The Alternate Reality Universe of Leo Donofrio (A White Paper)

Try As They Might With The WABAC Machine, Every Time The Vattel Birthers Managed To Change Natural Born Citizenship In All The Textbooks, Prohibition Remained In Effect

One of the two-citizen parent Birthers, Leo Donofrio, is really doubling down on the Minor v. Happersett case as being precedent for determining natural born citizenship, and is acting like some minor boo-boos (pun intended) linking the case on a internet law research website, Justia, is the crime of the century.  According to this alternate reality theory, this 1875 women’s voting rights case, defined natural born citizenship, even though the judges in that case clearly said they did not need to resolve that issue.  Here is Donofrio’s latest off-planet trip:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/justiagate-say-it-aint-so-carl-malamud/

About alternate realities, Wiki says:

A parallel universe or alternative reality is a hypothetical self-contained separate reality coexisting with one’s own.  While the terms “parallel universe” and “alternative reality” are generally synonymous and can be used interchangeably in most cases, there is sometimes an additional connotation implied with the term “alternative reality” that implies that the reality is a variant of our own.

Typically, parallel universes fall into two classifications. The first may be more accurately called a “diverging universe” whereby two versions of Earth share a common history up to a point of divergence. At this point, the outcome of some even happens differently on the two Earths and the histories continue to become more different as time elapses since that point.

It is like the stories where everything on Earth is the same, up until the Nazi Germans get the atomic bomb first, and win World War II. That is the same type of thing that Leo Donofrio and the other Vattle Birthers (my humorous term for the Vattel disciples) are trying to put over on people. That in 1875, the Minor v. Happersett case provided the definition of natural born citizenship. Fortunately, we can determine if this theory is fact or fiction by reviewing the history since 1875 to see if reality really did diverge down the two-citizen parent path as it would have if Donofrio was right.

Following are 21 instances ranging from mundane entries in encyclopedias to law review articles and even a SCOTUS case, where the reality of this universe diverges from the alternate reality universe of Leo Donfrio.  Timewise, these examples begin shortly after the Minor v. Happersett decision and cover the time period until the 2009 “One To Grow On.”  This list could easily have been 5 times as long. In none of these instances is there even a whiff of the two-citizen parent foolishness. Most flatly state the exact opposite, that natural born simply means born in the United States.

1. 1876 the American Law Review mentioned Minor v. Happersett as a voting rights case, and says nothing about the case defining natural born citizenship.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/a-minor-inconvenience-for-the-knot-heads/

2.1876 Tuttle’s New History of America by Charles Tuttle:

13. — The Executive. This power is vested in the President, who is chosen by electors from the several states, and his term of office is four years. Every state is entitled to as many electors as it has senators and representatives in Congress. The Vice President who is ex-officio President of the senate, and who in certain events may become President of the United States, is chosen in a similar manner at the same time with the President. The Chief Executive and the Vice President must be native born citizens of the United States, residing within the states fourteen years, and the Constitution further demands that they shall have attained the age of thirty-five years.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA63&dq=%22chief+executive%22+%22native+born%22&ei=bl-3TNXTKIH98Abm2KTpCQ&ct=book-preview-link&id=jEDzAAAAMAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22chief%20executive%22%20%22native%20born%22&f=false

3. 1878 Elements of International Law by Henry Wheaton:

There is no uniform rule among nations by which the nationality of a person may be determined from the place of his birth. England, America and the majority of South American states claim all who are born within their dominions, as natural born birth in subjects or citizens, whatever may have been the parents’ nationality;

http://books.google.com/books?id=z6ysAAAAMAAJ&q=There+is+no+uniform+rule+among+nations+by#v=snippet&q=There%20is%20no%20uniform%20rule%20among%20nations%20by&f=false

4. 1879 Outline for Civil Governement Designed For Common Schools by W.. Thatcher:

Art. II., Sec. i, Clause 5.—Qualifications of the President.

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 thirtyfive years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

(a.) Natural born.—Born in the United States. Our state constitution does not thus limit the office of its executive.

(6.) Fourteen years resident.—That he may be thoroughly conversant with its affairs. He may be absent from the United States as an ambassador, or in official duty as a United States officer. Buchanan was minister at the Court of St. James (Great Britain), when nominated for President.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA38&dq=%22+natural+born%22+inauthor:thatcher&ei=V7S0TI_pAcL78Ab0qOX8CQ&ct=book-preview-link&id=sL0_AAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22%20natural%20born%22%20inauthor%3Athatcher&f=false

5. 1880 Chester Arthur runs for Vice-President.  His father was Irish, and not a citizen when Arthur was born, but the only objections to his eligibility were that Arthur was born in either Ireland, or in Canada. The Vattle Birthers try to explain this away claiming that nobody knew Arthur’s father was Irish, but that claim falls flat in light of the fact his political opponents accused Chester Arthur of being born in Ireland.

6. 1881, Judge Waite swears in Chester Arthur. Waite, who wrote the Minor v. Happersett decision, actually swears in Chester Arthur as President, even though he supposedly ruled 6 years earlier that it took two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/breaking-news-1880-republicans-scrubbed-libraries-of-minor-v-happersett/

7. 1883, An exposition of the constitution of the United States By Albert Orville Wright.

All persons born in the United States, except wild Indians, are natural-born citizens, and any foreigner
may become an adopted citizen by being naturalized.  (See page 88.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=P1wUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA286&dq=%22natural+born%22+%22born+in+the+united+states%22+-35&hl=en&ei=xZ60TKD7DcKC8gbEpJ3bCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=29&ved=0CLUBELsFMBw4lgE#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%22%20%22born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22%20-35&f=false

8. 1886, Outlines of international law: with an account of its origin and sources and … By George Breckenridge Davis

(d.) The municipal laws of every state enumerate and define the rights and privileges which may be acquired by its naturalized citizens. In no case do such persons acquire all the privileges of native-born citizens. The most usual restrictions apply to the holding of political and military office, the highest grades of which, in every state, can only be filled by native-born citizens. In the United States, whose policy of naturalization is extremely liberal, the offices of President and Vice-President can only be held by native-born citizens.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA102&dq=president+%22native+born%22+-35&ei=HYy0TPbZNcG88ga13a2BDA&ct=book-preview-link&id=1skLAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=president%20%22native%20born%22%20-35&f=false

