More on that Birth Certificate thing...
- Thread starter Bann
- Start date
Tilted
..
That's not necessarily true. Some of the speculation that has been made about what qualifies someone as a natural born citizen is incorrect.
Whom is a citizen at birth (i.e. natural born citizen), as well as citizenship in general, is governed by U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III. I cited it in some other threads to try to clear up some misinformation. Some of the code is fairly tedious and there are several ways, with different specific criteria, that someone can be a natural born citizen.
In general though, if someone's mother is a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth and their father is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national, and they were not born in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, then they are still a citizen at birth if:
(1) the mother was physically present within the United States or an outlying possession thereof for at least 5 years prior to the birth, at least 2 of those years having been after the age of 14; or,
(2) the mother was physically present within the United States or an outlying possession thereof for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the birth AND was not married at the time of the birth.
There are many other rules governing it, but these are the only ones that seem to be relevant in this case. Condition (1) is different than what I've seen cited, incorrectly I believe, by some sources.
Of course, then there is also the issue of having voluntarily given up citizenship at some point after birth.
Edit: Doing some more research on this subject, some sources argue that the law in effect at the time of birth governs citizenship status. In this case, that would mean that the mother had to be physically present in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 years having been after the age of 14, to pass citizenship at birth to Obama if he was born in Kenya and she wasn't married. It could still be argued though, due to the current wording of Title 8, that Obama is allowed to qualify under current law, since current law does not specify that the law that was in effect at the time controls. The actual wording here makes the question tricky. If he was born out of wedlock, which some have suggested, current law may control anyway. The truth is that there are so many variables that no one would know until a court decides. However, it is certainly possible that he could be a natural born citizen even if he was not born in Hawaii.
Last edited:
twinoaks207
Having Fun!
I can't stop that "Civilian National Security Force" thing from ringing in my head.
Most interesting development. Alan Keyes has much better standing than Berg and reading though all 18 pages of this there are some very interesting points made. This thread just keeps on getting more and more interesting. I wish I wasn't quite so cynical, though -- I'll be really surprised if any court of high standing has the cojones to touch this in a meaningful manner.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Most interesting development. Alan Keyes has much better standing than Berg and reading though all 18 pages of this there are some very interesting points made. This thread just keeps on getting more and more interesting. I wish I wasn't quite so cynical, though -- I'll be really surprised if any court of high standing has the cojones to touch this in a meaningful manner.
I just wish I knew who you were quoting here.
SouthernMdRocks
R.I.P. Bobo, We miss you!
[/B
Incorrect statement..If he was indeed born out of the states, he would not be considered a natural born US citizen no matter how you look at it.
Tilted
..
That is not true, he could be a natural born citizen even if he was born out of the States. Again, I'm not saying that he is, but he could be. Natural born citizen is not the same as native born citizen. A native born citizen is someone born within United States territory, and thus a citizen by birth by jus soli (i.e. the right of soil). Someone can also be a citizen by birth by jos sanguinis (i.e. the right of blood). Both of those are considered natural born citizens. Although there has never been a specific Supreme Court ruling defining what natural born citizen means for constitutional purposes, U.S. code defines citizens and citizens at birth, with the later being generally regarded as natural born citizens.
If someone had to be born in the States to be a natural born citizen then John McCain would not be a natural born citizen, as he was born outside of the States. Under U.S. Code however, he is a citizen at birth. Congress passed a resolution specifically recognizing that he was indeed a natural born citizen, in which they recognized that some persons born outside of the United States had previously been considered eligible to the Presidency. Ironically, Obama (as well as Clinton) was a sponsor of that resolution. That resolution didn't make John McCain a natural born citizen, it merely recognized that he was one.
Last edited:
twinoaks207
Having Fun!
I just wish I knew who you were quoting here.
Sorry! Refer back to your post #337. I haven't yet mastered putting multiple quotes into a message.
Last edited:
awpitt
Main Streeter
Very good research on your part. I'm finding your posts very worthwhile. It'll be interesting to see if anything actually comes out of all this.
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
He doesn't meet the requirements for that.
McCain was born in Panama, (US possesion), on the base while his father was on official business of the government and both his parents were citizens.
Don't forget, HI was only a state for a couple of years prior to Soetoro's birth.
This was only a Senate Resolution and was not passed by the Congress as a whole so it has little to no effect on the natural born clause requirement. And more importantly would any such legislation override the Constitution? I think not. McCain could have faced an equal challenge should he have been declared the President-elect.
For a good read on the matter of "natural born citizen" here is an article from the Michigan Law Review. http://www.michiganlawreview.org/firstimpressions/vol107/solum.pdf
I think it is time for the SCOTUS to provide clarity on the matter as to exactly what "natural born" does or does not mean.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Doesn't matter how long HI had been a state prior to Obama's birth. Even if it wasn't a state, before becoming a state, HI was a US territory.
BadGirl
I am so very blessed
I can't stop that "Civilian National Security Force" thing from ringing in my head.
You can just call them Brown Shirts for short.
BadGirl
I am so very blessed
If his mother was less than 19 (which she was) and the father was not a US Citizen, which he wasn't, then he can't be a naturalized Citizen.
McCain was born in Panama, on US Territory (Probably on an American Navy Base, in an American hospital), by an Amercian Serviceman and his wife, both of which were US Citizens, and both of which were over 19. If Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, he's not eligible.
That's the first problem with Obama, the second is his taking his stepfather's name while in India and enrolled in a private school under that name while there. Soetoro. It suggests that he was adopted, and if he was he had to rescind his US Citizenship in order to be an Indonesian citizen.
If this is the case, Obama is not eligible.
BadGirl
I am so very blessed
My son was born in Schweinfurt Germany, in a German hospital on the German economy..
He has a German birth certificate and is eleigible for German citizenship, but the day he was born the German certificate was sent to the US Consulate who in turn issued him a Naturalization Certificate.
He COULD have dual citizenship (as it's allowed by both Germany and the US) but is a natural born US Citizen Born Abroad of US Parents.
:itsbob:
Tilted
..
I wasn't saying that he did or didn't meet the requirements, just making it clear that you can be a natural born citizen even if you are not born in the States. There are many different ways someone can meet the requirements set forth by law.
McCain would be a citizen at birth because U.S. Code defines him as such, regardless of being born on a base or his father being on official business. This is because both of his parents were U.S. citizens and at least one of them lived in the U.S. at some point prior to his birth. There is also a specific provision of U.S. Code that would apply to him, that confers U.S. citizenship at birth to children of certain people born in the Panama Canal Zone or the Republic of Panama after 1904. I'm pretty sure Panama was never a U.S. possession, however. Unless you are referring to a military base there being a U.S. possession.
As far as Hawaii goes, there is a provision of U.S. Code that confers U.S.citizenship at birth to anyone born in Hawaii after August 30, 1900, despite the fact that it wasn't a state yet. Not that that's relevant to anything, just pointing it out since you mentioned something about it.
Tilted
..
Yeah, I should have said Senate, but I was clear that the resolution did not make him a natural born citizen, it merely recognized that he was one. Clearly it doesn't have legal import. The point was to demonstrate that someone can be a natural born citizen even if they are born outside of the States.
As far as overriding the constitution, obviously legislation can't do that. However, the constitution doesn't specifically define what makes someone a citizen or a citizen at birth or a natural born citizen. It is within the authority of Congress to pass legislation defining and regulating those issues.
Yes, it is possible that McCain could have faced a similar legal challenge, but it is highly unlikely that it would have gone anywhere. U.S. code defines citizenship at birth, and he clearly qualifies under a couple of provisions of that code. Someone could argue that citizenship at birth is not the same as natural born citizenship, but if is widely regarded to be the same. The problem is that there has been very little case law or legislation addressing the exact meaning of the term 'natural born citizen', so you can never be 100% sure unless and until SCOTUS makes a ruling on a specific case.
But, as I said, the point is that you can be considered a natural born citizen, even if you were not born in the States. It's clear that our forefathers did not intend the term natural born citizen to apply only to native born citizens, as is evidenced in the first naturalization law passed by Congress in the late 1700's. It is certainly no longer in effect, but it makes it clear that a natural born citizen need not be actually born in the United States.
Tilted
..
This is another point on which there is much room for debate. Current U.S. Code provides what conditions have to be meet in order for someone to have lost their citizenship. In general, they have to have taken one or more specified acts, after they turned 18, with the specific intention of relinquishing their citizenship. Generally speaking, the only way someone can lose their rights of citizenship due to an act taken prior to the age of 18 is by:
(1) joining a foreign military
(2) committing an act of treason against the U.S.
(3) making a formal renunciation to a U.S. diplomat or consular officer in a foreign state
(4) making a formal written renunciation within the U.S. while the U.S. is in a state of war
Again, it is not clear to me what did or didn't happen, or what age Obama was at the time. I'm just pointing out that just because he gained foreign citizenship, or 'rescinded' U.S. citizenship, or did certain other things that have been suggested, that does not necessarily mean he lost U.S. citizenship for legal purposes. It is possible that there were different codes in affect at the time, but I have not, as yet, found them.
Furthermore, the code provides that if the issue of lost nationality is in question, the burden for proving such a lose occurred falls on the party alleging that such a lose occurred.
I can see those born outside the boundary limits being statutory citizens (not requiring naturalization), but as to "natural-born" I am still unimpressed even with the verbiage in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which, as I am sure you know, was only applicable to free-white persons. Thus relying upon it as a precedent for determining what is and what isn't to be considered "natural-born" is lacking.
The one point of agreement we share is that the SCOTUS needs to address and clearly rule as to what is and what isn't a "natural-born citizen". Leaving it unanswered could result in possible future challenges and even more absurd challenges such as when a person, for argument sake, is born via c-section or artificial insemination.
Tilted
..
I agree, the Naturalization Act of 1790 doesn't have legal relevance anymore. The only thing it can do is lend a little insight into what the framers meant by 'natural born citizen' , since it is fairly contemporaneous to the constitution. There has been so little reference to the term in legislation and case history, that many different arguments can be made as to its meaning.
Unfortunately, I don't think SCOTUS is likely to grant review on a writ of cert in Berg's case, so the issue of what exactly the term means will remain unsettled. Perhaps a state should file a petition for a peremptory writ of mandate, as I suggested earlier, for no other reason then to put the issue before the court in the hopes that they would give guidance on what the term means.
Last edited: