quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:
In my opinion, they should drop the birth certifcate issue. There are much bigger fish to fry at the moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz5DkTF2RW8

quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:
Isn't someone considered to be a US Citizen by virtue of having born to USC parent, even if born overseas?


Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines among others the following to be US Citizen at birth:

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

Even if Obama was born in Australia, wouldn't he still be considered born US Citizen, since his mother was a US Citizen and lived at least 5 years in US ?

It had to do with his mother's age at the time of his birth and is complicated. But, it's an issue worth dropping. He's our President. Those of us who don't like it need to find others things to complain about.

It's Article II of the US Constitution that kicks in here, that states in part thus: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..." Furthermore, no other laws or statutes shall reign far superior to the Constitution as what Article VI, paragraph 2, (known as Supremacy Clause) has to say thus: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

But anyhow, I'm also of the opinion that this issue should better be dropped.

You Are a DUDE!!! Great Manipulation!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:

quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:
Isn't someone considered to be a US Citizen by virtue of having born to USC parent, even if born overseas?


Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 which defines among others the following to be US Citizen at birth:

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

Even if Obama was born in Australia, wouldn't he still be considered born US Citizen, since his mother was a US Citizen and lived at least 5 years in US ?

It had to do with his mother's age at the time of his birth and is complicated. But, it's an issue worth dropping. He's our President. Those of us who don't like it need to find others things to complain about.

It's Article II of the US Constitution that kicks in here, that states in part thus: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..." Furthermore, no other laws or statutes shall reign far superior to the Constitution as what Article VI, paragraph 2, (known as Supremacy Clause) has to say thus: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

But anyhow, I'm also of the opinion that this issue should better be dropped.

But how about Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines among others the following to be US Citizen at birth:

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years.

Even if person was born in Australia to just one US Citizen parent, could you say such person isn't US Citizen by virtue of having at least one US Citizen parent who lived in US for more than 5 years?
Didn't Obama's mother live in US much more than that before he was born?

I am interested in understanding the merit of the argument, not in the issue itself which is inconsequential per Supreme Court decision.

But the point of contention really is first, the distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" and second, the ambiguity emanating from why the word "natural" was added to the verb "born" by the Framers, that could be found only in Article II, Section I of the Constitution that is the ultimate determinant as to who is eligible to be elected to the office of president.

quote:

Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
But the point of contention really is first, the distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" and second, the ambiguity emanating from why the word "natural" was added to the verb "born" by the Framers, that could be found only in Article II, Section I of the Constitution that is the ultimate determinant as to who is eligible to be elected to the office of president.

I undretstood what you wrote, but it looks like 1401 defines one to be US Citizen at birth (born US Citizen, not Naturalized) as long as one of the conditions therein met.
I quoted part of section that seems to apply to Obama, unless you argue that his mother was not USC or that she was but lived less than 5 years in US.

No no, I won't argue that way. But take the case of McCain. He was born in Panama Canal Zone in 1936, which was a US military facility that was under all legal jurisdiction of the US, of both USC parents. And yet, his eligibility for the presidency was likewise challenged and pending in a Federal Court. It was just quashed when the Senate passed a resolution that McCain was eligible to get elected as US president. But although no president yet has served who was born elsewhere, the real meaning of "natural born citizen" is not yet resolved either by the legislature or the judiciary. Moreover, I don't think there will come a time when or there will be somebody in his/her right mind who was born in another country of at least one USC parent would ever imagine or succeed to run, and least of all, get elected as US president.

We need to look at the reason it's written the way it was. No person born anywhere other than here can state with absolute unwavering confidence their loyalties are confined to this country. It would be unnatural and absurd to make any other presumption aside assumed divided loyalty. That is something the highest office holder can not have. Nor should it be risked or tolerated. No matter how many free gifts are promised.

Please read my lips:

quote:

I don't think there will come a time when or there will be somebody in his/her right mind who was born in another country of at least one USC parent would ever imagine or succeed to run, and least of all, get elected as US president.

Exactly RN, I'm sure Obama didn't grow up thinking oh yeah, I'll be elected president one day.

I've mentioned before on here that McCain being born on a US military base abroad doesn't automatically make him a "natural-born USC" for the purpose of Immigration. However it also says...

"it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen"

wikipedia.com

Like RN said, it isn't an exact science.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brit4064,

quote:

Originally posted by Rough Neighbor:
No no, I won't argue that way. But take the case of McCain. He was born in Panama Canal Zone in 1936, which was a US military facility that was under all legal jurisdiction of the US, of both USC parents. And yet, his eligibility for the presidency was likewise challenged and pending in a Federal Court.