9. 1888 The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with … By William Cox Cochran

Natural, according to nature; not artificial, exceptional, or violent. Natural allegiance, that perpetual obedience which is due from all natural-born subjects to their sovereign, as distinguished from local allegiance, which is only temporary. Natural-born citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA185&dq=%22those+that+are+born+within+the+jurisdiction+of+a+national
+%22&ei=xcq1TJicOMP-8AaQr5jyCQ&ct=book-preview-link&id=MzAWAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22those%20that%20are%20born%20within%20the%20jurisdiction
%20of%20a%20national%20%22&f=false

10. 1889 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

That Congress shall be in session on the second Wednesday of February succeeding every meeting of the electors, and the certificates trom them shall then be opened, the votes counted and the persons to fill the offices of President and Vice-President ascertained and declared agreeably to the Constitution. It provides also that no one shall be eligible to these offices unless he be 35 years old and be born in the United States.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fd7cRS7tbTYC&pg=PA216&dq=%22born+in+the+United+States%22+35+President&hl=en&ei=enK0TIWsDoOB8gamstHLCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=23&ved=0CJ4BELsFMBY#v=onepage&q=%22born%20in%20the%20United%20States%22%2035%20President&f=false

11. 1898, The American passport: its history and a digest of laws, rulings and … By United States. Dept. of State, Gaillard Hunt

CITIZENSHIP BY NATIVITY.

All persons born in the United States, except such as are born in foreign embassies or legations and Indians untaxed, are natural-born citizens of the United States; and a person born abroad whose father was at the time of his birth a citizen. . .

http://books.google.com/books?id=ywg1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA99&dq=%22natural+born%22+%22born+in+the+united+states%22+-35&hl=en&ei=D6K0TISvOcT58AaFx_WhDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=14&ved=0CHEQuwUwDTi0AQ#v=onepage&q=%22natural%20born%22%20%22born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22%20-35&f=false

12. 1898, David Shephard Garland et al, THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LAW, 2d Ed. Vol. 6 (1898):

[Citizenship Chapter – How Citizenship Acquired]
[17]
2. By Birth in Jurisdiction. — Natural citizenship is created by birth within the jurisdiction of the United States.1 To be a citizen of the United States [18] by reason of birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but must also be born subject to its jurisdiction; that is, in its power and obedience.

13. 1898 Wong Kim Ark. SCOTUS case which does NOT cite Minor v. Happersett to define natural born citizenship, and instead cites the case for holding that the term must be defined by resort to English common law, and for the statement that there are only two sources of citizenship those being birth and naturalization.

More importantly, and what must really sting the Vattle Birthers, is that Minor v. Happersett is NOT even cited by the dissent in Wong Kim Ark for the purposes of defining citizenship.

14. 1910 Raleigh C. Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910)

Note: Mr. Minor was Professor at the University of Virginia (per above link).

[65]
“I. Citizenship of the United States.
This subject must be discussed with reference to two distinct periods in our history, the first, from the inception of the Constitution to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868; the second, from the passage of the Amendment to the present.

The original Constitution had conferred upon Congress the express power to “establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” and had declared that “no person except a natural-born citizen * * * shall be eligible to the office of President.” It had also, in defining the eligibility of Senators and Representatives in Congress, declared that they shall have been “citizens of the United States” for a prescribed period. Thus, the Constitution itself recognized that there was a classification of citizens into natural-born and naturalized, but it nowhere defined who should be deemed citizens.

Where then was the government to look for a definition? The natural answer, in view of our system of municipal law, was to con-[66]sult the common law of England, to which we had been subject as Colonies, and to modify that by such legislative acts of Congress as might be needful to adapt it to our conditions. At least this was what was actually done, and the right of Congress, under the original Constitution, thus to modify the common-law doctrine as it might see fit, has never been seriously questioned.

The rule of the common law is that citizenship turns upon the place of birth, and that one born within the jurisdiction, even though of alien parents, is a citizen by birth, or, as the Constitution expresses it, a natural-born citizen; and this rule has been very generally recognized and enforced by all the departments of the government. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 655 et seq.; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 583; 9 Ops. Atty.-Gcn. 373; 10 Id. 382, 394.”

15.  1914 Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).:

[496]
“NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 D. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. Under certain circumstances persons born outside the territorial limits of the United States are deemed natural-born citizens, as for example, children of American citizens visiting or traveling abroad. The father must, however, at some time have resided in the United States. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President. See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law of. References: G. W. Garner, Intro, to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, Citizenship of U. S. (1904).”

16.  1967 McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967)
As quoted by Pryor (881, n.2):

“It is clear that under the English common law this term ‘natural born’ meant ‘native born.’… It was this genuine ‘native-born’ citizen … to which the framers of the Constitution referred when they used the term ‘natural-born citizens’ as one of the qualifications for the President”

17. 1968 Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, at 7-8 (1968)
As quoted by Pryor (881, n.2) – In arguing that both those born in the U.S. and those born outside the U.S. to US citizen parents are eligible to be President:

“[T]he leading British authorities agree that under the early common law, status as a natural-born subject probably was acquired only by those born within the realm, but that the statutes .. enabled natural-born subjects to transmit equivalent status at birth to the children born to them outside of the kingdom . . . . There was no warrant for supposing that the Framers wished to deal less generously with their own children.”

18.  1988 Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)

It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.” [881 and n.2].

“…. It has never been suggested that Congress has the power to deny natural born status to native borns. Here it might be helpful to distinguish between the power to define the clause (e.g., to say that “natural born” means “born in California”) and the power to naturalize from birth (to include additional classes of people within the scope of the clause). Congress has only the latter power under the Constitution. Thus Congress can expand the category of natural-born citizens to encompass more than simply native borns, but it may not contract the category below the native born minimum set by the Fourteenth Amendment.” [892, n. 65].

19. 1995 Walter Dellinger (AAG), Statement before the Subcommittees on Immigration and Claims and on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary (Dec. 13, 1995)

Note: Per Wikipedia (and sources cited therein), Dellinger served as the acting United States Solicitor General for the 1996-1997 Term of the Supreme Court under President Bill Clinton. Prior to his appointment – when he submitted this statement to Congress – Dellinger was an Assistant Attorney General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Court, [Wong Kim Ark] in a detailed review of the Anglo-American common law of citizenship and the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, established several propositions. First, because the Constitution does not define United States citizenship, it must be interpreted in light of the common law. Under the common law of England, which was adopted by the United States, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural-born subject, with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel.

20. 2005 Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005):

[189-91]
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”

“In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentors today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorproates both th3 common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.”

21. 2005 Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)

United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.”

Above are 21 instances where the reality of this universe and this planet, do not seem to agree with Mr. Donofrio’s alternate reality. Let give him one more to grow on, from Ankeny v. Governor in 2009, which may help explain to Mr. Donofrio and his disciples why this Reality did not go down his divergent two citizen-parent path:

Id. at 167-168. Thus, the [Minor] Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12

and:

Based 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.

Pretty simple.  The case did not define natural born citizenship and, two citizen parents are not a requirement.  Duh!!!

For what it is worth, the 21 instances above could just as easily been 100 or more instances.  Donofrio’s alternate reality universe, where Minor v. Happersett supposedly defined natural born citizenship in 1875 as requiring two citizen parents,  badly needs a Vinny Gambini (from My Cousin Vinny) to ask the equivalent of, “Well, I guess the laws of physics cease to exist on top of your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans? Sooo:

Well, Mr. Donofrio, I guess the laws of physics and common sense cease to exist on top of your computer desk. Was this a magic case? Did you learn about it from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1: The WABAC Machine. Wiki says:

Sherman and Mr. Peabody enter the WABAC machine ca. 1960 to witness another time and place in history.

The WABAC Machine (pronounced, and often synonymous with, Way-back) refers to a fictional machine from the cartoon segment Peabody’s Improbable History, an ongoing feature of the 1960’s cartoon series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. The WABAC Machine is a plot device used to transport the characters Mr. Peabody and Sherman back in time. The meaning of the acronym is unknown, but mid-century, big-science project names, such as ENIAC, UNIVAC,  and JOHNNIAC, often ended in “AC”.

As in the original cartoon, the Wayback Machine is often invoked to suggest the audience follow the narrator back to the past. Frequently such visits to the past are trips of nostalgia, remembering times, places, or things of the not-so-distant past. One example of popular usage occurred in “Goofy Ball”, a 1995 episode of the TV show NewsRadio, when station owner Jimmy James (Stephen Root) says: “Dave, don’t mess with a man with a Wayback Machine. I can make it so you were never born.

The Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive was named after the WABAC.

Note 2. Source:  Items at Numbers 12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20, and 21 above may be found at:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html#NBC_TA_McClane

Note 3. Source of google books cites above: All of the cites above which contain a google book cite came from this website, where you can easily read a 100 instances which contradict the Donofrio nonsense interpretation of Minor v. Happersett:

http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html

Note 4: Here are the seven simple sentences from Minor v. Happersett which cause so much confusion to the two citizen-parent Birthers:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Advertisements

About Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Hi!!! I am a Girl Reporter on the Internet. I am 31. Plus I am a INTP. I have a Major in Human Kinetics, and a Minor in English. I have 2 cats, and a new kitten! I write poetry, and plus I am trying to learn how to play guitar. I think that is all??? Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter View all posts by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

54 responses to “The Alternate Reality Universe of Leo Donofrio (A White Paper)

  • Dan Farrar

    Again you are worng in your assessment of Waits ‘statement:

    “…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their
    birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents (14th Amendment citizens). As to this class there have been doubts — as to the (citizenship of 14th Amendment citizens), but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”– about the citizenship of children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents (14th Amendment citizens)

    — but never as to the first : natural born Citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      David H:

      Also, I just noticed this in the comments part of Leo Donofrio’s blog. Do you mind if I do Internet Articles on this and follow your progress on The Birther Think Tank??? Since you post here so much, I would not do it unless you said it was OK.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter
      =====================
      Well, for what it’s worth, I filed my challenge today against Barack Hussein Obama ll with the SOS of Georgia.

      It may not go far considering I am a registered Republican and. therefore, not an elector of Barack Obama in the primary. But I’ll send it again later on after the DNC convention; I guess.

      I already have the AC telling me he can’t tell me when the two week period starts or finishes.

      I’ll keep everybody updates.

      Below in my letter:

      address removed

      Nov. 9, 2011

      The Honorable Brian P. Kemp
      Georgia Secretary of State
      Elections Division
      214 State Capital
      Atlanta, Georgia 30334

      RE: Complaint Challenging the Qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II for Re-election to the Office of the Presidency of the United States

      Dear Secretary Kemp,

      My name is David Farrar. I live at XXXX XXXXX, Georgia xxxxx. The aforementioned address is my personal residence, and I am a registered voter and elector at that address in XXXX County, Georgia.

      Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5, I hereby challenge the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama II to be placed on the Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot of March 6, 2012, and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for said office. This challenge is proper and ripe under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5, as Barack Obama is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of the Democratic Party of Georgia in their letter of November 1, 2011, and as the deadline for notifying the Secretary of State of candidacy for the Presidential Primary ballot is on November 1, 2011, as set in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-193.

      On information and belief, and in support of this challenge to Mr. Obama’s qualifications, I respectfully show as follows:

      (1) The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the information contained within said document.

      (2) Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.

      (3) Barack Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States. Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.

      (4) By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was also a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.

      (5) Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.

      (6) Such additional evidence as may be shown at the hearing of this case.

      It therefore appears that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements for seeking and holding the office of President of the United States because:

      (a) Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

      Accordingly, I challenge Mr. Obama’s qualifications to seek and hold the office of President of the United States on these grounds. I respectfully request that you notify Mr. Obama of this challenge and that you are requesting a hearing before a judge of the Office of State Administrative Hearings.

      Ex animo,

      David Farrar

      1. Original: Overnight delivery
      2. 1st copy Faxed
      3. 2nd copy emailed

      • David Farrar

        Squeeky,

        I don’t mind if you follow this case “publicly”.

