Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers

THE MARCH OF “ER”

by Sally Vendée

Congressman Nathan Deal (R-GA9), who recently resigned his seat to concentrate on his bid for Georgia Governor, last year introduced a "Birthright Citizenship" Bill, HR1868

(Mar. 10, 2010) — Going with the new trend of adding “-er” to the end of terms describing groups of people with similar beliefs ungrounded in commonly-accepted reality, we need to add Birthright Citizenship-ers and Dual Citizenship-ers to the mix, along with the Birth-ers.

The reason to group them together—they march to the same drumbeat—all apparently believe that birth in the US is all that is necessary for anyone to have US citizenship. The only point on which they seem to disagree is whether a long-form or a short-form birth certificate is sufficient proof. (Many of the so-called birthers will argue the finer point of “natural born” type of citizenship for the Presidency, but that will be addressed here later.) Ironically, those who loudly ridicule the “birthers” who shout “show me the birth certificate” find themselves also relying on the birth certificate. They can all march together to Washington DC with Philip Berg, hand in hand, waving their certificates.

The addition of the “-er” to these other groups is merited because the notion of Birthright Citizenship—automatically granted to all children born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens—is not grounded in the reality of the Constitution. And even though dual citizenship is now tolerated, the oath for US naturalized citizens specifically disallows allegiance to any other country.

The Heritage Foundation has published quite a bit of research on birthright and dual citizenship.

Edwin Meese and Dr. Matthew Spalding, in their 2007 article, write:

According to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, those who are born here must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The popular concept of “birthright citizenship”—that anyone born while in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen—is historically and legally inaccurate. Only a complete jurisdiction of the kind that brings with it an exclusive allegiance is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship.

Dr. Edward Erler contributed the article “Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution” and a noteworthy speech on the subject.

Dr. John Eastman’s article notes: “…birthright citizenship is contrary to the principle of consent that is one of the bedrock principles of the American regime.”

In a 2005 Congressional hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty” before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, the Chairman, John Hostettler, made these opening remarks:

The purpose of this hearing is to examine both birthright citizenship and dual citizenship and the effect that they have on our sovereignty…Currently, the United States grants citizenship to nearly every individual born on U.S. soil. This policy…sometimes referred to as ”birthright citizenship”…does not, however, provide citizenship in a blanket fashion to literally every person born on U.S. soil…In recent years there has been a trend toward obtaining multiple nationalities or citizenship. Because citizenship is largely based on notions of allegiance, it is important to closely examine the consequences of this growing trend…

Committee member Lamar Smith, in his opening comments, remarked: “…during the debate on the 14th amendment in 1866 the Senator who was the author said it would, ‘not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners’.”

Contributing witness Dr. Eastman offered this historical analysis:

…In 1898, the Supreme Court reversed course. …In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court dealt with a child of a Chinese immigrant who was here legally, permanently, but subject to a treaty that we had entered into with the emperor of China that would never recognize the ability of anyone to renounce their prior citizenship. However the sympathy there falls, we should not read that Wong Kim Ark case so broadly as to insist upon the Constitution setting a minimum threshold for conferring citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here…

Witness Dr. John Fonte opined: “Dual allegiance violates a core American principle of equality of citizenship.”

Later in the hearing, Dr. Eastman, when asked “what about the children of legal permanent residents, temporary visitors or tourists on tourist visas, temporary workers and illegal aliens?” answered:

I don’t think, as an original matter, their understanding was that it would include any of those classifications…this allegiance-owing type of jurisdiction that we’re talking about meant that they really could have only a single citizenship. And the fact that they were children and therefore owed allegiance through their parents to a different sovereign, whether the parents were here legally or illegally, temporarily or permanently, did not alter the fact that that was the kind of sovereign jurisdiction that was envisioned in the 14th amendment.

None of the participants of the hearing affirmed that either birthright or dual citizenship was Constitutional, merely that both were common practice. In 2009, Georgia Representative Nathan Deal (not a member of this Subcommittee) proposed HR 1868, “Birthright Citizenship Act,” which sought to “clarify” that the right of citizenship would be granted to a person born in the US if at least one parent was either a US citizen or a legal alien.

