Regarding “natural born Citizenship”

IN A CLASS BY ITSELF

by Packrat1145

General George Washington became the first U.S. President by virtue of the "grandfather clause" in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Following that generation, all future presidents had to be "natural born Citizens" to qualify.

(May 3, 2011) — I cringe every time I see “ship” tacked onto the term “natural born citizen.” In my humble opinion, that should never be done! It only serves to further confuse those who do not understand that the status of being a natural born Citizen has absolutely zero to do with any form of legal citizenship, as in “naturalized citizenship” and “native citizenship.”

There is, therefore, a huge difference between being a legal citizen of either of the above forms and being a natural born Citizen.

One can become a legal citizen in various ways, mainly by simply being born in the U.S. (a native citizen) or by becoming a naturalized citizen. Both of those kinds of citizenSHIP are granted and controlled by statute of law.

However, one can attain the status of being a natural born Citizen only at the moment of birth. Laws do not grant or control becoming a natural born Citizen. Only one’s circumstances of birth can do so; and it can only occur at the moment of birth. In other words, again, being a natural born Citizen is not a legal form of citizenSHIP in the same way as is being a native citizen or a naturalized citizen. If that were NOT the case, there would be some statute of law somewhere in the U.S. Code that mentions the term “natural born Citizen;” but there is not.

As important as it is relative to one becoming eligible for the presidency, the fact is that the term “natural born Citizen” is simply a description of a set of circumstances that must occur at the time of one’s birth in order to meet one of the three Constitutionally- mandated requirements for the presidency. Once that is understood, it clears up any confusion about the naturalization process resulting in some nonexistent “mixed classification” between the status of being a natural born Citizen and dual citizenship.

You can learn all the different conditions of becoming a natural born citizen here.

However, for the purposes of this discussion, I will only mention that in order to become a natural born Citizen, one MUST have TWO citizen parents.

Once that is understood, it can also be understood that Obama’s lack of eligibility does not revolve solely around a birth certificate.  It matters not where he was born, since he had only one citizen parent. That is, regardless of where he was born, he was not a natural born Citizen at birth.

We know by Obama’s own admission that Barack Obama, Sr. was never a U.S. citizen and therefore could not have been a U.S. citizen when Obama Jr. was born.

Obama’s own website says the following:

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.

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.

From that information, we know (1) that Obama’s FATHER was both a Kenyan citizen AND a British subject at the time Obama, Jr. was born, (2) that via birthright, Obama Jr. was also a Kenyan citizen AND a British subject at the moment he was born; and, (3) Obama Jr. continued to be a Kenyan citizen until he was 21 years of age! This, in turn, means (4) that unless Obama Jr. became a naturalized U.S. citizen at some point, he has yet to become any kind of legal U.S. citizen of ANY kind!

Any one of the above facts, 1 through 3, which have been admitted to by Obama Jr., excludes him from being a natural born Citizen. Therefore, he was not at birth, is not now, and NEVER can be eligible to become president!

How, then, can he be president at all, now or ever? The simple fact is that he cannot be and is not!

Some say he was “elected,”’ and therefore, we have to live with the “‘fact” the he is “‘president.”

Not true.  No election can change the Constitution!

The only way the Constitution can be changed legally is via the process of adding an amendment. The Constitution STILL clearly states that only a natural born Citizen can become president, because no amendment has been added to change that requirement for the presidency.

Therefore, Obama is NOT president! Usurper, yes; but not president!

18 Responses to "Regarding “natural born Citizenship”"

  1. packrat1145   Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM

    Thanks, Sharon!

  2. Sharon Rondeau   Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 6:05 PM

    From packrat1145, the author of the piece:

    My apologies to all.

    I was not aware that my comment was going to be posted as a stand alone ‘article;’ so, I had not been back to even see if it had gotten posted as such or to follow up until now.

    Actually, I posted the ‘article’ above as a comment on the article by “Thinkwell” titled “Why Do We Require Our President to be a natural born Citizen?” (http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/02/why-do-we-require-our-president-to-be-a-natural-born-citizen/); so, a reading of that article may add some insight into my comment/article.