        As I told SoS Mr. Kemp and his General Counsel (Vincent R. Russo), I assume Obama is legitimate, producing his two certified birth documents in an evidentiary hearing, using well established “Rules of Evidence”, and by seeking a declaratory judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction (not Congress, not the voters, not the consensus of legal opinion) as to his A2S1C5 nbC status is the right and honorable way to resolve these doubts about his presidential qualifications before the next election in 2012.

        I will keep you informed as to the progress of the case. Mr. Russo has stated he has turned my case over to the Administrative Court of Georgia, and I will probably be hearing from them sometime this week.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    David F:

    The problem with YOUR interpretation is that there is no reason to read those words the way you do unless you already have a pre-conceived idea that is what they mean.

    Nothing in that case or any other supports the idea that there is a difference between “14th Amendment” citizens and any other citizens. In fact, all the 14th Amendment does is put “natural born citizenship” into the Constitution where that right will be safer than just being left in common law or statutory law.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Sally Hill

      You don’t think in MvH they spoke about two different ‘classes’ of citizens?

      It’s odd how you preface your opinion with “In fact”. If it were i”A fact” – there would be no need for this or Donofrio’s blog.

      You do understand that the 14th Amendment was never intended to give Anchor Babies citizenship – the Dems simply hitched a ride on that Amendment in order to round up more votes for themselves.

      • David Farrar

        I like the way you think, Sally.

        Again, and again, the authors of the first section of the 14th Amendment stated that the 14th was simply declaratory to existing naturalization law. That being said; the only way a person can receive birthright US citizenship is to be born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  • bob

    And you still haven’t given a reality-based answer on why Hinman ever asserted President Arthur was ineligible due to lacking two citizen parents — a fact that Hinman discusses in his book.

  • Sally Hill

    Bob – I’ve been doing some research on whether Hinman in fact knew of Arthur’s father’s British citizenship. I can’t find where Hinman did know of that fact, could you provide a link or some back up of what you claim?

    Our little squeeky girl claims that people should have known about his father since people were claiming he was born in Ireland. Not true. The Ireland birth story was quickly and easily debunked and never made any headway. Hinman when on to claim Arthur was born in Canada, which did catch people’s attention, because it was right along the US border and both parents could have plausibly been US citizens. However, Arthur claimed for a time that his DOB and Place of Birth were that of his deceased brother…later he just lied about the DOB in order to keep people guessing about dates, rather than his father’s citizenship.

    I’m not certain Hinman knew of his father immigrant status, so please share where you get your facts.

  • Sally Hill

    Girl,
    “even though the judges in that case clearly said they did not need to resolve that issue.”

    Please show me where the judges in MvH state they do not need to resolve the definition of NBC in order to decide the MvH case.

    After reading your interpretation of the MvH decision, I’m left wondering if you are not residing in yet another alternative reality, somewhere WAY different than even your ‘Vattle’ birthers. And now I get your Vattle spelling, your mockery is a bit deceiving – especially when you claim that you don’t make fun of, name call, or tease those who believe differently than yourself. You’ll have to do a bit more to convince me of that fact.

    Are you referring to where the decision says – “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”? They are referring to solving the doubts about the Non-NBC class of citizens. They are saying that NBC’s are children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. They go on to distinguish these NBC from aliens or foreigners. Then talk of the DOUBT surrounding the class of children born in a country to alien or foreign parents. It is this DOUBT that they do not need to deal with in order to decide the case……..BECAUSE……….Minor was found to be a NBC.

    They had to first decide of Minor was even subject to a decision they would hand down, so they had to determine her citizenship status. They looked at her birth place and parentage and from that, determined they didn’t need to solve the continuing DOUBT of citizenship status of children born in a country to alien or foreign parents. If she had had foreign or alien parents, then they would have had to resolve that DOUBT before they decided the case.

    It’s kind of like solving a mystery…in steps.
    1. Was Minor born in the US – Yes
    2. Was Minor’s parents Us Citizens – Yes
    Therefore, she was a NBC and we don’t need to go further. She is entitled to have the case decided and the decision will be applicable to her because she is a NBC.
    3. Is Minor, as a woman, an equal citizen to a man? – Yes
    4. Is voting a right of this citizenship – No

    How much clearer could it get? They were not resolving ANY citizenship issue. They were first determining whether Minor would even be entitled to a decision by SCOTUS by virtue of her citizenship. I see where you are getting your interpretation and it’s disingenuous to believe that is what SCOTUS is saying. You are twisting their words to say what you want it to say and not what it does say – IN MY OPINION.

    For the life of me I cannot figure out your obsession with Vattel. Why is he so important to you? I’ve read his works, I understand where he fits in the history of the US, but that’s where Vattel ends for me.

    You seem to agree that MvH left open the issue of citizenship of children born in a country to alien or foreign parents, yet you want to cling to Ankeny v. Governor?!?!? Because you’ve changed your mind about where Obama was born? Now you think he was born in Indiana?

    I enjoy your website, I enjoy reading a lot of what you write, but I will admit, I skip over all your copy/paste stuff. We’ve all read the citations ad nauseam. Most of us can quote them ourselves or at least go directly to them when needed. In my opinion, they add nothing to the discussion or present your own personal viewpoints.

    And I’m so glad you don’t belittle, tease, or mock those who have a different view point than yourself. I’m curious as to why you have it out for Donofrio? Why does he get to you so much? He simply is doing right the opposite of what you do, yet he doesn’t attack your viewpoints and insist that you are from another planet or alternative universe. Obama followers would be much better served by more civil discussions on the matter – your attacks make it appear as though you have no substantive arguments.

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    Sally Hill:

    I think this part is where you misinterpret MvH. You said:

    “Are you referring to where the decision says – “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”? They are referring to solving the doubts about the Non-NBC class of citizens. They are saying that NBC’s are children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. They go on to distinguish these NBC from aliens or foreigners. Then talk of the DOUBT surrounding the class of children born in a country to alien or foreign parents. It is this DOUBT that they do not need to deal with in order to decide the case……..BECAUSE……….Minor was found to be a NBC.