Three years after this hearing, Obama announced his campaign, and his website, Fight the Smears, admitted his dual citizenship at birth:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony…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. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

This statement confirmed the principle of partus sequitur patrem: that Obama Jr.’s Kenyan/British citizenship was passed to him by his father, who was in the US on a student visa and never naturalized as a US citizen.

Note that Obama himself has exactly the type of unconstitutional citizenship that was being discussed in the Congressional hearing. And this hearing did not address the even more narrowly-defined type of “natural born” citizenship required by Article II for the Presidency.

Obama, a Constitutional Law professor, called himself a “native citizen”:

Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen. The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino, not considered a Constitutional scholar, in her official statement called Obama a “natural-born American citizen.”

…er…

Of course, to reject the popular notions of birthright and dual citizenship is politically incorrect.

To further question whether the President himself is a “natural born” citizen earns one the label of “racist” or extremist, and a tin-foil hat.

To wonder why the participants of the 2005 hearing remained silent during the 2008 elections makes one stark raving mad.

But the reality, whether commonly accepted or not, is that those who ask these questions are the Constitutionalists and true Patriots.

Dr. Erler warned, at the end of his speech referenced above, that “[u]nless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.”

24 Responses to "Birthright Citizenship-ers, Dual Citizenship-ers, and Birth-ers"

  1. Karen   Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 4:10 PM

    Obama was also permitted to hide all of his records and documents. The truth is we do not even know the answer to the following question: Was BHO II adopted by Soetoro and IS the Indonesian school record that identified him as an Indonesian citizen true or not? Was Obama ever (and is he now still) legally a Citizen of Indonesia?

    The American people were actually denied the answer to that question. To me that is just devastating. We’re not even PERMITTED to KNOW what the CURRENT legal citizenship status of the sitting president is. . .and nobody cares. Nobody even asks the question — no one. WHY not? It’s clearly not an irrelevant question.

    If Obama is currently & legally a dual-citizen (of the US & Indonesia) and he could be OR a tri-citizen (US, GB & Indonesia), then this is a FIRST in US history — ever — and nobody cares even though it’s clearly a serious “national security” matter now and in for all future POTUSs.

    The Alinsky tactics (mockery) have worked. This is like the childhood book: “The Emperor’s New Cloths.” He’s not wearing any clothes yet everyone treats him as he is. Everyone is pretending. Why?

    Watergate was nothing compared to this truly scary “cover-up.” This was a very successful and orchestrated “cover-up.”

    The critical issue is NOT whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii. The question is: what is the definition of a NBC and IS mere birth on US soil ALL that is required to be a NBC of the US. I don’t think so. It is all that’s required to be a “US Citizen” but US citizen and NBC are not the same.

    If they were, the Article II wouldn’t not have included the term: NBC.

  2. Karen   Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 3:55 PM

    I suppose what troubles me the most is that no one — in the media including Mark Levin, Hannity, Rush, Beck, etc. will touch this obviously serious legal matter.

    A US “citizen at birth” could be any person born, in the USSR, to a Soviet father & American mother, who lived in the Soviet Union for all but 14 years of his/her life. Such a person would be a US citizen at birth. He’d be a US citizen simply because his mother was a US citizen.

    The question is who is a Natural Born Citizen. The term “natural” and the term “native” are not the same. It is a critically serious matter — who is a NBC and can hold the single most powerful position in the US Govt — that of POTUS & C-in-C.

    How can any dual or tri-citizen of the US and a Foreign country assume the presidency and WHY is this not a serious problem for the American people, especially those we’d assume it would be — Levin for one.

    If Obama’s eligibility is not challenged, on Article II grounds, than anyone born to a communist Chinese or Cuban father or mother can become POTUS as long as he/she was born on US soil. This poses tremendous future danger to our national security.