    Please note that none of the above is meant to be a complaint; as I am in awe and humbled that The Post & Email thought it worthy of being published at all.

    Now… I would like to address some comments made in reply concerning various ideas I wrote about. Unless I run into something that happens to be too time consuming for the moment, I will try to take those replies in reverse chronological order.

    Hopefully, since I am late following up, the comments can be allowed to remain open long enough for people who had questions to see them.

    I will begin with AuntieMadder who somewhat took me to task for using the word “cringe.” In an effort to get back in her good graces, I would like her to know that it was only a small cringe; and, that I agree with most of what she said as to why there is confusion about the definition of “natural born citizen.”

    I would like to offer a slightly different point of view about what role SCOTUS might play in clarifying that definition. The way I see it, what SCOTUS must do is seek to learn what the founder’s definition was and then hand down a ruling that that original meaning is THE definition; rather than attempting to define it themselves based on any other criteria.

    I agree 100% with Ed ’74’s and yo’s comments. They are both right on in saying the status of being a natural born citizen CAN be forfeited voluntarily. I did some time ago have some different ideas about it; but, have come to my senses, and I thank him for his input.

    To Dan Roberts question about why anchor babies aren’t natural born citizens since that they are citizens at birth. The reason is that the citizenship at birth they are granted comes via statute of law; and, that ALWAYS excludes one from being a natural born citizen.

    Although it is a misapplication of the 14th Amendment, and therefore Unconstitutional, that is source the courts have claimed warrants giving citizenship to children of foreigners who give birth on American soil.

    I thank Texoma for the list of court cases. The first two I’m not familiar with so I’ll want to research those.

    To ColorMeRed, thanks so much for the kind words.

    To Neil Turner, I agree except that a natural born citizen CAN forfeit his status as such by relinquishing his legal form of U.S. citizenship.

    Thanks also to John Sutherland for his input and the link posted.

    Sam Sewell, you would do well to more thoroughly research that idea as it has been debunked some time ago. Besides, what is relevant is that Obama Sr. was never a U.S. citizen; therefore, it makes difference what HIS location of birth place was named at the time he was born.

    Lastly, Trac is correct in his analysis and so am I; and, I take full responsibility for the confusion. When I said Obama could not be a citizen at all if he had never become naturalized, I was alluding to the ‘theory’ that he was born in Kenya. While that has not been established 100%, IMO, most of the evidence that has been authenticated points in that direction. If Obama was in fact born in Kenya, his mother was too young to have conferred U.S. citizenship onto her son when Obama was born. I did not make that clear and I apologize for that.

  3. packrat1145   Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM

    This is a test.

  4. Dan Roberts   Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 10:12 AM

    Bob1943,

    “They are not natural born Citizens, however, because to be a natural born Citizen one must be born of two U.S. citizens.”

    That is actually the statement my question is regarding. Can you refer me to an official reference regarding this requirement? I have repeatedly seen stated that 1) being born on US soil makes you a citizen 2) being a citizen at birth makes you a “natural born citizen”, which makes the suggestion that the citizenship of parents (US or otherwise) affects whether the baby is a “natural born citizen” very confusing.

    I have also seen it stated (google “dual citizenship”) that one doesn’t automatically lose citizenship by being a citizen of another country, through birth parents or marriage for example, unless the person actually takes action to apply for citizenship in the other country.

    I am just starting to read about Obama’s natural born citizen status so I apologize if these are questions that have been answered in the past.

  5. Bob1943   Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 7:12 AM

    Dan Roberts,

    It doesn’t help that the media, Obots and Congress are hard at work trying to remove every reference to “natural born Citizen”, as required by the Constitution, from anyplace they find it.

    Being born to non-citizens on U.S. soil makes one a “citizen” per the 14th amendment. There is much argument about that even today, but, as you know, anchor babies are “citizens”.

    They are not natural born Citizens, however, because to be a natural born Citizen one must be born of two U.S. citizens. The natural born Citizen’s parents can be native born citizens, naturalized citizens or natural born Citizens, What matters is that, prior to the babies birth, both parents must be U.S. citizens.