    ===========
    Here is what me and most other people read it as, NOT “They are referring to solving the doubts about the Non-NBC class of citizens” but instead solving the doubts about the CHILDREN born here of foreigners. Recap:

    1.Children born here of citizens are NBCs.
    2.Some people include children born here of foreigners as NBCs.
    3.There isn’t any doubt about the the children of citizens born here being NBC..
    4.There are doubts about the children of foreigners born here being NBC.
    5.We don’t care about the doubts because Virginia Minor is in the first class and there is no doubt about her citizenship.

    Here is the language that lets you know they are talking about the children:

    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

    As to why Vattel is sooo important to me, he isn’t. He is important to the to citizen-parent Birthers. Even Donofrio tries to slip him in every chance he gets. See The Donofrio Shuffle in the Missing Link Internet Article.

    I am glad you enjoy the stuff here. I try to make this topic interesting where people do not have to read the same old dry stuff all the time.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter
    .

    • Sally Hill

      Ok Ms. Reporter – I’m not going to discuss anything if you put it in terms of “your wrong, I’m right”. That is disrespectful as we have NO definitive ruling on the matter at this point in time.

      You have your interpretation and I have mine. They are different interpretations, but one or the other isn’t necessarily a ‘misinterpretation’ – at least not until SCOTUS rules.

      So…..you lost me on the first line of that response post. And I didn’t read any further. If you want to try it again and respond to me respectfully, as I responded to you – I would be happy to read and discuss. If not, I completely understand and I’ll go peddle my peppers somewhere else 🙂 (I do have a sense of humor).

      • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

        SallyH:

        I am sorry if you took it as rude, because that was not how I meant it. I just think that you are mis-interpreting it. Which is what the whole article is about. How does a person who thinks MvH is precedent for NBC check out and confirm their interpretation???

        I think you can compare it to reality. Did anybody else interpret it the way that you and others do AT THAT TIME??? Or ever.

        I can probably discuss this with you until I am blue in the face, but I will never have the dispassionate view that people in the 1880s had about it. Or the people in the early 1900’s. That is why I think those people will be more acceptable to you and more credible than a mean, bitchy little Girl Reporter in 2011.

        And, I know that I do get intense. My debate coach used to tell me “Down, Squeeky, Down! Sit! Stay!” because I would be all wound up in some tournament and just tearing the other side up to where they would like get catatonic and stuff. Even the boys.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      • Sally Hill

        I appreciate and accept your apology. I just don’t think at this juncture we can point fingers at who is right and who is wrong because we simply have no definitive ruling from SCOTUS on the matter because they are cowards and refuse to take up the issue – they would rather hide behind the silly ‘standing’ issue in order to avoid the issue entirely.

        So the same question to you – how does a person who thinks MvH is NOT precedent for NBC check out and confirm their interpretation???

        I have no clue how anyone else interpreted it – either now or in the past. I can only attest to how I (and others who agree with me) interpret it today. What real difference does it make how others (other than SCOTUS judges) in the past interpreted it?

        If we could reach back in time and ask Breckinridge from the grave how he interpreted it, exactly what bearing would it have on the present? I’m serious about this question – please tell me exactly what type of impact it would have on our discussion today? Would it change my mind? Would it change your mind? Just because this man Breckinridge interpreted a ruling a certain way?

        What really matters is how SCOTUS – TODAY interprets the ruling. But they won’t touch it. Why?

        I can well understand your viewpoint and at times, I have to wonder if I’m not the one who is seeing it wrong. Truly, there are times where I doubt, so I have asked myself why. I read the ruling for what you want it to say – and I can see where it ‘could’ be interpreted that way. Then I read it for what I think it really says and I want to slap the guy who wrote it in what I consider legalese or was it deliberate disconcerted wording. Who knows? We will never know why it was written the way it was.

        Here are some of the facts that I do know.
        1. Obama WAS elected US President in 2008.
        2. I do not believe he is eligible to hold that office.

        Fact #1 makes me wonder why you and others like Dr. C have such an investment into this issue. He is the president – for all intents and purposes, he is there and I’m pretty sure he isn’t going anywhere until either he is voted out or other actions on his part get him thrown out. If you don’t like Obama and want him out of office, and you feel he is eligible, I cannot fathom why you would even inject yourself into this argument – but each to his own.

        Fact #2 is what drives the Obots like Dr. C and his followers crazy. Because it is that belief that I take with me into the voting booth. I hold that belief due to what I call – common sense. For the life of me I cannot understand how Obama can call himself a dual citizen – having two different allegiances to two different countries and then say he is a natural born citizen of either country. It simply does not make sense to me. Which country is he MOST loyal to? Perhaps neither – perhaps he is most loyal to the country he grew up in. Perhaps he is most loyal to his religion – which is what? Christian – as he claims, or Muslim – the way he acts?

        His actions do not make sense to me. As a Senator, he travels to Kenya to campaign for what is presumed to be his uncle. This uncle is a Muslim who believes in Sharia Law. I don’t care if it were my father – if he were a Muslim who believed in Sharia Law, if I were the Christian that Obama professes to be, I could not, under any circumstances, campaign for someone who holds such total opposite beliefs than myself. And to make matters worse, he accomplished this goal on US taxpayer monies!

        Why does he disrespect the UK? Does it have to do with how his grandfather was treated by the Brits? Should we even have to be asking that question? Or was this the very question that the Founding Father wished we would not have to ask by placing the NBC requirement on POTUS?

        IN MY OPINION, if you CAN (due to circumstance of birth) ask where their allegiances and loyalties lay, they simply cannot be eligible to be POTUS. It seems so simple and a matter of common sense to me. I understand it is not to you – but your belief does not go with me to the voting booth – only mine.

  • Ad Hominem

    Still parroting the same nonsense I see.

    1.Children born here of citizens are NBCs. (True)
    2.Some people include children born here of foreigners as NBCs. (False,CITIZENS not NBCs, it clearly says “include as citizens”)
    3.There isn’t any doubt about the the children of citizens born here being NBC. (True)
    4.There are doubts about the children of foreigners born here being NBC. (False, it’s about them being CITIZENS. Quit making stuff up.)
    5.We don’t care about the doubts because Virginia Minor is in the first class and there is no doubt about her citizenship (True, Minor is NBC there is no doubt about her CITIZENSHIP)

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      AdH:

      Number 2 is the first place where you start to mess up, just like Dean Haskins does. You say:

      “2.Some people include children born here of foreigners as NBCs. (False,CITIZENS not NBCs, it clearly says “include as citizens”)”

      But the Minor Court says that same thing about kids of citizens:

      “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

      Sooo, while you are preaching a strict language interpretation, the Court itself is not so strict. That same court then called them natives and natural born citizens, thus using two more terms for the same group, the children born to citizens. The language:

      . . .upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born. . .

      This puts the skids to your strict parsing of the language approach to interpretation. The very court you are quoting isn’t using the words in that strict a sense. You don’t get to pick and choose from sentence to sentence how you interpret stuff. That isn’t playing fair.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Ad Hominem

    Correction — also #3 is False. There are no doubts about the CITIZENSHIP of NBC. Not no doubts about the NBC of NBC (duh).

    In the same paragraph it says “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” You cannot even get your propaganda straight. By the way, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for that paragraph is 9.22. Please move on up to 10th Grade.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      AdH:

      Using YOUR logic and methods of interpretation, children born in the country of citizen parents ARE NOT natural born citizens, because the court only calls them citizens. You just posted this:

      “It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

      This is what I was talking about where you have to change the rules of interpretations every other sentence to have it come out the way you expect.

      PLUS, what about the WHOLE POINT of the Internet Article above??? I spent a lot of time writing that stuff and you are just skipping right past it. How can Minor v. Happersett be sooo definitive of natural born citizenship and nobody noticed it???

      A. Wow, people sure don’t pay attention to SCOTUS cases. Like NOBODY must have read it and caught it.

      B: It really was not sooo definitive after all.

      Since it is YOUR theory that Minor v. Happersett was sooo definitive, you need to address these short comings. If you pick A, then you have to address why come Leo Donofrio has all these cites to the case, which means somebody must have been reading it.

      This is the kind of stuff where nobody on the Vattle Birther side of the fence seems to do their homework on, or address.

      TRUE Theories should sort of agree with reality.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Ad Hominem

    Strict parsing of the language? It’s called reading comprehension. Admit you are wrong on this point and move on. People will take your other arguments more seriously if you do Frankly if you do not, you will continue to appear daft.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      ADH:

      You said: “It’s called reading comprehension.”

      Yes. Read the two replies above and explain why the Court itself bounced around on the words, and why your last quote just said “citizens” instead of “natural born citizens” IF your strict parsing is correct. And explain how it doesn’t fit with your strict parsing, but you still want it to mean NBC.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • Ad Hominem

    “Using YOUR logic and methods of interpretation, children born in the country of citizen parents ARE NOT natural born citizens, because the court only calls them citizens.” (False, it clearly says that they ARE natural born citizens in the text. The case is discussing their CITIZENSHIP and the doubts are about CITIZENSHIP. Again, the doubts do not magically transform to doubts about NBC.)

    Squeeky, you should diagram the sentences. Maybe that will help you.

    Yes, I am ignoring the rest of the article, because you keep repeating this false point. That is called propaganda.

    You are getting destroyed on arguing this point.

    • bob

      “You are getting destroyed on arguing this point.”

      Oh, the irony.

      All judges, professors, and other experts agree with Squeeky, and none with you.

  • ellen

    The Minor v. Happersett ruling did not rule on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. All it said was that Minor (the plaintiff) was definitely a Natural Born Citizen under all possible meanings of the term, parents and place of birth. But it did not say that other people, who have only US parents or only the US place of birth are not eligible. And why should it, it was NOT a case about the eligibility of a president.

    The Wong Kim Ark case, which was after Minor v. Happersett and hence would have overturned it if Minor v. Happersett had actually ruled on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen (which it didn’t), said that the meaning of Natural Born includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats. And, you have to be obtuse, deliberately obtuse or perhaps naturally obtuse, to believe that a person who is both a US citizen and Natural Born is not a Natural Born US Citizen.

    That is why Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, wrote:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President…”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Hi Ellen!!!

      I certainly agree with you. Plus, this Meese person worked for Ronald Reagan is what I read. Hardly a Obot.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    • Sally Hill

      Ellen – I would have to disagree with you on your interpretation.
      While you are right, MvH was not a case specifically about citizenship, Minor’s citizenship had to first be determined before a ruling could be made and because she made citizenship part of her complaint.

      Your right that MvH didn’t say that other people who have only US parents or only US soil birth are not eligible, but they did say there were doubts about such people. No doubts at all about those born on US soil to US citizen parents as being NBC, but doubts about any other class of people as being US Citizens.

      Let me assure you that I’m not obtuse, and had I read that prior to starting a response, I wouldn’t have bothered responding to someone who employs name calling as a way of ‘discussing’, but I disagree with you that WKA speaks to NBC. I believe the term they used was native-born citizen, and there is plenty of discussion whether native-born and natural born are in fact the same thing. The court held that WKA was in deed a US Citizen, but IN MY OPINION they did not go so far as to declare him a NBC.

      You need to also read the dissenting opinion in WKA – where I believe POTUS is directly addressed.
      “Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

      Oh my goodness – could that mean that at least the dissenting judges didn’t think McCain was eligible either?!?!?!

  • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

    ADH:

    What are YOU complaining about??? I am just doing what you did. I pointed out that by YOUR method of Interpretation, children born here of two citizen parents are only citizens, not natural born citizens. The fact that YOUR methods lead to screwy results means that YOUR method is flawed.

    Which is also why you refuse to read the Internet Article. You don’t want to have to think about all those people who DIDN’T see Minor v. Happersett as definitive. Which is everybody in this Universe except Vattle Birthers who have their own special little alternate Reality universe.

    http://www.lawsitesblog.com/2011/11/how-a-legal-website-fixed-the-2008-presidential-election.html

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  • ellen

    Sally Hill

    I note your remarks about the mention of “doubts” in the Minor v. Happersett ruling.

    In itself that means that there was no ruling. I repeat, in itself. If I doubt whether I will wear a shirt or a sweater, it does not mean that I have ever decided whether to wear a shirt or wear a sweater. It means that I haven’t decided. And does the Minor v. Happersett decision decide? No. So it isn’t a ruling.