    While Obama wasn’t really influenced by his father (who wasn’t around b/c he abandoned the family), a future communist or fascist mother or father might be but the bar has already been lowered by Obama. It can’t be argued in the future that the kid (future POTUS candidate) was raised by a foreign communist/fascist b/c Obama has already made that argument irrelevant by getting elected.

    For me, this is such a serious and scary matter and clearly affects, directly, US national security.

    The Constitution does not permit the People to vote anyone they choose to the presidency. We, too, can only elect a NBC, 14 yrs residency and age 35. In order to comply with the restrictions the Constitution imposes on us, we must at least KNOW whether a Candidate is legally a NBC, has lived in the US for 14 yrs and is at least age 35.

    We were, in fact, denied this information prior to the election and still. Very scary.

  3. Michael   Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 5:25 AM

    Zachary Taylor is the key to defining natural born citizen.

    Zachary Taylor was born in Virginia after the Treaty of Paris was signed by representatives of the United States and representatives of George III, after Great Britain recognized the US as an independent and sovereign nation, but before the ratification of the Constitution.

    The Constitution has two standards for eligibility to the presidency: one lesser, temporary standard, and one higher, permanent standard. The lesser standard was allowable only because no one of the greater standard was available until natural born citizens were born.

    Even though he was born in Virginia, in the United States, Zachary Taylor was not a natural born citizen of the United States because there were others who were born at the same time in foreign lands under the allegiance of foreign governments who might have been a US citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution who would have been eligible under the lower standard. Zachary Taylor was eligible to the presidency under the lower standard, not the higher one.

    Zachary Taylor was not a natural born citizen of the United States even though he was born in the United States, because he was born under the allegiance of the first government – the Articles of Confederation (1781). Those born under the Articles of Confederation or under the Emperor of China, so long as they were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution, were eligible under the lower standard

    So, as Zachary Taylor’s example shows us, just being born in the United States is not the sole requirement for a person to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

  4. Sally Vendée   Monday, March 15, 2010 at 5:27 PM

    Another excellent article addressing the problems with birthright citizenship–written by an attorney in 2004:

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/sep/27/00021/

    Here is an excerpt from the article:
    “Fortunately, we need not await the Supreme Court’s pleasure to enforce the whole Citizenship Clause and end drive-by citizenship. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives enforcement power to the Congress. Three bills exercising this authority are pending in the House. The best is H.J. Res. 42, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, to amend the Constitution to deny citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither U.S. citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to America. Although an amendment is not necessary, Paul’s resolution is faithful to the Citizenship Clause.

    Legislation enforcing the Citizenship Clause must also restore the traditional American rejection of dual citizenship. It should follow these principles:

    * Children of U.S. citizens are citizens, wherever born.
    * Children of an American and a foreign parent are treated as citizens until their 18th birthday. Then they must choose one citizenship; no dual nationality.
    * U.S.-born children of legally resident aliens are not citizens at birth. If their parents naturalize while they are minor dependents they may naturalize with them (assuming no criminal record). Otherwise they pursue naturalization, if at all, as do other immigrants.
    * U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are not citizens, period…”

    So here we have another article on citizenship, before Obama was center-stage. See how his “citizenship” and life story fits into this description. Then ask yourself, how could he possibly be Article 2 “natural born”?

    Where is Ron Paul now on this issue? Where is Mr. Sutherland? Where is Dr. Eastman, etc., and the Heritage Foundation? Why were all of these experts speaking out on the unconstitutionality of birthright/dual citizenship before Obama, and now seem to be quietly watching the “birthers” be ridiculed?

    Will they remain quiet when the Amnesty bill is introduced? Or will more people begin to see this connection?

  5. Pixel Patriot   Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 7:29 AM

    The United States of America exists under a foreign, totalitarian dictatorship established by coup d’etat in plain view of the entire world. And no, the dictators are not English, Israeli, the Vatican or any other foreign entity.

    For a true understanding of what happened to this country, exactly how, and when it happened, this small book is a MUST-READ. And while the book addresses Texas, it applies equally to all 50 states. Facts are uncovered therein in a way that no-one else has done before. And although many have approached and analyzed the same subject matter they have missed the mark in understanding the enormity of what actually happened, and how to remedy the situation.

    Please, if you wish to save this country you must download and read “Sins of the State”.

    The book is absolutely without cost – researched and written by a true lover of freedom.

    http://www.sinsofthestate.net/Home.html

    Yes, a congressional coup d’etat designed to destroy the states in union (warned about by Texas Representatives) and establish a dictatorship!

    For the first time ever “Sins of the State” reveals in a coherent manner precisely how Congress, now clearly seen for the racketeers that they are, pulled it off: How they completely overthrew the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and made the states and people “completely subject” to a bogus congressional authority.

    Amongst many other revelations, “Sins” exposes:

    •Precisely how all businesses and workers were federalized/nationalized, while maintaining the appearance of being private in character.

    •Precisely how due process of the common-law, (developed over the centuries for the protection of the people and their property) was repealed and replaced with a system of counterfeit law, initially “pulled out of thin air” by an outlaw United States Supreme Court, one consequence being the abolition of private property rights abolished!

    •Precisely how Congress abandoned constitutional office, eventually causing the whole of government, both of Texas and the union of states, to operate without valid constitutional authority.

    •Precisely how the congressional outlaws have become a law unto themselves under the guise of a representative republic.

    “Sins” unveils a concrete constitutional test for the Article VI Oath, and explains what is meant therein by “this Constitution” to which office holders are oath-bound; as well as how it and the “in Pursuance thereof” clause are intricately connected.

    If you love what Texas and your country originally stood for, you will waste no time downloading “Sins” to truly understand the fraudulent system that has been intentionally established to exploit, oppress, and enslave the People of Texas as well as all of the United States of America under what only appears to be valid constitutional authority and law, but is not.
    Richard Voudren
    The Watchman

    “The people are the masters of both Congress and courts,
    not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.”
    Abraham Lincoln

    If the people desire a return to the organic constitutional system, then the people, and not polititians, must first decide what to do with the perverted, anti-constitutional system (revealed in “Sins”) that all of America has been deceived into living in. This is the stark reality that faces us as Americans -will you turn away?

  6. IceTrey   Friday, March 12, 2010 at 3:25 AM

    I don’t really understand what point your trying to make in this post. I agree with you totally about the 14th amendment.When you say Obama’s citizenship is unconstitutional I assume you mean in the context of the 14th since everyone in here knows he’s not an NBC. But the point I’ll make one more time is that IF Obama was born in Hawaii he is a US citizen under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The INA makes anyone born in Hawaii a citizen regardless of parentage and even regardless if birthright citizenship was no longer granted under the 14th. So IF Obama was born in Hawaii he would not be an NBC or a 14th citizen but he would be an INA citizen.

  7. Pingback: Hypnosis | Stop Smoking With Hypnosis

  8. A pen   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 7:20 PM

    Look, the senate judiciary tried to open the presidency up to naturalized citizens. They admitted they were going to vote to amend the constitution illegally but went ahead and put the bill to the senate where it went nowhere. That occurred oct5 2004. Say what you will but the acts which led to Obama taking the oath amount to treason and all who sat and said nothing have participated in it. That is misprision of treason I do believe and the whole lot should be removed kicking and screaming to a place where they can be held until a legitimate government can be installed and the constitution redressed. I doubt we will see this until long after the powers that be have openly attacked the people in a bid to stifle dissent due to patently unlawful legislations designed to further empower themselves. Any bets that I’m wrong?

  9. ImagePhreak   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    It’s real simple, his father was Kenyan subject to British law, Mother was too young to pass natural born status.

    When he was adopted by Soetoro, he lost any natural born status anyway, he has never changed his name from Barry Soetoro back to Barack Obama and he may be in this country illegally.

  10. ELmo   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 1:08 PM

    OK – I should have read the entire article before I commented. My error.
    Interesting, I have never heard this point brought up before.
    ELmo

  11. ELmo   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    Either I misunderstand your point, or I am misreading the Fourteenth Amendment (Which is a part of our Constitution) “ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ”
    Is this NOT “Birthright Citizenship”??
    ELmo

  12. jtx   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 12:12 PM

    Sally Vendee:

    Perhaps we should be referring the troop (or tribe) of Flying Monkeys as “fraud-ers”.

    It quite fits based upon all available facts …

  13. mifouf   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 8:00 AM

    I am wondering why Supreme Court Chief Justice is publically criticizing The One. Do any of us wonder if the fact that Roberts is just now issuing his critique of The One’s egregious behavior at the State of the Union speech is because Roberts himself is having to watch the results of his own egregious failures to hear the cases contesting the qualifications of The One for the position he now holds? Maybe a little buyers remorse on the part of the Supreme of Supremes? Just a little speculation on what might be driving the very cool Roberts to a public statement of annoyance. SOOO interesting to watch! Cheers, everyone.

  14. heather   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 12:56 AM

    Corporation of the US–by act of 1871 gave DC their own constitution which follows ours except for articles 13/14/15/16 were missing. In 1944 our government quit claimed deeded DC to foreign countries in order to establish the IMF and Fed Reserve. Once this happened no one told the people and they were totally unware of the fact that their country’s constitution really longer existed. 1933-the govt wrote the trading with the enemy act-putting american under martial law-where we still are today—this has never been amended-ever! It is still in effect.

    You can go tohttp://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/10/birthright-citizenship-ers-dual-citizenship-ers-and-birth-ers/comment-page-1/#comment-6270. there are many legal sites that are out there with this information.

    So the corporation of the US is valid. Don’t think Obama and co don’t know this, thats why they are pushing as much through as possible, before the people really learn about this–most people, including myself never heard of this before.

  15. heather   Thursday, March 11, 2010 at 12:46 AM

    Obamas father was a British subject at the time of the birth, making Obama the same – a British subject-after his mother divorced Obama Sr–she then married Lolo Soretoro who was an Indonesia citizen–who legally adopted Obama in Indonesia so he could go to school. This is well known–so obama cannot be a natural born citizen of the united states ever. he is a dual citizen—british and indonesian! simple.

  16. TexomaEd   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 11:09 PM

    A dual citizen at birth is ineligible to be President for the same reason as a naturalized citizen — both were subject to a foreign power at birth. A natural born citizen (born in the US to two US citizen parents), on the other hand, is subject only to the United States at birth.

  17. Sally Vendée   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 11:02 PM

    IceTrey, a baby born in the US with a non-US citizen father is granted US Citizenship at birth, not because the Constitution says so, but because for the past 50 years or so, it has become common practice to grant birthright citizenship to these children.

    Listen carefully to Dr. Eastman’s interview linked above, and read the testimony of the Hearing and the articles by other Constitutional experts referenced.

    All present at the Hearing recognized that the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause referred to “allegiance”. They did not even need to discuss Vattel or argue case law, other than to mention the broad and incorrect interpretation and application of Wong Kim Ark. The only arguing that was done was about whether dual allegiance creates a national security issue and whether birthright citizenship was an illegal immigration magnet (one participant noted that the US is one of the very few countries in the world that follows this practice.)

    In other words, they were discussing: Should the Constitution continue to be ignored, should it be changed, or should it be enforced?

    No one is suggesting that birthright citizenship already granted to anyone should be rescinded. But the obvious thing to take away from this is: If the concepts of birthright citizenship and dual citizenship can be recognized as unconstitutional due to the conflicting allegiance they create, how could Obama’s type of citizenship possibly qualify under Article 2?

    Somehow, I don’t think this is what the Framers had in mind when they added the “natural born” requirement. They didn’t mention anything about letting any other allegiance expire upon reaching a certain age in order to qualify. They said “born,” as in, “at birth.”

    Birthright and dual citizenship vs. the very foundations of citizenship enshrined in our Constitution is the much larger issue behind this natural born citizen debate. They were debated and discussed quite frequently, until, it seems, Obama was center stage as a Presidential candidate. Then it got very quiet, except to resolve whether McCain was natural born, since he wasn’t born in the US, confirming the notion of “jus soli” as the singular requirement.

    Watch for that magical “long form” to be released, soon, with a request that all the Birthers go home, get a life, and quit worrying about the Constitution.

    And watch for birthright citizenship to come up next, when Amnesty is proposed.

    A sort of precedent, by having a Birthright/Dual citizen President, no less, will have been established. A “citizen of the World.”

    And anyone who begs to differ–about Obama’s natural born status OR the Constitutionality of birthright citizenship or dual citizenship–will be subject to mockery and ridicule.

  18. tminu   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM

    Mr. Charlton:
    What do you know of the impact of Corp. Amerika on the NBC issue? My take is that the Corporation’s Constitution, and whether they choose to enforce it or not, is all that matters. “We” don’t actually have any constitution.

    Here’s the Historic Timeline and youtube explanations:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/813840/posts
    Corporation Amerika has its own Constitution, which is the same wording as what America’s Constitution was, so in effect Corporation Amerika has their own installed corporate president, and as employees/serfs of Corporation Amerika, we never had any real rights at all–all along, and so what DOJ and Congress are saying is “to heck with you little serf-slaves you never had any say anyway”.

    DOJ told Apuzzo that we had ZERO rights as citizens about whatever the government does, including enforcing Corporation Amerika’s bylaws for its own leader. If Apuzzo et al think they’re going to work through the corporate system to effect change on behalf of its slaves (and technically that’s what we are), I think we’ll all see only endless dismissals.

    According to the timeline, every state and the federal government are really foreign-owned corporations, and we are mere serfs thereof. We have “no” rights.

    This entire mess needs to be purged and the real Constitution re-installed! Right now we work for the IMF which has robbed us blind!

  19. IceTrey   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:46 PM

    You’ve misunderstood. Ms. Vendee is saying he isn’t even a US citizen under the 14th Amendment because his father was a foreigner. But that doesn’t matter since if he WAS born in Hawaii he is a US citizen under the INA Act, regardless of his parentage. His NBC status is another question.

  20. DixHistory   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:23 PM

    Yo said Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM

    DixHistory agrees 100%

  21. Joss Brown   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 3:41 PM

    How can Obama have been a dual citizen at birth if the marriage between Obama Sr. and SA Dunham was invalid under UK and US law?

    ———————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: As far as I know, a biological father is the father, whether or not the parents were married. And if indeed he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, he had an Indonesian for a father. In either case, he had a foreign father and therefore split allegiance, at best, to the United States.

  22. IceTrey   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 1:43 PM

    “Note that Obama himself has exactly the type of unconstitutional citizenship that was being discussed in the Congressional hearing.’

    That’s not absolutely correct. Assuming Obama WAS born in Hawaii he has citizenship from Title 3, Chapter 1, Act 305 [8 U.S.C. 1405] of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which states anyone born in Hawaii after 1900 is a US citizen.

    ——————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Obama himself admitted on his website that he was born a dual citizen. Ms. Vendee rightly points out in her editorial that a dual citizen is not the same as an Article II, Section 1 “natural born Citizen.” There is a difference.

  23. Junior or II   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 1:18 PM

    Obama, which is it?
    Barack Hussein Obama II as shown on your “Certification of Live Birth” or Barack Obama Jr. as stated in your Fight the Smears website?

    Junior indicates the son of the father. II indicates the second person in your family history using the same name. Dude, where’s the consistency?

  24. yo   Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM

    I have a feeling that as time goes along, we’ll continue to find out about more and more people who have direct knowledge of the office being usurped and are just playing along with the charade and keeping quiet.

    When the law is treated as a toy, and the gov’t thinks the way to solve a debt induced bubble is to borrow and print more by the trillions, trouble lies ahead. Big trouble. It is theoretically possible, of course, to turn it all around, but the odds are becoming overwhelmingly against it.

    Sorry for the bleak prophecy, but i’m just calling it like i see it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.