Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 96

Thread: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post

    When did Obama make that declaration?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    In that paragraph I posted. Obama admits his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom.
    Perhaps my question was not clear ... when did Obama make that declaration?

    I believe what you posted came from factcheck.org, not from Obama. fightthesmears.com then copied it, along with a link to factcheck.org. That's not the same as "Obama stating..."


    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    I think it’s very important to note that Obama himself gave preference to the United Kingdom in his statement at Fight The Smears. Notice that he didn’t say his birth status was governed by both United Kingdom and the US. Obama chose to give preference to his father’s nationality by stating that his birth status was directly tied to his father and not his mother. John Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment stated this on the House Floor in defining natural born citizenship:

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    The words, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

    And again, it was known that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth and still -- Obama was eligible to run and is eligible to serve as president.


    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    What country was Obama's allegiance too Sheik?
    It certainly wasn't Kenya or Britain. From what I can tell, it was the U.S. He was raised by his mother, not his father, in the U.S. until he was 6 and then from 10 on.

  2. #62
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-17-11 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    78

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Going with the adoption theory, even if true it still wouldn't disqualify President Obama from being President because he'd still have been born in the U.S. by atleast one U.S. citizen parent, thereby making him a "natural-born citizen". Regardless, it would seem that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, has come out once again publically reaffirming that she has, in fact, seen the official "long-form" birth certificate and that it safe and secure on the first floor of the health department. From the article (paraphrased):



    So, there you have it, Donald Trump. If you're special investigators want to know where they can find the President's "long-form" birth certificate, you along with the rest of the country if not the world now know exactly where you can find it.



    Correct. President Obama did admit that at the time of his birth his father was subject to the British crown because Kenya was a British colony at the time his father was born and, as such, Obama Sr was a British subject. Theoretically, that made Obama Jr and dual citizen at birth. But since Kenya was granted their independence from Britan somewhere around 1984 and the President as a civilian never declared his British citizenship, such "duality" expired. Factcheck.org addressed this issue at length some time ago.
    You can't be born a natural born U.S. citizen if your birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. He was not born with sole allegiance to the U.S. as the founders intended their president to be.

  3. #63
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-17-11 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    78

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Perhaps my question was not clear ... when did Obama make that declaration?

    I believe what you posted came from factcheck.org, not from Obama. fightthesmears.com then copied it, along with a link to factcheck.org. That's not the same as "Obama stating..."



    The words, "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

    And again, it was known that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth and still -- Obama was eligible to run and is eligible to serve as president.



    It certainly wasn't Kenya or Britain. From what I can tell, it was the U.S. He was raised by his mother, not his father, in the U.S. until he was 6 and then from 10 on.
    No, Obama's birth status was governed by the British Crown due to his father. That is why his campaign stated it on his own website not contested by Obama or otherwise it would have been removed. Nowhere does Obama ever mention he is a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.

    "When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:

    British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth."

    So Obama has British Citizenship at the time of birth, that is a given. Did he gain citizenship to Kenya? Yes - via Chapter VI, Section 87(2):

    "(2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on
    11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or
    a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for
    his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1),
    become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963."

    But did becoming a Kenyan Citizen terminate British Citizenship? We look into the Kenyan Constitution and find - NO, it did not. See Chapter VI, Section 95(1):

    "95. (1) Every person who, under this Constitution or an Act of
    Parliament, is a citizen of Kenya or who, under any law for the time
    being in force in a country to which this section applies, is a citizen
    of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a
    Commonwealth citizen."

    So, like the Thai president that recently has disclosed he was a dual British Citizen, Obama has never renounced his British Citizenship gained at birth. He never 'automatically' lost it, even when Kenya became independent.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    The founders wanted a president with sole allegiance to the United States with no ties to foreign governments so a usurpation of the office wouldn't transpire. They were thinking ahead.
    Meanwhile, they elected men who were born British subjects. Men like George Washington didn't even hold dual citizenship at birth. Yet the Founders felt it was acceptable for such men, whose allegiance at birth was to Britain, to be eligible to be president.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    Every president post grandfather clause starting with the first natural born president Martin Van Buren have been born to 'TWO' U.S. citizen parents.
    That would be so special if only that were true. But it's not. Nowhere in U.S. law does it define natural born citizen to mean a person born of both U.S. citizen parents.

    Nowhere. You may not like that. You may not agree with it. But U.S. law never defined the meaning. That being the case ... and that is the case ... I hope you'll understand why I dismiss your definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    Wilsons and Hoovers mothers were foreign born but they achieved U.S. citizenship through derivative marriage to their US born husbands before Woodrow and Herbert were born. That made them natural born citizens born to TWO U.S. citizen parents. Chester Arthur had doubts but it was never proven.
    Of course it was known that Chester Arthur's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of the his son's birth -- there was a public record of him becoming a U.S. citizen after Chester was born.


    20091220_document.JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    Do you agree with the Father of the 14th Amendment John Bingham defining natural born citizen as this?