    Besides at one time there were doubts whether zippers would work, that does not mean that they do not work.

    Re: “I believe the term they used was native-born citizen, and there is plenty of discussion whether native-born and natural born are in fact the same thing. The court held that WKA was in deed a US Citizen, but IN MY OPINION they did not go so far as to declare him a NBC.”

    Answer. I never said that they did. What they said was (and I will show you the quotation in a minute) that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. No, they did not say that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. But they did say that every child born in the USA is Natural Born. This is sufficient.

    It is obtuse, and no lower court rulings or subsequent Supreme Court rulings or any respected legal scholar holds it, to believe that a US citizen who was Natural Born is not a Natural Born US Citizen.

    Here is the actual quotation from the Wong Kim Ark case. Notice that it says Natural Born:

    “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.”

    The dissenting opinion in WKA is the minority view, held by only two justices. The majority view was held by six justices, and it was the majority–and hence the law.

    • Sally Hill

      Odd choice of picking and choosing which passages to pull from that ruling. But okay. I’m guessing you think subject and citizens are the same. I’m certainly no subject, and am quite thankful to all the men and women who lost their lives fighting for my freedom to be a Citizen rather than subject.

      Drawing on your passage, you would think WKA would have been ruled to be a NBC, but he wasn’t – he was ruled to be just a US Citizen – unless of course you look to words that were excluded as is your premise.

      And if you think dissenting opinions have no bearing upon the law, why are they written, and then printed within the decision? Seems odd, huh?

      There were later repercussions stemming from the fact (as presented by the dissenting opinion) that the court was divided on the issue and therefore, doubts remained.

      I think we will have to agree to disagree. IN MY OPINION you seem to be weaving meaning into words that are not there. Again, IN MY OPINION that is not sufficient.

  • David Farrar

    Minor v. Happersett wasn’t “cited” in the Wong decision, but it did recognize its two-citizen parent precedent.

    Allow me summarize the Wong decision in “Birther” terms: If a person is born within the jurisdiction of two non-citizen parents, long domiciled within the jurisdiction, who could have been naturalized citizens had US law and treaty obligations preventing such naturalization, the person born thereof would have been, in all respects, an Article ll natural born Citizen.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      David F:

      I do not entirely agree with you, but I admit that you made a very fair and reasonable interpretation. I think the decision was broader than that, and included other legal visitors for sure. It probably includes even illegal aliens, but I can see how that issue could be reasonably disputed and argued.

      There is something called aliens in enmity which I could see an argument being made that is what illegal aliens are, but I can also see an argument being made that is what they aren’t. But that is different than thinking Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are ineligible.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    • bob

      Farrar’s read of Wong Kim Ark is, ummmm, “interesting.” But not shared by anyone.

  • David Farrar

    Squeeky,

    Progress. Undoubted progress. Aliens in enmity is a temporary citizenship status aliens enjoy while within the civil jurisdiction, and from which they loose once they leave the jurisdiction. But in one important way this is not different that thinking Obama, Romney, Rubio and others are not A2S1C5 nbC. Aliens in enmity, as well as 14th Amendment citizens, do not, or have not withdrawn their allegiance to their mother country and swore an allegiance to the protect and defend our country*

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • bob

      Are you aware that any other potential nationality President Obama may have had expired (at the latest) when he turned 23?

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      David F.

      They don’t have to swear allegiance to the United States from Wong Kim Ark. It says that in Section V. near the bottom of that part:

      It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

      independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • ellen

    A child born in the USA is not “an alien in enmity” unless her or his parents are waging war against the USA at the time.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Ellen:

      That is my take on it, too. But I can see the argument on the other side. I read a law school thingie where somebody wrote about this in Texas, to the Texas legislature IIRC. (which means, If I recall correctly). The article is not very old, and the Law Professor agrees with me and you.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  • ellen

    It is illegal to enter the USA without the proper authorization, but it is not an act of war. IF the “alien in enmity” idea had anything to go for it, there would not have been a US federal court that ruled:

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Notice that they are the US-born children of an illegal alien.

  • David Farrar

    First, some house cleaning. I meant to say “in amity”, not “in enmity” in my above post.

    Secondly, I am afraid you have been dashed! Nobody swears allegiance to either this country or to the United States, only to a set of ideals written down on a piece of paper, called the United States Constitution. Some would say this act forms the very basis of our American Exceptionalism — only a sovereign can do that. Aliens in amity cannot do that. Aliens in amity are within the jurisdiction, under color of law, by license, visa or other immigration documentation. Only through the naturalization process can an ‘alien in amity’ give up his allegiance to his mother country, to became a sovereign. Only a sovereign can swear an allegiance to preserve, protect and defend a set of ideals to become a sovereign Citizen. Aliens in amity cannot do that .

    It is only to these sovereign Citizens can an A2S1C5 nbC be born.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  • ellen

    Whether the aliens were in amity is irrelevant (and illegal aliens are certainly not aliens in enmity. If they give birth in the USA, their children are Natural Born US Citizens.

    “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.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

  • Jimmy

    ”What really matters is how SCOTUS – TODAY interprets the ruling. But they won’t touch it. Why? ”

    Has anyone ever answered this question for Sally?
    .

    • G

      Several Birther cases have gone before the Supreme Court. When they chose not to take the case, that IS a decision by them – rejecting the case outright as not worthy of their time. In other words, frivolous. So no, it is not that they “won’t touch it”, as you characterize it, it is that they REJECT this silly nonsense as not valid and not worthy of their attention. But hey, keep living in denial there, Jimmy.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Jimmy:

      The SCOTUS only takes important cases where there is some real legal question. With this two citizen parent stuff, there isn’t any disagreement among rational people.

      Just because Birthers can’t read Wong Kim Ark, or Ankeny and understand what is going on, doesn’t mean there is any real question. The law on natural born citizenship has been about the same for over 200 years here. Blacks and women and Chinamen were denied some of these benefits for a while, but most of that got fixed in 1868 when they passed the 14th Amendment.

      Women got some relief when the Cable Act was passed in 1922. If you will actually READ the above Internet Article, you will see that Leo Donofrio was in some Alternate Reality universe. You are too, and you should leave it and join the REAL world.

      Before the wormhole closes and you get stuck there.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • Jimmy

        I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. I am an honest seeker of truth. I’d appreciate a clear definition of NBC from someone since USCIS.gov uses the term separately from native born.
        If I were living in an ARU I don’t think I’d be able to post here. You would know more about that as well.
        If you continue to find the need to put down posters you may reconsider your underlying motives for being a blogger and perhaps restrict your membership.
        I have read a small amount of parts of threads here and can already tell that there are some posters and points that go unchallenged by you. Then they stop posting after you insult them. Then there are your insults to others.
        There must be some way of decreasing the amount of national preoccupation with this topic (its not really a fringe topic, is it?).

        • G

          It is certainly a fringe topic, as the vast majority of people don’t pay attention to it nor take it seriously at all. There is no “national preoccupation”, beyond the mere fact that a small number of people post on the internet, and they can be from anywhere in the country or world.

          That is certainly not the same as “national preoccupation”, which implies wall-to-wall coverage and public attention to events. You could say that a popular TV show (such as DWTS) is a “national preoccupation”. You could say that hurricane coverage gets “national preoccupation”. You could say the events in the Arab Street are currently a temporary “national preoccupation”. Those statements would be justifiable.

          But Birtherism? Only merits coverage out here in the hobbyist corner of places that cover such crazy things, because it is nothing but a fringe set of crazy conspiracies.

        • G

          In terms of “native born” vs “natural born”, you are mistaken – they are essentially the same thing. Even your own source, USCIS.gov, contains tons of references of where those terms are completely interchangeable.

          The only time that the term “native born” is sometimes used in a distinct manner in their references, is in some articles, in which they are specifically trying to discuss Native Americans and simply using that otherwise generally interchangeable term, to make that “Native American” aspect stand out.

          Overall, citizenship is fairly straightforward here. You either obtain it via birth (NBC) or you go through a process to become a citizen at some later point in your life (naturalization). Simple as that.

        • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

          Jimmy,

          The problem with the issue of Birtherism and subtle, polite responses is that we are four years into it, and there is simply little excuse for the two citizen parent theory to still be seriously debated.

          In 2008, there was one case – Wong Kim Ark. Now, 4 years later, there are about 10 cases on the merits. They all hold the same thing – for persons born in the United States, as long as they are not the child of a foreign diplomat or invading soldier, they are a natural born citizen. The 14th Amendment affirms this right.

          Period. There is no debate. The only people who have any business being confused about this are newbies to the topic who believe goobers like Mario Apuzzo, Esq. If you can read, there is no excuse to continue to believe the Apuzzos after reading any of the numerous explanations of the REAL law and a few of the simple cases.

          That is why I get frosty about this stuff. Plus, I am usually dealing with Birthers who utterly refuse to accept reality. This issue is not like 9-11 trutherism. With that stuff, there are factual and scientific aspects that are beyond the knowledge level of most people. A person might be a truther and still be cut some slack because how many people can understand or debate the science of architectural demolition.

          But with Birtherism, all anybody has to do is read one or two legal cases. And Ankeny is short and easy to read. Combine that with NO cases which require two citizen parents, and the answers there are well within the grasp of anybody who can read. A person has to actively engage in “Not Understanding” to remain a two citizen parent Birther.

          Add to that all the conspiracy theory aspects of two citizen parent Birtherism, and all the logical inconsistencies required to hold to the belief, and what you end up with is people who deserved to be ridiculed if they persist in the delusion.

          Those people who are genuinely confused and genuinely seek answers, can find them rather quickly if they want to.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

    • Monkey Boy

      ”What really matters is how SCOTUS – TODAY interprets the ruling. But they won’t touch it. Why? ”
      Has anyone ever answered this question for Sally?

      For the same reason it doesn’t hear cases challenging the legality of the IRS; i.e., it has already been decided and there is no point in chewing cabbage twice–or multiple times.

  • Jimmy

    This is the only way I see to reply to your statements.
    If there is no debate then what is this blog for?
    No opinion from me. Just showing you what’s out there.

    CNN poll on Obama: 6 of 10 doubt U.S. birth story
    Posted: Aug 05, 2010 1:25 PM CDT

    Thursday, July 19, 2012
    Wenzel POLL: Only 9% Believe Obama Has Documented His Eligibility

    • Slartibartfast

      The purpose of this blog is to make fun of folks like you who desperately cling to their willful ignorance and lies—something Squeeky does very well.

    • Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

      Jimmy,

      Think about it in syntax.

      Is there any real debate that we landed on the moon??? No.

      However, is there a controversy??? Yes, there are people who do not believe it happened.

      Could I do a blog on the issue??? Yes.

      Well, doesn’t that mean it is debatable whether or not we landed on the moon???: Not from my point of view.

      In spite of my feelings on the matter, I do not censor anybody who posts here, either Birther or Obot or Anti-Birther. So if you think there is something I am not considering, then feel free to say so.

      For what it is worth, I think you Birthers are winning when it comes to winning converts to the two citizen parents stuff. But it doesn’t make the issue legally debatable.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • Slartibartfast

        Squeeky,

        The moon landing deniers are the conspiracy theorists I cut my teeth on. It’s hard to debate the fact that we can bounce a laser off of a retroreflector that was left on the moon or that we can now see where we parked the lunar rover… 😉

        • G

          What really boggles my mind is how many of these moon landing deniers STILL exist…they really came out of the woodwork in a fury, when the Mars Curiosity Rover landed… with insistent claims that not only was the Moon landing fake, but that this Mars mission was as well… claiming it was all taking place in the US desert!

          I mean, hello…we have MRO footage that confirms both the landing site, including all the various stage debris…as well as the amazing shot of the open parachute on descent…

          It truly baffles me how some folks can live in such a state of object denial of reality…

    • G

      Seriously, you are quoting a poll from over two years ago and then a Wenzell poll on top of that? LMAO! Um, you do realize that Wenzell is just a crap sham part of the WND outfit, don’t you? Man, they’ve suckered you again!

      PS – Why don’t you provide a link to even that 2010 CNN poll – why do I suspect that 6 out of 10 isn’t quite what you’ve stated either…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: