Is Mayor Pete a Natural Born Citizen?

DID JOSEPH BUTTIGIEG NATURALIZE BEFORE HIS SON’S BIRTH?

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2020

The Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel wrote “The Law of Nations,” which was heavily referenced by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Source: Wikipedia, public domain

(Feb. 9, 2020) — Well, faithful P&E readers, the “eligibility” issue surfaces again, this time with regard to one of the Democrat presidential candidates vying for the opportunity to be bludgeoned in the November general election by President Trump.  That lucky fellow is Pete Buttigieg.  Memo to all you other non-P&E readers who have accidentally stumbled onto this offering: you can go back to whatever else you were doing, as you will be unable to follow the rest of this post.

OK, here is the preface: in connection with the intrepid editor’s recent P&E post found here, one of the regular commenters (CDR Kerchner, Ret.) has noted (2/5/20 at 8:07 PM) that he had searched the Wikipedia website entry for Pete Buttigieg’s father, Joseph Buttigieg.

The search disclosed that “if” the information elicited from Wikipedia on the naturalization of Pete Buttigieg’s father Joseph in 1979 is correct, then his son, Peter Buttigieg – born thereafter on Jan. 19, 1982 – is likely a natural born citizen eligible to the presidency under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.

This conclusion would be consistent with the premise that the Founders intended that only persons born within the geographic boundaries of the United States to two parents, a mother and a father, who were at the time of birth already U.S. citizens would be eligible to the presidency.  Moreover, this result would also be consistent with the teachings of § 212 of Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations upon which the Founders relied when drafting the Constitution and discussed here.

There is little doubt that candidate Buttigieg’s mother, Jennifer Anne Buttigieg (née Montgomery), was also, at minimum, a “native-born” U.S. citizen, so the “two citizen parents” requirement of § 212 would seem to be satisfied, provided that Joseph Buttigieg can be proved to have been naturalized before Jan. 19, 1982.  Nor is there any doubt that Joseph Buttigieg was an educated, upstanding member of society.  That acknowledgment, however, does not eliminate the question of whether he was naturalized as a U.S. citizen before Pete Buttigieg was born.

In his recent comment to the editor’s post above, CDR Kerchner solicits further facts and comments on the point.  Your faithful servant obliges, as follows.

First, as all regular P&E readers recognize, while Wikipedia can “generally” be looked to for uncontroversial, “generic” information, because it is an “open” sourced website anyone can post, edit, alter, include or omit information seen there for any particular subject.  The “Terms of Use” page for the website confirms that persons are free to “[c]ontribute to and edit our various sites or projects.

Pursuant to this “open invitation,” for example, the Wikipedia site for “Barack Hussein Obama” contains an extensive profile, accompanied by no less than (as of today) 535 footnotes purporting to support his bona fides.  Yet in all of the text and footnotes, there is not a single word – or, for that matter, a single sentence – discussing the issue of whether he was (or is) a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.  That issue is segregated away from the main BHO website and addressed elsewhere.

The only tangential references in the main Wikipedia BHO site to the topic of constitutional eligibility are found in a “Public Image/News and public events” section at the end with links to other subsites identified as (1) Citizenship conspiracy theories; (2) “litigation”; and (3) “legislation.”

Interestingly enough, in the “Further Reading” section of the main BHO Wikipedia entry, one finds reference to an article published Nov. 1, 2006 in The Washingtonian magazine entitled “The Legend of Barack Obama” by one Garrett M. Graff.

One of the more illuminating passages from the article – written well before questions regarding his constitutional eligibility surfaced, thanks to (some would argue) Hillary (“BleachBit… what BleachBit?”) Clinton – is this nugget: “According to advisers, colleagues, and friends, Obama just might be willing to be the next president of the United States. It would be the capstone of an amazing rise for a politician whose charisma and personal story – half-Ken­yan, half-Kansan, a Hawaii-born, Harvard-educated lawyer – has breathed life into the Democratic Party.” (Emphasis added).

“Willing to be the next president of the United States?”  As in “he might deign to consider it?”  And how about that “half-Kenyan, half Kansan” statement?  Interesting…, no?

But I digress.  The point is that none of the “open invitation” Wikipedia contributors to the BHO “story” has thus far seemed willing to address directly – as your faithful servant has attempted over the years here at The P&E – the question of what the Founders meant when they included in the Constitution the “natural born Citizen” requirement of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5.  Unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the issue in a live “case or controversy,” all of the law review articles, lower court dismissals for lack of “standing” and pontifications by law professors and constitutional “scholars” are, to state the matter politely, inconclusive.

Second, returning to Mayor Pete and his father, a closer examination of the Wikipedia profile of Joseph Buttigieg reveals that the source for the statement that the senior Buttigieg “was naturalized in 1979” is a footnote.  That footnote (i.e., fn. 3) links to an obituary notice published in the South Bend Tribune and linked at Legacy.com.  That obituary notice, in turn, states that he “became a citizen in 1979.”

Memo to P&E readers: the rebuttable presumption is that, in fact, Joseph Buttigieg was naturalized as a U.S. citizen prior to Pete Buttigieg’s birth three years later.  If documented, that should remove any dispute over whether Mayor Pete meets the “natural born Citizen” criterion of the Constitution under a “de Vattel § 212” analysis.

That said, however, the question remains: what is the source of the Legacy.com statement (and published in the South Bend Tribune linked to that site) that he “became a citizen in 1979?”  Unless it can be proven through reliable, corroborated, empirical evidence that he was so naturalized in 1979 – or at minimum, naturalized before January 19, 1982 – Mayor Pete’s bona fides as a “natural born citizen” will remain in doubt.  The Founders did not favor “doubt” in the criteria needed to satisfy the “natural born Citizen” requirement they inserted into the Constitution.  Instead, they sought to remove all doubt.

While there may be many reasons why Pete Buttigieg may not become the nominee of the Democrat Party to go up against President Trump, doubts about his constitutional eligibility should not be one of them.  Recall that one of the core pieces of information upon which supporters of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. initially based their claim that he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii was… wait for it… wait for it… a birth announcement said to have been prepared by his grandparents and published in a newspaper.

In matters as weighty as one’s eligibility to serve as president, documentation beyond hearsay statements given by relatives found in birth announcements or obituaries do not exactly measure up to the “Best Evidence Rule.”  And please, no more postings to the Internet of images purporting to “prove” constitutional eligibility… that trick is getting old.

Whether or not Mayor Pete determines to respond to these issues is a matter up to him and his advisors.  But the nation has already endured two likely usurpers of the presidency.  It should not have to endure any more.

23 Responses to "Is Mayor Pete a Natural Born Citizen?"

  1. J. J. Thompson   Friday, February 14, 2020 at 10:25 AM

    @ James Carter

    Trying to read the minds of the authors of the Constitution is a tricky business and one has to be careful in doing that. However, we do know what they said and wrote and something about the times in which they lived. The term “natural born citizen” is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. However, all the founding fathers would have been quite familiar with the term from its use in English common law. In English common law anyone born in the monarch’s territory was a natural born subject. They were so familiar with the term “natural born subject” that even within the first few decades after the adoption of the Constitution the term “natural born subject” continued to be used in citizenship declarations and legislation on occasion in various states.

    Now some have argued that the authors of the Constitution somehow changed the definition of “natural born” when they added that to the presidential requirements in Article II. However, there is not a single mention of this change from the time of the revolution through the deliberations in 1787. The only logical conclusion is that the term meant what they knew it had meant under British rule before 1776.

    The argument about the fear of foreign influence extending back to the parent’s generation doesn’t hold water either. The grandfather clause in Article II allowed anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and met the age and residency requirements to be eligible. This means someone like Alexander Hamilton who was born in the West Indies was eligible. If they were that concerned about foreign influence why would that have allowed this?

    The Framers actually said surprisingly little on the meaning of the term “natural born”. In my opinion it was because the KNEW what it meant as I said above. They all were familiar with English common law.

    James Madison, considered by many to be the father of the Constitution said this in Congress in 1789:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance.
    Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes
    from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion;
    it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary
    to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his
    birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.”

    Also of note is that before the natural born citizenship requirement was inserted into the draft of the Constitution there was discussion of 21 year residency requirement for the executive. (along with a minimum age). Sometime in September the natural born citizen requirement emerged in a draft. Some authors believe that John Jay’s letter to George Washington in July of 1787 hinting that the commander in chief of the army should be a natural born citizen was the origin of this idea. When Jay had written his letter the convention had not defined the dual role of the chief executive and commander in chief yet.

    In 1825 WIlliam Rawle a former Attorney General from Pennsylvania in the 1790’s, wrote later in a treatise on the Constitution:

    “The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. … [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. … Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed … no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

    What’s missing are any quotes from the framers that contradict Rawle or Madison or that they were guided by de Vattel on citizenship.

  2. James Carter   Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 9:51 AM

    J.J. Thompson wrote:

    “If the child of British commoners or a North Korean male and an Iranian female were born on US soil they would be a natural born citizen.” Please cite the Constitutional and/or SCOTUS basis for that.

    “What did you mean by “or better yet”?” You really believe the Founders intended that a child born here to parents who are citizens of countries we are at war with be eligible to be President/Commander In Chief?

    “Their [candidates for President] backgrounds are scrutinized as few ever are.” First off, there is no Constitution or statutory requirement to scrutinize the background of any candidate for any political office. Secondly, and moreover, if Barack Hussein Obama’s background had been scrutinized anywhere close to how mine was prior to my being approved to attend a certain U.S. Army school, which required having a “Top Secret – Need To Know” national security clearance to attend, he would not have been approved to serve as President — too many known, long-time, close associations with Communists, Marxists, Socialists and even domestic terrorists in his background.

  3. J. J. Thompson   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 7:15 PM

    @ James Carter

    If the child of British commoners or a North Korean male and an Iranian female were born on US soil they would be a natural born citizen. What did you mean by “or better yet”?

    Of course being eligible to be president is a long way from being president. It requires that first one meet the residency and age requirements. There must be over 100 million citizens in the US who are eligible to be president. To be elected requires they go through the gauntlet of raising money, a grueling primary system and general election campaign. Their backgrounds are scrutinized as few ever are.

    Being a natural born citizen means one can be a president, a good person, an ordinary person, a stupid person, a liar, a cheat, a drunkard, an adulterer, or a mass murderer. It really depends on the person doesn’t it?

    As the electorate we are supposed to be the final arbitrators.

  4. James Carter   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 2:54 PM

    @Lindsey Boxer and J.J. Thompson

    Congratulations! You are, of course, correct. A child born here to the King and Queen of England would fall under diplomatic immunity.

    Now substitute “a male British commoner and a female British commoner”, or better yet “a North Korean male and an Iranian female”, for “the King and Queen of England”.

    I don’t think so.

  5. Spencer Dixon   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 2:35 PM

    If these candidates are purportedly ineligible, why has no one filed a lawsuit or ballot challenge against them?

  6. J. J. Thompson   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:25 PM

    @ James Carter

    The King and Queen of Great Britain would have diplomatic immunity so their child would not be born under the jurisdiction of the US and would therefore not be a US natural born citizen.

    @ Sharon Rondeau

    While the core issue in US v Wong Kim Ark was whether Ark was a citizen the court reasoned that Ark would have been a citizen under common law and the 14th Amendment. Since Ark could not be a naturalized citizen by law he therefore had only one path to citizenship and that was through being natural born.

    The opposition in lower court filings warned that by finding Ark to be a citizen he would be eligible to be president. One of the premier attorneys of the day, William D. Guthrie wrote after the decision:

    “The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws.”

    Several modern courts have also commented that the Wong Kim Ark case applies to presidential eligibility. For example, in Ankeny v The Governor of the State of Indiana the court of appeals wrote:

    ” “[b]ased upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    In a Federal Court in Virginia (Tisdale v Obama) a district court judge wrote:

    “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.“

    The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v Albright (1998)

    “There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.”

    Thus to assume that WKA was not a natural born citizen one must assume that there are three kinds of citizens, natural born, 14th amendment and not natural born, and naturalized. The court emphatically denies that this is the case.

    In summary, multiple courts have ruled that the US v WKA was about natural born citizenship. No court has ruled Minor v Happersett to be dispositive as to presidential eligibility and several courts have ruled specifically that it was not.

  7. Lindsay Boxer   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:16 PM

    “I don’t think so.”

    I don’t think so either. I suspect that the King’s and Queen’s child would come under the exceptions to the normal “born in the US” laws. Much like the child of a diplomat.

  8. Des Courtney   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 11:13 AM

    I’m sure J. J. Thompson will eventually respond but

    “Moreover, the chicanery of the Congressional Research Service in altering the words of the dissent … in order to make it appear that the dissenters agreed that a person merely born here was a natural born citizen for presidential eligibility purposes …”

    On the question if a child born in the US to alien parents was a citizen of the United States, the majority opinion held, “For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

    What were the “reasons above stated”?

    Gray’s opinion is very straight forward – the principles for obtaining US citizenship were based on the English Common Law.

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    “III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    He explains what the English Common Law was and then states it is this “rule” that was in effect in the US under the Constitution.

    And how does Chief Justice Fuller respond? He cites the very passage from the majority opinion,

    “The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule”

    “was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established”

    Chief Justice Fuller then states that the majority opinion is that the 14th amendment is merely declaratory of the existing law.

    “Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.”

    And he describes the effect the “rule” had on two Constitutional terms,

    “…it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

    The Chief Justice also states that according to the majority opinion, children born outside the US to US citizen parents are aliens

    “If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 8, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were, and are, aliens, unless they have, or shall on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States, and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.”

    It seems to me that his later statement on presidential eligibility follows directly from these statements on the majority’s opinion and his belief that the opinion makes Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen.

  9. James Carter   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 9:41 AM

    J.J. Thompson proffers that the Founders intended and the SCOTUS precedent is that one only need be born on U.S. soil in order to be a natural born citizen.

    By that reckoning the King and Queen of England could visit the U.S., have a baby here, and return to England with their baby. The baby would not only be a British subject under British law but a member of the British Royal family as well. On their 21st birthday he/she moves to the U.S., Washington DC just for kicks. At age 35 he/she campaigns for President, is elected, and America has not only a foreigner but also a member of the British Royal Family as President/Commander In Chief. Really?

    I don’t think so.

  10. Robert Laity   Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 6:54 AM

    J.J., There was a case before Minor. The Venus. Ark is one of the four cases that we birthers commonly cite to support the long established immutable legal fact that an NBC IS one born IN the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. The cases you cite as having been dismissed were because of alleged “lack of standing” and not merit. Fact is that a unanimous court in Minor agreed that an NBC is one that has both 100% U.S. jus soli along with 100% jus sanquinis.

  11. Sharon Rondeau   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 5:38 PM

    Comment from Joseph DeMaio:

    J.J. Thompson’s reliance (comment of 2/11/20) on Wong Kim Ark as “precedent” for a definition of “natural born Citizen” as used in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution is misguided and flat wrong. “Precedent” refers to the decisional “holding” of a court, not to the “dictum” of a court. There is no such thing as “precedential dictum.”

    The sole issue presented in Wong Kim Ark was whether Wong Kim Ark could be deemed to be a native-born citizen – not a natural born citizen – under the 14th Amendment, and not Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5. And this assumes, for the time being at least, that the case was decided correctly at all, given the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Fuller and Associate Justice Harlan.

    Moreover, the chicanery of the Congressional Research Service in altering the words of the dissent (CRS Report of Nov. 14, 2011) in order to make it appear that the dissenters agreed that a person merely born here was a natural born citizen for presidential eligibility purposes was addressed and dismantled here (https://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/24/of-presidential-eligibility-doubling-down-and-linguistic-torts-part-3/). We await J.J. Thompson’s response.

  12. J. J. Thompson   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 11:02 AM

    @ Robert Laity

    Minor v Happersett did not establish precedent for the definition of NBC. It was a voting rights case. In the opinion the justices even said that they were not deciding who were natural born citizens. All the cases in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 election cycles that tried to use Minor as precedent were dismissed.

    The precedent case for the definition of natural born citizen is US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

  13. Patrick Healy   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 10:41 AM

    “Joseph Buttigieg was an educated upstanding member of society”
    Are you kidding?
    This escapee from Malta was a life long communist. His lifetimes “work” was the study, promotion and canonization of the founder of Italian communism Gramsci.(?)
    I love America but often wish you would be more discerning in the dregs of society you welcome into your great country.

  14. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:43 AM

    “M. Marbois asked, are natural children admitted in America to all privileges like children born in wedlock ? I answered, They are not admitted to the rights of inheritance; but their fathers may give them estates by testament, and they are not excluded other advantages.” John Adams’ diary

    I guess natural also meant illegitimate.

  15. Robert Laity   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:14 AM

    “NO Person except a Natural Born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the TIME OF the adaption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president…”- Art.II, Sec. 1, Clause 5, USConst. “NO person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice-president of the United States.”- 12th Amendment, USConst.

    Those who were not citizens of the U.S. “at the time of the adaption of” the Constitution, unless they are NBCs can be President OR VP.

    There are ample Supreme Court precedents, the most notable is Minor v Happersett,that have established that an NBC IS One born IN the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. Minor was decided UNANIMOUSLY.

  16. Robert Laity   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:56 AM

    Joe, As a matter of fact I recently notified Sharon at the time that I did make an entry into Wikipedia about Obama’s lack of bona-fides. Unfortunately, my entries always seem to get deleted. Joseph Buttigieg was a Marxist like Obama. I pointed out a few days ago that his obituary on Legacy did say he was naturalized before Pete was born in the U.S. That said, I agree with you that he should produce his Father’s Certificate of Naturalization as a U.S. Citizen before he ever is permitted to be President or VP>

  17. ObligedFriend   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 3:46 AM

    Natural born is a Kind, so is Naturalization. James Madison penned in Federalist 14’ “The same kindred blood flows in the veins of American citizens”.

    The Founders limited the President, citizens and immigrants to be the same kindred and natural kind. Race.

