(FOUND) House of Reps Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born Of Citizen Parents

Chap. Ⅲ.—An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.[1]March 26, 1790.


Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, Alien whites may become citizens, and how. who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,Their children residing here, deemed citizens. shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.[2]

Approved, March 26, 1790.


this is what our founding fathers said on the topic...

and it appears that even if obama was born elsewhere, outside of hawaii, WHICH HE WASN'T, that he was considered a natural born citizen...because his mother was a citizen and because his father was residing in the USA...in fact his father continued to live in the USA for at least 5 additional years after his birth.

All of that is moot though, since he was born in Hawaii...
That law was changed afterwords. Also it says:

That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States


Obama's father was never a permanent resident of the US nor did he intend to become naturalized. The Father of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham words stand. You have to be born to TWO citizen parents in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. The evidence is mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not eligible to hold the office of President.

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“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))

Obamas father, a non U.S. Citizen held Allegiance to the British Crown in Kenya
 
By the way? States do NOT get to decide who is a US citizen. They must depend on the Federal Government to establish that.

Not entirely true. States do have a certain power to grant citizenship to a person to that state, which then transfers into US citizenship based on the constitutional requirement that the citizens of all states be recognized as US citizens. BUT, that power is an expansive one, not a restrictive one. The states cannot restrict citizenship to anyone entitled to it under the constitution or federal law. But the states can grant citizenship to someone not already covered under federal mechanisms. I believe that Kim Wong Ark touched on this, I'll have to take a look to verify.
 
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Too bad the SCOTUS has consistently held otherwise, regarding "incompleteness" of allegiance. Birth and allegiance go hand and hand. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a reference to the American born children of ambassadors and other foreign officials. These children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
 
Why comment? You ignore every bit of evidence ever presented, or you delude yourself about what the evidence says. Someone shows you a dog, and you keep calling it a cat as if repeating it enough times will make it true.

WTF does this even mean Ronald?

It means that his entire position has been thoroughly destroyed several times already across several threads. When he's presented with evidence, he simply calls it fake. When confronted with case law, he will cite that case law as saying things that are not even there. He makes stuff up out of thin air, cites a case, and says that the courts support his claim. Here I'll give you an example of the kind of thing he does:

In United States v. Kim Wong Ark, the Supreme Court held "Under our constitution, all male farmers who married their second cousins were understood to possess additional privileges. Among these were the recognition of individual sovereignty. This allowed them to adopt for themselves any given rule of law they saw fit, as if they were an independent nation. The citizenship of these individual sovereigns was never in doubt as anything other than dual citizenship of their individual self and the United States. Therefore, even though such an individual sovereign might undertake an action that would ordinarily be considered an act of rebellion, that action is seen under the constitution as an act of war, which as any other sovereign state in the world, is an inherent right to the individual sovereign as well. Therefore, the individual sovereign cannot be held guilty of an act of rebellion because he has a constitutionally protected right to wage war against the United States.

Often, the case law he cites draws exact opposite conclusions as that which he attributes to the court, but he continues to ignore those facts even when plastered to his face numerous times. It's like holding up a dog and having someone repeat over and over again "See, it's a cat."
 
Chap. Ⅲ.—An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.[1]March 26, 1790.


Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, Alien whites may become citizens, and how. who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,Their children residing here, deemed citizens. shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.[2]

Approved, March 26, 1790.


this is what our founding fathers said on the topic...

and it appears that even if obama was born elsewhere, outside of hawaii, WHICH HE WASN'T, that he was considered a natural born citizen...because his mother was a citizen and because his father was residing in the USA...in fact his father continued to live in the USA for at least 5 additional years after his birth.

All of that is moot though, since he was born in Hawaii...
That law was changed afterwords. Also it says:

That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States


Obama's father was never a permanent resident of the US nor did he intend to become naturalized. The Father of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham words stand. You have to be born to TWO citizen parents in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. The evidence is mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not eligible to hold the office of President.

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“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))

Obamas father, a non U.S. Citizen held Allegiance to the British Crown in Kenya

obama's father was a resident student, in the united states and was subject to the laws here, for over 7 years....

obama's father was not subject to the queen, his children were not automatically british citizens usarmy?

yes, our naturalization laws have changed many times over the years....ie, not only white males are citizens.... i was just showing what our founders thought on the subject of ''natural born citizens'' way back in 1790.

i would bet that it was unconstitutional for them to make only children of fathers citizens if born overseas verses of either male or female....that is gender discrimination and not equal, under the law treatment....

the laws have been changed on such, where there is equal treatment today.
 
Chap. Ⅲ.—An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.[1]March 26, 1790.


Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, Alien whites may become citizens, and how. who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,Their children residing here, deemed citizens. shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.[2]

Approved, March 26, 1790.


this is what our founding fathers said on the topic...

and it appears that even if obama was born elsewhere, outside of hawaii, WHICH HE WASN'T, that he was considered a natural born citizen...because his mother was a citizen and because his father was residing in the USA...in fact his father continued to live in the USA for at least 5 additional years after his birth.

All of that is moot though, since he was born in Hawaii...
That law was changed afterwords. Also it says:

That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States


Obama's father was never a permanent resident of the US nor did he intend to become naturalized. The Father of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham words stand. You have to be born to TWO citizen parents in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. The evidence is mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not eligible to hold the office of President.

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“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))

Obamas father, a non U.S. Citizen held Allegiance to the British Crown in Kenya



obama's father was not subject to the queen, his children were not automatically british citizens usarmy?

.
Yes he was care and his British Nationality was passed to his children. I have posted this many times from Obama's own campaign website Fight The Smears. Why the denial he was born a dual British dual citizen Care? Here it is again:

“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."

Care, read that last sentence and decipher it using common sense. Obama was subject to the British Crown. They are talking his fathers citizenship STATUS governing Obama jrs CITIZENSHIP STATUS AT BIRTH
 
A legal definition of "Natural Born Citizen" has never been constitutionally established. There is a court case begun 2 1/2 years ago that has quietly made its way thru the court system and the way has been cleared after proceeding through the Oklahoma Federal Appeals Court. The Plaintiff, Steven Lee Craig, Has filed a petition for the case to be heard by the SCOTUS. I am a newbie and have not posted enough to be allowed to post a URL so to see the court filings, Google "steven lee craig scribed" and select the first item to obtain all his court filings and press releases as well as court responses. The first is the latest petition filing the have the SCOTUS hear the case.
 

Forum List

Back
Top