    It should not be all that hard to understand that the founders of our nation, just after a war for the independence of our nation, would not want someone in the top office and commander-in-chief of our military, who had allegiance through their parents to any nation other than America. Other federal offices only require, “citizen”, and not natural born Citizen. This would indicate to anyone capable of rational thought and logic that there is a difference in the presidential eligibility requirements and those for other, lesser, federal offices. The founders also recognized that there would initially be no natural born Citizens to choose from, and that is why the grandfather clause was included in the Constitution.

    However, since Barry was knowingly placed on the ballot and elected through fraud, the perpetrators of the fraud will never admit to the crimes they committed. To do so would result in their life of luxury turning into a life in prison orange. They will fight to the bitter end to save their own rear ends. I don’t think they care much about Barry right now, its just self-preservation.

    Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

    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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

  6. Robert Laity   Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 2:51 AM

    Respectfully,Ms. Rondeau,
    No “theory involved”
    The Supreme Court has accepted the “One born in a Country of Parents who are citizens”.
    Minor v. Happersett (1874) and other cases.

  7. Robert Laity   Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 2:48 AM

    JB Williams disagrees,as he has told me so. Called my assertion “Entertainment”.

  8. Texoma   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM

    The US Supreme Court has never characterized a natural born citizen as being anything less than a person born in the country to citizen parents. And they have affirmed this definition in these 5 cases:

    1814 The Venus
    1856 Scott v. Sandford
    1874 Minor v. Happersett
    1898 US v. Wong Kim Ark
    1939 Perkins v. Elg

  9. Texoma   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM

    And like the self-evident truths described in the Declaration of Independence, the citizenship of a natural born citizen is self-evident. By being born in the US to US citizen it is self-evident to all that you are a US citizen. You need no human law to ascertain your US citizenship, and no foreign country can lay any legitimate claim to your allegiance at birth.

  10. AuntieMadder   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 6:56 PM

    I cringe every time I see “ship” tacked onto the term “natural born citizen.” In my humble opinion, that should never be done! It only serves to further confuse those who do not understand that the status of being a natural born Citizen has absolutely zero to do with any form of legal citizenship, as in “naturalized citizenship” and “native citizenship.”

    What a silly, inconsequential thing to cringe about. Confusion over the difference between natural born citizenship and native born citizenship has nothing to do with “ship.” Many people believe they’re the same because of at least two decades of Congress telling them they’re the same and the courts not correcting them. It doesn’t help that, just as those who know they’re not the same can do, those who say they’re the same can also quote legislators, politicians and even judges’ statements, even if they were wrong and/or sloppily written, to support their definition.

    The SCOTUS must define “natural born citizen” to end the argument. The way the SCOTUS is stacked today, however, I wouldn’t count on it to define it properly, if at all.

  11. Ed '74   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 2:01 PM

    Yo, I agree. While Natural born citizen can not be taken away, it CAN be surrendered or given away. Even if you are natural born, if you become a dual citizen of another country then you give up the natural born part of the term. Why? because the term means not having a dual allegiance. Once you have one, you don’t have the other. So, by logical extension, if you then surrendered the ‘natural born’, you can’t get it back.
    ‘that’s what I think’

  12. Dan Roberts   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

    “However, for the purposes of this discussion, I will only mention that in order to become a natural born Citizen, one MUST have TWO citizen parents.”

    What confuses me about this statement is that I’ve always considered “anchor babies” to be natural born citizens. If you are automatically a citizen at birth doesn’t that make you a natural born citizen? There was a bill in the House a few years ago (which did not pass) that would have required at least one parent be a legal resident for a baby to get citizenship at birth.

    If babies born on US soil to 2 illegal alien parents are natural born citizens then why would Obama be any different? Any clarification on this point would be much appreciated.
    —————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Your question is all part of the debate as to what the term “natural born Citizen” actually means. The allegiance of the parents may or may not play a part when this question is ultimately decided, but historical documents such as the Federalist Papers and John Jay’s letter mentioning the term “natural born Citizen” seem to indicate that the Founders wished to avoid any chance of a foreign allegiance in the President and Commander-in-Chief. There are some who believe that just being born on U.S. soil makes one “natural born;” others subscribe to other theories.

  13. ColorMeRed   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 11:00 AM

    Excellent diagnosis and postmortem on the “One Who Would Be King”.
    Guillotine.

  14. Neil Turner   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 10:53 AM

    Right on, Packrat. Right on.

    Natural born Citizen (I will refrain from adding the -SHIP, thank you very much) is, like the natural-law unalienable Rights denoted in the Declaration of Independence, a CONDITION at birth (only), and cannot be taken nor given away.

    Man-made laws can change the requirements for the Office of President, but they cannot change your unalienable Right to be a natural born (or non-natural born) Citizen.

    e.g. a) Failure to register for the draft between the ages of 18 and 26 (when enacted) can cause one to be exempted from employment in the Executive Branch of government. (Forged registration, 25 years later, just doesn’t cut it).

    b) Campaigning for a foreign-born terrorist (‘cousin’ Raille Odinga) in a foreign country (Kenya), as a Senator (on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime), is worse than a felony, and would preclude one from running for the Office of President of the U.S.

    c) Not being born of two U.S. Citizen parents would make one a non-natural born Citizen, and, until Article II is changed by Constitutional Amendment, make one ineligible to the Office of President.

    Taking of that office under the conditions mentioned above is TREASON!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52100905/White-House-A-Clear-and-Present-Danger-Image

  15. John Sutherland   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM

    For those who are interested in comprehensive research into the subject of obama and ‘natural born citizen,’ there is probably not a more complete and thorough discussion than Stephen Tonchen’s article found here:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/50553313/Stephen-Tonchen-Obama-Presidential-Eligibility-An-Introductory-Primer

    It is my opinion that every aspect of obama is a fraud, and before anyone can determine his citizenship status, or answer the question whether he is a natural born citizen or not, obama has to provide forensic evidence of his background – which he will never do, nor will he ever allow to be done. Obama is simply a fraud.

    When dealing with frauds and pathological liars, every single statement uttered must be considered unbelievable until proven separately by some profound and credible evidence.

  16. Sam Sewell   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 8:28 AM

    Birth Certificate Anomaly
    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/05/birth-certificate-anomaly-how-could.html
    Birth Certificate Anomaly – How could have Obama’s father have been born in a country that did not yet exist?

  17. Trac   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 8:08 AM

    I agree with most of this article and since we seem to be in a “war of words” and playing a game of semantics with people from the other side of the debate I’m glad the point of sticking with the original wording of natural born Citizen and not making it “natural born citizenship” was made.

    But like the other commenter said I don’t get the part about Obama not being a US citizen at all. He was born with both British and American citizenship, receiving citizenship from both parents or to say it another way he had dual citizenship and to assert he had to be naturalized to be ANY kind of US citizen does not seem correct.
    The argument Fact/Check dot org made was, yes, he was born with dual citizenship but because he didn’t, as an adult, affirm his citizenship passed to him by his father, he then reverted to natural born citizen, or it didn’t matter, or native born and natural born are one and the same anyway, OR hopefully Americans are so confused by now they no longer care because they can not understand it anyhow– or something like that fat/check said—I mean FACT check.

    But the folks on are our side have said yes we CAN understand it and yes we do care and irregardless of the unrelenting ridicule, because it’s our very Constitution ya’ll are stomping on WE WILL NEVER CEASE TO CARE!

  18. yo   Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 7:21 AM

    Not sure what to make of the article’s assertion that Obama was never a US citizen if he was born in Hawaii to one citizen parent. I don’t think that is the thinking of most of us in the eligibility movement. I could be wrong.

    But, what I really wanted to discuss is this notion that Natural Born Citizen is something that is only conferred at birth and can never be taken away. That implies that if someone was born in the US to two citizen parents, and then moved out of country and became a citizen of another country and ONLY that country, Indonesia for instance, that they would still be a natural born citizen of the US. I just don’t think I can agree with that. The term natural born citizen has to mean natural born CITIZEN. A citizen of the natural born variety. I read another article once that took that same angle as this article seems to take that you don’t have to be a citizen anymore, you just have to be born a natural born citizen. I just can’t go along with that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.