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    What's not to agree with? Of course a person born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. That doesn't translate into a person born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen is not a natural born citizen. This very concept was addressed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    You can't be born a natural born U.S. citizen if your birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. He was not born with sole allegiance to the U.S. as the founders intended their president to be.
    Still waiting ... cite the U.S. law which declares people born in the U.S. with dual citizenship with another country are not natural born citizens ...

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post

    No, Obama's birth status was governed by the British Crown due to his father. That is why his campaign stated it on his own website not contested by Obama or otherwise it would have been removed. Nowhere does Obama ever mention he is a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.
    Yes, his campaigned copied it from factcheck.org -- that's not what you said though. You said, "Obama stated" it. He did not. Putting words in his mouth because they appeared on a website he was associated with is dishonest.

    As far as a person required to have two U.S. citizen parents in order to meet the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution, we have so far had 2 which haven't. Arthur and now Obama. It seems to me that the precedent has been determined that you are simply wrong.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post
    You can't be born a natural born U.S. citizen if your birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.
    Why not? We have no control over -- and do not recognize -- British Law. If they were to pass a Nationality Act of 2011 granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, would that mean that none of us could be natural born citizens?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apuzo View Post
    He was not born with sole allegiance to the U.S. as the founders intended their president to be.
    At the time the Constitution was written, over half of the population did not have "sole allegiance to the U.S.," being either allied with England against the US, or completely neutral. To my knowledge, no attempt was made to brand these people or their descendents as ineligible for the Presidency.

    The founders recognized that we can no more determine your allegiance than we can determine your favorite color.

    The Constitution only requires that the President be a "natural (i.e. not foreign) born citizen."

  8. #68
    Holy Crap!
    Red Crow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hawaii, USA
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 11:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,429

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    No, but the ratings on his TV show will skyrocket. I believe that this is what Trump was aiming for. He doesn't really want to be president. He is an attention whore.





    I say that Obama is an attention whore for not wanting to show his birth certificate.
    Last edited by Red Crow; 04-12-11 at 04:04 PM.
    Catch me if you can.

  9. #69
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-17-11 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    78

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti View Post
    Meanwhile, they elected men who were born British subjects. Men like George Washington didn't even hold dual citizenship at birth. Yet the Founders felt it was acceptable for such men, whose allegiance at birth was to Britain, to be eligible to be president.


    That would be so special if only that were true. But it's not. Nowhere in U.S. law does it define natural born citizen to mean a person born of both U.S. citizen parents.

    Nowhere. You may not like that. You may not agree with it. But U.S. law never defined the meaning. That being the case ... and that is the case ... I hope you'll understand why I dismiss your definition.


    Of course it was known that Chester Arthur's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of the his son's birth -- there was a public record of him becoming a U.S. citizen after Chester was born.


    20091220_document.JPG


    What's not to agree with? Of course a person born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. That doesn't translate into a person born in the U.S. to one U.S. citizen is not a natural born citizen. This very concept was addressed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:
    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
    Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen, not a natural born citizen in it's ruling.

  10. #70
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-17-11 @ 07:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    78

    Re: Trump to meet with sponsor of Arizona 'birther bill'

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Why not? We have no control over -- and do not recognize -- British Law. If they were to pass a Nationality Act of 2011 granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, would that mean that none of us could be natural born citizens?


    At the time the Constitution was written, over half of the population did not have "sole allegiance to the U.S.," being either allied with England against the US, or completely neutral. To my knowledge, no attempt was made to brand these people or their descendents as ineligible for the Presidency.

    The founders recognized that we can no more determine your allegiance than we can determine your favorite color.

    The Constitution only requires that the President be a "natural (i.e. not foreign) born citizen."
    The reason natural born citizen was added to the presidential clause is because the founders wanted their future presidents to have sole allegiance for the US and no allegiances to other countries. The only exceptions were the first few presidents who were grandfathered in. Natural Born Citizen was a higher level of citizenship, born to two U.S. parents was the founders intent.

    The father of the 14th John Bingham was well versed in the meaning of what a natural born citizen was.

    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

    According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

    “Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “



    Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

    Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

    SENATORS HOWARD AND TRUMBULL AND REPRESENTATIVE THAYER

    But there’s even more authority to be heard from regarding Obama’s unconstitutional occupation of the White House. Justice Black also told us that we must consult with Senator Howard since he was Bingham’s counterpart in the Senate relating to the 14th Amendment. Bingham and Howard are the two that ushered the 14th Amendment into the Constitution.

    As to the meaning of the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, Senator Howard stated:

    “The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2890 (1866))

    Notice that Howard lists several classes of persons who are not citizens under the 14th Amendment:

    - foreigners

    - aliens

    - families of ambassadors or ministers

    The statement was clarified a few days earlier when Howard stated:

    “That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress pg. 2893 (1866))

    Those who owed allegiance to “anybody else” are not natural born citizens of the United States. The same sentiments were also uttered by Senator Trumbull who stated that it meant “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
    Last edited by Apuzo; 04-12-11 at 09:36 PM.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •