep a few days ago.
The instructions on the passport renewal application do NOT instruct the applicant to strike through the names of family members. The applicant is to strike through the relevant language describing the applicable “above mentioned” expatriating acts or conditions. Moreover, if any act or conduct was stricken through by the applicant, a supplementary explanatory statement made under oath was required to be attached.
In this light take another look at the application. Do you see any “above mentioned” act or condition stricken through by Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro’s application? Any supplemental explanatory statement by her or that “any other person”?
Didn’t think so.
don’t they all …
It’s called trolling. It consists of declaring blatant nonsense in order to provoke a response.
Here you go.
I can’t even follow the lunatic ramifications of Not-a-Sven’s latest rambling.
Can anyone here explain to me how he reconciles his delusion with the established fact of Obama traveling through Europe with a US passport when he was a student?
How does he go from point A to point B? Or is he just ignoring B altogether?
What was that?
I’m sorry for the fact that linking to an image file in Google Documents did not work. This link should work.
Jules….how long until it shows up in Freeperville, Gretawire, WND and the Pest as IT’S ALL TRUE……8-)
I was tempted to e-mail this to Orly Taitz and say that it was genuine. However, there would be a real chance that it would end up in her court filings, meaning that it would mislead the court. Knowingly doing anything to mislead the court is very naughty.
I think you should embed a watermark that says “FAKE” before Bovril’s fears come true.
It’s not a matter of if, but when that will become a mainstay of the birther talking points.
Uhhh, causehezaGangsta IS Sven.
Perhaps Misha can let me know if his CLN and his cat’s CLN look like these images.
In all seriousness, I’ve already indicated on Flickr that anyone who thinks that those images are genuine is a fool. Furthermore, anyone who does a Google image search can easily find the real CLN on which I have based these crude parodies.
In all seriousness, the “Bomford” Kenyan birth certificate was a hoax too with obvious “punked” errors. The Obama military oath change was clearly marked as “satire” at the Jumping in Pools blog, and the YouTube video where Obama is made to say he was born in Kenya was also clearly marked. Birthers removed those clear marks, and all these things became evidence for the birthers. Hint: birthers are fools or they wouldn’t be birthers.
They’ve trumpeted far less “evidence” as the gospel truth many, many times.
It’s fodder for fools. (Sort of like feeding the trolls.)
There are birther lurkers here who will post in on freeper blogs and send it to Orly and the Pest, as Bovril said, as an admission of Obot’s conceding they were right all along if they haven’t done so already.
They are that desperate.
If Orly should be so guano insane (again) as to post this is in one of her super crazy legal screeds, the burden is on HER as a (supposed) officer of the court to verify it’s authenticity.
Judge was VERY plain about that in her last “forged” birth certificate case.
Unless the document is used with the specific intent to defraud, YOU are not doing anything illegal.
Sending it to Mad Ole Orly with the specific intent to poke her with a pointy stick is also legal, she has driven herself into being a “public figure” so she has to live with the consequences. Even if she should be so bat shit crazy as to attempt to sue someone for her credulity the document would fall squarely in the 1st Amendment and parody defence.
As it is, I wouldn’t be at all suprised if an Obot or two should seed the world of the barking mad insane with this.
I wonder why Lucas didn’t try this tactic.
This is also another reason why the magical, mystical long form would be meaningless in Birferstan.
It would immediately be declared a fake and clones would immediately spread like wildfire on freeper blogs with substituted data to meet their “he’s a scary, dark furriner” agenda.
Excuse me, but that should be “to advance the International Jewish Conspiracy™”
sock puppets now that is novel…
Is Lakin a US citizen? Find out:
” Thomas Jefferson
“Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States.”
As far as I can tell, this purported quote from Thomas Jefferson is a fake.”
You are correct Doc, I have read nearly every quote made by Jefferson and don’t ever remember seeing that one. A simple search shows it being used on several right-wing or tea party sites, but never an instance of Jefferson ever saying it.
Ah, the CLN purporting to have been issued by the Embassy in Moscow must have been disinformation from Mossad. This is Misha’s true CLN.
For whatever reason, all U.S. Ambassadors feel the need to sign CLNs and they sign their names exactly the same way.
This is akin to how they are now going apoplectic over Sharia Law and how to stop it from ever being enacted in the US.
Never do they ever consider that the Constitution explicitly protects us from that ever happening here.
You would think that a so-called Constitutional Conservative would know this!
Yet there is Newt Gingrich making a fool of himself over Sharia Law.
Wow! The U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia would flew to Mexico City to sign Lakin’s CLN on the same day when he signed Obama’s CLN in Jakarta! He must have earned a lot of overtime.
“Dirty Jew?” Excuse me, but it is «sol juif.»
Did you see this about Lakin:
When reading my last comment, please strike out the word “would” so that it says:
To some extent, US immigration law assumes a certain level of arrogance with respect to foreign nationality law. The routine US naturalisation oath involves a declaration, “I… renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.” Even though this declaration purports to be a complete renunciation of all prior nationalities, it often has no effect under the laws of the immigrant’s country of origin. The UK, for example, says that a British citizen only renounces his citizenship on filing the appropriate paperwork with the UK Border Agency or the nearest Embassy, High Commission, or Consulate.
Quite correct Doc. Lets not forget the april fools day article that claimed Obama was a Fulbright scholar and was going to college as a foreign student. This never stopped Birthers from siezing on the article to claim that Obama has to release all of his college records. Which is why I’m surprised I haven’t seen the photo Stephen Colbert had photoshopped of Obama praying in a mosque pop up yet. Where Colbert claimed none existed so he’d just make one.
Newt making himself look like a fool is commonplace for him….He is a buffoon….
Even if he had said it, Jefferson would not be the best authority on the intent of the writers of the Constitution when they referred to natural born citizenship. He was in Paris when the Constitution was drafted and did not participate in the constitutional convention.
Not to mention that he’s “co-written” a bunch of potboilers with William Forstchen, who really should know better than to deal with such a lout.
Interesting subject. The arrogance goes back to 18th century English law where the law was plainly hypocritical. One need only look at Blackstone to see that persons born within the realm were deemed to owe their perpetual allegiance to the crown. Blackstone told us such a person could not have two allegiances and could not serve two masters. However, he also told us that a person could subject himself to multiple allegiances by his own voluntary act, i.e., being naturalized somewhere else. However, he then points out that England had by statute made children of subjects born oversees natural born subjects for all intents and purposes without any indication such status was voluntary. Seems like he was saying no one could claim the allegiance of their native born, but they could claim the allegiance of the native born of other nations.
Not surprisingly, this doctrine was subject to much debate and confusion on both side of the Atlantic. In the 19th century, England adamently stood by the doctrine of perpetual allegiance for its native born, until at least the reconstruction period. There were differing opinions on the status of statutory natural born subjects born outside of England. However, I believe the prevailing view in England with repsect to such statutory natural born subjects came to be that they were English subjects when they came home to England and, as such, England didn’t try to assert any claim to allegiance of such persons when in the country of thier birth.
In the United States, the debate over whether we adopted the English common law notion of perpetual allegiance raged on for more than a half century. When we complained to England about their assertions of perpetual allegiance with respect to British subjects we had naturalized, they had little trouble citing a multitude of American authority claiming America followed the same doctrine. There was also debate over whether the United States owed the same duty of protection to its naturalized citizens oversees that it did to its natural born citizens. Eventually, the United States would firmly adopt the view that our natural born citizens had the right to dissolve their natural allegiance to the United States and that we had duty to protect our naturalized citizens to the same extend we protected our natural born citizens. We would also eventually come to an understanding with England on the subject. Still the doctrine is not without ambiguity as many nations do not follow the same rules.
Newt making himself look like a fool is an attempt to improve his image.
He is simply a lout.
Then that explains the idiocy.
To a large extent, I can understand that. The US asks you, the applicant,to renounce any other citizenships you may have, but ultimately it’s a symbolic gesture. In fact, in Los Angeles, during the swearing ceremony when new citizens go to pick to their Certificate of Naturalization, many offer to surrender their native passports, and the INS officers politely turn them down, telling them they have nothing to do with that.
What I find far more egregious is the notion that the US IRS continues to ask US citizens living abroad full time to file US tax returns, thereby creating a slew of (often minor but real) double taxation issue & paperwork.
Dr. Con said,
“The best I can interpret what Daneman is trying to say is : “limit the presidency to a citizen without foreign citizenship.” That would, of course, exclude many US presidents and vice presidents who had foreign citizenships, not the least of which was Thomas Jefferson (citizen of France).”
This has to be either the dumbest or most intellectually dishonest statement I’ve seen Dr. Conspiracy make. And even though I disagree with him most of the time, I think he is generally a pretty fair guy.
Are you guys telling me that a mexican “immigrant” who is born in the United States in say, El Paso TX, born to two Mexican Nationals, who stays here with his parents until age 15, then goes back to Mexico and lives there until he is 35, comes back and runs for President, is a “natural born citizen”???
Gimme a break. That person shouldn’t even be a citizen. What qualifies him in any way? His parents, nor he, has any allegiance to the US. They are just gaming it.
As a random proof, if the US plays Mexico in a soccer game, who do these people root for?
We’re supposed to think they are trustworthy in their interests? Oh, they aren’t? I wonder why.
J, as has been mentioned numerous times, Constitutional eligibility is only one of the factors necessary to become President. He also has to convince a plurality of the Electoral College to vote for him. The scenario you describe is totally off-the-wall & would never result in a viable candidate. Constitutionally eligible? yes. Viable? no.
That’s easy. The 14th Amendment qualifies him. If the voters don’t like the fact that he lived most of his life in Mexico, they vote for his opponent. It’s really a pretty good system when you think about it.
Yup, that’s right. He won’t get ELECTED of course, but he’s eligible. The voters decide whether his loyalty is suspect. Example: Bobby Jindal’s parents were here on student visas when he was born. He was conceived in India. His wife was born in India. Jindal went to grad school in England as a Rhodes Scholar. Yet Jindal was heavily talked about for McCain’s VP. Because all it takes is birth in the USA.
Jindal will the VP candidate in ’12. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
Fortunately, America doesn’t strip people their citizenship if they live abroad for a person of time. As many people would argue “it is the voters who decide if his loyalty is suspect.”
The person could spend 14 years serving the Americans living in foreign countries before he was 35 years.
Why do birthers argue that a person “natural born citizen” changes by any act later in life?
However, Daneman’s argument isn’t about what you attempt to portray. Daneman’s argument is about a person who is granted American citizenship and eligible for another country’s citizenship upon their birth. Which is a different point than you presented.
It would be more like: A person who was born in American and has lived all their life in American. Through a law in a foreign country; they have never lived in; has granted them citizenship at their time of birth in American. After the age of 35 decides to seek the office of president US.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
It seems that you might have to retract your first sentence.
“Are you guys telling me that a mexican “immigrant” who is born in the United States in say, El Paso TX, born to two Mexican Nationals, who stays here with his parents until age 15, then goes back to Mexico and lives there until he is 35, comes back and runs for President, is a “natural born citizen”???”
Yes. Lets take another scenario- child is born to two American citizens in the United States, but the parents die, and the child is raised in Germany, doesn’t even speak a word of English, comes back and meets the residency and age requirements- still doesn’t speak even passable English- is he eligible or not?
Or a child born to two Mexican nationals but is brought across the border the next day and raised here her entire life- both parents become citizens, the child is a decorated veteran, and invents the cure for cancer. Is she eligible? Nope.
The Constitution establishes some fairly arbitrary rules of eligibility- what is it about being at least 35 years old that ensures a President is qualified anyway?
IF you don’t like it, change the Constitution.
I think you should write down the names and addresses of everyone cheering for the Mexican team and send the list to the FBI. One can never be cautious enough when it comes to keeping our precious bodily fluids free from alien influence.
Personally, I think all border collies and labradors should be made citizens, and all tea baggers should be immediately stripped of their citizenship, arrested and sent to Gitmo.
We all have dreams.
Did you see the way the US played in the recent World Cup? Not much to cheer for i’m afraid…
Just for fun let’s compare your El Paso-born child of immigrants to a family of New England-born Texans (at least they claim to be-no one has seen their birth certificates).. Supposedly everyone in the family were US citizens back many generations (again, no proof has ever been shown). This family has extensive ties to the oil industry, including the Saudi royal family. Interestingly and completely coincidentally (of course), during the times when 2 members of this family served in the White House, oil prices rose to new highs, to the great benefit of their friends in the oil industry, both here and abroad, including the Saudi royals, and to the detriment of the average American worker.
Thanks, Mr Maine, but I would prefer to take my chances with the guy from El Paso than with the oil guys.
Scientist, the scenario quoted was from the illustrious J. Maine, not me.
All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a). All such persons are born into the permanent allegiance of the United States. Thus, your statement that a person born in Texas to Mexican nationals has no allegiance to the United States is simply false.
As to your concern about owing allegiance to foreign states, keep in mind that whether someone holds a foreign nationality and allegiance to a foreign state is a function of the laws of foreign states. Any foreign state is free, subject to its own constitution, to impose its citizenship on any person it wishes. This would, under your theory, give each foreign government the power to render anyone and everyone ineligible for the Presidency of the United States. Let’s hope that Kim Jung Il doesn’t ever feel like declaring that every US citizen is a natural-born North Korean citizen.
Actually, he has to convince a majority of the Electoral College to vote for him. If a majority of the Electoral College doesn’t vote for him, then it goes to the house, with each state’s delegation getting 1 vote, and the winner there is made President. The House is limited to vote for the three candinates with the highest electoral college votes.
The fact that the person in your example is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president of the United States has nothing to do with me. You can thank the folks who wrote our Constitution for that. You may not think such a person ought to be a citizen of the United States, but neither you nor I get to decide that question unless a constitutional amendment is proposed.
Some folks think that the Constitution should weed out any possible unsuitable candidate, but this was left to the people and elections.
Your comment about soccer games sounds a bit racist to me. Who he roots for is an individual decision.
I assume that Elizabeth II would be very careful to display a poker face if she were in attendance at a World Cup final between England and Australia. Does this mean that she lacks sufficient allegiance to the people of either country in which all citizens owe allegiance to her?
I see that my most recent comment has been stuck in moderation. Is this because my phrasing caused the spam filter to think it was a gambling advert?
Yes, it was the word “poker” that triggered moderation. I I am going to remove that. This keyword is not the problem it once was.
She wouldn’t go to the game. Even a World Cup final.
She’d send one of the other family members, probably Prince Edward or maybe a grandson if one of them can be trusted to not get plastered at an official engagement yet.
Unless it was a horse race and not a soccer match, of course.
I think she’s doing a bit of a farewell tour these days; She went to Wimbledon for the first time in 33 years, so you know that she is obviously not much of a tennis fan. She is definitely a horse fan though, so I fully expect her to come to Australia the next time she has a horse that is halfway good enough for the Melbourne Cup.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the compound adjective “natural born” as meaning “Having a specified position or character from birth.” They list that definition as going back to the 1500’s.
So it doesn’t really matter who first used the adjective in connection with the word “citizen” the meaning is the meaning of the word “citizen” as modified by the compound adjective “natural born” i.e. “citizen at birth.”
Many seem to be trying to interpret the phrase “natural born citizen” as if it is itself a compound noun with a meaning that differs from the meaning of the noun modified by the adjective. However, in the Constitution, all nouns including compound nouns are capitalized. (For example “Vice President” rather than “vice President”) If the framers had intended the meaning to be different from the simple meaning of the noun modified by the adjective they would have rendered it “Natural Born Citizen.” They did not–they rendered it “natural born Citizen.”
Grammatical birther busting… I like it! 😉