I have heard that one too. Now, if it is clearly stated that certain person is born US Citizen how do you make an argument that such person is not eligible for Presidency ?
Clearly one born US Citizen is not the same as one who Naturalizes later.
If person is not Naturalized but born Citizen and someone argues born US Citizen is not the same as Natural born, then to what category such person belongs to?

quote:

It was just quashed when the Senate passed a resolution that McCain was eligible to get elected as US president.

They probably passed legislation so that his campaign wouldn't stall due to delays in deciding the case by judiciary. Not because they thought Federal Court would rule against his eligibility.

quote:

But although no president yet has served who was born elsewhere, the real meaning of "natural born citizen" is not yet resolved either by the legislature or the judiciary.

It appears from reading 1401 that any person born to at least one US Citizen parent is US Citizen at birth, regardless of place of birth.

Such person can not be said to have been Naturalized since born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen are not the same thing.
There being only two known categories for now, such as Natural born and Naturalized Citizen, if one is US Citizen by bith and not Naturalized , then what category do you say such person belongs to?
If Citizen but not Naturalized nor natural born, then how do you define?

quote:

Moreover, I don't think there will come a time when or there will be somebody in his/her right mind who was born in another country of at least one USC parent would ever imagine or succeed to run, and least of all, get elected as US president.

Nothing is impossible. I can imagine Schwarzenegger becoming a President in our lifetime if Constitution is amended. Time will show if it happens or not.

But in case of McCain and Obama it appears that both were and are eligible under existing statutes to become Presidents, regardless of place of birth unless I miss or do not comprehend something, in which case feel free to explain.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OldE,

You guys are making this more complicated than it needs to be. At the time of it's writing there was concern of foreign influence to the direction of our newly formed country. The presumption of loyalty to one's birthplace gave rise to this. An accurate assumption. A U.S. military installation is considered an extension of our country and therefor U.S. soil. Hence, why McCain was considered a natural born citizen. I don't think they meant natural born referring to the birth process. It meant natural born as in seeing the first light of day on U.S. soil. Which is the question of the day for obama. I'm of the mind it was elsewhere. Which is why he refuses to show the long form version of his birth certificate. With that, another promise of his rightfully dismissed as what it naturally is.

One born to at least one US Citizen parent who lived minimum of 5 years in US, regardless of place of birth, is considered to be born US Citizen.
If born Citizen is not an equivalent of natural born Citizen then what is it?

We've moved on a bit since 1776 davdah LOL

You obviously missed this bit on the link I gave earlier regarding automatic US citizenship being born on a military base abroad:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

So if we followed your narrow definition that to be President, one must be born on US soil only , McCain wouldn't qualify but Obama would because he was born in Hawaii. That's why you can't have such a narrow definition because it ignores

a) The fact either one or both parents are USC's (born in the USA)

and

b) The person might have been born outside the US to US Citizen parent(s) but moved here at one week old. A recent poster, inh is such as case on here.

When referencing natural versus any other derived status the term most likely speaks to it's use as making the subject so connected and obvious to leave no question to it's origin.

quote:

One born to at least one US Citizen parent who lived minimum of 5 years in US, regardless of place of birth, is considered to be born US Citizen.
If born Citizen is not an equivalent of natural born Citizen then what is it?

But you didn't answer this:

One born to at least one US Citizen parent who lived minimum of 5 years in US, regardless of place of birth, is considered to be born US Citizen.
If born Citizen is not an equivalent of natural born Citizen then what is it?

Natural born leaves no question. Any other status would have some mitigating factors making it a little less in status, so to speak. This is demonstrated through the fact a natural born U.S.C can not have their citizenship revoked where as other variants can.

As predicted ,a clean sweep. . My only regret is the electorate not coming to it's senses any sooner. So much of the mess recently created could have been averted. Oh well, better late than never.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Natural born leaves no question. Any other status would have some mitigating factors making it a little less in status, so to speak. This is demonstrated through the fact a natural born U.S.C can not have their citizenship revoked where as other variants can.

I understand all that.
But what is classification of a person who is born Citizen by virtue of having at least one UCS parent who lived at least 5 years in US, regardless of place of birth?

It is clear that such person is born Citizen.
Question is how born Citizen is different from natural born Citizen?
What is the difference between those two classifications? And what category born Citizen falls into if other than natural born?

Natural is on U.S. soil. Any other is not.