    Open a Middle English dictionary and The Book of Common Prayer. Kind meant Natural.

  18. Lindsay Boxer   Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 12:16 AM

    Trump supporters are talking about Trump Jr. in 2024 for President.

    Wouldn’t he be “born a citizen” but not a “natural born citizen” under the “”de Vattel § 212” analysis”?

  19. J. J. Thompson   Monday, February 10, 2020 at 2:43 PM

    A PhD would have taken at least two years on average so it’s certainly plausible that Buttigieg Sr. met the 5 year residency requirement. Of course all this hinges on the debunked and discredited two citizen parent NBC theory that has lost consistently in the courts.

  20. Lindsay Boxer   Monday, February 10, 2020 at 1:53 PM

    Since Joseph is dead isn’t his naturalization record available through FOIA?

  21. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Monday, February 10, 2020 at 12:51 PM

    The good news herein is that Edward C Noonan is still in the “natural born Citizen” battle, after terminating his very informative website “American Resistance Party” on August 21, 2019.
    http://www.americanresistanceparty.org/

    Much controversy over the exact legal undisputed meaning of “natural born Citizen”, but all that controversy is for naught.

    The minimum standard to be eligible to the highest office, President, of USA in 1787 was a Constitutionally-naturalized US citizen who assisted in the Revolutionary War (Benedict Arnold and Loyalists with foreign allegiances need not apply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution) ).

    Were the living parents of the future eight (8) Article II grandfathered presidents, also Constitutionally-naturalized US citizens in 1787? Were any of those living parents anti-Revolution or Loyalists to the Crown? If not Loyalist parents, or parent-spies for Britain et al, then the original minimum standard to be a President was a Constitutionally-naturalized US citizen of Constitutionally-naturalized US citizen-parents living in 1787.
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

    Once the US timeline passed beyond any Constitutionally-naturalized grandfathered presidents, the new minimum standard naturally evolved as a “naturally born-allegiance person within sole-USA-jurisdiction” born to “naturalized-allegiance US citizen-parents”, or “naturally born-allegiance US citizen-parents” at time of birth.

    In reading about the life of John Jay ( https://www.amazon.com/John-Jay-Founding-Walter-Stahr/dp/1635763363 ), it is discovered that Jay not only wrote his famous “natural born Citizen” letter to Washington in July 1787, but a year later he proposed that the US President and Vice-president and all members of Congress be a “natural born Citizen” and a freeholder as well.

    Since the Constitution does not state that a president’s parents must be US citizen-parents, but 97% of all presidential parents have apparently been US citizen-parents since 1787 as a matter of precedent, how could Congress, the FEC, the Electoral College, the major political parties, 50 some Secretaries of State et al legally justify a narrative non-US-citizen-parent bigomist, called Obama, Sr., to be the Constitutionally-acceptable abandoned parent of an unidentified multi-citizen called Soetoro-Obama II?

    ANSWER: Ignorance, arrogance and cowardice that, together, have produced a nationally syndicated Contempt of Constitution in need of accountability and correction by President Trump in 2020

  22. Sharon Rondeau   Monday, February 10, 2020 at 7:05 AM

    Is the father’s name “Pete” or “Joseph?”

  23. Edward C Noonan   Monday, February 10, 2020 at 1:55 AM

    It is my opinion, this is all HOGWASH! I refer to the obituary for Peter Buttigieg Sr. See: https://www.kaniewski.com/obituary/JosephA-Buttigieg

    The obituary of Peter Buttigieg Sr states:
    QUOTE: “He came to the United States in order to pursue his doctorate at the State University of New York, Binghamton, earning his Ph.D. in 1976 and becoming a U.S. Citizen in 1979.” END QUOTE

    However, immigration law states: “A Green Card holder (permanent resident) of at least 5 years to apply for naturalization.”

    “Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application.”

    However immigration law also states:

    “If you are married to a U.S. citizen, you might qualify to apply for naturalization after three years. This assumes the following: you are currently married to and living with a U.S. citizen; you have been married to and living with that same U.S. citizen for the past three years; and your spouse has, in fact, been a U.S. citizen for those past three years.”

    The obituary states that he and his wife were married in El Paso, Texas, on January 6, 1980. So, according to this, Senior would NOT have been eligible for citizenship until (1976+5) 1981

    Peter Buttigieg Jr. was born Jan. 19, 1982. This puts an extreme challenge on Junior being a natural born citizen (but he is not unless he can give absolute proof of the date of his father’s naturalization) (I doubt the father EVER became a US citizen!) Instead, the claim that Senior became a CITIZEN in 1979 is a complete lie until proven otherwise!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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